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

[Harry Bosch]

I found some articles on Noam Chomsky's positions.

Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Scahill on the Russia-Ukraine War - Apr 14

Noam Chomsky: Trump Is The "One Western Statesman" Pushing For Diplomacy To End Ukraine War | Video | RealClearPolitics - May 1

Which is far too generous. The truth about Trump is much closer to what he said nearly six years ago: Noam Chomsky: "Hitler Was A Sincere, Dedicated Ideologue -- Trump Isn't" | Video | RealClearPolitics - 2016 Nov 29

Noam Chomsky Says Ukraine Desire for Heavy Weapons Is 'Western Propaganda' - May 13

NC seems like he is willing to give Vladimir Putin the sort of pass that he does not give to the US foreign-policy establishment.

Really odd to see Chompy agreeing with Henry Kissinger!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I would be curious to hear where you think your freedom to post freely on this forum without fear comes from.

A lot of libbertards don't really care. They're under the impression that when the US succumbs to dictatorship, they will be treated as a special class, being white and having never defended democracy. They think the wrath of the Trump (or whoever) dictatorship will be directed exclusively at non-whites and the vocal defenders of democracy, or, as Putler calls them, Nazis.
I expect that some of them will be treated as part of the junta. A few of them. The rest will be subjugated just as brutally as the rest of us, even as they are asking "why me, why me?"
In a lot of ways they are the classic guilty enablers who will stand idly by celebrating their superiority and patting themselves on the back for not getting involved in "all that political ugliness", even as the country's democracy crumbles and their own dire fate unfolds.

I must admit, you have a good imagination. That "argument" is simply staggering, and then clinging to a lamp post, and then falling into the gutter and barfing on itself.

 

[bilby]

I would be curious to hear where you think your freedom to post freely on this forum without fear comes from.

A lot of libbertards don't really care. They're under the impression that when the US succumbs to dictatorship, they will be treated as a special class, being white and having never defended democracy. They think the wrath of the Trump (or whoever) dictatorship will be directed exclusively at non-whites and the vocal defenders of democracy, or, as Putler calls them, Nazis.
I expect that some of them will be treated as part of the junta. A few of them. The rest will be subjugated just as brutally as the rest of us, even as they are asking "why me, why me?"
In a lot of ways they are the classic guilty enablers who will stand idly by celebrating their superiority and patting themselves on the back for not getting involved in "all that political ugliness", even as the country's democracy crumbles and their own dire fate unfolds.

I must admit, you have a good imagination. That "argument" is simply staggering, and then clinging to a lamp post, and then falling into the gutter and barfing on itself.

That joke was fairly funny, once.

But it’s noticeable that it’s always standing in place of any actual counter to the arguments being made.

Perhaps you could try explaining why you reject the argument, rather than repeating a now tired and rather childish quip?

Or perhaps you’ve got nothing, and are trying to hide your embarrassment with humour?

 

[Jayjay]

Kissinger isn't entirely wrong. Ukraine will lose territory in this war, and at some point will have to make some painful decisions. In his speech Kissinger said the ideal starting point should be the pre-invasion borders, which means Ukraine would at least have to formally give up on Crimea and the previously occupied DNR/LNR territory, but realistically, Ukraine can't force Russia to withdraw to those borders.

Russia is clearly doing it darnedest to encircle Ukrainian troops in Luhansk, and if they can do that, it means that Ukraine will lose all the heavy weapons in that area, a lot of men, and thousands of civilian lives. If successful, it'll be a major blow to Ukraine. Ukraine is saying it can't do counter-attacks until July, and even with the snail-pace that Russia is advancing, it can probably take also Donetsk by that time.

So how should the west react? I think the main point is that even if Ukraine is losing, the west shouldn't pull the rug underneath it. We should keep providing weapons and maintain sanctions (and add new ones) as long as it takes. Let Ukraine be the ones to call it quits, because they're the ones who are fighting with their lives and for their independence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Kissinger isn't entirely wrong. Ukraine will lose territory in this war, and at some point will have to make some painful decisions. In his speech Kissinger said the ideal starting point should be the pre-invasion borders, which means Ukraine would at least have to formally give up on Crimea and the previously occupied DNR/LNR territory, but realistically, Ukraine can't force Russia to withdraw to those borders.

Russia is clearly doing it darnedest to encircle Ukrainian troops in Luhansk, and if they can do that, it means that Ukraine will lose all the heavy weapons in that area, a lot of men, and thousands of civilian lives. If successful, it'll be a major blow to Ukraine. Ukraine is saying it can't do counter-attacks until July, and even with the snail-pace that Russia is advancing, it can probably take also Donetsk by that time.

So how should the west react? I think the main point is that even if Ukraine is losing, the west shouldn't pull the rug underneath it. We should keep providing weapons and maintain sanctions (and add new ones) as long as it takes. Let Ukraine be the ones to call it quits, because they're the ones who are fighting with their lives and for their independence.

Even with the amazing successes of the Ukrainian army so far, they're still much smaller and much more worse equipped than Russia. The west have given Ukraine plenty of small weapons. But what Ukraine needs to win is tanks, artillery and aircraft. All absolutely necessary to push Russia back. Russia has about as many regular troops as Ukraine has reserves. The thing with reserve troops is that they're completely untrained. 1 to 1 a regular soldier will win. If Russia starts conscripting soldiers to fight, Ukraine has no chance. If Russia stops making stupid tactical decisions, Ukraine has no chance.

Unless western nations get actively involved and take part in the fighting, over time, Ukraine is fucked. The only scenario where Russia can get out without any territorial gains is one where Putin is removed from power. That seems unlikely.

When the war started an ultra cynical learned friend of mine said that Russia will win, and if we think anything else we are fooling ourselves. He's got a good track record on nailing political developments. Initially I didn't agree with him. But yet again, it looks like he'll get it right.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Kissinger isn't entirely wrong. Ukraine will lose territory in this war, and at some point will have to make some painful decisions. In his speech Kissinger said the ideal starting point should be the pre-invasion borders, which means Ukraine would at least have to formally give up on Crimea and the previously occupied DNR/LNR territory, but realistically, Ukraine can't force Russia to withdraw to those borders.

Russia is clearly doing it darnedest to encircle Ukrainian troops in Luhansk, and if they can do that, it means that Ukraine will lose all the heavy weapons in that area, a lot of men, and thousands of civilian lives. If successful, it'll be a major blow to Ukraine. Ukraine is saying it can't do counter-attacks until July, and even with the snail-pace that Russia is advancing, it can probably take also Donetsk by that time.

So how should the west react? I think the main point is that even if Ukraine is losing, the west shouldn't pull the rug underneath it. We should keep providing weapons and maintain sanctions (and add new ones) as long as it takes. Let Ukraine be the ones to call it quits, because they're the ones who are fighting with their lives and for their independence.

I don't disagree with you. I think that at some point Ukraine needs to find a compromise. It will probably entail Crimea at the least. And it should be decided by Ukraine. But the problem is what will satisfy Russia? They've given land to Russia before. To what end? Russia is totally untrustworthy. And we assume that as soon as Putin dies or is overthrown, that peace will reign. I don't buy it. Many of the Russian "moderates" have fled the country. I think that the remaining Russians want war. They want land. They want to push their "denazi" death cult to other countries. Perhaps its better that Ukraine continues to degrade the putrid Russian military to the point where they won't threaten another country for many years. But they will be back. The West should fully help Ukraine rebuild after the Russians return home.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, Ukraine can cede Crimea to Russia, but they'd expect money for it. With Russia, this isn't about compromise, but taking what they want because it is their birthright.

 

[Tigers!]

Gosh, I guess I am waving the flag.

Don't get tired.

 

[Jayjay]

At this point, thinking about under what terms should Crimea be ceded to Russia, is a bit like wondering what kind of uniforms the Ukrainian army should wear when they march to Moscow. Unrealistic given the current situation on the ground and recent negative developments in particular.

 

[steve_bank]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

That would be very smart. It makes sense to resume grain shipments. NATO can help I'm sure.

 

[SLD]

Kissinger isn't entirely wrong. Ukraine will lose territory in this war, and at some point will have to make some painful decisions. In his speech Kissinger said the ideal starting point should be the pre-invasion borders, which means Ukraine would at least have to formally give up on Crimea and the previously occupied DNR/LNR territory, but realistically, Ukraine can't force Russia to withdraw to those borders.

Russia is clearly doing it darnedest to encircle Ukrainian troops in Luhansk, and if they can do that, it means that Ukraine will lose all the heavy weapons in that area, a lot of men, and thousands of civilian lives. If successful, it'll be a major blow to Ukraine. Ukraine is saying it can't do counter-attacks until July, and even with the snail-pace that Russia is advancing, it can probably take also Donetsk by that time.

So how should the west react? I think the main point is that even if Ukraine is losing, the west shouldn't pull the rug underneath it. We should keep providing weapons and maintain sanctions (and add new ones) as long as it takes. Let Ukraine be the ones to call it quits, because they're the ones who are fighting with their lives and for their independence.

I don't disagree with you. I think that at some point Ukraine needs to find a compromise. It will probably entail Crimea at the least. And it should be decided by Ukraine. But the problem is what will satisfy Russia? They've given land to Russia before. To what end? Russia is totally untrustworthy. And we assume that as soon as Putin dies or is overthrown, that peace will reign. I don't buy it. Many of the Russian "moderates" have fled the country. I think that the remaining Russians want war. They want land. They want to push their "denazi" death cult to other countries. Perhaps its better that Ukraine continues to degrade the putrid Russian military to the point where they won't threaten another country for many years. But they will be back. The West should fully help Ukraine rebuild after the Russians return home.

This is not a war of Russia against Ukraine. This is a war of Putin against Russia. If it were a Russian war, their soldiers would actually be fighting. Their conscripts wouldn’t be deserting or just not even bother reporting for initial training. Senior diplomats wouldn’t be defecting.

This is Putin’s war, and he will lose it. He is already losing it. Napoleon’s dictum is illustrated clearly here: “in war the moral is to the physical as three is to one.” Putin is trying to micromanage this war and he’s doing a crappy job. His contractors are corrupt. His troops aren’t even being fed. They will not fight for him and his stupid war.

The only compromise Ukraine need offer is not to shoot them if they agree to leave peacefully. Otherwise get the fuck out before we blow your brains out.

 

[Jayjay]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

That would be very smart. It makes sense to resume grain shipments. NATO can help I'm sure.

The grain could be transported by land from Ukraine and put to ships in European ports. The calls to break the blockade are just a ploy to, well, break the blockade. And make it harder for Russia to keep firing missiles from submarines and ships. I can't blame Ukraine for trying to use the threat of famine to try to pull NATO or other forces to the Black Sea to restrict Russian movements, but as an impartial observer I have to call it like I see it.

 

[bilby]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

That would be very smart. It makes sense to resume grain shipments. NATO can help I'm sure.

The grain could be transported by land from Ukraine and put to ships in European ports. The calls to break the blockade are just a ploy to, well, break the blockade. And make it harder for Russia to keep firing missiles from submarines and ships. I can't blame Ukraine for trying to use the threat of famine to try to pull NATO or other forces to the Black Sea to restrict Russian movements, but as an impartial observer I have to call it like I see it.

Land haulage is a lot more expensive than shipping though. Even railroad haulage is a lot more. Trucks, more still.

There’s a reason why this grain is transported by bulk carrier in normal times, even though you have to cover a lot more distance by sea than by rail or road.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Crimea is now part of Russia and it will not be given back.

In Putin's military thinking he thinks he needs a land bridge to Crimea and the Russian naval base. You never know when those pesky Lithuanians will mount a naval attack on Russia on the Black Sea.

That being said.

Lithuania wants naval coalition to lift Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s grain

Britain supports in principle the call for a naval coalition ‘of the willing’ to restart exports through Black Sea

www.theguardian.com

Britain has backed in principle a proposal by Lithuania for a naval coalition “of the willing” to lift the Russian Black Sea blockade on Ukrainian grain exports.

That would be very smart. It makes sense to resume grain shipments. NATO can help I'm sure.

The grain could be transported by land from Ukraine and put to ships in European ports. The calls to break the blockade are just a ploy to, well, break the blockade. And make it harder for Russia to keep firing missiles from submarines and ships. I can't blame Ukraine for trying to use the threat of famine to try to pull NATO or other forces to the Black Sea to restrict Russian movements, but as an impartial observer I have to call it like I see it.

Land haulage is a lot more expensive than shipping though. Even railroad haulage is a lot more. Trucks, more still.

There’s a reason why this grain is transported by bulk carrier in normal times, even though you have to cover a lot more distance by sea than by rail or road.

More than three times the cost and take three times longer to ship. Then there is old Soviet (1520mm) to Western Europe (1435mm) track gauge. The safest route from Ukraine (1520) is through Poland (1435) to Lithuania (1520) as Lithuania can best handle the capacity. This entails two transfers of the grain and both ends of the Polish border.
There is a proposal of going through Belarus, thus remaining on Soviet gauge track but all this before old grain rots and new comes in.
Some can go through Romania but this entails a transfer from rail to barge on the Danube.
There simply isn’t the capacity to move efficiently/cost effectively by rail.
All this for grain that goes largely to the Mideast and North Africa who will struggle with the cost.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

 

[Jayjay]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Aren't the waters near Odesa mined, by Ukraine? And in what condition are the harbors?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Aren't the waters near Odesa mined, by Ukraine? And in what condition are the harbors?

These are not impossible challenges to overcome. Shall we let millions starve an let little Hitler have his cake?

 

[Jayjay]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Aren't the waters near Odesa mined, by Ukraine? And in what condition are the harbors?

These are not impossible challenges to overcome. Shall we let millions starve an let little Hitler have his cake?

Land transport isn't an impossible challenge to overcome either.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Western nations led by the U.S. can declare a humanitarian maritime corridor for the grain to pass. If little Russian wants to sink a ship we'll see who blinks first I suppose. It ain't rocket science. They don't own the sea.

Challenging a naval blockade is risky. This is where the "one mistake" scenario can come to pass. Not that I'm turning dovish but I think if we help out those who need help with the cost this go around and give the Russian ship sinking missiles we're giving Ukraine a chance to do their thing, things should open up from there.