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

[Elixir]

Pootey isn't going to risk turning the Kremlin into a sheet of glass.

I wish I were so confident.

How do you think WWII would have ended if Hitler had nukes?
Tom

I think that would have depended on whether his opponents also had nukes.
Do you think he'd have gone setting them off willy nilly if he was subject to reciprocal treatment?

Right before he committed suicide? Yes. I'm confident he would have done it.
Tom

I might agree, if Hitler had had a nuclear arsenal capable of ending civilization as we know it. Pootey has that on paper (most of them might not work at all), but I don't believe he has the inclination (he is obviously concerned with his legacy - or what's left of it), nor that his minions would carry out any such instruction knowing that they'd be among the first to be vaporized. In any event, it IS going to come to calling his bluff one way or another.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Pootey isn't going to risk turning the Kremlin into a sheet of glass.

I wish I were so confident.

How do you think WWII would have ended if Hitler had nukes?
Tom

Sure, we’re all worried about nuclear war. I think that China stopped Putin going battlefield Nuke. But what are we suppose to do?

 

[Elixir]

Iran. Really.

Yes, really. There is a lot more to be said about what the world has inherited from Persia (Iran) than from Russia. Comparing the two historically shows Russia as a humongous belligerent fiefdom that has bequeathed to us all their venerable custom of squabbling with their neighbors, and murdering them when they can. Plus some fantastic art.
Iran (Persia) also has contributed a lot of art, and unlike Russia, is the birthplace of much of our science as well. That their technical capability vastly outstrips that of Russia, should be no surprise.

 

[Copernicus]

I wonder if barbos really has much of a "side" left. Only about half of the Russian people seem to buy into the idea that Putin's war has some kind of merit, and even its staunchest proponents don't seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm left for continuing this mess forever. I find it difficult to imagine how the damage can be repaired and the wounds healed after the fighting finally comes to an end. The mess left over from Putin's insane drive to recover parts of the deceased Soviet corpse will take generations to heal. When Putin finally dies, he will have left his country and that of his cruelly brutalized neighbor in shambles.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Pootey isn't going to risk turning the Kremlin into a sheet of glass.

I wish I were so confident.

How do you think WWII would have ended if Hitler had nukes?
Tom

If only Hitler had nukes it would have been ugly. If both sides had nukes he wouldn't have used them as proven by the fact that he didn't use chemical and biological weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wonder if barbos really has much of a "side" left. Only about half of the Russian people seem to buy into the idea that Putin's war has some kind of merit, and even its staunchist proponents don't seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm left for continuing this mess forever. I find it difficult to imagine how the damage can be repaired and the wounds healed after the fighting finally comes to an end. The mess left over from Putin's insane drive to recover parts of the deceased Soviet corpse will take generations to heal. When Putin finally dies, he will have left his country and that of his cruelly brutalized neighbor in shambles.

If Putinstan weren't a police state his invasion would have been short lived. That 50% support would be near zero today.

 

[TomC]

If Putinstan weren't a police state his invasion would have been short lived. That 50% support would be near zero today.

Bush got tons of support for his invasions for a long time.

Once people have bought the lies they tend to keep believing, in my experience. Recognizing that they were duped is a problem.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

If Putinstan weren't a police state his invasion would have been short lived. That 50% support would be near zero today.

Bush got tons of support for his invasions for a long time.

Once people have bought the lies they tend to keep believing, in my experience. Recognizing that they were duped is a problem.
Tom

Agreed. It didn’t take a large majority to rule in a democracy (witness Trump) let alone a dictatorship.

 

[Elixir]

If only Hitler had nukes it would have been ugly. If both sides had nukes he wouldn't have used them as proven by the fact that he didn't use chemical and biological weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

Great point. Of course there's still a lot of apprehension (for me) about what Putler might do, but apprehension is an emotional state, not something we should include in the decision making process. The idea that he'd decline the nuclear option is supported (rather than proven), by Hitler's restraint and the reason for it, and the risk is there... we don't know. I doubt that anyone in the US chain of command has a firm grasp on Putin's motives (health, legacy, vision), so his actions are truly unpredictable. But they probably have a better handle on it than I do!
I'd be concerned about medical doctors telling him he has a terminal illness, and has x months or years to live; no telling how that might alter his mental state.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Russian Hitler has two classes of enemies, those he fears and those he doesn't. Russian Hitler makes a lot of threats against all those enemies but he knows the threats against those he fears are hollow, only delivered as a form of propaganda and attempted coercion. The threat of nuclear attack is just such a threat and I wish those in the west would finally wake up to this fact.

Russian Hitler knows that the use of nukes would be his undoing. Not only would he lose power but he risks losing every military element he has deployed in Ukraine. He just isn't stupid or desperate or irrational enough to do that, and never will be. But he still uses the threat because he sees how much mileage it gets from a lot of people. He knows that the use of nukes would be perceived as an existential threat to western democracies and would bring NATO into his Ukraine invasion. That's the absolute last thing he wants.

But is he going to continue to play the card? Absolutely. Look at all the hand-wringing and trepidation it causes and the propaganda value it has at home. But it will never happen and even he knows that.

 

[TomC]

Russian Hitler knows that the use of nukes would be his undoing. Not only would he lose power but he risks losing every military element he has deployed in Ukraine. He just isn't stupid or desperate or irrational enough to do that, and never will be.

The problem I see with your argument here is the premise that people like Putin, Hitler, and Trump think the way you do.

If everyone did, the human situation would be very different from what it is. But the people who wind up having that kind of power aren't the same as the rest of us.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Pootey isn't going to risk turning the Kremlin into a sheet of glass.

I wish I were so confident.

How do you think WWII would have ended if Hitler had nukes?
Tom

I think that would have depended on whether his opponents also had nukes.
Do you think he'd have gone setting them off willy nilly if he was subject to reciprocal treatment?

Right before he committed suicide? Yes. I'm confident he would have done it.
Tom

So, WWII could have ended with a dead Hitler in a Berlin that had, like many cities across Europe, both Axis and Allied, been utterly destroyed?

How does that differ from the real history?

It would have taken a few planes a few seconds to destroy each city, rather than needing hundreds or thousands of planes over several nights. But I'm not convinced that the results would have been vastly different.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pootey isn't going to risk turning the Kremlin into a sheet of glass.

I wish I were so confident.

How do you think WWII would have ended if Hitler had nukes?
Tom

If only Hitler had nukes it would have been ugly. If both sides had nukes he wouldn't have used them as proven by the fact that he didn't use chemical and biological weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

Except unlike chemical and bio weapons, nukes had yet to be used. After all, the US used them... against an enemy that had effectively lost and we were bartering over the details of surrender. Nukes were Germany's only chance of a draw or winning.

 

[Jayjay]

If only Hitler had nukes it would have been ugly. If both sides had nukes he wouldn't have used them as proven by the fact that he didn't use chemical and biological weapons for fear of retaliation in kind.

Great point. Of course there's still a lot of apprehension (for me) about what Putler might do, but apprehension is an emotional state, not something we should include in the decision making process. The idea that he'd decline the nuclear option is supported (rather than proven), by Hitler's restraint and the reason for it, and the risk is there... we don't know. I doubt that anyone in the US chain of command has a firm grasp on Putin's motives (health, legacy, vision), so his actions are truly unpredictable. But they probably have a better handle on it than I do!
I'd be concerned about medical doctors telling him he has a terminal illness, and has x months or years to live; no telling how that might alter his mental state.

Putin still has children and grandchildren. So do his cohorts. No matter how evil, I don't think he or most people in his regime would be actually ready to burn the world just to spite off USA.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine will never be part of NATO, maybe Western Ukraine when it's occupied by Poland, but Ukraine will never be part of NATO. NATO dissolution is more likely.

I see only a couple solutions possible. Your side returns home. You withdraw from Ukrainian land. Status quo returns. Or two, both sides negotiate. Russia keeps done Ukrainian land. In exchange Ukraine gets some security guarantees. The issue is here is that they won’t trust Russia based on your set off. Russian word is garbage. The only guarantee possible that I can see is one provided by NATO. Tell me another way for peace?

Barbos's delusions about complete occupation and destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state aside, it's not like even Putin wants "peace". He wants a frozen conflict where he can undermine whatever part of Ukraine that remains. And NATO won't accept new members who are actively engaged in wars and territorial disputes because that would be an automatic triggering of chapter 5.

On the other hand, I don't see a formal NATO membership being a deal-breaker even for Ukraine. Security guarantees are primarily about maintaining the ability to defend itself, and that means continuing to move towards NATO standards, joint military exercises, and ensuring that if another war breaks out, they can receive assistance from the west. Chapter 5 would be icing on the cake, but I can imagine a world where Ukraine would be willing to use NATO membership as a bargaining chip if it can get something in exchange from Russia.

 

[Patooka]

My side is not losing, your side is

NATO dissolution is more likely.

Whenever I see barbos-isms like these I have a mental image of him at Little Bighorn saying to Custer, "Yes General, the battle is going really well, sir!"

 

[Ford]

Ukraine will never be part of NATO, maybe Western Ukraine when it's occupied by Poland, but Ukraine will never be part of NATO. NATO dissolution is more likely.

I see only a couple solutions possible. Your side returns home. You withdraw from Ukrainian land. Status quo returns. Or two, both sides negotiate. Russia keeps done Ukrainian land. In exchange Ukraine gets some security guarantees. The issue is here is that they won’t trust Russia based on your set off. Russian word is garbage. The only guarantee possible that I can see is one provided by NATO. Tell me another way for peace?

Barbos's delusions about complete occupation and destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state aside, it's not like even Putin wants "peace". He wants a frozen conflict where he can undermine whatever part of Ukraine that remains. And NATO won't accept new members who are actively engaged in wars and territorial disputes because that would be an automatic triggering of chapter 5.

On the other hand, I don't see a formal NATO membership being a deal-breaker even for Ukraine. Security guarantees are primarily about maintaining the ability to defend itself, and that means continuing to move towards NATO standards, joint military exercises, and ensuring that if another war breaks out, they can receive assistance from the west. Chapter 5 would be icing on the cake, but I can imagine a world where Ukraine would be willing to use NATO membership as a bargaining chip if it can get something in exchange from Russia.

Delusions is a kind way of putting it.

Our resident Putin fanboy doesn't seem to grasp the fact that - no matter what the "end game" in Ukraine, even if it were Crimea and Donbass as "independent republics" - Vladimir's dreams of a "Greater Russia" are as dead as the ~100k soldiers he's planted in Ukraine so far. Right up until February of the soon-departed 2022, Russia was seen as still a near-peer to at least a few Western nations or at best a force to be reckoned with.

This war...sorry, "special military operation"...has exposed Russia as what Putin's former pal George W. Bush might describe as "all hat, no cattle." This was a strategic failure of epic proportions. Even if they manage to pull of a stalemate or a negotiated peace, Russia is done as a "world power."

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine will never be part of NATO, maybe Western Ukraine when it's occupied by Poland, but Ukraine will never be part of NATO. NATO dissolution is more likely.

I see only a couple solutions possible. Your side returns home. You withdraw from Ukrainian land. Status quo returns. Or two, both sides negotiate. Russia keeps done Ukrainian land. In exchange Ukraine gets some security guarantees. The issue is here is that they won’t trust Russia based on your set off. Russian word is garbage. The only guarantee possible that I can see is one provided by NATO. Tell me another way for peace?

Barbos's delusions about complete occupation and destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state aside, it's not like even Putin wants "peace". He wants a frozen conflict where he can undermine whatever part of Ukraine that remains. And NATO won't accept new members who are actively engaged in wars and territorial disputes because that would be an automatic triggering of chapter 5.

On the other hand, I don't see a formal NATO membership being a deal-breaker even for Ukraine. Security guarantees are primarily about maintaining the ability to defend itself, and that means continuing to move towards NATO standards, joint military exercises, and ensuring that if another war breaks out, they can receive assistance from the west. Chapter 5 would be icing on the cake, but I can imagine a world where Ukraine would be willing to use NATO membership as a bargaining chip if it can get something in exchange from Russia.

Meant to say "article 5".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One thing Putin has accomplished is that Ukranians will hate and despise Russia for many decades with a white hot fury. I forsee a long term de-Russiafication taking place in Ukraine. The realization that they cannot tolerate culturally Russian citizens that Russia can use as an excuse to annex or subjugate Ukraine. The desire to exit the Russian sphere of influence will be very strong in Ukraine.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ukraine will never be part of NATO, maybe Western Ukraine when it's occupied by Poland, but Ukraine will never be part of NATO. NATO dissolution is more likely.

I see only a couple solutions possible. Your side returns home. You withdraw from Ukrainian land. Status quo returns. Or two, both sides negotiate. Russia keeps done Ukrainian land. In exchange Ukraine gets some security guarantees. The issue is here is that they won’t trust Russia based on your set off. Russian word is garbage. The only guarantee possible that I can see is one provided by NATO. Tell me another way for peace?

Barbos's delusions about complete occupation and destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign state aside, it's not like even Putin wants "peace". He wants a frozen conflict where he can undermine whatever part of Ukraine that remains. And NATO won't accept new members who are actively engaged in wars and territorial disputes because that would be an automatic triggering of chapter 5.

On the other hand, I don't see a formal NATO membership being a deal-breaker even for Ukraine. Security guarantees are primarily about maintaining the ability to defend itself, and that means continuing to move towards NATO standards, joint military exercises, and ensuring that if another war breaks out, they can receive assistance from the west. Chapter 5 would be icing on the cake, but I can imagine a world where Ukraine would be willing to use NATO membership as a bargaining chip if it can get something in exchange from Russia.

Delusions is a kind way of putting it.

Our resident Putin fanboy doesn't seem to grasp the fact that - no matter what the "end game" in Ukraine, even if it were Crimea and Donbass as "independent republics" - Vladimir's dreams of a "Greater Russia" are as dead as the ~100k soldiers he's planted in Ukraine so far. Right up until February of the soon-departed 2022, Russia was seen as still a near-peer to at least a few Western nations or at best a force to be reckoned with.

This war...sorry, "special military operation"...has exposed Russia as what Putin's former pal George W. Bush might describe as "all hat, no cattle." This was a strategic failure of epic proportions. Even if they manage to pull of a stalemate or a negotiated peace, Russia is done as a "world power."

You are so correct. The greater Russia dreams are over. I’ve read that what Russia really wants are border countries that bow to the will of Russia. Very early in this thread, Barbos listed as an excuse to invade was Ukraine “stealing” rents from Russian pipelines to Europe. Well yea, you want to use someone’s land, you need to fucking pay for it! IMO the final reason for Putler to invade was that he wanted to steal their water for Crimea! There’s no doubt in my mind that Putler wanted to invade the Baltic’s, Poland and anywhere else that defies the Russian will. But the border countries have caught on! They are all United together to oppose Russia. Their defense spending is way up. They arnt buying Russian shitty products. They are all shifting westward. Thank you Putler!