• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

T.G.G. Moogly said:
dannyk said:
I don't have much expertise in the Russian/Ukraine situation but what happens next if Russia annexes parts of Ukraine. What should the western response be?
Click to expand...
The proper western response is to ignore it.
Click to expand...
The tricky part is addressing Ukraine attacks into Russian occupied Russia... that Russia is calling "Russia". Or less that and more, how do we respond to Putin's escalation (whatever that is) after he accuses West of attacking mainland Russia.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
T.G.G. Moogly said:
dannyk said:
I don't have much expertise in the Russian/Ukraine situation but what happens next if Russia annexes parts of Ukraine. What should the western response be?
Click to expand...
The proper western response is to ignore it.
Click to expand...
The tricky part is addressing Ukraine attacks into Russian occupied Russia... that Russia is calling "Russia". Or less that and more, how do we respond to Putin's escalation (whatever that is) after he accuses West of attacking mainland Russia.
Click to expand...
If Hitler had accused the Allies of attacking mainland Germany in occupied France how would we have responded?

In any case the fact is Ukraine is not attacking mainland Russia, only protecting itself by attacking Russian military occupiers inside Ukraine. Ukraine had already been doing exactly that in occupied Crimea. What's Poostain's point now? If he was going to nuke he'd already have done so based on that pretext.
 
So of Ukraine attacks the Russian occupied areas that they are trying to claim, and Russia responds by saying the West is attacking mainland Russia... isn't that an admission that Ukraine is not Russia, so they don't have any claim to its territories?
 
I think Ukraine should hold a “referendum”, annex Belgorod and Kaliningrad, and declare their need for a land corridor to access their new Baltic Sea port.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
T.G.G. Moogly said:
dannyk said:
I don't have much expertise in the Russian/Ukraine situation but what happens next if Russia annexes parts of Ukraine. What should the western response be?
Click to expand...
The proper western response is to ignore it.
Click to expand...
The tricky part is addressing Ukraine attacks into Russian occupied Russia... that Russia is calling "Russia". Or less that and more, how do we respond to Putin's escalation (whatever that is) after he accuses West of attacking mainland Russia.
Click to expand...
If Hitler had accused the Allies of attacking mainland Germany in occupied France how would we have responded?
Click to expand...
Referencing WWII isn't particularly comfortable. Also, I'm not saying how does the West react to Putin's claims. I'm asking what they'll do in response to his likely escalation that comes from it.
T.G.G. Moogly said:
In any case the fact is Ukraine is not attacking mainland Russia, only protecting itself by attacking Russian military occupiers inside Ukraine. Ukraine had already been doing exactly that in occupied Crimea. What's Poostain's point now? If he was going to nuke he'd already have done so based on that pretext.
Click to expand...
Putin's point is that attacking "annexed Ukraine" is the same as attacking Russian mainland. He can use this to justify escalation, and we are running out of escalation that doesn't end badly for millions in Eastern Europe. We are slowly wandering into a situation where the only good finish to this is Russia addressing their Putin problem. But I fear that Putin is hardly the only warhawk there.
 
Russia has as much claim to Eastern Ukraine as it does to Brighton Beach. This claim exists only in the mind of Putin.

Conventionally? I don't think he can up the war game conventionally. If Europe isn't on high alert, I'd be surprised. I would think the rules of engagement have tightened up a bit for any Russian craft playing chicken. I know Finland has exercised their secondary landing strips for military aircraft which are a selection of highways.
It serves no purpose for Putin to find pretext for using any nuke. To what end? To point the finger claiming someone else started it? At that point, who cares who started what?

As far as setting off a low yield tactical nuke, I've read he's just as likely to set one off in the Baltic Sea where it can do no harm, just to show the world, what? How irresponsible he is, I guess. But bets are sill against him breaking this taboo.

It looks like he has delayed officially recognizing Eastern Ukraine as part of Russia for at least a few days. All the air is being sucked out of the room by Russian folk being upset about the mobilization. Putin needs a bit of calm first for the annexation to take as much of a prideful effect as it can muster with the public.
I expect Ukraine will take at least Lyman before then. Maybe more if it causes more Russian military to panic.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I'm not saying how does the West react to Putin's claims. I'm asking what they'll do in response to his likely escalation that comes from it.
Click to expand...
What choice do we have? Shall we sue for "peace in our time?" The point is we don't have a choice. Putin sabotaging his pipeline was surprising but it isn't worth escalating over. If he uses a nuke in Ukraine that's different. If he sabotages internet cables that's different. We have to outlast him and make his escalations painful.

When Ukraine makes gains in the east it will force his hand or the hand of those in the Kremlin. We don't control any of that.
 
The is a line from the movie Air Force Obe about a Russian extremist and bargaining with terrorists.

Give a mouse a cookie and he'll want a glass of milk.

No one wanted to do anything about Crimea and I don't see what could have been done.

It is interesting that the premise of the movie was Russians angry over the fall of the Soviets and blaming the USA.

It is clear at this point short of nuclear weapons NATO would easily deal with any Russian aggression against Europe. NATO air and ground forces routinely train with each other.

An attack on the Norwegian pipeline could be taken as an attack against NATO.

The question may be what level of provacation woud evoke a NATO response agaunst Russia?
 
If I was President Biden....

I would hold a press conference. With assembled leaders of House, Senate, U.S. military leaders and lay down the law to Putin and Russia. Russia must stop attacking Ukraine. They must stop shelling and bombing Ukranian civilians and Ukranian infrastructure. They must stop Russian murders, looting, kidnapping and release all Ukranian captives.

No more nuclear threats. If Russia fails to act positively to these commands, the U.S. and NATO nations reserve the right to send more weapons to Ukraine, more advanced weapons, and increase sanctions and any other actions that may help cripple Russia's ability to wage war.

I would warn Russia's neighbors against assistin Russian aggression. I would warn American citizen's we must stop Russian aggression now, or see Russia over time repeating this aggression, possibly dragging NATO into a full scale world war.

I would then lead the World's nations in collectively demanding Russia cease their cruel aggression. Nations of Europe, Asia, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, everyone.
 
The problem with that is how the world economy reacts. We see the effects as it is.

While I am not hot on Biden, a blustering Trump could easily create global chaos.
 
If the mobilization works out for Putin, then there's no need for nukes.
 
Jayjay said:
If the mobilization works out for Putin, then there's no need for nukes.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's how one defines "works out." It's obvious to me Poostain will never use nukes. He's going to do what he did with the pipelines, those kinds of things. The question is what will NATO do, what will "work out" for NATO given these provocations.

I see Ukraine continuing to make gains in the east and despite damage to their infrastructure as revenge. At some point those revenge attacks may provoke a response but it depends on how well Ukraine is doing militarily. How well Ukraine does militarily defines everything else and is why we have to continue to arm and support them however we can.
 
In a mass surrender the difference is the Ukrainians would not treat the Russians like the Russians treated the Germans.
 
Fron on street intervueson the BBC there are Russians who oppose the war and there are Russians who want to go.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
Jayjay said:
If the mobilization works out for Putin, then there's no need for nukes.
Click to expand...

It is possible that in Ukraine, Russians might end up surrendering en masse in a surrender on a scale not seen since WW2 in Tunisia.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Surrendering isn't that easy: most battles are fought with artillery, and you can't surrender to an exploding shell. And if you want to leave your post and run for the enemy territory, it's 5-15 km where you risk being spotted and killed by both sides.

Even when you face an enemy, how do you tell that you want to surrender? You might get shot by accident anyway.

And that's not even counting your own side shooting you in the back for trying to surrender. And that your propaganda has convinced you that the enemy are as ruthless as you and will torture you for sure.
 
They get on their cell phones and call the Ukranians to surrender. If the Russian artillery units are surrendering, alomg with infantry, it is a Russian problem.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Jayjay said:
If the mobilization works out for Putin, then there's no need for nukes.
Click to expand...
I suppose it's how one defines "works out." It's obvious to me Poostain will never use nukes. He's going to do what he did with the pipelines, those kinds of things. The question is what will NATO do, what will "work out" for NATO given these provocations.

I see Ukraine continuing to make gains in the east and despite damage to their infrastructure as revenge. At some point those revenge attacks may provoke a response but it depends on how well Ukraine is doing militarily. How well Ukraine does militarily defines everything else and is why we have to continue to arm and support them however we can.
Click to expand...
Militarily, Ukraine will lose unless the west can accelerate it's weapons deliveries and training.

And even if Ukraine has some limited gains, it just brings the nuclear gambit closer. To avoid that Ukraine needs to make massive gains or destroy Russian forces so utterly, that not even nukes can help Russia.

I don't think Ukraine can win, unless Russia implodes from within due to mobilizations and the economy. Which I don't think is very likely. Other countries like Venezuela or Iran have had it much worse and their autocrats are able to hang on to power just fine.

Personally I'm most interested to see if Ukraine can take back Kherson city and the right bank of Dnipro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom