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

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ceding Crimea would only make sense if massive reparations were paid by Russia.

... or to shorten the war considerably.

As for reparations, I don't think they work in wars where one side isn't occupied and forced to pay up at gunpoint. In this case, only reparations that I see happening is transfer of some or all of the Russian funds currently frozen by the west to Ukraine. The logic is that Russia might consider that money lost anyway.

I should have also included Ukraine's NATO membership.

 

[Jayjay]

This is interesting:



I guess Putin finally got tired of the war bloggers' constant whining on how the SMO is going.

 

[Jayjay]

Ceding Crimea would only make sense if massive reparations were paid by Russia.

... or to shorten the war considerably.

As for reparations, I don't think they work in wars where one side isn't occupied and forced to pay up at gunpoint. In this case, only reparations that I see happening is transfer of some or all of the Russian funds currently frozen by the west to Ukraine. The logic is that Russia might consider that money lost anyway.

I should have also included Ukraine's NATO membership.

Earlier this year when Russia and Ukraine were negotiating in Turkey, some papers about alleged Russian demands were leaked. In that, it was obvious that the "neutrality" that Russia had in mind wasn't just NATO membership. It also included limitations on size of Ukraine's armed forces, and ban on joint military exercises without permission from Kremlin. In other words, keeping Ukraine down so it can't defend itself if Putin decides to start another war.

NATO membership alone isn't the singular red line that it's made out to be in the media. The "Partnership for Peace" program that NATO has is a loophole that was designed specifically for this purpose: a way for countries to train and cooperate with NATO forces and adopt NATO standards while being able to pretend they're "neutral". This is why Ukraine wasn't insisting on NATO membership earlier, and probably still considers it just a bargaining chip. But Putin isn't an idiot either, so he knows damn well that Ukraine promising to stay out of NATO is nearly worthless; a consolation prize at best.

 

[steve_bank]

Europe pulled Ukraine away from Russian Federation trade and I blieve was told it would get NATO membership.

Maybe if that actually happened this would have all been avoided.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would Kherson, upon liberation, have any larger concentrations of Ukrainian forces than, say, liberated towns of Izyum or Lyman? Or larger cities like Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kryvyi Rih, or Mykolaiv?

I think the idea was to hit them as they were liberating it. Sacrifice a bunch of "troops" Russia wouldn't mind seeing dead anyway and get a bunch of Ukrainians. However, so far Ukraine doesn't seem to be doing much of attacking cities and certainly has no reason at all to attack a city full of Russian troops where the civilians have been evacuated. Ukraine has been going around, letting the troops run to avoid being cut off and then savaging the fleeing troops. It's much better than actually attacking.

 

[Copernicus]

it is far from clear that tactical nukes would help him do anything other than further unite the world against him. Turning large areas of Ukraine into a wasteland

... would require strategic nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes are small. They can turn a single town or the centre of a city into a wasteland, but not "large areas"; A 5kt warhead has a 'severe damage' radius of about 4km. They don't do much that cannot already be done by a sustained artillery barrage; Their advantage over such a barrage is that you don't need to haul thousands of shells and dozens of guns, nor bring up and support crews for all those batteries.

And radiation effects are also fairly brief - all the really dangerous stuff is gone in less than a week.

Their primary point of difference from a large conventional artillery barrage is the effect on public opinion. The use of nuclear weapons has a massive downside from a propaganda perspective, while being incapable of any military results that Russia couldn't achieve by the use of their conventional arsenal.

I disagree. Having such destructive power would be something that Russia seems incapable of achieving with conventional arsenal. And it's not as if Russia cares about public opinion. The only real problem is that it might get NATO involved which would negate any military benefit, which I why I don't think that Putin will resort to nuclear weapons unless it becomes obvious he cannot win any other way. It's a desperation move, a Hail Mary when everything else has failed.

Which is why the west needs to draw the line there. If Russia uses nukes, and gets away with it, it'll become just another weapon system that every two-bit dictator will obtain and which will be used again and again. At that point it wouldn't be about Ukraine anymore.

The real problem is that a tactical nuclear weapon has never been used in a war, and it isn't really know what the long term effects will be. Bilby seems to be right in his estimation that most of the radiation would dissipate quickly, but there will also be some that lasts a long time. Also, the fireball and other effects will be similar to what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, depending on the size and type of tactical nuke used. Neither the Russian troops nor the Ukrainian troops have any experience in dealing with the aftermath of such an attack, so it will be something of a macabre experiment, if Putin goes ahead with it.

Scientific American:

‘Limited’ Tactical Nuclear Weapons Would Be Catastrophic​

In the world of nuclear weapons, tactical means an exceedingly large amount of explosive energy and strategic means even larger. Most nuclear weapons today are variable-yield, or “dial-a-yield,” providing a set amount of explosive energy that can range from fractions of a kiloton to multiples of a megaton. (For example, the U.S.’s newest version of its B61 nuclear bomb can release 0.3, 1.5, 10 or 50 kilotons of explosive energy. In comparison, the Hiroshima bomb was about 15 kilotons.) Russia has about 4,500 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. Of these, the ones of largest yield—the “strategic” weapons—are deployed on submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

...

No one should imagine, however, that it makes sense to use a tactical nuclear weapon. A thermonuclear explosion of any size possesses overwhelming destructive power. Even a “small-yield” nuclear weapon (0.3 kilotons) would produce damage far beyond that of a conventional explosive. (For a graphic depiction, the interactive site NUKEMAP, created by nuclear historian Alexander Wellerstein, allows you to simulate the effects of a nuclear explosion of any size anywhere on the planet.) It would also cause all the horrors of Hiroshima, albeit on a smaller scale. A tactical nuclear weapon would produce a fireball, shock waves, and deadly radiation that would cause long-term health damage in survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate air, soil, water and the food supply (Ukrainians are already familiar with this kind of outcome because of the disastrous meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in 1986).

No one knows if using a tactical nuclear weapon would trigger full-scale nuclear war. Nevertheless, the risk of escalation is very real. Those on the receiving end of a nuclear strike are not likely to ask whether it was tactical or strategic. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 6, 2018, then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated “I do not think there is any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game changer.” Russian leaders have made clear that they would view any nuclear attack as the start of an all-out nuclear war.

 

[Jayjay]

Agreed. The idea of "tactical" nuke to me is laughable. Nuclear weapons are an unknown quantity and even with small yield, the political consequences would be far-reaching and unpredictable. And the actual nuclear fallout might not even matter; it would cause fear and panic in the populace regardless.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wonder to what extent Crimea is dependent upon Mother Russia for foodstuff and other consumer goods. With only three land routes and assuming transportation priority is given to military needs, Crimean citizen could become quite uneasy with half empty shelves and the fall of Kherson (hopefully this week). In this, Ukrainian forces would not need to retake Crimea. They could block the two northern land routes, turning what is left of the Kerch bridge into a one-way street for Russian rats to flee.

 

[Ford]

With regards to Kherson, I heard a bit on the BBC news a short time ago that a Telegram post from Russian soldiers in the area reported heavy fighting, and they also mentioned that Russia's missile attacks on cities were still underway. If I remember my military history class correctly, the majority of force should be focused on primary objectives, while minimal force should be directed to secondary efforts.

I would think that the Russians should be focusing all their efforts on holding the land they have, rather than lobbing missiles into cities nowhere near the front lines in order to inflict damage on civilian areas and cause civilian casualties...which thus far has only hardened Ukrainian resolve.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a good summary of the last six months. I found it informative. Even though I knew all the facts in advance. I think this video does a good job of explaining the big picture and explaining how it all fits together.



At this point I think Russia is doomed. Time is on Ukraine's side. Momentum is growing for NATO countries to start donating advanced weapon systems to Ukraine. The Russian advance has already stalled. Russia has only grabbed one major city (Kherson). Cities is the hardest thing to take, and easiest to defend. Rocket systems are extremely good at hitting things not in a city.

Early in the war Russia overwhelmed Ukraine with more artillery. If Ukraine gets better artillery than Russia then Russia has nothing to counter it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wonder to what extent Crimea is dependent upon Mother Russia for foodstuff and other consumer goods. With only three land routes and assuming transportation priority is given to military needs, Crimean citizen could become quite uneasy with half empty shelves and the fall of Kherson (hopefully this week). In this, Ukrainian forces would not need to retake Crimea. They could block the two northern land routes, turning what is left of the Kerch bridge into a one-way street for Russian rats to flee.

I saw a good video on this from back in the day. I think it was Vice. After they took Crimea, Russia started pumping in money. They bumped up pensions and just gave them stuff. While at the same time the local economy crashed. Crimea is now totally dependent on Russia for everything. Crimea is an excellent example of how socialism can destroy an economy in spite of an endless supply of money. There's just no way local companies can compete with the money that citizens are getting for free from Russia.

Russia is a kleptocracy. It's a complete mess. Crimea is an excellent example. But of course... Ukraine is the same mess. Both were extremely dysfunctional, before the war.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This is interesting:



I guess Putin finally got tired of the war bloggers' constant whining on how the SMO is going.

Someone (Girkin) who normally posts multiple times a day has been silent for the last five.
Well, If Putin needs to switch the propaganda narrative and sell a likely defeat to the public, he's going to need to silence the nationalists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

With regards to Kherson, I heard a bit on the BBC news a short time ago that a Telegram post from Russian soldiers in the area reported heavy fighting, and they also mentioned that Russia's missile attacks on cities were still underway. If I remember my military history class correctly, the majority of force should be focused on primary objectives, while minimal force should be directed to secondary efforts.

I would think that the Russians should be focusing all their efforts on holding the land they have, rather than lobbing missiles into cities nowhere near the front lines in order to inflict damage on civilian areas and cause civilian casualties...which thus far has only hardened Ukrainian resolve.

The hardening is about Putin's pecker, and a man who's 70 with health issues probably needs some hardening help anyway.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is interesting:



I guess Putin finally got tired of the war bloggers' constant whining on how the SMO is going.

Looks like Girkin is in a bit of a pickle.

 

[bilby]

I would think that the Russians should be focusing all their efforts on holding the land they have, rather than lobbing missiles into cities nowhere near the front lines in order to inflict damage on civilian areas and cause civilian casualties...which thus far has only hardened Ukrainian resolve.

I would think that military and national commanders would have worked out by now that attacking civilians always hardens enemy resolve, and is therefore always counterproductive.

But apparently thousands of years of evidence, across hundreds of countries, and hundreds of thousands of conflicts, are insufficient; Every single fucking time, they think that this time targeting civilians will help them to win. And every single fucking time, they're wrong. And every single fucking time, they fail to learn from history.

 

[Elixir]

And every single fucking time, they fail to learn from history.

As we say, Teh stoopid needs to hurt more.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would think that the Russians should be focusing all their efforts on holding the land they have, rather than lobbing missiles into cities nowhere near the front lines in order to inflict damage on civilian areas and cause civilian casualties...which thus far has only hardened Ukrainian resolve.

I would think that military and national commanders would have worked out by now that attacking civilians always hardens enemy resolve, and is therefore always counterproductive.

But apparently thousands of years of evidence, across hundreds of countries, and hundreds of thousands of conflicts, are insufficient; Every single fucking time, they think that this time targeting civilians will help them to win. And every single fucking time, they're wrong. And every single fucking time, they fail to learn from history.

It shows in fact that Putin just doesn't care about human life. He is most likely the person ordering it, because as you note, no military commander ever would.

This is yet another reason why I don't think Putin would hesitate to nuke a city, especially with a tactical nuke, especially when he HAS been taking the time to evacuate the civilians.

He will just call the Russians who die "martyrs".

The west will at most use a conventional means of counterattack, and because Putin will claim it was a "valid target" on "Russian soil" to "stop an invading army" and cite "Russian casualties" as a basis for using more nuclear weapons.

The logic here, twisted as it is, is "is there grounds for nuking Russia for Russia nuking 'Russia'?"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is interesting:



I guess Putin finally got tired of the war bloggers' constant whining on how the SMO is going.

Looks like Girkin is in a bit of a pickle.

They'll eventually learn to have their lips sewn to Putin's ass or get comfortable with imprisonment.

 

[Jayjay]

I think they will be silent for a while then mysteriously reappear with decidedly more positive outlook on the conduct of the war. Maybe focusing more on how Russian soldiers help old grandmas cross the streets in Donetsk, rather than getting blown to pieces in trenches?

 

[Patooka]

Elon Musk: SpaceX can’t fund Ukraine’s vital Starlink internet indefinitely

The billionaire has been in online fights with Ukrainian officials over a peace plan he put forward that Ukraine says is too generous to Russia.

www.smh.com.au

CNN reported on Thursday that SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon last month saying it could not continue to fund the Starlink service in Ukraine and it may have to stop funding it unless the U.S. military gives the company tens of millions of dollars a month.

Pretty certain the Pentagon takes a dim view on war profiteering. When it's coupled with extortion, I suspect their reply will be something indeed.