How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[steve_bank]

Wow, IMO remeirkable. Now if the legelature joins in it is over for Putin. He can't jail everybody. The Soviet Union collapsed when enough people said enough is enough.

At this point I woud say NATO go ahead and cross into Ukraine If not now then in the future. If Putin survives his replacement will be hand picked.

If the reporting has nay truh suoort in Russia is not unversal and Russian troop morale is low. There have been defections to the Ukraine side.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow, IMO remeirkable. Now if the legelature joins in it is over for Putin. He can't jail everybody. The Soviet Union collapsed when enough people said enough is enough.

At this point I woud say NATO go ahead and cross into Ukraine If not now then in the future. If Putin survives his replacement will be hand picked.

If the reporting has nay truh suoort in Russia is not unversal and Russian troop morale is low. There have been defections to the Ukraine side.

Much as I respect the opinion of Copernicus and others I agree and insist that this is a good time to move into Ukraine. Call Putin's bluff. He is not ready for this. We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

 

[Copernicus]

...

And Bill Bradley was not the only politician to confuse Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union, with Yeltsin, the leader of the Russian federation. Gorbachev was not talking about Russia per se, but the Soviet Union. That government collapsed and disappeared. There was no détente between the USSR and the US anymore, it was between a lot of sovereign governments, one of which included Russia, and the US and all those European governments. So the situation changed quite drastically. The Russian government was a completely different political entity that simply inherited many Soviet roles internationally, because it had dominated all of those now independent nations that emerged from the USSR. Russia inherited (albeit not actually by informal agreements) the Soviet seat on the Security Council. It also inherited debt and assets, but not all of those nuclear weapons in Ukraine. So a deal was struck WITH RUSSIA to secure those weapons, turning many of them over to the safekeeping of Russia, in return for a commitment by the Russian government to honor the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nations--the Budapest memo in 1994. Putin reneged on that agreement exactly 20 years later, but the US, UK, and Ukraine still considered it in effect.

Note that the Republicans, which included Bill Bradley, gave nonbinding verbal assurances to the Soviet Union, not Russia, that NATO would not expand. Those verbal assurances were never formalized and had never bound the actions of subsequent US administrations. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the situation changed drastically. All of those former satellite nations in the Warsaw Pact and former captive "republics" within the Soviet Union wanted NATO membership. Why? If you need someone to tell you why, you are hopeless. But I don't think you need to be told.

NATO didn't move eastward. The Warsaw Pact and Baltic republics moved westward, as quickly as they could. They wanted NATO for military defense, and Europe for economic development. Ukraine wanted that for the same reasons, but that never happened and wasn't about to happen when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Bradley died in 1997--before Putin came to power. He never had a chance to even address the situation in 2014, let alone 2022. Russia did not invade because of NATO. It invaded, because Putin feared seeing Ukraine slide closer and closer west, just as the former Warsaw Pact nations had. Putin is a Russian ultranationalist who believes that Ukraine belongs inside of Russia. The US, western Europe, and NATO did not entice eastern European countries to join NATO. Those countries enticed NATO and Europe to let them join. Had they not been allowed to join, Russia would not just be threatening Ukraine today. It would also be threatening to annex the Baltic republics and install puppet regimes in former Warsaw Pact nations. Russia has validated their reasons for wanting to join NATO in the first place. Instead, a Russian dictator saw a Russian-speaking nation on its border suddenly developing a healthy western-style democracy, which threatened his autocratic grip on power.

In a PM to me, Hermit pointed out a couple of serious errors I made concerning Bill Bradley in the above. First of all, he was a Democratic senator, not a Republican. Secondly, he left office in 1997, but is still very much alive today. After watching Trausti's video, I looked up some information on Bradley to refresh my memory, but I screwed up in my haste to finish the post. Everything else I posted seems accurate AFAICT. The Bradley video was made in 2008--still well before the Euromaidan and Russian invasions. Sorry for the errors.

 

[Copernicus]

Wow, IMO remeirkable. Now if the legelature joins in it is over for Putin. He can't jail everybody. The Soviet Union collapsed when enough people said enough is enough.

At this point I woud say NATO go ahead and cross into Ukraine If not now then in the future. If Putin survives his replacement will be hand picked.

If the reporting has nay truh suoort in Russia is not unversal and Russian troop morale is low. There have been defections to the Ukraine side.

Much as I respect the opinion of Copernicus and others I agree and insist that this is a good time to move into Ukraine. Call Putin's bluff. He is not ready for this. We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

I have read that almost a third of US adults favor risking nuclear war over Ukraine. I have to say that I don't think a lot of people quite understand what they are risking. What is happening in Ukraine is horrible, and we think that we ought to be able to do something about it. Like everyone else, I think that we could save Ukraine with conventional warfare. However, a nuclear war is simply not survivable by anyone. If what Putin is doing in Ukraine is a war crime, risking a nuclear war is a far, far greater war crime, because it could end up wiping out all of the civilians in every country. That's a Doctor Strangelove scenario.

 

[SLD]

Recall that after a few weeks of military action in Libya, and the US became concerned about their reserves of smart weapons. So I’m skeptical that Russia can sustain this offensive for several months without serious risk.

It doesn’t need to. This isn’t a war of conquest or extermination. This is a punitive incursion to force Ukraine to accept terms Russia has openly stated. The Ukrainians may be able to hold off further Russian advancement - there are logistical and supply issues - but can they retake what Russia gained? No. This war started eight years ago and will end as it began: Crimea and the breakway Donbas regions to Russia and no NATO. All of the death and destruction is so pointless.

Sure they can! Maybe not Crimea, but franky they shouldn’t want that area anymore. Let Russia have It. But they most certainly can throw them back from Kiev, Kharkiv, Cherniv and Mariupol. With us supplying them the weapons, and Russia unable to sustain and replace its losses, they will have a very hard time holding on to those areas. If Putin tries to “escalate to de-escalate” (what a dumb idea), he’ll only lose all of his armored warfare capabilities. Same with air and missile assets. He’s running out of time.

And you are forgetting something basic. Putin is the one responsible for this war. And he owns it. Note his dressing down of his FSB chief who hesitated, same with his PM. That means he didn’t really have their support to begin with, and now that its turned into a quagmire, it’s on him. History is not kind to leaders who start wars that they lose. And it will not be kind to Putin either. He’s a goner. He may be the last casualty of the war, and I for one, will say his death will have a great point. Because when he is gone, all Russian resistance will likely collapse. Possibly even in Crimea.

And I would say that regardless of how this war ends at this point, Putin is out. If he somehow forces concessions on Ukraine as you say, he’s still effectively lost. His economy will be in tatters, his people are revolting and he will be ousted soon enough. The moment that happens the deal to end the war is effectively dead too.

I actually see the future as a great opportunity to reshape the world’s security structure. With Putin gone, we may have a chance of restoring a true democracy in Russia. They will rejoin the world order and we will have to really help them this time. Not just ignore them or continue to view them as a threat. Imagine how that would impact China? Xi is going to lose an ally. Then what? I bet he rethinks quickly his dumb ideas about the so called nine dash line and invading Taiwan.

 

[SLD]

Wow, IMO remeirkable. Now if the legelature joins in it is over for Putin. He can't jail everybody. The Soviet Union collapsed when enough people said enough is enough.

At this point I woud say NATO go ahead and cross into Ukraine If not now then in the future. If Putin survives his replacement will be hand picked.

If the reporting has nay truh suoort in Russia is not unversal and Russian troop morale is low. There have been defections to the Ukraine side.

Much as I respect the opinion of Copernicus and others I agree and insist that this is a good time to move into Ukraine. Call Putin's bluff. He is not ready for this. We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

I have read that almost a third of US adults favor risking nuclear war over Ukraine. I have to say that I don't think a lot of people quite understand what they are risking. What is happening in Ukraine is horrible, and we think that we ought to be able to do something about it. Like everyone else, I think that we could save Ukraine with conventional warfare. However, a nuclear war is simply not survivable by anyone. If what Putin is doing in Ukraine is a war crime, risking a nuclear war is a far, far greater war crime, because it could end up wiping out all of the civilians in every country. That's a Doctor Strangelove scenario.

I’ve posted that question over in the Science forum. It’s extremely unlikely that a conflict between Russia and the United States would go full blown nuclear. But it is a risk. we would need to make our aims clear, push Russian forces back to their borders. That’s it. Russia would have no reason to use nukes and it wouldn’t for fear of reprisal on our part. even tactical nukes would be too risky for Russia. We may not have any deployed tactical nukes, but we have them nonetheless.

Not that we need to go into Ukraine. I thought we might need to at first, but the Ukrainians have proven to be very adept and the Russians utterly inept. We just need to supply the Ukrainians with the tools, and they can hold them off for long enough to force them back to their bases.

 

[Elixir]

Get in, get it done, get out.

If I had a nickel for every time …

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow, IMO remeirkable. Now if the legelature joins in it is over for Putin. He can't jail everybody. The Soviet Union collapsed when enough people said enough is enough.

At this point I woud say NATO go ahead and cross into Ukraine If not now then in the future. If Putin survives his replacement will be hand picked.

If the reporting has nay truh suoort in Russia is not unversal and Russian troop morale is low. There have been defections to the Ukraine side.

Much as I respect the opinion of Copernicus and others I agree and insist that this is a good time to move into Ukraine. Call Putin's bluff. He is not ready for this. We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

I have read that almost a third of US adults favor risking nuclear war over Ukraine. I have to say that I don't think a lot of people quite understand what they are risking. What is happening in Ukraine is horrible, and we think that we ought to be able to do something about it. Like everyone else, I think that we could save Ukraine with conventional warfare. However, a nuclear war is simply not survivable by anyone. If what Putin is doing in Ukraine is a war crime, risking a nuclear war is a far, far greater war crime, because it could end up wiping out all of the civilians in every country. That's a Doctor Strangelove scenario.

Putin will not go nuclear. There is no risk of nuclear. It's just a bluff on his part.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Fearing conscription, anti-war Russians flock to Uzbekistan

“Any person who knows history and who has a heart cannot agree with what is happening in Ukraine. We understand what a crime it is in the 21st century to attack a country that did not plan to attack you,” he said over the phone.

“The vast majority of our citizens are in favour of the war, they all believe that there are Nazis or criminals in Ukraine. We have been facing a total backlash on freedom and all of this will turn into an economic and humanitarian disaster soon.”

Ali is one of the thousands of Russian citizens who over the past few weeks have decided to leave their homeland because of the war against Ukraine.

“Dying for inexplicable principles is stupid. I understand that Ukrainians are dying for their homeland, but us? I have no regrets, I see where the whole economy is heading, there will soon be no demand, there will be a devaluation of the rouble and everything will collapse.”

Jonibek is now staying with his grandmother in Samarkand and will soon head to Tashkent. He does not know whether he will stay in Uzbekistan but wants to give it a chance.

“Russia has no future, it will soon fall apart without specialists and foreign companies,” he said.

The Pig will likely be declaring martial law soon.

 

[Copernicus]

...
I have read that almost a third of US adults favor risking nuclear war over Ukraine. I have to say that I don't think a lot of people quite understand what they are risking. What is happening in Ukraine is horrible, and we think that we ought to be able to do something about it. Like everyone else, I think that we could save Ukraine with conventional warfare. However, a nuclear war is simply not survivable by anyone. If what Putin is doing in Ukraine is a war crime, risking a nuclear war is a far, far greater war crime, because it could end up wiping out all of the civilians in every country. That's a Doctor Strangelove scenario.

Putin will not go nuclear. There is no risk of nuclear. It's just a bluff on his part.

...
I’ve posted that question over in the Science forum. It’s extremely unlikely that a conflict between Russia and the United States would go full blown nuclear. But it is a risk. we would need to make our aims clear, push Russian forces back to their borders. That’s it. Russia would have no reason to use nukes and it wouldn’t for fear of reprisal on our part. even tactical nukes would be too risky for Russia. We may not have any deployed tactical nukes, but we have them nonetheless...

This is what really scares me. Are you up for a game of Russian Roulette with nuclear weapons? How do you know what is in Putin's mind? We can all speculate, but do we want to risk a nuclear apocalypse on the basis of a bad guess? Too many Americans are now thinking along these lines. It's utter madness.

I admit that I've seen similar reasoning coming out of Russia--that they can have a limited incursion into NATO countries under certain circumstances and that NATO would not dare risk nuclear retaliation, especially with Russia having those hypersonic missiles that could take out the US before we knew they were coming. IIRC, that one came from some deputy minister of defense. There are clearly people there who think they can get away with the same kind of dangerous calculation.

Let's imagine that NATO troops start advancing into Ukraine to try to rescue them from the atrocities they are suffering. What would you think, if you were sitting in the Kremlin and saw that? How far towards Russia would those troops be moving? Would they stop at Ukraine's border? That would be sufficient to trigger a nuclear retaliation. Do you think it would be a limited strike just to send a message? I don't.

The US and Russia are not the only nuclear-armed powers in the world. China has ICBMs, too. Russia has nuclear-armed submarines, in case their a ability to strike from land is wiped out. And both sides have  MIRVs. A nuclear exchange is not going to be survivable. I'd rather not trust in speculation over how sane Putin is, especially when the risk being proposed assumes he is more sane than we are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Russia has is own navigation system. I doubt Russian soldiers would be allowed to carry cell/smart phones on deployment. It would allow pictures.

GLONASS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the news, Germany has ordered 36 advanced US fighters and says it will be more active in NATO.

If Putin's goal is to split NATO he most certainly blundered.

GPS uses digital spread spectrum techniques as do cell phones. Hard but not impossible to jam. Not like jamming FM or AM radio.

But GPS uses a very weak signal. It's enough technological wizardry to receive it at all, you don't need that much of a transmitter on the same frequency to block it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Recall that after a few weeks of military action in Libya, and the US became concerned about their reserves of smart weapons. So I’m skeptical that Russia can sustain this offensive for several months without serious risk.

It doesn’t need to. This isn’t a war of conquest or extermination. This is a punitive incursion to force Ukraine to accept terms Russia has openly stated. The Ukrainians may be able to hold off further Russian advancement - there are logistical and supply issues - but can they retake what Russia gained? No. This war started eight years ago and will end as it began: Crimea and the breakway Donbas regions to Russia and no NATO. All of the death and destruction is so pointless.

Why do you think that? If Russia keeps bleeding they might get chased out of the areas they previously stole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin didn’t invade the Donbas in 2014. Those were breakaway ethnically Russian regions. Neither side abided by the Minsk agreements; Ukraine kept shelling and the rebels shot back. But the end result of the war will still be the same. The US and the West should hasten diplomacy on both sides to bring this to a rapid conclusion. Yet, there is no leadership on that. And more die pointlessly

Putin invaded. Those "rebels" were Russian troops.

 

[SLD]

Let's imagine that NATO troops start advancing into Ukraine to try to rescue them from the atrocities they are suffering. What would you think, if you were sitting in the Kremlin and saw that? How far towards Russia would those troops be moving? Would they stop at Ukraine's border? That would be sufficient to trigger a nuclear retaliation. Do you think it would be a limited strike just to send a message? I don't.

The US and Russia are not the only nuclear-armed powers in the world. China has ICBMs, too. Russia has nuclear-armed submarines, in case their a ability to strike from land is wiped out. And both sides have  MIRVs. A nuclear exchange is not going to be survivable. I'd rather not trust in speculation over how sane Putin is, especially when the risk being proposed assumes he is more sane than we are.

All ICBMs and SLBMs are MIRVs. But standard nuclear doctrine is not to simply launch all nukes at once. That would be a really dumb and bad strategy. A nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, especially in those areas hit, of course, but it would be survivable For the country.

And they would know we don’t intend to invade Russia because we’d openly proclaim it and not do it. We’d just go into Ukraine.

But you missed my main point. We don’t need to get involved. The Ukrainians are doing quite well without us. Three weeks on and they’ve yet to capture a single major city. I mean seriously, the Germans captured Minsk after only two weeks, Vilnius even earlier, and Riga around the same time. The only thing we have to do is to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons and training - especially with good high altitude air defense, maybe even Patriot batteries. At worst, Putin ends up with an insurgency in the eastern sections of Ukraine that he can’t control. He dare not go west with the few troops he has left. The insurgency will wear his troops down and drag him with it. That and the sanctions brings down the whole rotten structure of Putin’s regime. We need not fire a shot. I actually think it won’t even come to that. He won’t capture Kiev. Probably won’t even get into Kharkiv. His armored losses are staggering, and his senior officers will balk at depleting the rest of their reserves. They’re just food for NLAW’s and Javelins. This whole “special operation” has exposed them as a paper bear.

 

[Copernicus]

All ICBMs and SLBMs are MIRVs. But standard nuclear doctrine is not to simply launch all nukes at once. That would be a really dumb and bad strategy. A nuclear exchange would be catastrophic, especially in those areas hit, of course, but it would be survivable For the country.

And they would know we don’t intend to invade Russia because we’d openly proclaim it and not do it. We’d just go into Ukraine.

Actually, no. Not all ICBMs and SLBMs are MIRVs. See, for example:

The End of MIRVs for U.S. ICBMs​

But we and Russia still have them. Not that we need them. All of this is overkill, because nuclear weapons have only two uses: deterrence or suicide. If the former fails, the latter becomes the only option. Neither our country nor the attacker would survive. In fact, it is likely that civilization as we know it would end, and possibly all human life. It isn't just about the poisoned atmosphere that would kill millions of survivors of the initial strikes. It is about the ensuing climate change that would devastate and poison the food supply. I don't know where you are getting this idea from that we could survive a nuclear war. Nobody knows for sure what would happen, but the whole point of MAD is that nobody sane would want to go there. I honestly believe that you are sane, so maybe MAD isn't working the way it was intended.

I don't know what you believe "they" would know about our intentions. I suspect that "they" would NOT actually take our proclaimed intentions seriously, since we, like they, are capable of lying. If we entered Ukraine, Russians would definitely see that as an intention to attack and defeat Russia. And a nuclear exchange wouldn't give anyone more than a few minutes to decide what people halfway around the world really intended. All hell would break loose.

 

[steve_bank]

Russia has is own navigation system. I doubt Russian soldiers would be allowed to carry cell/smart phones on deployment. It would allow pictures.

GLONASS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the news, Germany has ordered 36 advanced US fighters and says it will be more active in NATO.

If Putin's goal is to split NATO he most certainly blundered.

GPS uses digital spread spectrum techniques as do cell phones. Hard but not impossible to jam. Not like jamming FM or AM radio.

But GPS uses a very weak signal. It's enough technological wizardry to receive it at all, you don't need that much of a transmitter on the same frequency to block it.

Russia has is own navigation system. I doubt Russian soldiers would be allowed to carry cell/smart phones on deployment. It would allow pictures.

GLONASS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the news, Germany has ordered 36 advanced US fighters and says it will be more active in NATO.

If Putin's goal is to split NATO he most certainly blundered.

GPS uses digital spread spectrum techniques as do cell phones. Hard but not impossible to jam. Not like jamming FM or AM radio.

But GPS uses a very weak signal. It's enough technological wizardry to receive it at all, you don't need that much of a transmitter on the same frequency to block it.

Here you go Lauren. Plenty of info on the math on the net.

Spread Spectrum Wifi 802.11

A response to Lauren on politics. It is all mathematical and there is plenty of info on the net. Frequency hopping goes back to WWII used to remotely guide torpedo. It is credited to the actress Hedy Lamar. Actress and inventor...

iidb.org

 

[Patooka]

Putin didn’t invade the Donbas in 2014

Reality disagrees with you.

Selfie Soldiers: Russia Checks Into Ukraine

VICE News correspondent Simon Ostrovsky follows the digital and literal footprints of one Russian soldier.

video.vice.com

 

[Jayjay]

We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

I'm 100% sure that something like that was said to Putin when he asked his generals if he could take Ukraine.

 

[steve_bank]

I doubt there would be any pragmatic realists around Putin who would say no., as we observed with Trump. Republican congressional lap dogs.

It was reported Trump floated the idea of invading Venezuela and had to be talked out of it. His attempts to use the military for politics including seizing voting machines.

What limited Trump was the courts doing the right thing, even Trump appointees, and a republican governor refuting his request to manufacture votes.

 

[SLD]

We have the military capability to destroy every asset they have on the ground. Get in, get it done, get out.

I'm 100% sure that something like that was said to Putin when he asked his generals if he could take Ukraine.

Yes, but unlike Russia’s military, ours doesn’t suck. But the truth is we don’t need to. All we need to do is give Ukraine the tools, and they’ll do it for us. We should get them THAAD and Patriots. And quite a few other things.