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

[Copernicus]

Besides oil, the price of grain is skyrocketing because of the war. Most of Ukraine's supply is bottled up by Russia's blockade of Ukraine's ports. American isolationists will be glad to hear that Russia is working hard to alleviate the problem. They are trying to dump stolen Ukrainian grain back onto the world market. Unfortunately for the free marketers, some Mediterranean ports are turning away Russian ships with the stolen grain, but there is a workable solution. The Russians can ship it to their client regime in Syria, which can then smuggle it to other countries without specifying where they got it from. Doubtless, Putin will get his cut of the profits, along with the oligarchs involved in the scheme.

Russian ships carrying stolen Ukrainian grain turned away from Mediterranean ports – but not all of them​

 

[Jayjay]

Russia's top propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, calls for an end to the Special Military Operation in Ukraine... and for it to be replaced by a Turbo Military Operation.

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

 

[Copernicus]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

I'm not sure what he meant, but this is clearly a guy who knows his stuff. He seems to think that Putin is holding people back from rushing to complete the operation. Putin should consider making him a general and sending him right to the front immediately. The troops there are waiting to be led and will cheer him forward. I suggest putting him in the lead tank at the head of a large column. Ukrainians are waiting to welcome their liberators. Enthusiasm of that magnitude deserves to be rewarded.

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

I'm not sure what he meant, but this is clearly a guy who knows his stuff. He seems to think that Putin is holding people back from rushing to complete the operation. Putin should consider making him a general and sending him right to the front immediately. The troops there are waiting to be led and will cheer him forward. I suggest putting him in the lead tank at the head of a large column. Ukrainians are waiting to welcome their liberators. Enthusiasm of that magnitude deserves to be rewarded.

Technically, it is a kind of crack in the support. This person is saying Putin isn't doing it right.

 

[TV and credit cards]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

I'm not sure what he meant, but this is clearly a guy who knows his stuff. He seems to think that Putin is holding people back from rushing to complete the operation. Putin should consider making him a general and sending him right to the front immediately. The troops there are waiting to be led and will cheer him forward. I suggest putting him in the lead tank at the head of a large column. Ukrainians are waiting to welcome their liberators. Enthusiasm of that magnitude deserves to be rewarded.

Belgorod might be a good staging area for them. They'll be in artillery range soon.

 

[Copernicus]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

I'm not sure what he meant, but this is clearly a guy who knows his stuff. He seems to think that Putin is holding people back from rushing to complete the operation. Putin should consider making him a general and sending him right to the front immediately. The troops there are waiting to be led and will cheer him forward. I suggest putting him in the lead tank at the head of a large column. Ukrainians are waiting to welcome their liberators. Enthusiasm of that magnitude deserves to be rewarded.

Technically, it is a kind of crack in the support. This person is saying Putin isn't doing it right.

I think that Putin is willing to take constructive criticism. He probably didn't believe that a "turbo operation" was needed, but Solovyov made such a convincing argument. Putin himself would probably lead the troops personally, but there are reports that he suffers from bone spurs.

 

[Patooka]

I guess the USA never tires of getting involved in regional conflicts and lobbing gobs of tax payer $ at it. I really don't see what benefit to the US citizen there is in getting involved in yet another foreign adventure. For all intents and purposes the USA has been dragged into another proxy war with Russia in Ukraine similar to Afghanistan and Syria. And weirdly, a lot of people are getting a proper hard on for it.

It's amazing how these attitudes only come out when a Demonrat is President. Shut the fuck up and only come back when Trump is re-elected. I'd love to see your stance on foreign policy then.

 

[bilby]

Those charts are not a meaningful comparison.

They show that the US spends shitloads of money on weapons, both before and after the bill under discussion.

Which is all they were intended to do.

I apologise if you thought I was making a completely different point that I didn't mention in any way.

The point is that it's telling only part of the story--which you conveniently clipped out of the quote.

What, the parts that talked about China, Russia, and Ukraine?

I conveniently clipped those because they have nothing to do with my point, which in its entirety, was that the USA already spends a crapton of money on weapons. A fact that is completely independent of those nations. I wasn't making any 'comparison', so your objection is completely unfounded.

The charts make that point. That's the only 'story' I am discussing.

Again, I apologise for not making a bunch of points unrelated to my actual point, that you feel I should or could have been making; But sadly, I am not required to only make the rhetorical points you bizarrely imagine me to be making, despite the clear text of my post indicating exactly what point I am actually making.

Did you even read the post to which you objected, or was your response a knee-jerk reaction to the graphs? Perhaps they are something you have seen before in a different context, and you are arguing against that context of which I am completely unaware? Certainly your claim that they are "not a meaningful comparison" makes zero sense in the context of my actual post:

I know. It beggars belief that the USA might spend money on weapons. Whatever next?

There are no 'comparisons' being made here. The USA spends a shitload of money on weapons. It's a fact, and not one that even you appear to dispute; So my question is, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT??

 

[Jayjay]

WTF is a "turbo military operation"? Is he saying the Russian military has been holding back?

I think the idea of mobilization is being floated so that the public will be more accepting of it when it happens.

For regular Russian, declaring war probably wouldn't make a huge difference. But it would give legal power for Russian army to force its contract soldiers to fight in Ukraine (or face jailtime), use conscripts, and selectively replenish their troops from reservists. I think Putin will be forced to do it sooner or later, and I hope it's later because the later it happens the less effective it will be.

EDIT: Declaring martial law would also put a plug on the brain drain of young professionals leaving the country.

 

[Elixir]

Declaring martial law would also put a plug on the brain drain of young professionals leaving the country.

Does he even have to do that? Why not just compile a list and issue an order?

 

[Jayjay]

Declaring martial law would also put a plug on the brain drain of young professionals leaving the country.

Does he even have to do that? Why not just compile a list and issue an order?

Obviously martial law would be an overkill to keep IT nerds in the country. And probably too late anyway. But it's a bonus.

 

[lpetrich]

Weep, Vladdie, weep.
Finland’s Leaders Urge NATO Membership ‘Without Delay’ - The New York Times
President Sauli Niinisto and Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

Sweden is not as far along in debating joining NATO as Finland, but the two countries could apply together.

In the war itself, Ukraine is pushing northward from Kharkiv, pushing the Russian forces back to the border. Elsewhere, very little progress by either side.

S.3522 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Was signed into law by President Biden on Monday, May 9.

H.R.7691 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
The vote on that bill
D: Y 219, nv 2
R: Y 149, N 57, nv 3
ttl: Y 368, N 57, nv 5

It was all Republicans who voted against it, including Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, MTG, Jim Jordan, and Thomas Massie. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy voted for it.

Senator Rand Paul single-handedly holds up $40bn US aid for Ukraine | US Senate | The Guardian - "Democratic and Republican Senate leaders both supported package but Paul objected to scale of spending"

The top Democrat and Republican in the US Senate joined forces in a rare moment of unity on Thursday in an attempt to pass $40bn in aid for Ukraine, only to be stymied by a single Republican lawmaker: the Kentucky libertarian Rand Paul.

Faced with the prospect of an extended delay for the package that passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, sought to move forward on the aid package only to be blocked by Paul, a fiscal hawk who objects to the amount of spending proposed.

The stalemate delayed passage of the measure into next week.

The Senate had a voice vote on the bill, something that requires unanimity to pass. RP obstructed that procedure with his "no" vote.

Rand Paul on Twitter: "My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation. ..." / Twitter

My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation. Congress is trying yet again to ram through a spending bill – one that I doubt anyone has actually read – and there’s no oversight included into how the money is being spent. All I requested is an amendment to be included in the final bill that allows for the Inspector General to oversee how funds are spent. Anyone who is opposed to this is irresponsible. While I sympathize with the people of Ukraine, and commend their fight against Putin, we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. Passing this bill brings the total we’ve sent to Ukraine to nearly $54 billion over the course of two months. It’s threatening our own national security, and it’s frankly a slap in the face to millions of taxpayers who are struggling to buy gas, groceries, and find baby formula.

 

[lpetrich]

Crenshaw, Greene clash on Twitter: ‘Still going after that slot on Russia Today’ | The Hill

Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Dan Crenshaw (Texas) feuded on Twitter on Wednesday over the passage of an Ukrainian aid bill that cost $40 billion.

...
When responding to criticism of his vote in favor of the bill on Twitter, Crenshaw said the bill was a “good idea.”

“Yeah, because investing in the destruction of our adversary’s military, without losing a single American troop, strikes me as a good idea. You should feel the same,” Crenshaw wrote.

Greene chimed in, saying Crenshaw is funding a “proxy war with Russia.”

“So you think we are funding a proxy war with Russia? You speak as if Ukrainian lives should be thrown away, as if they have no value. Just used and thrown away,” Greene wrote. “For your proxy war? How does that help Americans? How does any of this help?”

“Still going after that slot on Russia Today huh?” Crenshaw fired back.

Rumble rumble.

 

[Jayjay]

Both US defense department and German chancellor Scholz have contacted Russia and are asking for a ceasefire.

I wonder, is that what Ukraine wants also? Because a ceasefire essentially solidifies the border of currently occupied territory. Either Ukraine has realized it's peaked and can't do any better, which would be a good place to start negotiations, or US and Germany have lost faith and and are acting on their own.

 

[lpetrich]

After 200 Years of Neutrality, Sweden Weighs Joining NATO - The New York Times

On Sunday, after discussions with members from all 26 of the country’s districts, the Social Democrats will announce their decision, said Kenneth G. Forslund, a member of the party executive and chairman of the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Relations. The consensus is that the party will reluctantly back joining NATO alongside Finland.

“We and the Finns belong together,” said Carl Bildt, a former prime minister. “If we were outside on our own, we would be a 1960s nostalgia museum.”

Few analysts in either country doubt that the two countries will apply jointly, and that NATO will rapidly accept. Both Washington and London — Washington quietly, London loudly — have provided bilateral security assurances to both countries while their applications are ratified.

 

[Swammerdami]

I read that both Dems and Reps in Congress want to pass a package containing substantial aid to Ukraine.

But Rand Paul says no; the aid package must be delayed; and NATO and Ukrainian plans must be put on hold. Even if support among Senators is 99-1, Rand Paul — named after his family idol Ayn Rand — says No.

Why doesn't the Senate come to its senses and change the rules? The rule MIGHT have made sense in olden times when Senators tended to be people of intelligence and integrity . . . but Rand Paul ?? Rules can be changed with a 50-50 vote if Kamala Harris is presiding.

Or is this another deal where Joe Manchin needs a few more million in his campaign coffers before he can help out?

 

[Copernicus]

After 200 Years of Neutrality, Sweden Weighs Joining NATO - The New York Times

On Sunday, after discussions with members from all 26 of the country’s districts, the Social Democrats will announce their decision, said Kenneth G. Forslund, a member of the party executive and chairman of the Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Relations. The consensus is that the party will reluctantly back joining NATO alongside Finland.

“We and the Finns belong together,” said Carl Bildt, a former prime minister. “If we were outside on our own, we would be a 1960s nostalgia museum.”

Few analysts in either country doubt that the two countries will apply jointly, and that NATO will rapidly accept. Both Washington and London — Washington quietly, London loudly — have provided bilateral security assurances to both countries while their applications are ratified.

Well, Turkey seems to be playing the Rand Paul card in NATO right now. I expected it to be Hungary, which may still step up to block any quick acceptance of Finland and/or Sweden into NATO as full members. Erdogan seems to be using this as an opportunity to try to get help with his struggles against Kurdish separatists and the humiliation of everyone pretty much now acknowledging that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians many decades ago.

 

[ZiprHead]

But Rand Paul says no; the aid package must be delayed; and NATO and Ukrainian plans must be put on hold. Even if support among Senators is 99-1, Rand Paul — named after his family idol Ayn Rand — says No.

Sounds like he needs another visit from his neighbor.

 

[Jayjay]

ISW seems to think that Russia is going to annex the occupied Ukrainian territories to justify use of nuclear weapons (or deterrence):

Key Takeaway: Russian President Vladimir Putin likely intends to annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine directly into the Russian Federation in the coming months. He will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories. Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia's conventional deterrent capabilities.

Putin’s timeline for annexation is likely contingent on the extent to which he understands the degraded state of the Russian military in Ukraine. The Russian military has not yet achieved Putin’s stated territorial objectives of securing all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and is unlikely to do so. If Putin understands his military weakness, he will likely rush annexation and introduce the nuclear deterrent quickly in an attempt to retain control of the Ukrainian territory that Russia currently occupies. If Putin believes that Russian forces are capable of additional advances, he will likely delay the annexation in hopes of covering more territory with it. In that case, his poor leadership and Ukrainian counteroffensives could drive the Russian military toward a state of collapse. Putin could also attempt to maintain Russian attacks while mobilizing additional forces. He might delay announcing annexation for far longer in this case, waiting until reinforcements could arrive to gain more territory to annex.

Ukraine and its Western partners likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory. Ukraine and the West must also develop a coherent plan for responding to any annexation and to the threat of nuclear attack that might follow it. The political and ethical consequences of a longstanding Russian occupation of southeastern Ukraine would be devastating to the long-term viability of the Ukrainian state. Vital Ukrainian and Western national interests require urgent Western support for an immediate Ukrainian counteroffensive.