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

[bilby]

Your post makes zero sense. You don't like the Ukrainian Oligarchs. Fine. You don't like those oligarch meanies who now own rubble and ruin. Fine. Do you give a fucking shit about their families? How about all the innocent civilians? Their children? I donated money to a group that rescued hundreds of children dying of cancer that was finally evacuated. Their story was heart breaking. Do you give a shit about them? Do you give a shit about all the environmental damage that Russia is causing? Do you give a shit about the millions of people world wide who will suffer because Russia won't let Ukraine export their grain? How about the world wide inflation that is affecting the world? Have you been to the store lately?

Right there in your own post you gave the answer to your own question and you don't even know it. You said YOU donated money to a group. Find. I have absolutely no problem with that, and even commend it. But we're not talking about what YOU are doing, we are talking about what you and yours all want the government to do.

When it comes to that, your very emotional argument means nothing. "Don't you care about X? Don't you care about Y" Don't you care about deciding things on merits other than emotion?

It is because everything has been decided on emotion for the last 20 years that we are experiencing food shortages right now. Your "feelings" aren't going to feed the hungry, cold rational action will. And when you say "oh but I meant well", I won't give a damn about that.

Actually you won't say "oh but I meant well" because that would mean admitting that letting your feelings trump reality is wrong, and that feels bad so you won't do that.

You bet I get emotional about it. I have family members (in-laws) in Europe that have a Ukranian family living with them. I've heard the stories. I pretty much agree with President Biden on almost his actions in aiding Ukraine today. A weakened Russia will likely not invade a NATO country. If Nato is attacked, it's WW3. And we're screwed. But bottom line, I believe that sovereign countries should not be invaded. Period. End of story. I would support Ukraine even if Russia weren't threatening NATO. I think that we should arm and resupply Ukraine to the greatest extent possible. Mostly with defensive weapons. But they need longer range weapons to take out Russian artillery in Ukraine. I would understand; but I would not support Ukraine attacking Russia land. I think that the west should do everything possible to encourage Russia to return home. This would include massive sanctions. Bankrupt the fuckers. I think that we also need to figure out a way to get the grain out of Ukraine. The grain needs to be shipped out via Odessa. If we don't figure out a way, millions could starve. At this time, the only way that i see to do this is to send the Russian ships around Odessa to the bottom of the ocean. The Ukrainians could accomplish this hopefully with better longer range anti-ship missiles and better intelligence.

If you know a better way to peace - I'm all ears!

Call Poopies bluff and nuke Moscow. I believe the rusted-solid ballistic missiles they built 40 years ago will not launch / no longer exist. His threats are based on ancient reputation alone, and I, for one, am willing to bet Earth on that. Every silo has been looted by conscripts for anything they can trade for a loaf of bread, and are presently useless.

You are free to stake anything you own, up to and including your life; But you cannot bet with my stuff or my life as the stake.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Analysis from reporting.

1. The war will go on until Russia runs out of misisles.

2. Negotiate land for peace and Russia will rebuild its army and attack again. I agree as long as Putin is in power.


The Russian economy is probably collapsing. But then the Russians are probably used to deprivation by now. going all the way back to the Soviets.

In the 80s a physicist I woredd witin the 80s said the Soviets had the best scince in the wolrd. They serched for talnted kids and oput them in special programs.

The problem as I sawit was they had no mechanism for translating science to production in the economy. We have profit notivated investment in new ideas and free market competition.

Yea, I agree with you. I don't think that Russia will stop until they run out of weapons. The Ukrainians really can't stop. They have no choice. They are the ones being invaded. Where would they go? We just have to keep arming Ukraine. Do what we can short of attacking Russia deliberately. The sad thing is that millions will suffer around the war due to inflation and food scarcity. For this reason, we should do everything we can to bankrupt the Russian economy. Fuck them. We need to get off Russian oil. And stop selling the fuckers any materials (chips!) that can be used in war.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia holds nuclear drills:

Russian forces hold drills with nuclear-capable missiles

About 1,000 personnel and 100 vehicles took part in the drills in the Ivanovo province, northeast of Moscow.

www.axios.com

This is a bad sign. I can only hope that it's only part of a theatrics to try to dissuade Germany and others from sending heavier weapons, but the alternative is that Russia is preparing to escalate the conflict in a way that would bring nuclear deterrence into play: either using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, mobilization of force, or something else.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Russia holds nuclear drills:

Russian forces hold drills with nuclear-capable missiles

About 1,000 personnel and 100 vehicles took part in the drills in the Ivanovo province, northeast of Moscow.

www.axios.com

This is a bad sign. I can only hope that it's only part of a theatrics to try to dissuade Germany and others from sending heavier weapons, but the alternative is that Russia is preparing to escalate the conflict in a way that would bring nuclear deterrence into play: either using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, mobilization of force, or something else.

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Call Poopies bluff and nuke Moscow. I believe the rusted-solid ballistic missiles they built 40 years ago will not launch / no longer exist. His threats are based on ancient reputation alone, and I, for one, am willing to bet Earth on that. Every silo has been looted by conscripts for anything they can trade for a loaf of bread, and are presently useless.

You are aware only one missile with one warhead needs to work and impact a large city in a devastating manner? I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of the Russian nuclear arsenal is useless. I'm unwilling to bet that all of it is.

 

[TSwizzle]

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Russia probably could if the "West" didn't lob gobs of heavy duty weapons into the hands of Zelenskyy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Russia probably could if the "West" didn't lob gobs of heavy duty weapons into the hands of Zelenskyy.

You have my thoughts and prayers.

 

[steve_bank]

A cold War ad hominem would be to call somebody a 'commie lover' or something similar.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Russia probably could if the "West" didn't lob gobs of heavy duty weapons into the hands of Zelenskyy.

You've claimed that we should just give in to Russia. Just let them have Ukraine. Then as soon as Putin has his land bridge to Crimea, then Putin will "save face" and end the war. Well look at the map. At the expense of thousands of Ukranian civilians, he has his land bridge. And yet he continues to bomb civilians. Putin's word is shit. He isn't going to stop. And appeasing him won't work.

 

[TSwizzle]

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Russia probably could if the "West" didn't lob gobs of heavy duty weapons into the hands of Zelenskyy.

You've claimed that we should just give in to Russia.

Hmmm, who is this "we" you are talking about, the USA? I don't recall saying "we" (the USA) should just give in to Russia. But I disagree with the USA giving away billions of $ to fight another proxy war in a regional conflict that doesn't really concern the USA. But if the USA must be seen to do something then ramp up sanctions and diplomacy.

Just let them have Ukraine. Then as soon as Putin has his land bridge to Crimea, then Putin will "save face" and end the war. Well look at the map. At the expense of thousands of Ukranian civilians, he has his land bridge. And yet he continues to bomb civilians. Putin's word is shit. He isn't going to stop. And appeasing him won't work.

In the grand scheme of things, what Russia does to non NATO regions in it's sphere does not really concern the USA. Let the Europeans figure it out and pay for it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Imagine, drawing closer to a nuclear war, because Russia's army is so pathetic, it can't defeat Ukraine without the use of tactical nuclear weapons!

Russia probably could if the "West" didn't lob gobs of heavy duty weapons into the hands of Zelenskyy.

You've claimed that we should just give in to Russia.

Hmmm, who is this "we" you are talking about, the USA? I don't recall saying "we" (the USA) should just give in to Russia. But I disagree with the USA giving away billions of $ to fight another proxy war in a regional conflict that doesn't really concern the USA. But if the USA must be seen to do something then ramp up sanctions and diplomacy.

Just let them have Ukraine. Then as soon as Putin has his land bridge to Crimea, then Putin will "save face" and end the war. Well look at the map. At the expense of thousands of Ukranian civilians, he has his land bridge. And yet he continues to bomb civilians. Putin's word is shit. He isn't going to stop. And appeasing him won't work.

In the grand scheme of things, what Russia does to non NATO regions in it's sphere does not really concern the USA. Let the Europeans figure it out and pay for it.

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

 

[TSwizzle]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

 

[Copernicus]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

It's in the NATO territory that you apparently think would justify US entry into a war with Russia. Obviously, you don't care about the economic damage that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused for the US economy and the economic stability of its NATO allies or the rest of the world. We should just turn a blind eye to Ukraine until Putin decides that the only territory in his region left to gobble up is NATO territory. Never mind the steep inflation we are suffering, because it is Biden's fault for not turning a blind eye to Russia's invasion of a country whose sovereignty we had formally pledged to defend.

 

[Jayjay]

A very good take on Foreign Policy Magazine about western delusions:

What the West (Still) Gets Wrong About Putin

Asking whether to appease or not appease him is completely beside the point.

foreignpolicy.com

The five myths listed in the article:

Assumption 1: Putin knows he is losing.
(No, he doesn't. He's very much achieving his goals of destabilizing and punishing Ukraine.)

Assumption 2: The West should find a way to help Putin save face, thus decreasing the risks of further, possibly nuclear, escalation
(Giving in to Putin won't end the conflict, because Ukraine is just a hostage in the perceived war against the West.)

Assumption 3: Putin is not only losing militarily but also domestically, and the political situation in Russia is such that Putin could soon face a coup.
(The Russian elites are doing the opposite and rallying around the flag, as long as the country keeps functioning.)

Assumption 4: Putin is afraid of anti-war protests.
(Putin has cultivated a strong nationalist sentiment over the years, that is much more likely to demand tougher actions on Ukraine rather than peace.)

Assumption 5: Putin has been deeply disappointed in his entourage and greenlit the criminal prosecution of senior officials.
(There's no strong evidence of widespread "purges" in Putin's inner circle.)

The article concludes:

For the moment, both Russia and the West appear to believe that their counterpart is doomed and that time is on their side. Putin dreams about the West suffering from political upheaval, whereas the West dreams about Putin being removed, overthrown, or dropping dead from one of many diseases he is regularly rumored to be suffering. No one is right. At the end of the day, a deal between Russia and Ukraine is only possible as an extension of an agreement between Russia and the West or as a result of the collapse of Putin’s regime. And that gives you an idea of how long the war could last: years, at best.

 

[steve_bank]

The old propaganda. Russia says the USA is the bad gu they made us do it.

in his documentary on allgedly the real modern history Stone blames the USA for what Stalin did, esoterically Truman. We made Stalin do what he did.

I woud say what goes on in China, Russia, or North Korea is really none of our business. Ukraine, the Korean peninsula, and the South China Sea are very much our inerests.


Our rhetorc about China is counterproductive. They have their own identit and culture y and do not take well to our saying they shoud be like us. That is our American arrogance, the world should be like us.

Same with Russia. We keep calling out countries for rights and right now we are not a good model for anyone. Certainly Iraq and Afghanistan can be criticized. Even with good intentions they ciased widespread damage and suffering.

It was obvuois there was no solution to Afghanistan and politcians were never going to admitit and pull out. Americans always win. Finaly Biden took the politucal hit and got us out. It wss similar to VN. Wee are winning, just give us a few more troops.

 

[TSwizzle]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

It's in the NATO territory that you apparently think would justify US entry into a war with Russia. Obviously, you don't care about the economic damage that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused for the US economy and the economic stability of its NATO allies or the rest of the world. We should just turn a blind eye to Ukraine until Putin decides that the only territory in his region left to gobble up is NATO territory. Never mind the steep inflation we are suffering, because it is Biden's fault for not turning a blind eye to Russia's invasion of a country whose sovereignty we had formally pledged to defend.

A lot of words there but basically the USA is in another proxy war with Russia, just a different battlefield. History repeating itself. Still no explanation as to why the USA has to fund the Ukraine's defense. Ah yes, the formal pledge the USA gave to defend Ukraine's sovereignty. Finally the USA keeping a promise? This "war" would probably be over by now or near end if the USA and the west didn't keep lobbing heavy weapons to Ukraine. This "invasion" was known about back in December/January. Shoulda given the weapons to the Ukraine at that time and they could have blown the Russians to bits while they were assembling at the border. The covid lockdown did more harm to the US economy than a regional conflict in Europe.

 

[Jayjay]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

It's in the NATO territory that you apparently think would justify US entry into a war with Russia. Obviously, you don't care about the economic damage that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused for the US economy and the economic stability of its NATO allies or the rest of the world. We should just turn a blind eye to Ukraine until Putin decides that the only territory in his region left to gobble up is NATO territory. Never mind the steep inflation we are suffering, because it is Biden's fault for not turning a blind eye to Russia's invasion of a country whose sovereignty we had formally pledged to defend.

A lot of words there but basically the USA is in another proxy war with Russia, just a different battlefield. History repeating itself. Still no explanation as to why the USA has to fund the Ukraine's defense. Ah yes, the formal pledge the USA gave to defend Ukraine's sovereignty. Finally the USA keeping a promise? This "war" would probably be over by now or near end if the USA and the west didn't keep lobbing heavy weapons to Ukraine. This "invasion" was known about back in December/January. Shoulda given the weapons to the Ukraine at that time and they could have blown the Russians to bits while they were assembling at the border. The covid lockdown did more harm to the US economy than a regional conflict in Europe.

Let's take a longer view. The US provided massive military aid to Israel throughout the years against the Arabs. Without it, Israel might not exist, and even if it did, it would be weaker economically and the entire region would be less stable. But instead, now the US has a staunch democratic ally in the Middle East that can carry its own weight.

If this was the right choice to be made in Israel, a country of a few million people, why not for Ukraine, a country of 44 million, that's one of the largest agricultural producers in the world? The potential of turning Ukraine into a western democracy and a powerful market economy rather than a decrepit Russian vassal state is an enormous boon for the US, Europe, and the entire world. Even if you don't care about atrocities committed by Russian forces in Bucha and elsewhere, the long term benefits of winning this war should outweigh the relatively small cost.

 

[Copernicus]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

It's in the NATO territory that you apparently think would justify US entry into a war with Russia. Obviously, you don't care about the economic damage that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused for the US economy and the economic stability of its NATO allies or the rest of the world. We should just turn a blind eye to Ukraine until Putin decides that the only territory in his region left to gobble up is NATO territory. Never mind the steep inflation we are suffering, because it is Biden's fault for not turning a blind eye to Russia's invasion of a country whose sovereignty we had formally pledged to defend.

A lot of words there but basically the USA is in another proxy war with Russia, just a different battlefield. History repeating itself. Still no explanation as to why the USA has to fund the Ukraine's defense. Ah yes, the formal pledge the USA gave to defend Ukraine's sovereignty. Finally the USA keeping a promise? This "war" would probably be over by now or near end if the USA and the west didn't keep lobbing heavy weapons to Ukraine...

It may have escaped your notice that Russia has not been an innocent bystander in this so-called proxy war, but you are really blinded by your idea that the USA is somehow the Lone Ranger coming to the rescue of Ukraine. You have already acknowledged that we have an interest in defending NATO countries, and we are very much a part of the NATO alliance. We alone are not funding and sending weapons to Ukraine, although our agreement to support Ukraine's sovereignty and independence was not part of NATO. It was worked out with Ukraine, the UK, and Russia (which has since reneged on its pledge because of Putin's delusions of resurrecting the Russian Empire). Other NATO allies are suffering far more than we are from this war, and they are contributing heavily to Ukraine's defense, not to mention taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees.

...This "invasion" was known about back in December/January. Shoulda given the weapons to the Ukraine at that time and they could have blown the Russians to bits while they were assembling at the border. The covid lockdown did more harm to the US economy than a regional conflict in Europe.

It is interesting how you seem to reverse yourself and suggest that the US should have helped Ukraine blow Russia to bits earlier, but now you argue that we never had any business being involved in the first place and shouldn't be supporting Ukraine militarily at all. In hindsight, you think we could have gotten away with a blatant provocation on preemptive grounds, despite the fact that Russia is a major nuclear power and almost nobody (including Ukrainians and Russians) seriously believed that Russia would go for a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Most analysts at the time thought that Putin was just playing power politics and wasn't as crazy as they now realize he is.

Anyway, your COVID whataboutism is a straw man. Nobody disputes the harm that COVID has caused the US economy, not to mention the rest of the world that you keep forgetting. That regional conflict in Europe still has very serious national security consequences for US foreign and domestic policy. Ignoring it would have serious consequences for both.

 

[bilby]

another proxy war in a regional conflict that doesn't really concern the USA.

Says the same guy who is incensed at the current high gasoline prices in his state.

FFS, the world is a completely interconnected web of trade, particularly in energy and fuel resources, but also in food, metals, and other commodities.

There are NO regional conflicts that don’t really concern the USA, as long as Americans are interested in the price of gasoline. Certainly none that directly involve nations that are net energy exporters (such as Russia) or net food exporters (such as Ukraine).

 

[steve_bank]

How about the Suwalki Gap. It’s just forty miles of NATO territory and Russia could really use this land bridge to Kaliningrad. Surely the US shouldn’t spend billions defending this little strip of land. All that blood and money for forty miles?

Never heard of it.

It's in the NATO territory that you apparently think would justify US entry into a war with Russia. Obviously, you don't care about the economic damage that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused for the US economy and the economic stability of its NATO allies or the rest of the world. We should just turn a blind eye to Ukraine until Putin decides that the only territory in his region left to gobble up is NATO territory. Never mind the steep inflation we are suffering, because it is Biden's fault for not turning a blind eye to Russia's invasion of a country whose sovereignty we had formally pledged to defend.

A lot of words there but basically the USA is in another proxy war with Russia, just a different battlefield. History repeating itself. Still no explanation as to why the USA has to fund the Ukraine's defense. Ah yes, the formal pledge the USA gave to defend Ukraine's sovereignty. Finally the USA keeping a promise? This "war" would probably be over by now or near end if the USA and the west didn't keep lobbing heavy weapons to Ukraine. This "invasion" was known about back in December/January. Shoulda given the weapons to the Ukraine at that time and they could have blown the Russians to bits while they were assembling at the border. The covid lockdown did more harm to the US economy than a regional conflict in Europe.

It is not really a proxy war. We are directly and overtly involved.

Well, Japan and South Korea remain free and independent with our continuing presence. Nether are American puppet regimes. We agreed to never invade Cuba as part of the agreement to end the Cuban crisis.

Woulda-coulda-shoulda arm chair Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. A bit harder to be making real decisions. It is easy to crrixize the USA and the west form the comfort of your living room in the west with the western emphasis on indivual rights of free speech.

Let's not forget our revolution and the French assistance along with several consequential European 'military advisors'. There are cities and streets named after them.

 

[TSwizzle]

It may have escaped your notice that Russia has not been an innocent bystander in this so-called proxy war, but you are really blinded by your idea that the USA is somehow the Lone Ranger coming to the rescue of Ukraine.

Is Ukraine innocent in all this? And no, I never said the USA was the "Lone Ranger", I said the USA and the "west" meaning the USA and other parts of Europe, UK, Germany, France, Italy etc. I said let the Europeans sort it out. It's another regional conflict the USA has managed to get itself involved with.

You have already acknowledged that we have an interest in defending NATO countries, and we are very much a part of the NATO alliance.

As far as I am aware, no NATO country has been attacked.

We alone are not funding and sending weapons to Ukraine, although our agreement to support Ukraine's sovereignty and independence was not part of NATO. It was worked out with Ukraine, the UK, and Russia (which has since reneged on its pledge because of Putin's delusions of resurrecting the Russian Empire). Other NATO allies are suffering far more than we are from this war, and they are contributing heavily to Ukraine's defense, not to mention taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees.

The Whitehouse is getting a bit too free and easy with chucking billions of $ at Ukraine, tax dollars. $40billion, meanwhile I have a homeless guy living in a tent outside my office on Santa Monica Blvd crapping on the sidewalk.

It is interesting how you seem to reverse yourself and suggest that the US should have helped Ukraine blow Russia to bits earlier, but now you argue that we never had any business being involved in the first place and shouldn't be supporting Ukraine militarily at all. In hindsight, you think we could have gotten away with a blatant provocation on preemptive grounds, despite the fact that Russia is a major nuclear power and almost nobody (including Ukrainians and Russians) seriously believed that Russia would go for a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Most analysts at the time thought that Putin was just playing power politics and wasn't as crazy as they now realize he is.

No, no, no, no. My point is the time to do something has well passed, let them get on with it. It's a regional conflict that the USA is prolonging.

Anyway, your COVID whataboutism is a straw man. Nobody disputes the harm that COVID has caused the US economy, not to mention the rest of the world that you keep forgetting. That regional conflict in Europe still has very serious national security consequences for US foreign and domestic policy. Ignoring it would have serious consequences for both.

Oh well, if it's for national security then bombs away!! I didn't realize it was for "national security"!!