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

[aupmanyav]

True. The US closed hundreds of military installations at the end of the Cold War under BRAC. "Show off our military might"? We were happy to stop the arms race and reduce nuclear stockpiles.

I too saw it that way, but US wanted to police the world. They wanted destruction of the Soviet nuclear pile. The pile is still there.

Save Gorbachev from what? The USSR was dissolving from the combined forces of corruption, lack of resources and internal contradictions.

That was convenient to West. They had no reason to help Gorbachev.

 

[aupmanyav]

Maybe China and India can come to their rescue.

May be China. India does not have that capability.

 

[aupmanyav]

The problem I have with your responses is that you say you are not a peacenik but that Ukraine should surrender. That contradicts. Why do you deny Ukraine the right of self defense you claim for yourself? Clearly you are conflicted.

This is the second time that I am saying this. I do not want Ukraine to surrender but engage through some intermediary in talks with Putin. People say that they are already doing this, but the results have not been satisfactory. I do not know what is happening behind the curtain.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"Engaging" with Somebody like Pootie is national suicide. Pootie is not honest, does not have Ukraine's best interests at heart, and is no more trustworthy than Adolf Hitler was.

 

[TV and credit cards]

True. The US closed hundreds of military installations at the end of the Cold War under BRAC. "Show off our military might"? We were happy to stop the arms race and reduce nuclear stockpiles.

I too saw it that way, but US wanted to police the world. They wanted destruction of the Soviet nuclear pile. The pile is still there.

Does one world cop bring about greater stability? Many nations have been fine with this. It is an expensive endeavor for any nation to take up. Money that would have been spent on building their own military and defense industry has been available to be spent elsewhere. By and large, it's been a good deal for many nations.
It is becoming obvious the US cannot go it alone against China. Other nations are recognizing this. So far India seems to be taking a stand alone approach. In the interest of stability, the armed forces of friendly nations should at least work with one another and be able to communicate well with one another, particularly our weapon systems should be able to talk to one another.

I think both the US and Soviet Union were going to further reduce their nuclear stock piles. Reagan's silly SDI (Star Wars) program was the sticking point. Russia should have recognized it at the time for the science fiction it was.

 

[laughing dog]

[

That was convenient to West. They had no reason to help Gorbachev.

It was (reduction of rival’s power) and it wasn’t (more instability). But there was no way to stop the USSR from crumbling. So what exactly do you think was possible and effective?

 

[aupmanyav]

So far India seems to be taking a stand alone approach. In the interest of stability, the armed forces of friendly nations should at least work with one another and be able to communicate well with one another, particularly our weapon systems should be able to talk to one another.

We conduct many exercises with friendly nations. Russia is a friendly nation to India too. Joint military exercises do not mean same view. They are to hone military skills. If weapon systems talk to each other than there can be sabotage.

 

[aupmanyav]

It was (reduction of rival’s power) and it wasn’t (more instability). But there was no way to stop the USSR from crumbling. So what exactly do you think was possible and effective?

Gorbachev wanted some money. US could have given it. Then US would have required less money to spend on its armed forces with a friendly Russia. Perhaps the nuclear pile reduction would have been meaningful. But no, they were the international police. Report: Russia 5,889; US 5,224.

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

There are 9 countries armed with nuclear warheads. Find out which countries have nuclear weapons still and what this could mean for everyone.

www.icanw.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not rebutting me at all.
You are supporting a course of action that will cause attacks on your home. Why is that ok for India but not for Ukraine?

Why should I rebut everything you say? Pakistan will do that anyway, it is necessary for the domination of their military. Local recruitment has gone down in Kashmir. They have found democratic India as the best choice. Even people of Pakistan occupied Kashmir are now agitating to join India where they see prosperity and equal treatment. Pakistan military would have to send more and more of their own citizens as terrorists, and they do not care about it. Hate for India is in their Madarsas and school books right from primary levels.

The point is you say you would do nothing that would cause attacks--yet you clearly support actions which certainly cause attacks.

Why do you not see that Ukraine is the same situation?

 

[Elixir]

We are content with what we have.

Ukraine was content with the borders they had prior to Putler’s invasion.
You can rest assured with your nukes. When Putler starts to take your land he will do it a little bit at a time, so nuclear retaliation isn’t worth it.
It will be a mini version of his plan to sow discontent and Russophilia in Luhansk and Donetsk, then simply grab Crimea when the chance arises. Sending tanks to take the capital has proven a bit difficult, even against a non-nuclear nation. So Pootey will probably wait on that.

 

[Elixir]

“Nobody is going to invade them, but if it happens, there will be no war.”
@barbos 12/21/21

It’s incredibly reassuring to know that we can count on this level of verity in all of babs’ bloviation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point is you say you would do nothing that would cause attacks--yet you clearly support actions which certainly cause attacks.

Why do you not see that Ukraine is the same situation?

He likes Putin. That's the vibe I get. Or maybe he writes for the Hindustan Times.

 

[ZiprHead]

Opinion | Tuberville twists D-Day's legacy, attack Biden, echoes Kremlin talking points

Biden’s speech at Pointe du Hoc echoed past presidents who marked D-Day by urging the nation and the free world to stand against tyranny.

www.alreporter.com

In an audacious display of historical ignorance and partisan grandstanding, Alabama’s senior U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville chose the solemn occasion of D-Day to launch an attack on President Joe Biden. Tuberville claimed that Biden “turned a speech honoring heroes into a Ukraine pep rally.” This, from a man whose grasp of history is as tenuous as his commitment to truth.

Biden’s speech at Pointe du Hoc resonated with the echoes of past presidents who marked D-Day by urging the nation and the free world to stand against tyranny and injustice. On June 6, 1984, President Ronald Reagan addressed those gathered in Normandy with a powerful call for European leaders to remain steadfast during a tense Cold War period. Reagan’s speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, described his remarks in the Wall Street Journal as a “speech within the speech,” addressing contemporary struggles as much as commemorating past heroics.

Reagan’s address touched on the crises within the Western Alliance, where peace movements in Britain, West Germany, and Italy sought to halt the U.S.-Soviet arms race, which threatened global annihilation. Today, Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine threatens the fragile peace established after WWII. Yet, Tuberville and his ilk either fail to grasp this threat or are willingly serving as Putin’s pawns. Their rhetoric echoes the misinformation propagated by former President Donald Trump, a known admirer of the Russian strongman.

During Biden’s D-Day address, the president drew parallels between the fight against the Axis powers and the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. He asserted that “Ukraine has been invaded by a tyrant bent on domination,” lauded Ukrainian military accomplishments, and affirmed the U.S.’s commitment to stand with Ukraine.

In contrast, Tuberville and his GOP colleagues are parroting rhetoric straight from the Kremlin. Tuberville recently said, “He [Putin] doesn’t want Ukraine. He doesn’t want Europe. Hell, he’s got enough land of his own. He just wants to make sure that he does not have United States weapons in Ukraine pointing at Moscow.” He even had the gall to label Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “a dictator.”

 

[laughing dog]

It was (reduction of rival’s power) and it wasn’t (more instability). But there was no way to stop the USSR from crumbling. So what exactly do you think was possible and effective?

Gorbachev wanted some money. US could have given it. Then US would have required less money to spend on its armed forces with a friendly Russia. Perhaps the nuclear pile reduction would have been meaningful. But no, they were the international police. Report: Russia 5,889; US 5,224.

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

There are 9 countries armed with nuclear warheads. Find out which countries have nuclear weapons still and what this could mean for everyone.

www.icanw.org

We disagree. The disintegration of gge USSR was inevitable- more money would have not helped.

 

[aupmanyav]

We disagree. The disintegration of USSR was inevitable- more money would have not helped.

You are welcome. Yes, USSR disintegrated, but Russia is still around.

 

[aupmanyav]

You can rest assured with your nukes. When Putler starts to take your land he will do it a little bit at a time, so nuclear retaliation isn’t worth it.

Not much chance of that. Russia is far away and concentrating on Europe. Our worry is China. But our MRBM missiles can reach Moscow and nearly the whole of Russia.
"K-5 is a submarine-launched ballistic missile under development by Defence Research and Development Organisation of India. The missile has a planned range of around 5,000-6,000 kilometres. K-4 is operational for a range of 3,500 km.

Range of Agni V (Wikipedia). Agni VI under development (Reported range 10,000 km)*.
* I do not know why they would need that?

 

[barbos]

Now you’re facing devastating economic sanctions and a well supplied and battle tested Ukrainian Army.

LOL, OK.

And sorry to disappoint you they are not well supplied. They use soviet era weapons.
They were supplied with few Turkish attack UAVs (useful against islamic terrorists only) and bunch of american anti-tank missiles with expired warranties.
Ukraine has no meaningful Air Power and very limited AA capabilities (Soviet Era crap)
Their Army will collapse faster than Afghan Army.

Georgian Army was well supplied and trained before they attacked South Ossetia.
But they lost to a weak russian army. Since then russian army was better maintained.

I'd be a little careful here. The Ukrainians are better armed than what you think. But the larger issue here is that they are motivated. Their back is up against the wall. Russians want to invade in order to provide a land bridge to the area where their officers like to vacation. The Ukrainians are fighting for their homes. Russia will take the country eventually. But it will be expensive for them.

What are you smoking?
Nobody is going to invade them, but if it happens, there will be no war.
Motivated my ass. They have maybe couple of battalions of nazis who are motivated.
The rest will not fight. Georgians were motivated and lost to ... a much less equipped russian army. Russian army has changed a lot since then, they have shitload of new shiny toys and practiced in Syria.

Looking at some old posts. This one really aged well. There’d be no invasion and if there was they won’t fight.

I see Putin is now vowing to fight it out to the bitter end and let Russians die needlessly until he wins, using his greater population to win a war of attrition. Might work. Will take only a decade or two at the present rate of conquest. Good luck with that, Barbos. Pooty will soon come to recruit your 60+ year old butt.

it aged well. US started this war, not Russia. And Ukrainians are dying in great numbers. Some becasue of russian Army, some on mine fields trying to pass Ukraine-West europe Borders.

New Ukrainians recruits being trained by NATO in Ukraine:

 

[barbos]

That's what Western Propaganda says. In reality public opinion in Russia is much more radical than Putin and afraid that the old man will try to settle at the first opportunity.

God forbid (in a manner of saying).

It took you 30 years to make Russia to invade Ukraine (who was not in NATO). By that rate Russia will invade France in a year 2300. I doubt Putin will live that long.
For the record, Russia "invaded" Ukraine WHEN they "were" tried to "join" NATO.

The US/Russia rivalry is older than Vlad Putin. He was born only in 1952. Rivalries continue for a long time. In our part of the world, for many generations. It would not make any difference even if Putin is not there.

The focus on Ukraine has not allowed me to see what other topics are being discussed in IIDB. Let me have a look at them.

EU-Russia "rivalry" is older than US. Europe has been dreaming of destroying Russia since forever.

 

[barbos]

Western Europe tried to. Nordstream. Economic ties with Russia. The west traded significantly with Russia. But it failed.

You do realize that US was vehemently against NordStream and blew it up at the first opportunity?
It did not fail. It was failed by US.

That if Putin dies, his replacement will be open to talks

Chances are, his replacement will fuck Ukraine up beyond recognition.

 

[barbos]

Nato expansion is dangerous. However, I don't know how else to stop Russian imperialism.

You are not making any sense. There is no such thing a russian imperialism. There is only neocon imperialism.
All you had to do was to not expand NATO and there would have been no war. Of course scum which runs US/EU had a goal to start a war with Russia (and win it). They started it all right, but they are losing it.