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

[SLD]

So tell me again how Russia is winning?

Mauling of Russian forces in Donetsk hotspot may signal problems to come

The scenes are chaotic: Russian tanks veering wildly before exploding or driving straight into minefields, men running in every direction, some on fire, the bodies of soldiers caught in tank tracks.

www.cnn.com

They’ve supposedly started their vaunted offensive, only to get their asses kicked? They can’t sustain any serious offensive. They blindly launch a tank offensive only to lose twenty armored vehicles in short order and are forced to retreat - what’s left of them. Their special forces colonel is dead. Not very special when you’re dead.

Supposedly they are winning around Bakhmut. This is about 100 kilometers away From that fighting, but they are sustaining much higher casualties in this part of the war than ever before - on the order of 824 a day, 4 times their previous rate of casualties. At that rate they will be decimated in about a month, and in about six months will cease to be an effective fighting force. Simply put, they can’t keep up this level of fighting for long. Their offensive has already effectively failed. To the extent that they have made some further advances near Bakhmut it is irrelevant and not even a sign of imminent collapse around that region. It will takes many weeks of fighting to take that city - if not months, and Russia cannot sustain such operations and casualties at that rate. Note that Russian mibloggers are highly critical of their failure, so it’s not just western reporting.

The only thing standing in the way of Ukrainian victory in this war is the reluctance of Western Allies to give them the necessary tools. Far, far more artillery and the shells to supply them are needed. More than 330 tanks too. That’s a good combat team. But it’s not enough to sustain serious offensives along a broad front.

 

[SLD]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

 

[steve_bank]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

Not really.

If the western allies are not going to go all in ten maybe it od have been better for Ukraine if tere was no assistance.

The west prevailed in South Korea, did not in Vietnam. The VN War was fought politically. Ships at anchor in Haiphong Harbor loaded with arms could not be attacked. At least publicly hot pursuit into Cambodia was forbidden.

During the original Ukraine-Europe economic negotiations that set Putin on his path to war Ukrraine was told it would be allowed into NATO. Never happened.

Ukraine abandoning the Russian Federation for trade with Europe was a trigger point for Putin. A NATO-European aligned Ukraine threatened the Russian naval base in Cririea and in his mind the Russian border in general.

What a tangled web we weave.

Analogous to VN, as long as the Russian chap suicide drone supply line is intact Ukraine can never recover. Arms from NK and Iran and who knows where else.


Biden is the tadinal old anti communist politician from the past era proclaiming degeneracy for all, and he is what we need to couer Russia. But it s the same old half step foign policy.

GWB led us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with tragic consequences for us and those other people. Same with eliminating Gadafi, the result is widespread misery and conflict in Libya.

The first war in the guf to expell Iraq from Kuwait was the ;Poweel Doctine'. Both Powell and Schwarzkopf were in VN and exerinced the dysfuctional miltray policy.

The Powell Doctrine was when you commit to an engagement you do so with sufficient force to win and most importunity with a clear definition of success.

Bush senior decided to not topple Hussein because the results would be unpredictable. Schwarzkopf was angry when Bush stopped the war short of destroying the Iraq army.

Ukraine is turning out to be deja vu all over again.








For American politicians Ukraine is like a college football game.

 

[bilby]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

Chamberlain had massive support in parliament and in the country at large, for his attempts to avoid war at almost any cost. The spectre of German bombs raining down on London, as they had just twenty years earlier, was just too awful; Everyone knew that advances in aviation technology since the Zeppelin raids of the Great War meant that the destruction would be truly horrific, and anyone who had any doubts could look to Guernica as a clear example of the truth.

The doctrine was that air defence was effectively impossible, "The bombers will always get through". It wasn't wrong, either.

But the fear - real, genuine, justified, and even in hindsight accurate (perhaps even understated) wasn't actually relevant. The question wasn't whether or not to engage in an horrific war that would devastate the homes of millions of ordinary people; It was how soon to start that war.

If war with Russia is an inevitable necessity to stop Russian expansionist aggression, then the only question left is whether we go now, or whether we stand to suffer less if we go later.

If war with Russia is completely avoidable - if the Russians can be stopped from expansionist aggression by diplomatic means - then the question I am left with is "why haven't they stopped yet?".

They suffered a humiliating reversal in their early thrust on Kyiv; They are under strict sanctions and foreign trade restrictions; Even nations who are far out of step with the US, EU and NATO, such as the Chinese, are putting diplomatic pressure on Russia to stop its war. None of this has been effective. What's left?

If a massive increase in Western military assistance to Ukraine, up to and including the deployment of NATO forces, can stop Russia from her destabilising policy of aggression, then that's what we should do.

If the threat of direct attacks on the US with nuclear weapons is a serious and genuine threat, then either we capitulate to whatever demands Moscow and Putin might attach to that threat, or we say "bring it on, if you think you're hard enough". Putin has to know that the threat of nuclear war is either an empty threat, or a double edged sword. If he goes nuclear, his entire nation will be destroyed.

Unfortunately, in 1939, Hitler had reason to believe that his country, his capital, and his precious self were immune to retaliation. Fortunately for the world today, Putin is under no such illusion.

We are absolutely right to be afraid of the consequences of a war between the US and Russia. But we are not right to allow that fear to force us away from doing the right thing; And we should always recognise that Russia, and Putin himself, have just as much reason (perhaps more) for fear of nuclear war than the US.

My suspicion is that nuclear weapons would not be used in a war between Russia and the US, for much the same reasons why Germany and England refrained from the use of chemical weapons against each other in WWII. In WWII both sides had significant stockpiles and expertise for the use of chemical weapons. Both had periods when their very existence was at immediate stake. Yet still neither used those weapons.

If the threat is real, then it remains real even if we appease Putin. Appeasement just delays the inevitable - if it is inevitable. If it's not, then appeasement doesn't make it less likely to occur, it just delays the issue, at the price of making it even worse when it does happen.

Give Putin reason to believe that his nuclear arsenal can be used to extort concessions from the US, and give him a decade or two to restore that arsenal to genuine effectiveness (an effectiveness it likely doesn't have right now), and the threat of nukes hitting US cities becomes far worse than it is today.

 

[Patooka]

If war with Russia is an inevitable necessity to stop Russian expansionist aggression, then the only question left is whether we go now, or whether we stand to suffer less if we go later.

Nail on head. Russian foreign policy for the last two decades has been, "Let's see what we can get away with stealing, catch our breath and then do it again".

 

[Copernicus]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I see no parallel with WWII and Chamberlain's drive to put off a war that, with the benefit hindsight, was obviously inevitable. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland, and I don't know whether Chamberlain was even aware of the planned Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to divide up Poland. Hitler knew what he intended to do, but it isn't clear what the British government knew about his plans. In reality, Hitler threw a fit after his meeting with Chamberlain, because Chamberlain had sandbagged him with a signed agreement not to make any further demands for land in Europe in exchange for getting the Sudetenland. The Czechs were stabbed in the back, but Hitler was going to invade and conquer them anyway. Chamberlain could have completely stood up to Hitler's demands, but his country was totally unprepared for a land war on the continent. Chamberlain wasn't going to stop Hitler, who had already laid plans to invade Poland. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was finalized and signed in August, 1939, about four months after Chamberlain's agreement to ignore Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

The situation in Ukraine is totally different, because neither Hitler nor Stalin had nuclear weapons or posed an existential threat to human civilization globally through some stupid miscalculation by one side or the other. This is the reality today. A miscalculation or blunder could trigger global catastrophe. All of this talk of rushing in to save Ukraine and bloody Russia's nose is delusional bullshit. The West has no option other than to think very carefully about what it is doing in Eastern Europe, which was the battleground for two world wars that did not involve nuclear weapons until the very last days of the last one. The next one could very quickly involve nuclear exchanges that neither side consciously intended. Be very careful what you wish for.

 

[Patooka]

What a fucking cunt

Elon Musk says SpaceX restricted internet in Ukraine to prevent escalation ‘that may lead to WW3’

‘We’re trying hard to do the right thing,’ says billionaire.

www.politico.eu

Answering a request from a former NASA astronaut to restore full access to the internet for Ukrainian forces, SpaceX CEO Musk tweeted late Sunday: "Starlink is the communication backbone of Ukraine, especially at the front lines, where almost all other internet connectivity has been destroyed. But we will not enable escalation of conflict that may lead to WW3."

I'm shocked that the right's champion for "free speech" is on the wrong side of this conflict.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I see no parallel with WWII and Chamberlain's drive to put off a war that, with the benefit hindsight, was obviously inevitable. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland, and I don't know whether Chamberlain was even aware of the planned Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to divide up Poland. Hitler knew what he intended to do, but it isn't clear what the British government knew about his plans. In reality, Hitler threw a fit after his meeting with Chamberlain, because Chamberlain had sandbagged him with a signed agreement not to make any further demands for land in Europe in exchange for getting the Sudetenland. The Czechs were stabbed in the back, but Hitler was going to invade and conquer them anyway. Chamberlain could have completely stood up to Hitler's demands, but his country was totally unprepared for a land war on the continent. Chamberlain wasn't going to stop Hitler, who had already laid plans to invade Poland. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was finalized and signed in August, 1939, about four months after Chamberlain's agreement to ignore Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

The situation in Ukraine is totally different, because neither Hitler nor Stalin had nuclear weapons or posed an existential threat to human civilization globally through some stupid miscalculation by one side or the other. This is the reality today. A miscalculation or blunder could trigger global catastrophe. All of this talk of rushing in to save Ukraine and bloody Russia's nose is delusional bullshit. The West has no option other than to think very carefully about what it is doing in Eastern Europe, which was the battleground for two world wars that did not involve nuclear weapons until the very last days of the last one. The next one could very quickly involve nuclear exchanges that neither side consciously intended. Be very careful what you wish for.

I don't want the west to "bloody Russia's nose". I simply want Russia to stop killing people and stealing their land. Is that really too much to ask? People assume that Russia wants peace and that west doesn't. I'm certain that the west has engaged in behind the scenes talks with Russia since the beginning (probably behind Ukraine's back). I'd love to hear your idea of what the west should do to stop Russia. We are mostly giving Ukraine defensive weapons. We are putting limitations on how Ukraine can use our weapons. We don't want them to be used in Russia proper. I think that we are being incredibly careful. And this cautiousness is killing Ukrainians.

 

[Copernicus]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I see no parallel with WWII and Chamberlain's drive to put off a war that, with the benefit hindsight, was obviously inevitable. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland, and I don't know whether Chamberlain was even aware of the planned Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to divide up Poland. Hitler knew what he intended to do, but it isn't clear what the British government knew about his plans. In reality, Hitler threw a fit after his meeting with Chamberlain, because Chamberlain had sandbagged him with a signed agreement not to make any further demands for land in Europe in exchange for getting the Sudetenland. The Czechs were stabbed in the back, but Hitler was going to invade and conquer them anyway. Chamberlain could have completely stood up to Hitler's demands, but his country was totally unprepared for a land war on the continent. Chamberlain wasn't going to stop Hitler, who had already laid plans to invade Poland. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was finalized and signed in August, 1939, about four months after Chamberlain's agreement to ignore Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

The situation in Ukraine is totally different, because neither Hitler nor Stalin had nuclear weapons or posed an existential threat to human civilization globally through some stupid miscalculation by one side or the other. This is the reality today. A miscalculation or blunder could trigger global catastrophe. All of this talk of rushing in to save Ukraine and bloody Russia's nose is delusional bullshit. The West has no option other than to think very carefully about what it is doing in Eastern Europe, which was the battleground for two world wars that did not involve nuclear weapons until the very last days of the last one. The next one could very quickly involve nuclear exchanges that neither side consciously intended. Be very careful what you wish for.

I don't want the west to "bloody Russia's nose". I simply want Russia to stop killing people and stealing their land. Is that really too much to ask? People assume that Russia wants peace and that west doesn't. I'm certain that the west has engaged in behind the scenes talks with Russia since the beginning (probably behind Ukraine's back). I'd love to hear your idea of what the west should do to stop Russia. We are mostly giving Ukraine defensive weapons. We are putting limitations on how Ukraine can use our weapons. We don't want them to be used in Russia proper. I think that we are being incredibly careful. And this cautiousness is killing Ukrainians.

I don't see how your reply is relevant to my post, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, I did not accuse you of wanting the West to "bloody Russia's nose", so there is no need to deny that you want to do that. I share your desire that Russia stop killing people and steal their land. When have I ever said otherwise? Some people assume that Russia wants peace and the West doesn't. I am not among those who make that assumption. All sides want peace in this war, but under different terms.

What would I do to stop Russia? That's a good question to ask any of us, and it is possible that none of us has a good answer. I recognize the need to give Ukraine the tools to defend its territory from Russian aggression and the need to do it without triggering a global nuclear catastrophe. Do you have a solution for that? Some of the talk here is of giving them offensive weapons and no restraints on attacking Russia. IMO, that idea is purely delusional and insane. Maybe that won't trigger a global nuclear war, and wouldn't that be wonderful?** Maybe it would, and wouldn't that be horrible? You blame the restraint for "killing Ukrainians", but wouldn't even more Ukrainians die in a global nuclear catastrophe, not to mention innocent people the rest of the world? Is it worth the gamble? Something to think about.

** Actually, it wouldn't necessarily be wonderful, even if Ukraine somehow managed to defeat Russia. I'm not sure what such a wonderful defeat would look like, but I am sure that a lot more Ukrainians and Russians would die, if that invasion of Russia were to happen. If the aim is to stop the killing, then that is a stupid "solution" to the problem. I'm no more comfortable with Russians dying than Ukrainians, and I feel really uncomfortable at all of the armchair cheerleaders out there who won't risk their lives but continue to egg one side or the other on, as if this were some kind of soccer match.

 

[Patooka]

but wouldn't even more Ukrainians die in a global nuclear catastrophe, not to mention innocent people the rest of the world? Is it worth the gamble? Something to think about.

I think it's a gamble worth taking, mainly because I think the stakes aren't as dire as it would seem. Firstly, Russia's nuclear arsenal is probably on par with all their other stuff and secondly China, Pakistan and India would land on Putin with both feet if he started dropping nukes. I don't see China or Pakistan showing the same level of restraint the West is doing at the moment.

 

[Copernicus]

but wouldn't even more Ukrainians die in a global nuclear catastrophe, not to mention innocent people the rest of the world? Is it worth the gamble? Something to think about.

I think it's a gamble worth taking, mainly because I think the stakes aren't as dire as it would seem. Firstly, Russia's nuclear arsenal is probably on par with all their other stuff and secondly China, Pakistan and India would land on Putin with both feet if he started dropping nukes. I don't see China or Pakistan showing the same level of restraint the West is doing at the moment.

One of the stakes is global nuclear catastrophe. They don't get much higher than that, unless we could somehow manage to make the sun go nova or the moon crash into the Earth. Maybe you were talking about gambling odds instead of gambling stakes?

As for Russia's nuclear arsenal being on a par with their other stuff, that is an interesting speculation. Some of their other stuff actually works. It doesn't all blow up on the launch pad. Unless all of it fails, then your gamble loses. Of course, the US would launch a massive counterstrike anyway. In the case of global nuclear war, not all of the stuff has to work in order to bring down civilization and possibly exterminate our species. I'm not sure how you imagine China, Pakistan, or India would react, but I don't imagine that it would matter to Putin or any of the other gamblers in this high stakes game. Maybe we should consult Dr. Strangelove on how he sees the whole thing playing out. He was such an optimist that he imagined the human race could survive in underground shelters and emerge victorious when the surface once again became habitable.

 

[Politesse]

For American politicians Ukraine is like a college football game

Depressingly true.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Our GOP politicians are mercurial, untrustworthy, and lack common sense. With these fools. No telling what their policies on Ukraine will be weekly, monthly, or next year. Tucker Carlson yanks their chain and they yap. No telling what they will be yapping next week.

 

[SLD]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I see no parallel with WWII and Chamberlain's drive to put off a war that, with the benefit hindsight, was obviously inevitable. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland, and I don't know whether Chamberlain was even aware of the planned Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to divide up Poland. Hitler knew what he intended to do, but it isn't clear what the British government knew about his plans. In reality, Hitler threw a fit after his meeting with Chamberlain, because Chamberlain had sandbagged him with a signed agreement not to make any further demands for land in Europe in exchange for getting the Sudetenland. The Czechs were stabbed in the back, but Hitler was going to invade and conquer them anyway. Chamberlain could have completely stood up to Hitler's demands, but his country was totally unprepared for a land war on the continent. Chamberlain wasn't going to stop Hitler, who had already laid plans to invade Poland. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was finalized and signed in August, 1939, about four months after Chamberlain's agreement to ignore Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

The situation in Ukraine is totally different, because neither Hitler nor Stalin had nuclear weapons or posed an existential threat to human civilization globally through some stupid miscalculation by one side or the other. This is the reality today. A miscalculation or blunder could trigger global catastrophe. All of this talk of rushing in to save Ukraine and bloody Russia's nose is delusional bullshit. The West has no option other than to think very carefully about what it is doing in Eastern Europe, which was the battleground for two world wars that did not involve nuclear weapons until the very last days of the last one. The next one could very quickly involve nuclear exchanges that neither side consciously intended. Be very careful what you wish for.

I don't want the west to "bloody Russia's nose". I simply want Russia to stop killing people and stealing their land. Is that really too much to ask? People assume that Russia wants peace and that west doesn't. I'm certain that the west has engaged in behind the scenes talks with Russia since the beginning (probably behind Ukraine's back). I'd love to hear your idea of what the west should do to stop Russia. We are mostly giving Ukraine defensive weapons. We are putting limitations on how Ukraine can use our weapons. We don't want them to be used in Russia proper. I think that we are being incredibly careful. And this cautiousness is killing Ukrainians.

I don't see how your reply is relevant to my post, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, I did not accuse you of wanting the West to "bloody Russia's nose", so there is no need to deny that you want to do that. I share your desire that Russia stop killing people and steal their land. When have I ever said otherwise? Some people assume that Russia wants peace and the West doesn't. I am not among those who make that assumption. All sides want peace in this war, but under different terms.

What would I do to stop Russia? That's a good question to ask any of us, and it is possible that none of us has a good answer. I recognize the need to give Ukraine the tools to defend its territory from Russian aggression and the need to do it without triggering a global nuclear catastrophe. Do you have a solution for that? Some of the talk here is of giving them offensive weapons and no restraints on attacking Russia. IMO, that idea is purely delusional and insane. Maybe that won't trigger a global nuclear war, and wouldn't that be wonderful?** Maybe it would, and wouldn't that be horrible? You blame the restraint for "killing Ukrainians", but wouldn't even more Ukrainians die in a global nuclear catastrophe, not to mention innocent people the rest of the world? Is it worth the gamble? Something to think about.

** Actually, it wouldn't necessarily be wonderful, even if Ukraine somehow managed to defeat Russia. I'm not sure what such a wonderful defeat would look like, but I am sure that a lot more Ukrainians and Russians would die, if that invasion of Russia were to happen. If the aim is to stop the killing, then that is a stupid "solution" to the problem. I'm no more comfortable with Russians dying than Ukrainians, and I feel really uncomfortable at all of the armchair cheerleaders out there who won't risk their lives but continue to egg one side or the other on, as if this were some kind of soccer match.

I’m sorry, but there’s no logic to this. Why would Russia resort to nukes if we gave the Ukrainians the ability to strike at the very bases from which they are being attacked? Putin has an option well short of nuclear attacks on the west. Stop fighting and pull back. He can still survive. The Russian machine isn’t so monolithic as it seems either. Putin can’t count on such an order being obeyed. Russia’s existence isn’t threatened by being forced back. Nuclear weapons are a last resort only if the existence of the Russian state is at stake, and Ukraine isn’t trying to conquer Russia. The nuclear risk is minimal or non existent. Let them feel the real pain of war. Give Ukraine all the artillery, tanks, missiles and planes it needs. Thousands of tanks, not dozens. Tell Putin if he resorts to nukes, we will give Ukraine nukes. That will make him Pause.

 

[Copernicus]

I am getting pessimistic.

NATO cpllectively since the start has been dragging its feet to avoid direct conflict. All the while Ukarie is being reduced to ruble. Blatant attacks on civilians. Open verbal intent from Putin to eradicate Ukraine as a state and culrure in favor of Russian culture. Taking Ukrainian kids into Russia.

The idea of making a case for war crimes is a waste of time and is for show.

A hadful of tanks are not going to make much difference. Russia is waging full scale war, the mobilization is estimated at 350,000 troops.

If Ukraine can not carry the fight to Russia I do not see then surviving in the long run. That means a lot of tanks supported by fighter jets. Long range missiles.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I see no parallel with WWII and Chamberlain's drive to put off a war that, with the benefit hindsight, was obviously inevitable. Hitler had not yet invaded Poland, and I don't know whether Chamberlain was even aware of the planned Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement to divide up Poland. Hitler knew what he intended to do, but it isn't clear what the British government knew about his plans. In reality, Hitler threw a fit after his meeting with Chamberlain, because Chamberlain had sandbagged him with a signed agreement not to make any further demands for land in Europe in exchange for getting the Sudetenland. The Czechs were stabbed in the back, but Hitler was going to invade and conquer them anyway. Chamberlain could have completely stood up to Hitler's demands, but his country was totally unprepared for a land war on the continent. Chamberlain wasn't going to stop Hitler, who had already laid plans to invade Poland. The alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union was finalized and signed in August, 1939, about four months after Chamberlain's agreement to ignore Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland.

The situation in Ukraine is totally different, because neither Hitler nor Stalin had nuclear weapons or posed an existential threat to human civilization globally through some stupid miscalculation by one side or the other. This is the reality today. A miscalculation or blunder could trigger global catastrophe. All of this talk of rushing in to save Ukraine and bloody Russia's nose is delusional bullshit. The West has no option other than to think very carefully about what it is doing in Eastern Europe, which was the battleground for two world wars that did not involve nuclear weapons until the very last days of the last one. The next one could very quickly involve nuclear exchanges that neither side consciously intended. Be very careful what you wish for.

I don't want the west to "bloody Russia's nose". I simply want Russia to stop killing people and stealing their land. Is that really too much to ask? People assume that Russia wants peace and that west doesn't. I'm certain that the west has engaged in behind the scenes talks with Russia since the beginning (probably behind Ukraine's back). I'd love to hear your idea of what the west should do to stop Russia. We are mostly giving Ukraine defensive weapons. We are putting limitations on how Ukraine can use our weapons. We don't want them to be used in Russia proper. I think that we are being incredibly careful. And this cautiousness is killing Ukrainians.

I don't see how your reply is relevant to my post, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, I did not accuse you of wanting the West to "bloody Russia's nose", so there is no need to deny that you want to do that. I share your desire that Russia stop killing people and steal their land. When have I ever said otherwise? Some people assume that Russia wants peace and the West doesn't. I am not among those who make that assumption. All sides want peace in this war, but under different terms.

What would I do to stop Russia? That's a good question to ask any of us, and it is possible that none of us has a good answer. I recognize the need to give Ukraine the tools to defend its territory from Russian aggression and the need to do it without triggering a global nuclear catastrophe. Do you have a solution for that? Some of the talk here is of giving them offensive weapons and no restraints on attacking Russia. IMO, that idea is purely delusional and insane. Maybe that won't trigger a global nuclear war, and wouldn't that be wonderful?** Maybe it would, and wouldn't that be horrible? You blame the restraint for "killing Ukrainians", but wouldn't even more Ukrainians die in a global nuclear catastrophe, not to mention innocent people the rest of the world? Is it worth the gamble? Something to think about.

** Actually, it wouldn't necessarily be wonderful, even if Ukraine somehow managed to defeat Russia. I'm not sure what such a wonderful defeat would look like, but I am sure that a lot more Ukrainians and Russians would die, if that invasion of Russia were to happen. If the aim is to stop the killing, then that is a stupid "solution" to the problem. I'm no more comfortable with Russians dying than Ukrainians, and I feel really uncomfortable at all of the armchair cheerleaders out there who won't risk their lives but continue to egg one side or the other on, as if this were some kind of soccer match.

I’m sorry, but there’s no logic to this. Why would Russia resort to nukes if we gave the Ukrainians the ability to strike at the very bases from which they are being attacked? Putin has an option well short of nuclear attacks on the west. Stop fighting and pull back. He can still survive. The Russian machine isn’t so monolithic as it seems either. Putin can’t count on such an order being obeyed. Russia’s existence isn’t threatened by being forced back. Nuclear weapons are a last resort only if the existence of the Russian state is at stake, and Ukraine isn’t trying to conquer Russia. The nuclear risk is minimal or non existent. Let them feel the real pain of war. Give Ukraine all the artillery, tanks, missiles and planes it needs. Thousands of tanks, not dozens. Tell Putin if he resorts to nukes, we will give Ukraine nukes. That will make him Pause.

If logic were relevant here, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place. So I have an easy answer to your speculation that "That will make him pause." No, it won't. Emotions trump logic, especially in the heat of war, and what would be the emotional response in Russia, if Russian cities came under bombardment? Do you think most Russians would say that they shouldn't retaliate with tactical nukes because they (Russia) deserved it? You would see a lot of Russians who had previously questioned the war begin to see Ukraine not just as a victim, but as a serious existential threat. Russia would not back down, if that happened. A divided Russia would unite.

 

[bilby]

If logic were relevant here, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

Sure he would. It was obvious to everyone that the mighty Russian army would take Kyiv in a few days, or at most weeks; That Zelensky would flee to the EU or US, and after a puppet government had been established for a few months, it would all be done and dusted, with the Germans demanding a restoration of Russian gas supplies and an end to sanctions, as winter started to bite and all the fighting was fading into memory.

Pretty much everybody expected and believed this. Invasion was therefore a perfectly logical move for Putin.

Unless, of course, he knew in advance that Zelensky would refuse to flee, and that the Russian strike towards Kyiv would collapse in ignominious defeat. If he knew that, then attacking would have been an illogical move.

 

[Jayjay]

So tell me again how Russia is winning?

Mauling of Russian forces in Donetsk hotspot may signal problems to come

The scenes are chaotic: Russian tanks veering wildly before exploding or driving straight into minefields, men running in every direction, some on fire, the bodies of soldiers caught in tank tracks.

www.cnn.com

They’ve supposedly started their vaunted offensive, only to get their asses kicked? They can’t sustain any serious offensive. They blindly launch a tank offensive only to lose twenty armored vehicles in short order and are forced to retreat - what’s left of them. Their special forces colonel is dead. Not very special when you’re dead.

And how much did the front line move?

It didn't. Ukraine has repelled the attacks, but Russia has neither retreated or been driven out of their positions either. So technically it was a tie. And Russia will try again and again until they succeed or run completely out of men and guns.

Supposedly they are winning around Bakhmut. This is about 100 kilometers away From that fighting, but they are sustaining much higher casualties in this part of the war than ever before - on the order of 824 a day, 4 times their previous rate of casualties. At that rate they will be decimated in about a month, and in about six months will cease to be an effective fighting force.

I would take Ukrainian reports of casualties with a grain of salt. I used to say that they could be divided by two, but in the past months they've been less believable than earlier. And like you said, Vuhledar is not Bakhmut. Ukraine has high ground in Vuhledar, and it's the regular Russian army fighting there.

The only thing standing in the way of Ukrainian victory in this war is the reluctance of Western Allies to give them the necessary tools. Far, far more artillery and the shells to supply them are needed. More than 330 tanks too. That’s a good combat team. But it’s not enough to sustain serious offensives along a broad front.

Yup.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I tend to agree.

Right now, Russia is winning and gaining ground. It's good for morale both in the army, and in the political circles because Putin can always say that "hey, we're progressing, the longer this lasts the more land we're going to get".

But if the tide were to turn and Ukraine was the one progressing, even it was the same snail's pace, the Kremlin critters might panic. And then you might have a Stauffenberg moment. I don't personally think Ukraine can win militarily, but there is a small chance that small victories might snowball into the political sphere in Russia.

 

[Elixir]

Russia will try again and again until they succeed or run completely out of men and guns.

That's why we have to ensure that they run completely out of men and guns as soon as possible.

 

[Copernicus]

If logic were relevant here, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

Sure he would. It was obvious to everyone that the mighty Russian army would take Kyiv in a few days, or at most weeks; That Zelensky would flee to the EU or US, and after a puppet government had been established for a few months, it would all be done and dusted, with the Germans demanding a restoration of Russian gas supplies and an end to sanctions, as winter started to bite and all the fighting was fading into memory.

Pretty much everybody expected and believed this. Invasion was therefore a perfectly logical move for Putin.

Unless, of course, he knew in advance that Zelensky would refuse to flee, and that the Russian strike towards Kyiv would collapse in ignominious defeat. If he knew that, then attacking would have been an illogical move.

You are arguing that Putin's renewed invasion of Ukraine was logical, because he and many others (albeit not everybody) believed he could win the war quickly--an argument from popularity of belief. This, in fact, is a pretty common belief by governments that start wars. Nobody really starts a war with the thought that it will drag on for years. However, there was no clear casus belli other than Putin's irrational desire to reclaim territory lost to the collapsed Russian dominated Soviet empire. The man was never a military genius, but he did have a lot of Dunning-Kruger juice inflating his self-confidence and ego. He gambled and ended up raising the stakes when he started losing. That wasn't logic. It was wishful thinking. Now he's looking for a "mission accomplished" moment.

 

[SLD]

So tell me again how Russia is winning?

Mauling of Russian forces in Donetsk hotspot may signal problems to come

The scenes are chaotic: Russian tanks veering wildly before exploding or driving straight into minefields, men running in every direction, some on fire, the bodies of soldiers caught in tank tracks.

www.cnn.com

They’ve supposedly started their vaunted offensive, only to get their asses kicked? They can’t sustain any serious offensive. They blindly launch a tank offensive only to lose twenty armored vehicles in short order and are forced to retreat - what’s left of them. Their special forces colonel is dead. Not very special when you’re dead.

And how much did the front line move?

It didn't. Ukraine has repelled the attacks, but Russia has neither retreated or been driven out of their positions either. So technically it was a tie. And Russia will try again and again until they succeed or run completely out of men and guns.

Supposedly they are winning around Bakhmut. This is about 100 kilometers away From that fighting, but they are sustaining much higher casualties in this part of the war than ever before - on the order of 824 a day, 4 times their previous rate of casualties. At that rate they will be decimated in about a month, and in about six months will cease to be an effective fighting force.

I would take Ukrainian reports of casualties with a grain of salt. I used to say that they could be divided by two, but in the past months they've been less believable than earlier. And like you said, Vuhledar is not Bakhmut. Ukraine has high ground in Vuhledar, and it's the regular Russian army fighting there.

The only thing standing in the way of Ukrainian victory in this war is the reluctance of Western Allies to give them the necessary tools. Far, far more artillery and the shells to supply them are needed. More than 330 tanks too. That’s a good combat team. But it’s not enough to sustain serious offensives along a broad front.

Yup.

Can't wait for WWIII to start? I still need time to gather a supply of popcorn. That would be a lot more fun than streaming video on Netflix--bombs and explosions in real time even in my own city.

It’s the lure of appeasement. Avoid war and conflict at all costs. But in reality we are making it far worse. In late 1938, German military commanders prepared a coup against Hitler. Then suddenly Chamberlain said he’d come to Munich. The orders were burned. After that the Generals decided that Hitler was right, and the English and French would effectively capitulate. They blindly followed him into WWII.

somewhere in the Kremlin right ow, many generals are thinking the same way. They want to get rid of the son of a bitch that’s sacrificed their military for this shit show. But they have an alternative to hang on and hope they can wear down Ukraine. If we were to really supply Ukraine with a full complement of armaments to defend itself and to be able to launch offensives to retake all of Donetsk and Luhansk, then holy shit, we’d see some action by the Russian equivalent of Stauffenberg. Hopefully at this time they’d use both bombs!

I tend to agree.

Right now, Russia is winning and gaining ground. It's good for morale both in the army, and in the political circles because Putin can always say that "hey, we're progressing, the longer this lasts the more land we're going to get".

But if the tide were to turn and Ukraine was the one progressing, even it was the same snail's pace, the Kremlin critters might panic. And then you might have a Stauffenberg moment. I don't personally think Ukraine can win militarily, but there is a small chance that small victories might snowball into the political sphere in Russia.

A tie is a win for Ukraine. Putin’s continued attacks aren’t doing anything but precisely what you say: running through guns and men. That’s all Ukraine need do. Hold and continue to bleed them to death. The failures to advance will destroy their military and capabilities. Better yet, if we give them the offensive weapons they need, drive them back. It can be done. But we need to stop being such pussies and give them the tanks, artillery, and planes they need.