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

[bilby]

Yes, Putler is to blame for the invasion. But you tell me how this war will end? I don't think it will until the Russians rise up and dethrone Putler.

I agree.

History shows us that making civilians suffer in wartime is an excellent way to shore up their support for even the most vile of leadership.

Making Russian civilians suffer will not only not help to reach your objective of ousting Putin; It will actively make it far more difficult to achieve.

 

[bilby]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Ukraine would seem to support your position. I suppose that is true in a free, democratic society, something not run by a dictator who terrorizes the population and controls their access to information. Russia is definitely not a free society and Ruski Hitler is not waging a justified war.

 

[Elixir]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

I suspect there is a middle ground. Making the large part of the civilian population suffer is counterproductive as Bilby points out (and as Putler is probably starting to learn) unless you can totally "Aleppolize" the Country. But I think that if Ukraine started taking out military targets on Russian soil, and "just happened" to hit some nearby civilian infrastructure, that could become tiresome and annoying to the public, whereas a full-on attack would almost certainly be a unifying influence.

 

[Jayjay]

In Russia, the only public opinion that matters (even a little bit) is that of the middle classes in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They're well-protected from any attacks and other consequences of the war, and strikes anywhere else would be pretty much irrelevant.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't know how secure Moscow is.

Mathias Rust: German teenager who flew to Red Square

In 1987 a West German teenager penetrated Soviet air defences to land a Cessna aeroplane in Red Square. Twenty-five years later, he has no regrets.

www.bbc.com

In 1987 a West German teenager shocked the world, by flying through Soviet air defences to land a Cessna aeroplane in Red Square. He was jailed for more than a year - but a quarter of a century later, he has no regrets.
Exactly 25 years ago, the USSR Foreign Ministry announced that it had rejected an appeal by a German teenager against his prison sentence.
Mathias Rust, just 19, had single-handedly flown more than 500 miles (750km) through every Soviet defensive shield in a single-engine plane to land at the gates of the Kremlin.
The idea had come to him a year earlier while he was watching TV at his parents' home where he lived in Hamburg, West Germany.
A summit between the US and Soviet presidents in Reykjavik had ended in a stalemate, and the teenager who had a passion for politics felt he wanted to do something to make a difference.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In Russia, the only public opinion that matters (even a little bit) is that of the middle classes in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They're well-protected from any attacks and other consequences of the war, and strikes anywhere else would be pretty much irrelevant.

Fine, keep the civilians out of it. Ukraine's strategy of attacking only military targets is the best it can do. I support it attacking any military targets that are involved in the attack on its sovereignty no matter how far from the "front lines." That makes sense and is justifiable.

 

[Elixir]

In Russia, the only public opinion that matters (even a little bit) is that of the middle classes in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They're well-protected from any attacks and other consequences of the war, and strikes anywhere else would be pretty much irrelevant.

Fine, keep the civilians out of it. Ukraine's strategy of attacking only military targets is the best it can do. I support it attacking any military targets that are involved in the attack on its sovereignty no matter how far from the "front lines." That makes sense and is justifiable.

I agree. And if one of them is near Moscow or any other city... so be it.

 

[Copernicus]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

Not only do I agree with bilby on this, but he and others seem to be missing another argument against Ukraine targeting civilian targets inside Russia. Ukraine's ability to resist and even win battles depends largely on Western support for the effort. Even now, large numbers of people in the West would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine than continue supporting this very expensive never-ending war. If Ukraine suddenly started bombarding civilian targets in Russia, that opposition would grow and likely reduce the amount of weapons and financial support going into the Ukrainian war effort. Under that scenario, Russia would have a better chance of coming out victorious, given its advantage in numbers and weaponry.

 

[Patooka]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

Not only do I agree with bilby on this, but he and others seem to be missing another argument against Ukraine targeting civilian targets inside Russia. Ukraine's ability to resist and even win battles depends largely on Western support for the effort. Even now, large numbers of people in the West would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine than continue supporting this very expensive never-ending war. If Ukraine suddenly started bombarding civilian targets in Russia, that opposition would grow and likely reduce the amount of weapons and financial support going into the Ukrainian war effort. Under that scenario, Russia would have a better chance of coming out victorious, given its advantage in numbers and weaponry.

This is all assuming the hypothetical misery Russians endure comes from Ukraine. If the misery comes from the sanctions caused by Putin's actions the reaction would be very different. I don't doubt Ukraine is threading a very fine needle with these attacks. But if they keep doing what they are doing whilst missing civilian targets it will force Russia to divert resources from Ukraine back into Russia. From a logistical viewpoint at least.

I'm also typing this in shorts and a t-shirt with a nice warm cup of coffee and the fan going in my room. I'm not entirely sure I am in a position to be critical of Ukrainians at the moment.

 

[Copernicus]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

Not only do I agree with bilby on this, but he and others seem to be missing another argument against Ukraine targeting civilian targets inside Russia. Ukraine's ability to resist and even win battles depends largely on Western support for the effort. Even now, large numbers of people in the West would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine than continue supporting this very expensive never-ending war. If Ukraine suddenly started bombarding civilian targets in Russia, that opposition would grow and likely reduce the amount of weapons and financial support going into the Ukrainian war effort. Under that scenario, Russia would have a better chance of coming out victorious, given its advantage in numbers and weaponry.

This is all assuming the hypothetical misery Russians endure comes from Ukraine. If the misery comes from the sanctions caused by Putin's actions the reaction would be very different. I don't doubt Ukraine is threading a very fine needle with these attacks. But if they keep doing what they are doing whilst missing civilian targets it will force Russia to divert resources from Ukraine back into Russia. From a logistical viewpoint at least.

I'm also typing this in shorts and a t-shirt with a nice warm cup of coffee and the fan going in my room. I'm not entirely sure I am in a position to be critical of Ukrainians at the moment.

Right now, Republicans in the House are looking for ways to weaken support for Ukraine by calling for more "oversight" on support for Ukraine. Oversight already exists, and there is no evidence that any US-supplied support is being stolen or misspent by Ukrainians at this point. So additional oversight seems only motivated by politics, but the politics gets amplified by the Republican voting base.

It's fair to say that there is a certain amount of "Ukraine fatigue" right now. It isn't the hot news trend in social media anymore. Needless to say, the Russian troll farms would love to take advantage of that, and news items about Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, complete with graphic footage of the type we now see coming out of Ukraine--but from inside Russia instead--could quickly become the hottest news trend. At that point, a lot of Americans would just throw up their hands and ask why American tax dollars are going to fund those atrocities. Let them fight it out amongst themselves without our involvement. This would be a public relations disaster in the West for Ukraine. Ultimately, there can be no military solution to this war. There would have to be a cessation of violence and lengthy diplomatic wrangling to come up with something that could stabilize the situation, even if Putin were no longer a part of the picture.

 

[bilby]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Ukraine would seem to support your position. I suppose that is true in a free, democratic society, something not run by a dictator who terrorizes the population and controls their access to information. Russia is definitely not a free society and Ruski Hitler is not waging a justified war.

Why do you imagine it wouldn't also be true in an unfree, undemocratic society?

The bombing of civilians in WWII stiffened the resolve of the Germans, perhaps more that it did the English. Even those Germans who thought Hitler ought to be overthrown were less inclined to do so if it meant surrendering to the people who had been dropping bombs on their homes.

People are very good at rallying against external threats to their lives; And will do so even at the cost of worsening internal threats to their lives.

 

[bilby]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

I suspect there is a middle ground. Making the large part of the civilian population suffer is counterproductive as Bilby points out (and as Putler is probably starting to learn) unless you can totally "Aleppolize" the Country. But I think that if Ukraine started taking out military targets on Russian soil, and "just happened" to hit some nearby civilian infrastructure, that could become tiresome and annoying to the public, whereas a full-on attack would almost certainly be a unifying influence.

Like 9/11 was tiresome and annoying to the US public, rather than unifying them.

After all, it was only a handful of planes, targeting a tiny number of buildings, at least one of which (the Pentagon) was clearly a legitimate military target.

Your expectation that "they" will respond differently to "us" is completely unfounded, and unjustified.

 

[Patooka]

It's fair to say that there is a certain amount of "Ukraine fatigue" right now. It isn't the hot news trend in social media anymore.

There was Ukraine fatigue back in June. Most people don't give a fuck about foreign policy or long term consequences. I seriously doubt the average American knows roughly how much military aid is given to African nations for example, or the average Australian knowing how much aid is given to Pacific nations.

Needless to say, the Russian troll farms would love to take advantage of that, and news items about Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, complete with graphic footage of the type we now see coming out of Ukraine--but from inside Russia instead--could quickly become the hottest news trend.

I don't see Russian trolls being taken seriously. And by that I mean the only people who would unconditionally believe them made their mind up back in February because Tucker told them how lean on this. They are utterly redundant at this point.

At that point, a lot of Americans would just throw up their hands and ask why American tax dollars are going to fund those atrocities. Let them fight it out amongst themselves without our involvement. This would be a public relations disaster in the West for Ukraine.

So long as US soldiers aren't at risk, I don't believe the criticism will be as meaningful as you'd think. Q-tards will latch on, but I suspect people are tired of their bullshit as well. It won't elevate any higher than a partisan talking point. I do agree with you about it being a PR shitshow for Ukraine though.

Ultimately, there can be no military solution to this war. There would have to be a cessation of violence and lengthy diplomatic wrangling to come up with something that could stabilize the situation, even if Putin were no longer a part of the picture.

Absolutely. Anyone can start a war. It takes everybody to stop one. I'd also repeat in this case it would also require assurances this doesn't resume in 5 years time.

 

[Copernicus]

It's fair to say that there is a certain amount of "Ukraine fatigue" right now. It isn't the hot news trend in social media anymore.

There was Ukraine fatigue back in June. Most people don't give a fuck about foreign policy or long term consequences. I seriously doubt the average American knows roughly how much military aid is given to African nations for example, or the average Australian knowing how much aid is given to Pacific nations.

Needless to say, the Russian troll farms would love to take advantage of that, and news items about Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, complete with graphic footage of the type we now see coming out of Ukraine--but from inside Russia instead--could quickly become the hottest news trend.

I don't see Russian trolls being taken seriously. And by that I mean the only people who would unconditionally believe them made their mind up back in February because Tucker told them how lean on this. They are utterly redundant at this point.

At that point, a lot of Americans would just throw up their hands and ask why American tax dollars are going to fund those atrocities. Let them fight it out amongst themselves without our involvement. This would be a public relations disaster in the West for Ukraine.

So long as US soldiers aren't at risk, I don't believe the criticism will be as meaningful as you'd think. Q-tards will latch on, but I suspect people are tired of their bullshit as well. It won't elevate any higher than a partisan talking point. I do agree with you about it being a PR shitshow for Ukraine though.

Ultimately, there can be no military solution to this war. There would have to be a cessation of violence and lengthy diplomatic wrangling to come up with something that could stabilize the situation, even if Putin were no longer a part of the picture.

Absolutely. Anyone can start a war. It takes everybody to stop one. I'd also repeat in this case it would also require assurances this doesn't resume in 5 years time.

I see the Republican Party as being split by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but they largely lean pro-Russia in the public debate over the war right now. So they can get away with whistleblowing strategies like "we need more oversight" rather than just "let's abandon the Ukrainians". If we saw Russian babies, children, and pregnant women being injured and killed with American support and weaponry (which the Russians would be sure to promote), I think that public opinion in the US would shift away from pro-Ukraine towards greater neutrality. It would also likely have some impact in energy-starved Europe, which sees their own sacrifices as the price of supporting a pro-EU country under attack. I think that most of this talk about punishing Russia with strikes on their territory comes out of frustration with the pace of the war--the Ukraine fatigue egging people on to come up with ideas that just get it over with quickly. That is never going to happen. Strikes on Russian territory won't force Putin out of the war. They would likely strengthen his ability to recruit more soldiers to fight in it and cause more confusion and hesitation in Western allies.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Ukraine would seem to support your position. I suppose that is true in a free, democratic society, something not run by a dictator who terrorizes the population and controls their access to information. Russia is definitely not a free society and Ruski Hitler is not waging a justified war.

Why do you imagine it wouldn't also be true in an unfree, undemocratic society?

The bombing of civilians in WWII stiffened the resolve of the Germans, perhaps more that it did the English. Even those Germans who thought Hitler ought to be overthrown were less inclined to do so if it meant surrendering to the people who had been dropping bombs on their homes.

People are very good at rallying against external threats to their lives; And will do so even at the cost of worsening internal threats to their lives.

Are you saying Germany under Hitler was a free society?

 

[Elixir]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

I suspect there is a middle ground. Making the large part of the civilian population suffer is counterproductive as Bilby points out (and as Putler is probably starting to learn) unless you can totally "Aleppolize" the Country. But I think that if Ukraine started taking out military targets on Russian soil, and "just happened" to hit some nearby civilian infrastructure, that could become tiresome and annoying to the public, whereas a full-on attack would almost certainly be a unifying influence.

Like 9/11 was tiresome and annoying to the US public, rather than unifying them.

After all, it was only a handful of planes, targeting a tiny number of buildings, at least one of which (the Pentagon) was clearly a legitimate military target.

Right. Conditions were quite different at the time, though. We were not invading anyone much at the time and claiming their territory Hell - the perps didn’t even have a country.

Your expectation that "they" will respond differently to "us" is completely unfounded, and unjustified.

Any capability attained by Ukraine will be attributed to “us” by Russia, so “we“ have to keep our noses clean to some degree.
I am not advocating for targeting civilians!
But attacks on Russian assets that are targeting Ukraine, would be justifiable IMO, even if there’s a risk of “collateral damage“.
Not like blindsiding the Kremlin by crashing 747s into it….

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wonder, however, if it would be okay for Ukraine to target infrastructure along the border with Russia. This infrastructure, whether civilian or not, is assisting the fascists in their invasion. I would continue to target anything military throughout Russia but would feel that I am justified to respond in kind to Russian Hitler's attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Russian Hitler also targets civilians but I do not want Ukraine to target civilians. I do not want to see Ukraine launching barrages of missiles and drones at cities within Russia that kill civilians. But there is a part of me that believes, even in a police state like Putinstan, that making the civilian population unhappy and uncomfortable can have a positive effect on the outcome of the war. It just seems strange to me that we are allowing Russian Hitler to massively destroy infrastructure in Ukraine without there being any response.

 

[steve_bank]

Bridges are infrastructure.

Destroying electrical power, roads, bridges, and communications behind the Russian lines into the Russian border area makes sense.

Intentionally attacking civilians makes no strategic or tactical sense.

 

[bilby]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Ukraine would seem to support your position. I suppose that is true in a free, democratic society, something not run by a dictator who terrorizes the population and controls their access to information. Russia is definitely not a free society and Ruski Hitler is not waging a justified war.

Why do you imagine it wouldn't also be true in an unfree, undemocratic society?

The bombing of civilians in WWII stiffened the resolve of the Germans, perhaps more that it did the English. Even those Germans who thought Hitler ought to be overthrown were less inclined to do so if it meant surrendering to the people who had been dropping bombs on their homes.

People are very good at rallying against external threats to their lives; And will do so even at the cost of worsening internal threats to their lives.

Are you saying Germany under Hitler was a free society?

I thought that I was very obviously saying the exact opposite, and now I am also wondering whether one of us is suffering from some kind of cognitive impairment.