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

[Derec]

Yea, I reluctantly agree with Jay. We can't risk WW3.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

How did Public Opinion About Entering World War II Change Between 1939 and 1941? - Americans and the Holocaust - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

exhibitions.ushmm.org

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

How did Public Opinion About Entering World War II Change Between 1939 and 1941? - Americans and the Holocaust - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

exhibitions.ushmm.org

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]

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.

How did Public Opinion About Entering World War II Change Between 1939 and 1941? - Americans and the Holocaust - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

exhibitions.ushmm.org

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]

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]

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.

How did Public Opinion About Entering World War II Change Between 1939 and 1941? - Americans and the Holocaust - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

exhibitions.ushmm.org

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.

 

[Patooka]

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

And yet you are still frustrated as to why things aren't operating to your specific timetable. What is happening now is a million times better than the asinine good guys vs bad guy crap you articulated in your initial post. So fuck your idea. It is stupid.

 

[Hermit]

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.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

Time for the non-US members of NATO to do more

 

[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.

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.

So ... no. Ukraine will be getting their guns from 30 NATO member States, and if there is consensus that Russia needs to be "outgunned", they will be. Meanwhile, the more guns Russia has, the better for the US and Western European "defense" industries.

 

[Hermit]

Time for the non-US members of NATO to do more

Yes, but that's not germane to the context of this thread.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

So ... no. Ukraine will be getting their guns from 30 NATO member States, and if there is consensus that Russia needs to be "outgunned", they will be. Meanwhile, the more guns Russia has, the better for the US and Western European "defense" industries.

So what's your point? That the defense industry will keep the conflict going by lobbying to send weapons to Ukraine, or that they will keep the conflict going by lobbying not to send enough weapons to Ukraine?

If the former, I don't see a problem. In this case the interests of the military-industrial complex align with what's right. Weapons used for self-defense against an aggressor are fine by me. Even if Ukraine loses, building up deterrent to prevent or delay the next war is worth it.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

Time for the non-US members of NATO to do more

Wait, didn't Trump say that?

 

[Patooka]

Wait, didn't Trump say that?

Yes he did. He was wrong also. I could try to educate you on the difference between NATO countries spend in portion of their GDP and the US investing in soft power (hint; NATO could lose half of US funding and still be as effective as this time last week), but you seem to think your country's gas prices are determined by some bloke named Brandon so that's an asinine uphill battle I choose to avoid.

 

[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.

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.

So ... no. Ukraine will be getting their guns from 30 NATO member States, and if there is consensus that Russia needs to be "outgunned", they will be. Meanwhile, the more guns Russia has, the better for the US and Western European "defense" industries.

So what's your point? That the defense industry will keep the conflict going by lobbying to send weapons to Ukraine, or that they will keep the conflict going by lobbying not to send enough weapons to Ukraine?

If the former, I don't see a problem. In this case the interests of the military-industrial complex align with what's right. Weapons used for self-defense against an aggressor are fine by me. Even if Ukraine loses, building up deterrent to prevent or delay the next war is worth it.

It’s the former, and I agree. Not a problem, just a feature of an unfortunate landscape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Taking out the SAM sites would require a pretty major operation against Russia to take down the entire defense network over a large area. You don't just go take out one SAM site independent of the rest.