# PoliticsIs it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

## Should the west declare war on Russia and deploy active troops in Ukraine.

• ### It's what the lizard people want you to think.

Results are only viewable after voting.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I was about to write Russia. But it's not really Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, it's Putin. Russians are his victims as well.

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

I think the time for sanctions and diplomacy has passed. The Ukraine is slowly being ground to dust, and will lose this war. If we (the west) don't step up and help them.

What do you think?

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
Hopefully I've timestamped this correctly:

Military campaigns never play out like shitty Tom Clancy novels.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Hopefully I've timestamped this correctly:

Military campaigns never play out like shitty Tom Clancy novels.

I love that movie.

So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?

#### Hermit

##### Cantankerous grump
Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect. Two examples:

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?
There are so many moving parts that you glossed over in your initial post, this really is nothing more than a fantasy. The coordination and logistics alone would be a fucking nightmare. And if anything I'm understating that. Hence "The most stupid fucking idea I ever heard of".

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect. Two examples:

What exactly are you arguing for? Putin is a dictator. What does he care if Russians rally around him. It's not like they have a choice.

Every country was part of every other country if you go far back enough. That's just classic nationalistic nonsense. Any nationalist can make that argument and will be believed by that country's nationalists.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
So if wars don't play out like a Tom Clancy novel then there's no point going to war? If this is not the time to defend a country from Russian aggression, then what would be the time?

I understand that wars are messy and there's only degrees of losing. But sometimes necessary anyway. Don't you think so?
There are so many moving parts that you glossed over in your initial post, this really is nothing more than a fantasy. The coordination and logistics alone would be a fucking nightmare. And if anything I'm understating that. Hence "The most stupid fucking idea I ever heard of".

How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.
Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3. We can't give the evil Russian empire the motivation to destroy the world. I'm sure that we have special forces in Ukraine helping. But the west can do much more as well. We could find more sanctions. The next step is try find way to punish countries that are helping or providing cover for Russia (China and India and others). We should start boycotting countries that are helping Putler.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

Okay, Leroy. Good luck with that.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

I think the chance of Putin escalating to nuclear war is extremely low. Perhaps if coalition forces threaten to attack into Russia. But I don't think that's in the cards.

The only problem, of course, is that when it comes to nuclear war, even a low chance of it is perhaps an unacceptably high risk. But at this point

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

Finally, an actual serious argument against a war in Ukraine. I think the main problem with the Afghanistan invasion was that the narrative USA was telling about itself was a complete fantasy. Nobody sees USA as the land of the free outside USA. The cold war tarnished USA's image beyond salvation. Something Bush Jr failed completely to understand. It was a question of mismatched propaganda narratives. To the Afghanis I'm sure USA's rhetoric came across as the ramblings of a madman. Which is fascinating in its own right, because nothing should be easier to win against in a propaganda battle than god damn fucking Talebans.

Ukraine is different. But Ukraine is ruled by Oligarchs. Zelenskyy is just a puppet for the maffia. We don't want to go war only to hand it over back to the Ukrainian oligarchs/maffia once it's done. But we do have a golden opportunity to help Ukraine become a modern nation with low corruption. Also a good idea because the Ukraine has natural gas. Making us less dependent on Russia for it.

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.

So I don't think it's worth the risk. I can't answer the poll though because it doesn't have an option for "we shouldn't send armies to Ukraine even if Ukraine is losing".

I think the chance of Putin escalating to nuclear war is extremely low. Perhaps if coalition forces threaten to attack into Russia. But I don't think that's in the cards.

The only problem, of course, is that when it comes to nuclear war, even a low chance of it is perhaps an unacceptably high risk. But at this point

On a general note, sending troops to other countries and fighting on their behalf is usually not a good idea. See Afghanistan: the locals just decided to swipe the money and sell the weapons, and let US and allies do all the fighting, because they could. It's a bad incentive structure. In Ukraine, the locals are the ones who have to decide, when they've had enough, and we need to give them what they need to get as good a negotiating position as they can get.

Finally, an actual serious argument against a war in Ukraine. I think the main problem with the Afghanistan invasion was that the narrative USA was telling about itself was a complete fantasy. Nobody sees USA as the land of the free outside USA. The cold war tarnished USA's image beyond salvation. Something Bush Jr failed completely to understand. It was a question of mismatched propaganda narratives. To the Afghanis I'm sure USA's rhetoric came across as the ramblings of a madman. Which is fascinating in its own right, because nothing should be easier to win against in a propaganda battle than god damn fucking Talebans.

Ukraine is different. But Ukraine is ruled by Oligarchs. Zelenskyy is just a puppet for the maffia. We don't want to go war only to hand it over back to the Ukrainian oligarchs/maffia once it's done. But we do have a golden opportunity to help Ukraine become a modern nation with low corruption. Also a good idea because the Ukraine has natural gas. Making us less dependent on Russia for it.
Agree with your post. The Donbass has very large gas deposits. Not sure if Ukraine gets it back. But clearly, there are very large gas deposits north of Kyiv. Chevron had signed a very large contract to extract it with the Ukrainian government. However, this was stopped when Russia originally invaded in 2014 (which some have theorized was the real reason for the 2014 invasion). Bad news though, is that it would probably take years to develop these fields.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
How's that an argument against war? Most things when it comes to war is a nightmare. So? That's not a reason not to go to war.

Okay, Leroy. Good luck with that.

I don't understand your attitude. Are you seriously saying that it was a mistake for the allies to oppose Hitler? Sometimes violence is necessary

#### Ford

##### Contributor
What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?
At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?
At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.
I think that a "no-fly zone" is unrealistic for a friendly country like Ukraine. Basically, that would mean that both sides get to fight, but they can't use planes or missiles. But what about drones spotting for artillery? Or medium range rockets like those fired from M142 HIMARS?

So in reality, a no-fly zone would mean that the war ends. But does that mean Russia gets to keep what it is already occupying? If not, then clearly it would be just part of NATO air force joining the war on Ukrainian side, "guns blazing" as you put it.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
"The West" is already at war with Russia. It's just not NATO troops all over Ukraine. Instead, Ukraine govt is being given tons of money and weapons, political strategies are in place to make it not worth Russia's interest to fully occupy Ukraine, and there are most likely secret programs to assassinate Putin. Putin was showing signs of being sick up to recently and I bet he will become very ill and die within the next few months.

Poll choices:
"Yes. The sooner we attack the better." -- I am not sure that this is true. It adds a huge amount of risk and complexity. Does Putin have more forces in reserve, will he then use nukes, what would China do, how will Russian sympathizers in Ukraine react to outside involvement, would it increase sympathy for Russia? There is also a lot of political complexity in American politics--such as Russianpublicans may use further direct involvement in the war to completely take over the levels of government and then run from the war entirely. So, it could become the opposite of the intent to be further involved.
"No. Ukraine will be able to defend themselves on their own." -- As written above, Ukraine seems not on its own as there is some support and in parallel most likely a strategy to take out Putin.
"It's what the lizard people want you to think." -- There is some truth to this option as there are beneficiaries to a Ukraine war, including not only defense contractors making gazillions but also gas and oil barons who have a vested interest to own the same resources that Putin and Russian oligarchs want. We have to, of course, detach ourselves from who wants what and pay attention instead to what would be the outcome. We ought not support the massive deaths of innocents and that is really the bottom line. Regardless of capitalist corruption and American or Russian oligarchs owning things in a post-war world, would an invasion of Russia-occupied Ukraine by NATO result in overall less deaths overall, not immediately, but several chess moves later on?

#### Harry Bosch

##### Contributor
And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?
A way will be found. I'd argue that Europe (mostly Germany) took a much bigger risk on counting on Russia when it decided to ditch its nuclear power plants in favor of Russian gas. The sad fact is that Europe needs power. Or they can't run their factories nor heat their homes. They can't count on Russia. But they have to find a way to power their countries.

#### Hermit

##### Cantankerous grump
Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect.
What exactly are you arguing for?
Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. Surely, you won't need me to spell out the consequences.
Putin is a dictator. What does he care if Russians rally around him. It's not like they have a choice.
Point being?
Every country was part of every other country if you go far back enough. That's just classic nationalistic nonsense.
That really has no bearing on what is going to happen when the inhabitants of a nation are confronted with what you euphemistically refer to as "a show of force". Classic nationalism is a nonsense, to be sure, but the rally 'round the flag effect happens regardless of whether or not the head of state is a dictator. You can bet your bottom krona on that. I cited two of many examples. There are plenty more.
Any nationalist can make that argument and will be believed by that country's nationalists.
Exactly, but faced with a real or faked threat promoters of that argument need not be nationalists and the believers need not be either. Just look at how quickly isolationist sentiments in the USA evaporated after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The point was made most succinctly by Hermann Göring. Gustave Mark was an American psychologist, who examined him among other high-ranking Nazis at length during the Nuremberg trials. From his notes, published in his 1950 book The Psychology of Dictatorship:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
The reaction by the poor slobs is automatic. Obviously, no leader needs to actually tell them that their country is being attacked when it is confronted by what you refer euphemistically as "a show of force".

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?
A way will be found. I'd argue that Europe (mostly Germany) took a much bigger risk on counting on Russia when it decided to ditch its nuclear power plants in favor of Russian gas. The sad fact is that Europe needs power. Or they can't run their factories nor heat their homes. They can't count on Russia. But they have to find a way to power their countries.
Europe can wean off natural gas as an energy source by the time the Ukrainian gas fields can be developed. But natural gas (i.e. methane) as a material for chemical industry is probably going to be in demand even decades from now.

The investments would have to come from private sector though. And there's always other places to invest it, like gas fields in Mediterranean, or more LNG terminals, the Ukrainian country risk might be too high.

#### Politesse

##### Lux Aeterna
It's not time, because it isn't possible. If it's a question of whether we should go to war, I'd say we already have. Supplying arms and aid to one side while laying economic sanctions on the other is going to war. But we have no power to "kick Putin out of Ukraine", and putting troops on the ground would not change that reality. This isn't a TV Western; the Russians are not going to scream "oh my god the Swedes have arrived" and just retreat. Rather, the presence of more foreign troops would prolong the conflict, increase its devastation to the average citizen, and ultimately build greater support for the Russian cause as people start to wonder whether a diplomatic end to the war would be preferable to the continued burden of supporting vast numbers of non-Ukrainian soldiers.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
I think I could get behind NATO providing air support for Ukraine, but no troops on the ground. But I'm also sure this would expand the war to other countries.

#### Elixir

this would expand the war to other countries.
Okay... I'm wondering what THAT would look like, considering how thin-spread the great Red Army seems to be just trying to take a small bite out of Ukraine.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
I was about to write Russia. But it's not really Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, it's Putin. Russians are his victims as well.
If it's Putin, then surely taking out Putin would be the logical solution? I've no idea about Putin's popularity in Russia and how it would fly to have Putin offed.

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

I think the time for sanctions and diplomacy has passed. The Ukraine is slowly being ground to dust, and will lose this war. If we (the west) don't step up and help them.

What do you think?

The "West's" involvement is just prolonging things. Diplomacy needs to end this thing. I get the impression there's a lot of chest thumping going about how the Ukrainians are standing up to Putin.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
I was about to write Russia. But it's not really Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, it's Putin. Russians are his victims as well.
If it's Putin, then surely taking out Putin would be the logical solution? I've no idea about Putin's popularity in Russia and how it would fly to have Putin offed.
Not so easy to do. CIA tried to assassinate Castro hundreds of times, and Putin is much more well protected than Castro ever was.

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

I think the time for sanctions and diplomacy has passed. The Ukraine is slowly being ground to dust, and will lose this war. If we (the west) don't step up and help them.

What do you think?

The "West's" involvement is just prolonging things. Diplomacy needs to end this thing. I get the impression there's a lot of chest thumping going about how the Ukrainians are standing up to Putin.
The purpose of giving weapons is (or should be) to give Ukraine a better negotiation position when the diplomacy begins. As for western diplomacy with Russia, it failed because there was no credible threat of force or unity behind it. Europe is still paying billions of dollars every month to finance Putin's war machine, because they are too addicted to Russian natural gas and oil.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
this would expand the war to other countries.
Okay... I'm wondering what THAT would look like, considering how thin-spread the great Red Army seems to be just trying to take a small bite out of Ukraine.
I would guess artillary shelling. It seems to be the only thing the Russians are good at.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
this would expand the war to other countries.
Okay... I'm wondering what THAT would look like, considering how thin-spread the great Red Army seems to be just trying to take a small bite out of Ukraine.
I would guess artillary shelling. It seems to be the only thing the Russians are good at.
Or taking out soft targets, causing forces to be spread thin instead of being focused in Ukraine. Also, EU countries would start to wonder whether they should send equipment to Ukraine, or use it themselves.

It's definitely not something that would work out for Russia. But I think the point here is, if NATO starts to attack Russian troops in Ukraine, then the bar gets lower for Russia to attack NATO troops elsewhere.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
I was about to write Russia. But it's not really Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, it's Putin. Russians are his victims as well.
If it's Putin, then surely taking out Putin would be the logical solution? I've no idea about Putin's popularity in Russia and how it would fly to have Putin offed.

Don't you think he'd be as revered and honoured as Saddam was? The Iraqis loved him up until his secret police folded. Then suddenly all that love evaporated in an instant.

What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?

I think the time for sanctions and diplomacy has passed. The Ukraine is slowly being ground to dust, and will lose this war. If we (the west) don't step up and help them.

What do you think?

The "West's" involvement is just prolonging things. Diplomacy needs to end this thing. I get the impression there's a lot of chest thumping going about how the Ukrainians are standing up to Putin.

The Ukranians don't have a chance. Right now fighting is just putting off the inevitable. I think the only reason the Ukranians are still fighting is because they expect western aid at some point. When that hope dies I think Ukranian defences will melt away

#### Elixir

the only reason the Ukranians are still fighting is because they expect western aid at some point. When that hope dies I think Ukranian defences will melt away

Why will that hope die? The munitions industry will keep it alive.

#### TSwizzle

##### Let's Go Brandon!
Don't you think he'd be as revered and honoured as Saddam was? The Iraqis loved him up until his secret police folded. Then suddenly all that love evaporated in an instant.
I don't know what the Russian people think of Putin. They're a funny (funny weird, not funny ha-ha) lot.

The Ukranians don't have a chance. Right now fighting is just putting off the inevitable. I think the only reason the Ukranians are still fighting is because they expect western aid at some point. When that hope dies I think Ukranian defences will melt away
Indeed, how much money is the USA going throw at this fool's errand because the European's will be pleading poverty pretty soon. Has Russian played them a blinder by getting them so dependent on Russian oil and gas? What a situation, heavily rely on Russia for oil and gas and then give their neighbor weapons to bomb them. Funny old game.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
Don't you think he'd be as revered and honoured as Saddam was? The Iraqis loved him up until his secret police folded. Then suddenly all that love evaporated in an instant.
If you think Ws invasion of Iraq was shining success story that should be emulated, then that's why I compared your attitude to Leroy Jenkins.

You haven't specified if it should be a NATO invasion or EU-led invasion
You haven't specified who would lead such an invasion
You haven't specified the size and type of military equipment involved
You haven't specified which countries next to Russia would be fine with a mobilization within their borders
You haven't specified what talks, if any, between Moldova, Belarus and Hungary and the imaginary coalition army of yours would entail
You haven't specified what sort of transitional government would take place in the very unlikely chance Putin is taken out by Western forces (FYI, this is the big point)
You haven't specified what the type of "lost coms" procedure would be used in this coalition army you imagined to prevent a metric fuckload of blue on green happening
You haven't specified how each and every nation involved in this fantasy of yours would authorise an act on war via their government to their citizens
You haven't specified any involvement of the UN, the Security council in particular
You haven't specified the obvious reaction from China

You've ignored a lot of things, decided "fuck it, we'll figure it out on the fly because Hitler" and consider that to be a good idea. It's downright moronic. I don't think you have a fucking clue how difficult it is to have armies from only two countries working together. Let alone this, what twenty?, you've conjured up in this fantasy.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
And who's going to pony up the cash to develop gas fields with the risk that they'll just be gobbled up by Russia and Belarus the next time they attack?
A way will be found. I'd argue that Europe (mostly Germany) took a much bigger risk on counting on Russia when it decided to ditch its nuclear power plants in favor of Russian gas. The sad fact is that Europe needs power. Or they can't run their factories nor heat their homes. They can't count on Russia. But they have to find a way to power their countries.
Germany took that risk. France didn’t.

France is the model; If the rest of the EU want freedom from Russian gas, and want to massively reduce their carbon emissions, they need to look at the fact that the French did both, and the Germans have spent vastly more time and money, yet have achieved neither.

This is a simple choice between doing something that works, and has been demonstrated to work; And doing something that feels like it ought to work, that has massive ideological support, but that has been demonstrated to be impossible.

Feelings and ideology cannot overcome engineering and reality.

The sooner we accept this, the less pain we will all have to endure.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
the only reason the Ukranians are still fighting is because they expect western aid at some point. When that hope dies I think Ukranian defences will melt away

Why will that hope die? The munitions industry will keep it alive.
It's also worth pointing out that everyone, including the Ukrainian military thought they would last weeks at most conventionally resisting a Russian invasion. The original plan was what military experts call asymmetrical warfare. That's the reason why Ukraine tripled the amount of underground shelters since 2014 and I suspect some were kept off the books. That Ukraine decimated Russia's paratrooper force over Kiev and forced them to use technicals in some parts of occupied territories for example surprised pretty much everyone.

So if we are going to use Iraq as an example, Putin hasn't even reached the equivalent of a Mission Accomplished moment yet. And if/when he does reach that stage, he'll still have to occupy a hostile nation. I suspect Russia will run out of steam before Ukraine does.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
So if we are going to use Iraq as an example, Putin hasn't even reached the equivalent of a Mission Accomplished moment yet. And if/when he does reach that stage, he'll still have to occupy a hostile nation. I suspect Russia will run out of steam before Ukraine does.
I think the occupation analogy also fails. The US in Iraq or Afghanistan wasn't trying to annex land, or replace the local population with Americans. Also American occupiers had to work within some boundaries when it came to human rights, respecting local authorities, and international law. Russia has no such limitations. It will crush any insurgency, get rid of the Ukrainian population, and replace it with Russians. That's how Russia has done it for hundreds of years. It will not be anything like the temporary US occupation of Iraq.

#### Patooka

##### Veteran Member
So if we are going to use Iraq as an example, Putin hasn't even reached the equivalent of a Mission Accomplished moment yet. And if/when he does reach that stage, he'll still have to occupy a hostile nation. I suspect Russia will run out of steam before Ukraine does.
I think the occupation analogy also fails. The US in Iraq or Afghanistan wasn't trying to annex land, or replace the local population with Americans. Also American occupiers had to work within some boundaries when it came to human rights, respecting local authorities, and international law. Russia has no such limitations. It will crush any insurgency, get rid of the Ukrainian population, and replace it with Russians. That's how Russia has done it for hundreds of years. It will not be anything like the temporary US occupation of Iraq.
Good point, but I don't think Russia has the military personnel to accomplish even that.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the reason why Russia hasn't used nukes, and will likely not do so, is fear of drawing NATO into the conflict. But if NATO or just the US does send troops or planes to Ukraine, and start directly attacking Russian troops there, then the cat would be out of the bag and there's no reason for Russia not to start using tactical nuclear weapons or hitting NATO/US targets outside Ukraine.

The cat needs to stay in the bag, so that there are some unknown, unpredictable consequences that the West can threaten Russia with. When those consequences are activated and become predictable, their value as a deterrence is going to plummet.
This. Direct combat is a horrendous risk that we shouldn't take.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?
At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.
And what happens when the patrols get shot down by SAMs in Russia and Belarus?

#### Ford

##### Contributor
What do you think? Has this invasion gone on long enough? Is it time to make a show of force and push out Russia once and for all?
At the beginning of the conflict, I heard an argument for establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and the longer this goes on the better that option looks.

The plan was to not just go in guns-a-blazing. NATO (or select members) would simply set a date and time for the operation to start. When the deadline arrived, the participating powers would shoot down any aircraft larger than a kite that entered the airspace of Ukraine. Ukraine's air force would also stand down. Simple deterrence. Don't fly here, don't get shot down.

Russia knows that going toe to toe with NATO is a losing proposition. Stick a toe out there, guys. You don't have to "push out Russia" from Ukraine. The Ukrainians can do that.
And what happens when the patrols get shot down by SAMs in Russia and Belarus?
Part of the message delivered to Russia would be an explicit warning that ANYTHING which enters Ukrainian airspace would elicit a response. Fire a SAM? That site no longer exists. Is that an escalation? Yes. Is it a threat? Yes. Yet Putin has threatened escalation since day one. The threat of escalation is part of his strategy. Yet again, Putin knows his limits. Would he be stupid enough to launch a weapon against a NATO aircraft, knowing the response would be immediate and overwhelming?

It is also worth noting that Putin wants to return his country to a semblance of it's former glory when he was in the KGB. Back then it was understood...."we won't shoot at you so long as you don't shoot at us." Russia is a shadow of what the USSR was as far as military capability. The USSR could stand up to NATO. Russia today can't. Putin needs NATO to sit this one out, because otherwise he will lose. Leverage that position. We promise "we won't shoot at you so long as you don't shoot at us." That promise always came with "but if you do..."

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Part of the message delivered to Russia would be an explicit warning that ANYTHING which enters Ukrainian airspace would elicit a response. Fire a SAM? That site no longer exists. Is that an escalation? Yes. Is it a threat? Yes. Yet Putin has threatened escalation since day one. The threat of escalation is part of his strategy. Yet again, Putin knows his limits. Would he be stupid enough to launch a weapon against a NATO aircraft, knowing the response would be immediate and overwhelming?
Would not work with Russian weapons already on Ukrainian territory. They have not entered Ukrainian airspace. But would work with missiles fired from bombers etc.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect.

So we should not have kicked out Hitler out of parts of Europe he occupied (most of it)? You know, because of the fear Germans might rally behind him if we do.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3.
Majority of Americans were against joining WW2 even after France and Britain had declared war, even when the latter was already occupied. Can't blame that on Chamberlain.

The biggest handicap the west has now is also the public opinion. In a democracy, politicians can't go against the public for long, and if the public is more interested in price of gas or haggling about identity politics, what are you going to do? That's also what Putin is counting on.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
the only reason the Ukranians are still fighting is because they expect western aid at some point. When that hope dies I think Ukranian defences will melt away

Why will that hope die? The munitions industry will keep it alive.

It's simply a question of numbers. Russia outguns the Ukraine on every metric. You know, the one reason the Allies beat the Axis in WW2 despite the Axis initial successes.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Don't you think he'd be as revered and honoured as Saddam was? The Iraqis loved him up until his secret police folded. Then suddenly all that love evaporated in an instant.
I don't know what the Russian people think of Putin. They're a funny (funny weird, not funny ha-ha) lot.

I saw an interview with Konstantin Kisin where he talks about the Russian psyche. He said that Russians are incredibly skeptical about anybody in power. As such they will just go with whoever has power simply because they have the power right now. But they'll switch sides at the drop of a hat.

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Right now the Russian people see Russians fighting Ukrainians. Not a good look for Putin. I suspect his propaganda machine struggles with this. Even the few western fighters captured or killed is a bad look and helps Putin in the eyes of the Russian people. I can only imagine what an actual commitment of US forces in Ukraine would do in these regards.

Supposedly the tide will soon turn against Russian forces. They are expending hardware they cannot readily replace while the west can keep supplying Ukraine for as long as Ukraine wants. The gains Russia has made have been small and hard won and of little value if they cannot be developed and exploited.

That Russia could not quickly take Ukraine with little loss of infrastructure means they have already lost. Or to put another way, what exactly are they winning? Exhausted battlefields with billions in reconstruction cost.

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Don't you think he'd be as revered and honoured as Saddam was? The Iraqis loved him up until his secret police folded. Then suddenly all that love evaporated in an instant.
If you think Ws invasion of Iraq was shining success story that should be emulated, then that's why I compared your attitude to Leroy Jenkins.

Saddam's not there anymore. I think that has made the world a better place. He's also an example to other dictators. I think the knock on effects are global and promotes world peace. It also woke up the West to the magnitude of the threat of militant Islam around the world, which is something I think we in the west were naive about. Those are all good things.

You haven't specified if it should be a NATO invasion or EU-led invasion

It won't be NATO led since NATO is a defensive pact and Ukraine isn't in NATO.

I suspect it will be led by whoever shows up with the biggest guns. So... USA.

You haven't specified the size and type of military equipment involved

Why is that important to do at this stage?

You haven't specified which countries next to Russia would be fine with a mobilization within their borders

Next to the Ukranian border, you mean? Romania and Poland are. I'm 100% sure they'd be cool about it. Very cool.

You haven't specified what talks, if any, between Moldova, Belarus and Hungary and the imaginary coalition army of yours would entail

I don't think any of those will get in the way of any allied forces. They'd be rapidly crushed and they know it.

You haven't specified what sort of transitional government would take place in the very unlikely chance Putin is taken out by Western forces (FYI, this is the big point)

? Ehe... what transitional government? Ukraine already has one. How would we remove Putin? My suggestion is to put troops in Ukraine to push out Russian troops out of Ukraine. Not to invade Russia. That'd be insane.

You haven't specified what the type of "lost coms" procedure would be used in this coalition army you imagined to prevent a metric fuckload of blue on green happening
You haven't specified how each and every nation involved in this fantasy of yours would authorise an act on war via their government to their citizens

What?

You haven't specified any involvement of the UN, the Security council in particular

No, I have not. Just like for the Iraq invasion we can just ignore the UN.

You haven't specified the obvious reaction from China

China can make a move now as well.

You've ignored a lot of things, decided "fuck it, we'll figure it out on the fly because Hitler" and consider that to be a good idea. It's downright moronic. I don't think you have a fucking clue how difficult it is to have armies from only two countries working together. Let alone this, what twenty?, you've conjured up in this fantasy.

Because it's not my job to figure this out?

#### DrZoidberg

##### Contributor
Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3.
Majority of Americans were against joining WW2 even after France and Britain had declared war, even when the latter was already occupied. Can't blame that on Chamberlain.

The biggest handicap the west has now is also the public opinion. In a democracy, politicians can't go against the public for long, and if the public is more interested in price of gas or haggling about identity politics, what are you going to do? That's also what Putin is counting on.

Perhaps we can learn from history?

#### Hermit

##### Cantankerous grump
Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect.

So we should not have kicked out Hitler out of parts of Europe he occupied (most of it)? You know, because of the fear Germans might rally behind him if we do.
Ah. You are a student of the Cathy Newman technique. Great.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The Russians were driven out of Afghanistan without direct confrontations between NATO and Soviet forces. What happened instead was the arming of the mujahideen at a cost of between 6 and 12 billion dollars. Supplying them with about 2300 FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles was probably the greatest factor in forcing the Russian military out of the country between 1987 and 1989. It also was a major contributing factor in the economic and political collapse of the Soviet empire.

$6–12 billion is a lot of money, but it is a lot less than the human and material cost that would result in a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO members. Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3. Majority of Americans were against joining WW2 even after France and Britain had declared war, even when the latter was already occupied. Can't blame that on Chamberlain. The biggest handicap the west has now is also the public opinion. In a democracy, politicians can't go against the public for long, and if the public is more interested in price of gas or haggling about identity politics, what are you going to do? That's also what Putin is counting on. Perhaps we can learn from history? There are limits to what we can learn from history. A direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO members will not avoid another world war. It will make it much more likely. WWIII will be nothing like WWII. #### Harry Bosch ##### Contributor Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3. I'm curious, under what charter in the NATO treaty would you engage to initiate a NATO attack on Russian soldiers in Ukraine? #### Harry Bosch ##### Contributor Bad idea. Nothing rallies the plebs to a nation's leader than a threat by an external force. As far as most Russians are concerned Ukraine is rightfully an integral part of Russia. It's called the rally 'round the flag effect. So we should not have kicked out Hitler out of parts of Europe he occupied (most of it)? You know, because of the fear Germans might rally behind him if we do. Ah. You are a student of the Cathy Newman technique. Great. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The Russians were driven out of Afghanistan without direct confrontations between NATO and Soviet forces. What happened instead was the arming of the mujahideen at a cost of between 6 and 12 billion dollars. Supplying them with about 2300 FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missiles was probably the greatest factor in forcing the Russian military out of the country between 1987 and 1989. It also was a major contributing factor in the economic and political collapse of the Soviet empire.$6–12 billion is a lot of money, but it is a lot less than the human and material cost that would result in a direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO members.

Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3.
Majority of Americans were against joining WW2 even after France and Britain had declared war, even when the latter was already occupied. Can't blame that on Chamberlain.

The biggest handicap the west has now is also the public opinion. In a democracy, politicians can't go against the public for long, and if the public is more interested in price of gas or haggling about identity politics, what are you going to do? That's also what Putin is counting on.

Perhaps we can learn from history?
There are limits to what we can learn from history. A direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO members will not avoid another world war. It will make it much more likely. WWIII will be nothing like WWII.

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.