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

[Copernicus]

We tend to think of this war as confined to Ukraine, but it is really a war between Russia and Europe--a war whose violent side has not spread beyond the borders of Ukraine yet. And one could, of course, include the entire Western alliance, because Europe is a vital part of that. The main weapons used on the nonviolent fronts are primarily economic and diplomatic. The sabotage of the Russian pipeline in the Baltic was part of Russia's economic front, as it seeks to cut off the delivery of essential LNG supplies. The defensive reaction has been to ship LNG into Europe, which is not prepared for that form of delivery. Here is an article from the front lines of that economic war:

Dozens of LNG-laden ships queue off Europe's coasts unable to unload​

It's not so much about this war, than a longer term plan of Putin to make Europe reliant on Russian energy. Before the war, Germany got 55% of its natural gas from Russia. Sure, they could have diversified, but who's going to invest billions of euros to build LNG terminals, which might never recoup the investment?
...

Right, but that is in line with my point that the war is really wider in scope than just Ukraine. It is a struggle between Europe and Russia over the central European territories that used to be either part of the western frontier of the Russian empire. The idea that Ukraine is part of the Russian heartland is deeply ingrained in the minds of many Russian nationalists, but reclaiming it isn't solely what this war is about. Russia also wants eastern and central Europe back. Putin's early career was in defending Russia's western imperial border in East Germany, and he wants to get as much of that back as possible. This struggle had its roots well before WWI, when Russia was a major rival to expanding German and Austrian imperial powers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Apparently the Russian military causing damage on civilian buildings, even if accidental, is only a crime if it is domestic.

The Russian pilots who ejected from a military plane moments before it crashed into an apartment building and killed 13 people could face charges, Russia says

The pilots could face a punishment of "deprivation of liberty" for up to seven years, according to Russia's criminal code.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Jayjay]

So they force mobilize civilian pilots, stick them in a fighter jet that they (probably) have never flown before, that has a faulty fuel tank due to negligence, and the pilot is being punished?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

 

[Copernicus]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

But you need to balance that against the fact that Ukraine and Europe face months of winter now with a much reduced supply of fuel to get through the winter. Time is on Russia's side in the short term. That is what Putin is counting on.

 

[Jayjay]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

Three years is plenty of time for the west to give up on Ukraine.

And the complacency that the war is going to jut run its course on some predetermined track is ridiculous. What's going to happen politically when republicans take the house and maybe the senate, and Trump starts campaigning on a pro-Russian platform? What happens in China makes moves on Taiwan, like Blinken recently warned it might? What happens if covert mobilization in Belarus proceeds to the point that there will be another front in the north? How effective are the Iranian ballistic missiles and is there any way to counter them?

Only way this will end amicably is a coup or a complete implosion in Russia, and there are no signs of either.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Working hardship on civilian populations rarely wins wars. No in Russia, Leningrad, Stalingrad. Not in Germany, massive USAF and RAF bombing raids. Not the blitz or V-1s or V-2s. Long term, rank terrorism of civilian populations does not work.

 

[Patooka]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

Three years is plenty of time for the west to give up on Ukraine.

And the complacency that the war is going to jut run its course on some predetermined track is ridiculous. What's going to happen politically when republicans take the house and maybe the senate, and Trump starts campaigning on a pro-Russian platform? What happens in China makes moves on Taiwan, like Blinken recently warned it might? What happens if covert mobilization in Belarus proceeds to the point that there will be another front in the north? How effective are the Iranian ballistic missiles and is there any way to counter them?

Only way this will end amicably is a coup or a complete implosion in Russia, and there are no signs of either.

I'm still convinced US military aid is solely dependant on MIC making bank on the situation, so all those what ifs are irrelevant. The senators that are owned by them will ensure that metaphorical pipeline will keep on going. If/when there is another Republican Administration, that will most likely translate into US active duty units getting new toys, reservists getting the hand me downs, the reservists' kit being sold to NATO nations and those nations giving Ukraine NATO's hand me down. Convoluted as that may seem, I suspect logistically, it's still more reliable than Russia's long term supply capacity.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

Three years is plenty of time for the west to give up on Ukraine.

And the complacency that the war is going to jut run its course on some predetermined track is ridiculous. What's going to happen politically when republicans take the house and maybe the senate, and Trump starts campaigning on a pro-Russian platform? What happens in China makes moves on Taiwan, like Blinken recently warned it might? What happens if covert mobilization in Belarus proceeds to the point that there will be another front in the north? How effective are the Iranian ballistic missiles and is there any way to counter them?

Only way this will end amicably is a coup or a complete implosion in Russia, and there are no signs of either.

Depends on politics. When Chinese Communists managed to win that civil war, the GOP screeched "Who lost China! Who lost China!", and sent the US. on a hard right trajectory that gave us Vietnam. If GOP isolationist politics cuts back support for Ukraine and forces Ukraine to a bad negotiation at gun point, "Who lost Ukraine!" may be a political problem. GOP, soft on terrorism! Trump gave up in Afghanistan, the Midle East and now Europe! No telling how this is going to play long term, politically.

 

[Jayjay]

Working hardship on civilian populations rarely wins wars. No in Russia, Leningrad, Stalingrad. Not in Germany, massive USAF and RAF bombing raids. Not the blitz or V-1s or V-2s. Long term, rank terrorism of civilian populations does not work.

One of those three did lose eventually.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Working hardship on civilian populations rarely wins wars. No in Russia, Leningrad, Stalingrad. Not in Germany, massive USAF and RAF bombing raids. Not the blitz or V-1s or V-2s. Long term, rank terrorism of civilian populations does not work.

One of those three did lose eventually.

Germany had to be defeated by troops on the ground, defeating Germany inch by inch.
Bombing helped by destroying German industry and logistical networks. It took Russia artillery shells falling around Hitler's bunker to finally induce Hitler to commit suicide. Japan held out even as major cities were burnt to the ground. It took Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end it.

 

[Copernicus]

Time is not on Russia's side. Their economy, already weak will be crippled by sanctions. Their military cannot even now supply their troops in Russia with new weapons. Being cut off from modern digital technology will cripple any attempts to create large amounts of modern military equiptment. Estimates are that in three years, their supply of tanks that can repaired and used in battle will be gone. The window of opportunity to bring Ukraine to the negotiation table is closing.

Three years is plenty of time for the west to give up on Ukraine.

And the complacency that the war is going to jut run its course on some predetermined track is ridiculous. What's going to happen politically when republicans take the house and maybe the senate, and Trump starts campaigning on a pro-Russian platform? What happens in China makes moves on Taiwan, like Blinken recently warned it might? What happens if covert mobilization in Belarus proceeds to the point that there will be another front in the north? How effective are the Iranian ballistic missiles and is there any way to counter them?

Only way this will end amicably is a coup or a complete implosion in Russia, and there are no signs of either.

I think that your assessment of US politics is a little off. Even if Republicans take both houses of Congress, the pro-Ukraine sentiment is still strong here. After all, we aren't going to suffer through the winter without fuel, just fuel at higher prices. Trump is unlikely to be banging the pro-Russia drum, as he's got much bigger problems to deal with. In fact, the view here is that he probably won't run for office again, although those who step in to replace the Trump-sized hole in the Republican Party could be worse. Their attitude towards Russia will likely depend on public attitudes, which may be tired of the war but unwilling to simply concede victory to Putin. Besides, our defense industry is booming with the infusion of cash to pay for arms supplies to another foreign war, and one in which US lives are not much at stake. Pulling money away from those industries can be very unpopular with politicians whose constituents depend on those jobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.

We let Afghanistan collapse. Iraq ain't doing so great either. We left the Kurds who helped fight ISIS at the mercy of Turkey.

The west doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, but maybe this time is different.

Ukrainians are white. I think that is the difference

I think it's more that places like Afghanistan it's hard to identify a good guy. Every power group is a problem, it's just some are worse than others. Ukraine vs Russia has a clear good guy, a side we do not expect to cause trouble if they have leftover weapons after victory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So they force mobilize civilian pilots, stick them in a fighter jet that they (probably) have never flown before, that has a faulty fuel tank due to negligence, and the pilot is being punished?

Well, they failed to do what a Russian pilot did in a similar situation many years ago--deliberately crashed his plane into the runway and punched out. (Rotate too slow, convert your speed to altitude and then eject once you run out of control. It kept the wreckage on the runway instead of in the apartments beyond the runway.) On the other hand, had they done that they probably would have been blamed for the loss of the aircraft.

 

[steve_bank]

With the drone attacks order all Russian nationals out of NATO construes and close all Russian embassies. Do not allow any Ruussian across any border for any reason.

NATO to guard Ukrainian wheat transports.

We ttry and avoid escalating and Russia escalates to drone swarms. Something out of a scifi nightmare.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.

We let Afghanistan collapse. Iraq ain't doing so great either. We left the Kurds who helped fight ISIS at the mercy of Turkey.

The west doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, but maybe this time is different.

Ukrainians are white. I think that is the difference

I think it's more that places like Afghanistan it's hard to identify a good guy. Every power group is a problem, it's just some are worse than others. Ukraine vs Russia has a clear good guy, a side we do not expect to cause trouble if they have leftover weapons after victory.

It's the same in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are both run by oligarchs, ie the maffia. Both are dysfunctional kleptocracies. Zelensky isn't a good guy. Western media has done their best to spin him into one. But it was always a lie. We're not helping Ukraine for the sake of the Ukrainians. But for the sake of world peace

The main problem with Afghanistan is that people there are extremely Muslim as well as patriotic. If you're not Muslim you are an enemy. Whatever else you do is secondary. It makes it very hard for the west to help them.

 

[Hermit]

Kind of a tangent, but interesting video showing how borders changed over time. Noticed there was a small Ukraine around 1610, but got taken over, only to appear again in 1904, swallowed again, appearing once more in 1990

One of the less useful videos I have encountered. You won't get anything out of it unless you are unaware that borders change frequently, the Ukrainian Cossack rebellion that caused its split from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth happened, well, maybe some time in the 17th century, WWI started in 1891, WWII ended in 1959 and many other little-known facts.

The version it may have been copied from (Moonies channel on Vimeo), sped up by a factor of 2.34, and its resolution reduced, is no better.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is that the west is not going to let Ukraine collapse, mostly because it does not serve to let a bully be a bully.

We let Afghanistan collapse. Iraq ain't doing so great either. We left the Kurds who helped fight ISIS at the mercy of Turkey.

The west doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, but maybe this time is different.

Ukrainians are white. I think that is the difference

I think it's more that places like Afghanistan it's hard to identify a good guy. Every power group is a problem, it's just some are worse than others. Ukraine vs Russia has a clear good guy, a side we do not expect to cause trouble if they have leftover weapons after victory.

It's the same in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are both run by oligarchs, ie the maffia. Both are dysfunctional kleptocracies. Zelensky isn't a good guy. Western media has done their best to spin him into one. But it was always a lie. We're not helping Ukraine for the sake of the Ukrainians. But for the sake of world peace

The main problem with Afghanistan is that people there are extremely Muslim as well as patriotic. If you're not Muslim you are an enemy. Whatever else you do is secondary. It makes it very hard for the west to help them.

How many yachts and gargantuan palaces does Zelensky own? Asking for my cat.

 

[bilby]

Working hardship on civilian populations rarely wins wars. No in Russia, Leningrad, Stalingrad. Not in Germany, massive USAF and RAF bombing raids. Not the blitz or V-1s or V-2s. Long term, rank terrorism of civilian populations does not work.

Worse, it's counterproductive. It boosts recruitment, makes the armed forces fight harder, and the civilians and their governments less likely to even consider a negotiated settlement.

 

[bilby]

Working hardship on civilian populations rarely wins wars. No in Russia, Leningrad, Stalingrad. Not in Germany, massive USAF and RAF bombing raids. Not the blitz or V-1s or V-2s. Long term, rank terrorism of civilian populations does not work.

One of those three did lose eventually.

Despite, not because of, the attacks on civilians.

The German military kept fighting up to, and even briefly after, the death of Hitler. Their surrender only occurred after a large part of their country was occupied, and it had become untenable to supply the few fighting forces still left.

A population that hadn't been directly attacked for years would almost certainly have surrendered sooner.