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

[Harry Bosch]

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's pretty simple. First off, its the right thing to do. We should help countries that are bullied and invaded by another country just by default. Secondly, the world economy will be greatly affected by the inability of Ukraine to ship out it's grain and other trade. But the real reason is that this Russia claims that it wants to retake the Eastern European countries that it formerly controlled. They have stated over and over that Poland is next. Poland is part of Nato. We have US troops in Poland right now. That is the beginning of WW3. If we can significantly downgrade Russia's military, there is a much smaller chance that they will invade Poland. It's really that simple.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Ukraine never attacked Russia or attempted to occupy its territory, so I'm not sure what you would blame Ukraine for. Your one passing mention of "the west" was merely about "lobbing weapons" to Ukraine. The rest of your paragraph had been exclusively about the USA, as if it were all about us.

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.

As has been pointed out to you, Russia is threatening to attack NATO countries, and the  Suwalki Gap, which you had never heard of, is a major focus of interest for Russia. Since Russia started its full scale second invasion of Ukraine, the security of NATO countries has been directly threatened by Russia. If Ukraine falls, Moldova (a non-NATO country) and the Baltic states (NATO countries) will be at risk. The US has a deep commitment to NATO and the security of Europe. All of the countries you think of as merely a "regional conflict" have important trade relations with the US, not to mention treaty obligations.

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.

So what? There are lots of problems facing the US, including the massive economic hit that Russia has brought down on all of us by invading a peaceful country that made a major contribution to world food supply, critical supply chain materials, and energy supplies to NATO allies. Don't expect the Whitehouse to stop some poor homeless guy from crapping on the sidewalk in Santa Monica because local authorities don't provide adequate toilet facilities for homeless people. Not a federal responsibility.

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.

You really should have alerted the Whitehouse in December then. If only you had warned them what would happen in February and got them to preemptively send massive shipments of weapons back then, we wouldn't be in this pickle now, would we?

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"!!

I know that you didn't realize it was for national security, even though we belong to NATO and got Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal because those things were felt necessary for national security by your national government. Maybe that's why you didn't squawk so loudly about it back in December. Now you want to ignore US national security needs and go all

 

[ZiprHead]

You really should have alerted the Whitehouse in December then. If only you had warned them what would happen in February and got them to preemptively send massive shipments of weapons back then, we wouldn't be in this pickle now, would we?

Remember it was his guy that tried to stop weapons shipments in a bribery scheme.

 

[TSwizzle]

I know that you didn't realize it was for national security, even though we belong to NATO and got Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal because those things were felt necessary for national security by your national government.

It’s always national security. That’s why the USA bombed the shit out Afghanistan (and stayed for 20 years or whatever) and Iraq and other places that need bombed. Keeps us safe I suppose.

 

[Copernicus]

You really should have alerted the Whitehouse in December then. If only you had warned them what would happen in February and got them to preemptively send massive shipments of weapons back then, we wouldn't be in this pickle now, would we?

Remember it was his guy that tried to stop weapons shipments in a bribery scheme.

Good point, but he would probably point out that Ukraine would have surrendered to Russia a lot sooner if his guy had had his way. After all, he told Zelensky to make a deal with Putin. All his guy really wanted was help in spreading dirt on Joe Biden. Ukraine was Putin's business.

 

[Copernicus]

I know that you didn't realize it was for national security, even though we belong to NATO and got Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal because those things were felt necessary for national security by your national government.

It’s always national security. That’s why the USA bombed the shit out Afghanistan (and stayed for 20 years or whatever) and Iraq and other places that need bombed. Keeps us safe I suppose.

Well, it is the responsibility of the federal government to defend the national security of the US. Republicans aren't the only politicians who find it difficult to vote against any and every military spending bill that comes down the pike.

What about Afghanistan and Iraq? We could discuss the merits of sending our troops into those wars, or we could discuss the merits of not sending our troops into Ukraine. Nobody seems to be considering that, but I would join with you in opposing our country actually committing our armed forces to rescue Ukraine. Instead, we are sending mostly defensive weapons to Ukraine for Ukrainians to use in defending their very large, important nation from being taken over by an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship that is hostile to our national security and has been engaged in active asymmetric warfare against us ever since Putin came to power.

 

[bilby]

I know that you didn't realize it was for national security, even though we belong to NATO and got Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal because those things were felt necessary for national security by your national government.

It’s always national security. That’s why the USA bombed the shit out Afghanistan (and stayed for 20 years or whatever) and Iraq and other places that need bombed. Keeps us safe I suppose.

Mostly these adventures in blowing up foreigners are in pursuit of your desire (and I mean your personal desire, and that of your like-minded probable voters) for low priced goods; Particularly gasoline.

If you want to know why the US isn’t more isolationist, look in a mirror.

 

[Patooka]

I'm sure it's just an amazing coincidence these Americans who complain about foreign wars only magically appear when a Democrat is President. I'm sure TSwizzle complained when Trump assassinated a general whilst invading another sovereign nation's borders. And I'm damn certain I can find a post of Jason Harvestdancer condemning Trump sending billions in military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

Oh, wait...but surely it's not because they're full of shit is it?

Is it?

 

[steve_bank]

Other than one or two pro Russians, here we are generally against isolationism.

That being said, Afghanistan was a disaster. It went from hunting Bin Laden to nation building, and it failed miserably. Afghanistan like VN was a bonanza for defense companies and civilian contractors.

There was a multi million dollar US military center built in Afghanistan that the miltary did not ask for or want.

Remember Dick Cheny and Halliburton? We are not immune to corruption and profiteering.

Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton. In the run-up to the Iraq War, Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which only Halliburton was allowed to bid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Israel could have won in 1973 with our help or not--our help meant they won on the tactical battlefield rather than by lobbing nukes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Note that much of that money is in the form of weapons. Weapons we already have bought for the purpose of destroying Russian targets. They are being used to destroy Russian targets--thus reducing our need for such weapons. We won't need to fully replace them. (Yes, of course, Russia could rebuild it's military and we would likewise have to replace the weapons--but given the relative sizes of our economies this would be a huge net gain for us.)

Furthermore, the Russian bear is being exposed as hopeless. This is a huge victory for us on the world stage.

 

[steve_bank]

Support of Israel was part of the Cold War. Egypt and the Arabs were in the Soviet sphere.

At one pint Russia said 'Isreal was targeted' inferring nukes if the USA helped.

Russia–Saudi Arabia relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Syrian Civil War, military cooperation​

See also: Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Saudi Arabian involvement in the Syrian Civil War

Relations between the two countries became strained during the Syrian Civil War, in which Russia and its ally Iran put their support behind Syria's government and President Bashar al-Assad while Saudi Arabia along with Qatar and Turkey-backed insurgents in Syria.[9] Saudi Arabia, prior to Russia's direct military intervention in Syria in September 2015, was reported to have sought to use its offer to reduce its oil production in exchange for Russia dropping its support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, a proposal that Russia rejected.[10]

In February 2016, Saudi Arabia offered for the first time to send ground troops to Syria; a Saudi official confirmed that Riyadh had sent warplanes to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, a move considered as preparation for an incursion into Syria and seen as inimical to Russia's as well as Iran's interests.[11][12] Russia reacted to the reports with public sarcasm alluding to the Saudi Arabian-led military intervention in Yemen.[13]

Relations improved significantly in 2017 as Russia's influence in the Middle East rose following military success in Syria as a result of its intervention in the Syrian conflict on the side of the Bashar Assad government, on whose removal from power Saudi Arabia had insisted prior.[14][15] Military issues were among the topics of discussions held by Vladimir Putin and Saudi defence minister deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in Moscow on 30 May 2016.[16][17]

Russia and Saudi Arabia have taken similar approaches to North Africa, strongly supporting the military rule of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt following the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.[18] Similarly, both Russia and Saudi Arabia have supported Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army in the Second Libyan Civil War.[19] In January 2020, Le Monde reported that Saudi Arabia was helping finance the activities of the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization, in supporting Haftar in Libya.[20]

 

[Elixir]

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?

I’ve grown tired of saying we should sponsor a seizure of Kaliningrad, even if only to spread Putler out a bit more.

 

[Copernicus]

I’ve grown tired of saying we should sponsor a seizure of Kaliningrad, even if only to spread Putler out a bit more.

I don't see any possible advantage there could be for us to seize Russian territory, since it would destroy whatever resistance there is to Putin's regime within Russia domestically. US policy has been, and should continue to be, that Russia's borders before its seizure of Ukraine ought to remain sacrosanct. It is up to Ukraine to decide how it wants to resolve Russia's seizure of Ukrainian territory, but we remain opposed to the unprovoked invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia.

As for Kaliningrad, I feel sad that Russia has failed to restore the former  Königsberg to its historical status as a major port on the Baltic Sea, but Russia has never been good at managing the territories it has conquered. There is really nothing much left of the old capital of  Prussia, but that is part of the legacy of the blight that the Russian Empire left in occupied territories in eastern Europe. That legacy is what drove so many former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics to seek alliance with NATO and western Europe after the collapse of the Soviet empire. Prussia was essentially obliterated after WWII, and not a lot remains to be resurrected.

 

[Elixir]

It’s half tongue in cheek. Anyhow, the (sponsorship of someone else’s) seizure would just be a means to the end of taxing Putler’s resources.

 

[Jayjay]

The world would undoubtedly be a better place if Russian conquests like Kaliningrad were returned to their previous owners, and even Russia itself chopped into little pieces so it couldn't harm anyone else.

But that would be hypocritical and go against the "current borders are sacrosanct" rule. Even if current borders are sometimes historically unfair, it's better than endless wars. Let Russia keep Kaliningrad. If or when Russia becomes a reasonable democracy (could take a century or two), borders won't matter as much.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

I really liked the link above. Great article. And just to add on to assumption 4: it's likely that the Russian public is more to the right than Putin. There is this assumption that I've seen that Putin and only Putin is blame. Once Putin dies (he will one day); then the peace loving Russians will finally be open to compromise. I don't see it. Many of the Russians who want peace have either been jailed or have left the country. The remaining Russians want war as I see it. I monitor the Russian blogs. They are very pro-war and pro-Russian. They would appear to be directed by Putin himself. But then they will heavily criticize their own military and putin's tactics when obvious Russian attacks are beaten back (the river crossing).

MSN

While the Russians want to return their life to normal, they also want victory against the West. They think that they are winning. And they are prepared for the long term.

 

[TV and credit cards]

.

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.

I think Assumption 1 works only if one has ever shifting goals. Or what was the initial attack on Kyiv for? Was Russia just thinning the herd, weeding out the weaklings in the army so the professionals could do the real work in the east?

We should ensure Russia saves face without regards to Putin. There is no need to humiliate an entire nation for the actions of one man. Some consideration should be given to Macron's recent comments to this effect.

What Russian citizen would give an honest opinion of the war with the threat of prison time hanging over their head? Color me yellow but I wouldn't even do so with the promise of anonymity. Why chance harassment or worse from any police force.

For the Putkins who swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker, if they need employment in the near future, I would suggest construction jobs in Ukraine. It may just serve a dual purpose.

There have been many opinions floating around these last few months. This is definitely another.

 

[Harry Bosch]

.

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.

I think Assumption 1 works only if one has ever shifting goals. Or what was the initial attack on Kyiv for? Was Russia just thinning the herd, weeding out the weaklings in the army so the professionals could do the real work in the east?

We should ensure Russia saves face without regards to Putin. There is no need to humiliate an entire nation for the actions of one man. Some consideration should be given to Macron's recent comments to this effect.

What Russian citizen would give an honest opinion of the war with the threat of prison time hanging over their head? Color me yellow but I wouldn't even do so with the promise of anonymity. Why chance harassment or worse from any police force.

For the Putkins who swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker, if they need employment in the near future, I would suggest construction jobs in Ukraine. It may just serve a dual purpose.

There have been many opinions floating around these last few months. This is definitely another.

First off, do you understand the outrage that Ukrainians feel regarding Macron's statement? No one likes to be humiliated. It happens to me every Sunday when my mother-in-law comes over for dinner. I get it. But the Ukrainians are having their relatives killed. Their homes destroyed. Their infrastructure ruined. I don't blame them one bit for not giving a shit if Putin is humiliated!

Secondly, why assume that if we just give in to Putin a little, stroke him a lot, that Russian soldiers will return home? I'm seeing no evidence of this. Zero. Even if a peace agreement were reached (extremely doubtful in my mind); how in the world could Ukraine trust Russia? I like Macron. I understand that he is trying to stay in the middle somewhat (although he's an alley of NATO and the west.). He's trying to keep the communication open and search for a Putin compromise. But I don't think that it will work.

 

[TV and credit cards]

.

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.

I think Assumption 1 works only if one has ever shifting goals. Or what was the initial attack on Kyiv for? Was Russia just thinning the herd, weeding out the weaklings in the army so the professionals could do the real work in the east?

We should ensure Russia saves face without regards to Putin. There is no need to humiliate an entire nation for the actions of one man. Some consideration should be given to Macron's recent comments to this effect.

What Russian citizen would give an honest opinion of the war with the threat of prison time hanging over their head? Color me yellow but I wouldn't even do so with the promise of anonymity. Why chance harassment or worse from any police force.

For the Putkins who swallow the propaganda hook, line and sinker, if they need employment in the near future, I would suggest construction jobs in Ukraine. It may just serve a dual purpose.

There have been many opinions floating around these last few months. This is definitely another.

First off, do you understand the outrage that Ukrainians feel regarding Macron's statement? No one likes to be humiliated. It happens to me every Sunday when my mother-in-law comes over for dinner. But the Ukrainians are having their relatives killed. Their homes destroyed. Their infrastructure ruined.

Secondly, why assume that if we just give in to Putin a little, stroke him a lot, that Russian soldiers will return home? I'm seeing no evidence of this. Zero. Even if a peace agreement were reached (extremely doubtful in my mind); how in the world could Ukraine trust Russia?

I can appreciate comments made by Ukrainian foreign minister Kuleba. But I would repeat my original statement, there is no need to humiliate a nation for the actions of one man. There is a time for war and a time for healing. I think we currently do not go far enough in helping Ukraine defeat Russia. Once Ukraine proved its mettle in defending Kyiv, we should have worked to end this as expeditiously as possible to include providing weapons needed to destroy supply lines and any infrastructure within Russia to put an end to this. Not dance around worrying what would or would not piss off Putin.

But when it's over, it's over. Should Russians suffer for some period of time as retribution?

In case we are talking past one another, I am for expelling Russia from all of Ukraine to include Crimea as quickly as possible by all necessary conventional means. Ensuring to the best of our ability that this cannot happen again. And rebuilding Ukraine. What is done with sanctions at this point would depend on who is in control in Russia.