|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 20, 2024 16:03:56 GMT -5
Yeah, why let actual facts derail your capitulation agenda? It's fine to root for Ukraine but at the end of the day, NOTHING will happen to America negatively if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia. The attempts to ignore reality and pretend that this war is 'existential' for us is why we're seeing such bad policies be proposed instead of attempts by third-parties to de-escalate. That's demonstrably false. And again, you love the term 'de-escalate' but that's not what you're advocating for. You're advocating for Ukraine and the West to simply capitulate to Putin. I'll give you this... you're consistent. You've been arguing that we should capitulate to Putin for over three years now.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 16:44:53 GMT -5
It's fine to root for Ukraine but at the end of the day, NOTHING will happen to America negatively if Ukraine fails to defeat Russia. The attempts to ignore reality and pretend that this war is 'existential' for us is why we're seeing such bad policies be proposed instead of attempts by third-parties to de-escalate. That's demonstrably false. Okay then I'll ask you the same question I've asked to others (no one has attempted to answer of course): What's the worst thing that will happen to our country, the USA, if Ukraine loses? I've tried and failed over the years to understand why Ukraine is more important to us than Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or other conflicts where the negative impacts on our country have been minimal despite those wars not working out overall in our favor. And again, you love the term 'de-escalate' but that's not what you're advocating for. You're advocating for Ukraine and the West to simply capitulate to Putin.If you are unable to militarily or politically win a war, you make compromises for peace. That's been the rule of war since the beginning of time. This war is no exception. Some just stubbornly refuse to admit that the basic laws of the jungle apply in this circumstance. Ukraine has defied expectations by fighting the Russians to a near stalemate but they're not going to defeat Russia on the battlefield. There's simply no way they can overcome Russia's war machine. "The West" isn't losing anything regardless of how the war ends. At worst, it would be a political problem of embarrassment for Western leaders who tried and failed to use Ukraine as a vehicle to destabilize Russia and overthrow Putin. People like Lindsey Graham and John Bolton are more honest about the "proxy-war vs Russia" aspect of our involvement with Ukraine than others who pretend this is about "democracy vs autocracy". Neither Putin nor Zelensky care all that much about democracy. Ukraine is fighting to defend their sovereignty while some of their Western backers view them as cannon fodder to use against Putin...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2024 17:08:46 GMT -5
So first, it's nice to see a European power actually talking tough on this. Had the French and Germans done a better job of maintaining their militaries, Putin might even take such statements seriously and think a little harder about what he's doing in Ukraine. First and foremost this is a European problem, and the Europeans should be taking the lead on solving it. It's in their backyard.
If the Europeans want to send troops into Ukraine because they're concerned a weakened Ukraine removes another buffer between them and a more aggressive Putin, I think that's an entirely reasonable stance. I for one would feel a LOT better about the US supporting our European allies in this fight by sending countries like France, Germany, the UK, Poland, etc., our most advanced weapons to do what they feel they need to do to stop the Russian menace. Sending top of the line weapons to Ukraine, which needs to train their soldiers to use them, isn't a wise investment. In any event, the US shouldn't have to send troops. And we shouldn't care more about European security than Europe does.
I don't agree that the Russian economy is doing well. The current sanctions regime will eventually crush it regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, provided it remains in place. Russia has already lost this war, it just hasn't figured that out yet.
To answer soulflower's question: if it turns out I'm wrong about the Russian economy, and Ukraine is completely defeated, the worst thing that happens is that Russia directly attacks a NATO ally - say Poland, Finland or the Baltics, and the fight moves to NATO soil. IMO, this is a likely next step for Putin. He wants to put the USSR back together, and that includes countries that are now in NATO. If the fight does move to NATO soil, the US will be obliged to send troops. At that point, Russia WILL get smacked hard, NATO WOULD invade Russia, and that likely triggers a nuclear war.
So the worst thing that happens if Ukraine loses is a global thermonuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 20, 2024 17:19:52 GMT -5
That's demonstrably false. Okay then I'll ask you the same question I've asked to others (no one has attempted to answer of course): What's the worst thing that will happen to our country, the USA, if Ukraine loses? I've tried and failed over the years to understand why Ukraine is more important to us than Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or other conflicts where the negative impacts on our country have been minimal despite those wars not working out overall in our favor. And again, you love the term 'de-escalate' but that's not what you're advocating for. You're advocating for Ukraine and the West to simply capitulate to Putin.Neither Putin nor Zelensky care all that much about democracy. What an ignorant thing to say
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 17:40:04 GMT -5
So first, it's nice to see a European power actually talking tough on this. Had the French and Germans done a better job of maintaining their militaries, Putin might even take such statements seriously and think a little harder about what he's doing in Ukraine. First and foremost this is a European problem, and the Europeans should be taking the lead on solving it. It's in their backyard. If the Europeans want to send troops into Ukraine because they're concerned a weakened Ukraine removes another buffer between them and a more aggressive Putin, I think that's an entirely reasonable stance. I for one would feel a LOT better about the US supporting our European allies in this fight by sending countries like France, Germany, the UK, Poland, etc., our most advanced weapons to do what they feel they need to do to stop the Russian menace. Sending top of the line weapons to Ukraine, which needs to train their soldiers to use them, isn't a wise investment. In any event, the US shouldn't have to send troops. And we shouldn't care more about European security than Europe does. I don't agree that the Russian economy is doing well. The current sanctions regime will eventually crush it regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, provided it remains in place. Russia has already lost this war, it just hasn't figured that out yet. To answer soulflower's question: if it turns out I'm wrong about the Russian economy, and Ukraine is completely defeated, the worst thing that happens is that Russia directly attacks a NATO ally - say Poland, Finland or the Baltics, and the fight moves to NATO soil. IMO, this is a likely next step for Putin. He wants to put the USSR back together, and that includes countries that are now in NATO. If the fight does move to NATO soil, the US will be obliged to send troops. At that point, Russia WILL get smacked hard, NATO WOULD invade Russia, and that likely triggers a nuclear war. So the worst thing that happens if Ukraine loses is a global thermonuclear war. WHY would Putin or the next Russian despot provoke a potential nuclear holocaust by attacking a NATO member country? What's the upside for Russia to start a war against 30+ countries, some of which are nuclear powers? I actually view NATO and nukes as successful deterrents against Russian aggression in Europe. If you no longer think the NATO alliance and nuclear weapons are deterrents (as they were throughout the Cold War), please elaborate on why Russia would commit national suicide by starting a war with NATO...
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 17:43:41 GMT -5
Okay then I'll ask you the same question I've asked to others (no one has attempted to answer of course): What's the worst thing that will happen to our country, the USA, if Ukraine loses? I've tried and failed over the years to understand why Ukraine is more important to us than Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam or other conflicts where the negative impacts on our country have been minimal despite those wars not working out overall in our favor. Neither Putin nor Zelensky care all that much about democracy. What an ignorant thing to say 'Zelensky is becoming an autocrat': Kiev mayor Vitaly Klitschko slams Ukraine's leaderZelensky has jailed political opponents, religious clergy, peace activists, and cancelled elections. He's acting like an autocrat. And again, you ignored my very reasonable question because maybe you don't have a good answer. I appreciate RJ attempting to answer my question although I don't agree that it's likely that Russia would start a war against a NATO member country.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2024 17:53:00 GMT -5
So first, it's nice to see a European power actually talking tough on this. Had the French and Germans done a better job of maintaining their militaries, Putin might even take such statements seriously and think a little harder about what he's doing in Ukraine. First and foremost this is a European problem, and the Europeans should be taking the lead on solving it. It's in their backyard. If the Europeans want to send troops into Ukraine because they're concerned a weakened Ukraine removes another buffer between them and a more aggressive Putin, I think that's an entirely reasonable stance. I for one would feel a LOT better about the US supporting our European allies in this fight by sending countries like France, Germany, the UK, Poland, etc., our most advanced weapons to do what they feel they need to do to stop the Russian menace. Sending top of the line weapons to Ukraine, which needs to train their soldiers to use them, isn't a wise investment. In any event, the US shouldn't have to send troops. And we shouldn't care more about European security than Europe does. I don't agree that the Russian economy is doing well. The current sanctions regime will eventually crush it regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, provided it remains in place. Russia has already lost this war, it just hasn't figured that out yet. To answer soulflower's question: if it turns out I'm wrong about the Russian economy, and Ukraine is completely defeated, the worst thing that happens is that Russia directly attacks a NATO ally - say Poland, Finland or the Baltics, and the fight moves to NATO soil. IMO, this is a likely next step for Putin. He wants to put the USSR back together, and that includes countries that are now in NATO. If the fight does move to NATO soil, the US will be obliged to send troops. At that point, Russia WILL get smacked hard, NATO WOULD invade Russia, and that likely triggers a nuclear war. So the worst thing that happens if Ukraine loses is a global thermonuclear war. WHY would Putin or the next Russian despot provoke potential nuclear holocaust by attacking a NATO member country? What's the upside for Russia to start a war against 30+ countries, some of which are nuclear powers? I actually view NATO and nukes as successful deterrents against Russian aggression in Europe. If you no longer think the NATO alliance and nuclear weapons are deterrents (as they were throughout the Cold War), please elaborate on why Russia would commit national suicide by starting a war with NATO... Why would Putin think it was OK to just waltz in and conquer Ukraine? Or Georgia for that matter? What's in either of those countries that benefits Russia? Some would argue that they offer access routes for foreign militaries that could invade Russia and that by occupying those countries, Russia can plug those gaps. Others would just point to Putin's statements that the collapse of the USSR was a catastrophe and say that he's simply doing what he can to rebuild the empire the way his predecessors did. It's simply the thing that Russian tyrants have always done. NATO WAS a successful deterrent against Soviet aggression in Europe because the Soviet Union had control of the access points and the buffers it needed to protect itself. You're assuming Putin has a realistic assessment of his military and will act on it in a rational manner, but there was nothing rational about invading Ukraine outside of the thinking I put forward above. And even that's not rational so much as it is typical Russian nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Mar 20, 2024 18:13:36 GMT -5
So first, it's nice to see a European power actually talking tough on this. Had the French and Germans done a better job of maintaining their militaries, Putin might even take such statements seriously and think a little harder about what he's doing in Ukraine. First and foremost this is a European problem, and the Europeans should be taking the lead on solving it. It's in their backyard. If the Europeans want to send troops into Ukraine because they're concerned a weakened Ukraine removes another buffer between them and a more aggressive Putin, I think that's an entirely reasonable stance. I for one would feel a LOT better about the US supporting our European allies in this fight by sending countries like France, Germany, the UK, Poland, etc., our most advanced weapons to do what they feel they need to do to stop the Russian menace. Sending top of the line weapons to Ukraine, which needs to train their soldiers to use them, isn't a wise investment. In any event, the US shouldn't have to send troops. And we shouldn't care more about European security than Europe does. I don't agree that the Russian economy is doing well. The current sanctions regime will eventually crush it regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, provided it remains in place. Russia has already lost this war, it just hasn't figured that out yet. To answer soulflower's question: if it turns out I'm wrong about the Russian economy, and Ukraine is completely defeated, the worst thing that happens is that Russia directly attacks a NATO ally - say Poland, Finland or the Baltics, and the fight moves to NATO soil. IMO, this is a likely next step for Putin. He wants to put the USSR back together, and that includes countries that are now in NATO. If the fight does move to NATO soil, the US will be obliged to send troops. At that point, Russia WILL get smacked hard, NATO WOULD invade Russia, and that likely triggers a nuclear war. So the worst thing that happens if Ukraine loses is a global thermonuclear war. WHY would Putin or the next Russian despot provoke a potential nuclear holocaust by attacking a NATO member country? What's the upside for Russia to start a war against 30+ countries, some of which are nuclear powers? I actually view NATO and nukes as successful deterrents against Russian aggression in Europe. If you no longer think the NATO alliance and nuclear weapons are deterrents (as they were throughout the Cold War), please elaborate on why Russia would commit national suicide by starting a war with NATO... No one makes a better case for Ukraine joining NATO than Soul
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 18:22:05 GMT -5
WHY would Putin or the next Russian despot provoke potential nuclear holocaust by attacking a NATO member country? What's the upside for Russia to start a war against 30+ countries, some of which are nuclear powers? I actually view NATO and nukes as successful deterrents against Russian aggression in Europe. If you no longer think the NATO alliance and nuclear weapons are deterrents (as they were throughout the Cold War), please elaborate on why Russia would commit national suicide by starting a war with NATO... Why would Putin think it was OK to just waltz in and conquer Ukraine? Or Georgia for that matter? Easy. Ukraine and Georgia aren't NATO countries and they don't have nukes. I think we can agree that Putin miscalculated on Ukraine and thought it wouldn't be as difficult as it has been for Russia to subdue Ukraine and force Zelensky out of power. And with those examples, it's easy to understand why most former Soviet countries want to join NATO but it's not in our interest to allow every country that wants to join the alliance to become a NATO member. Because Russia is nowhere near capable of winning a conventional war against NATO and nuclear war is basically "suicide" for all parties involved, it's highly unlikely that Russia, even Putin's Russia, would start a war against a NATO member country. Deterrence still matters. What's in either of those countries that benefits Russia? We probably won't agree on this but in the years leading up to the 2022 invasion, the CIA and NATO were getting more involved with Ukraine. The CIA has bases near Ukraine's border with Russia per the NY Times. Imagine how we'd respond if the KGB had dozens of bases near our border with Mexico or Canada. NATO began arming and training Ukraine's military around 2015 or so. Which gives the impression that Ukraine was in the process of being prepared to join NATO. We helped Ukraine overthrow their last Russia-friendly President in 2014. After that, Putin responded by annexing Crimea and a civil war in eastern Ukraine followed. Putin's actions were predicted in 2008 by the current CIA director, Bill Burns, when he warned President Bush against inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO alliance. Burns predicted that Russia would take action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in response. Which is exactly what happened. So with regards to Ukraine, Putin maybe felt he had to do something to prevent the country from being used to threaten Russia? Maybe he felt that Ukraine would be allowed into NATO in the future so the time is "now" to prevent that from happening? I stand by my opposition to Putin's 2022 invasion but I don't think it was an irrational act. There were provocations from Western countries that led to escalatory actions. At this point, regime change and disarming Ukraine are unlikely goals for Putin. Backing down from those demands is the compromise he needs to make. While backing down from attempting to militarily recapture all territory occupied by Russia in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are issues that Ukraine will need to compromise on. Neither side can get everything they want via military force.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 20, 2024 19:07:48 GMT -5
Why would Putin think it was OK to just waltz in and conquer Ukraine? Or Georgia for that matter? Easy. Ukraine and Georgia aren't NATO countries and they don't have nukes. I think we can agree that Putin miscalculated on Ukraine and thought it wouldn't be as difficult as it has been for Russia to subdue Ukraine and force Zelensky out of power. And with those examples, it's easy to understand why most former Soviet countries want to join NATO but it's not in our interest to allow every country that wants to join the alliance to become a NATO member. Because Russia is nowhere near capable of winning a conventional war against NATO and nuclear war is basically "suicide" for all parties involved, it's highly unlikely that Russia, even Putin's Russia, would start a war against a NATO member country. Deterrence still matters. What's in either of those countries that benefits Russia? We probably won't agree on this but in the years leading up to the 2022 invasion, the CIA and NATO were getting more involved with Ukraine. The CIA has bases near Ukraine's border with Russia per the NY Times. Imagine how we'd respond if the KGB had dozens of bases near our border with Mexico or Canada. NATO began arming and training Ukraine's military around 2015 or so. Which gives the impression that Ukraine was in the process of being prepared to join NATO. We helped Ukraine overthrow their last Russia-friendly President in 2014. After that, Putin responded by annexing Crimea and a civil war in eastern Ukraine followed. Putin's actions were predicted in 2008 by the current CIA director, Bill Burns, when he warned President Bush against inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO alliance. Burns predicted that Russia would take action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in response. Which is exactly what happened. So with regards to Ukraine, Putin maybe felt he had to do something to prevent the country from being used to threaten Russia? Maybe he felt that Ukraine would be allowed into NATO in the future so the time is "now" to prevent that from happening? I stand by my opposition to Putin's 2022 invasion but I don't think it was an irrational act. There were provocations from Western countries that led to escalatory actions. At this point, regime change and disarming Ukraine are unlikely goals for Putin. Backing down from those demands is the compromise he needs to make. While backing down from attempting to militarily recapture all territory occupied by Russia in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are issues that Ukraine will need to compromise on. Neither side can get everything they want via military force. So you're saying Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia simply because they were easy pickings? That Putin just figured he would because it would be easy? In other words, Putin did this because he thinks might makes right and he's a sociopath. If that's truly it, it's absolutely reasonable to wonder if nukes are a deterrent against such a person. NATO began training and arming Ukraine in 2015, because Putin invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014. And I have no doubts the FSB has agents inside the US right now. No, this happened because Putin went looking for glory. Blaming the west and NATO for being provocative is just the cope he uses to justify his bloodthirst.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 20, 2024 20:40:33 GMT -5
Easy. Ukraine and Georgia aren't NATO countries and they don't have nukes. I think we can agree that Putin miscalculated on Ukraine and thought it wouldn't be as difficult as it has been for Russia to subdue Ukraine and force Zelensky out of power. And with those examples, it's easy to understand why most former Soviet countries want to join NATO but it's not in our interest to allow every country that wants to join the alliance to become a NATO member. Because Russia is nowhere near capable of winning a conventional war against NATO and nuclear war is basically "suicide" for all parties involved, it's highly unlikely that Russia, even Putin's Russia, would start a war against a NATO member country. Deterrence still matters. We probably won't agree on this but in the years leading up to the 2022 invasion, the CIA and NATO were getting more involved with Ukraine. The CIA has bases near Ukraine's border with Russia per the NY Times. Imagine how we'd respond if the KGB had dozens of bases near our border with Mexico or Canada. NATO began arming and training Ukraine's military around 2015 or so. Which gives the impression that Ukraine was in the process of being prepared to join NATO. We helped Ukraine overthrow their last Russia-friendly President in 2014. After that, Putin responded by annexing Crimea and a civil war in eastern Ukraine followed. Putin's actions were predicted in 2008 by the current CIA director, Bill Burns, when he warned President Bush against inviting Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO alliance. Burns predicted that Russia would take action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine in response. Which is exactly what happened. So with regards to Ukraine, Putin maybe felt he had to do something to prevent the country from being used to threaten Russia? Maybe he felt that Ukraine would be allowed into NATO in the future so the time is "now" to prevent that from happening? I stand by my opposition to Putin's 2022 invasion but I don't think it was an irrational act. There were provocations from Western countries that led to escalatory actions. At this point, regime change and disarming Ukraine are unlikely goals for Putin. Backing down from those demands is the compromise he needs to make. While backing down from attempting to militarily recapture all territory occupied by Russia in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are issues that Ukraine will need to compromise on. Neither side can get everything they want via military force. So you're saying Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia simply because they were easy pickings? I think he intended to enforce his "Red lines" with regards to deterring NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia was relatively easier for Russia to neutralize than Ukraine obviously. On Ukraine, despite the fact that Russia infiltrated Ukrainian intelligence, Ukraine still gave the Russians a run for their money and now Putin is in a quagmire. He miscalculated. Even while rational leaders can and do miscalculate, I don't see any circumstance where Putin would risk nuclear war by invading Poland or Finland...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 4:12:07 GMT -5
So you're saying Russia invaded Ukraine and Georgia simply because they were easy pickings? I think he intended to enforce his "Red lines" with regards to deterring NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia was relatively easier for Russia to neutralize than Ukraine obviously. On Ukraine, despite of the fact that Russia infiltrated Ukrainian intelligence, Ukraine still gave the Russians a run for their money and now Putin is in a quagmire. He miscalculated. Even while rational leaders can and do miscalculate, I don't see any circumstance where Putin would risk nuclear war by invading Poland or Finland... He's threatened the Baltic States several times, he CLEARLY believes they're rogue states which should be part of Russia, and that Russia can handle them militarily. And I think there's at least a 50-50 chance he thinks NATO would never go nuclear over Latvia.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 9:16:14 GMT -5
I think he intended to enforce his "Red lines" with regards to deterring NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia was relatively easier for Russia to neutralize than Ukraine obviously. On Ukraine, despite of the fact that Russia infiltrated Ukrainian intelligence, Ukraine still gave the Russians a run for their money and now Putin is in a quagmire. He miscalculated. Even while rational leaders can and do miscalculate, I don't see any circumstance where Putin would risk nuclear war by invading Poland or Finland... He's threatened the Baltic States several times, he CLEARLY believes they're rogue states which should be part of Russia, and that Russia can handle them militarily. And I think there's at least a 50-50 chance he thinks NATO would never go nuclear over Latvia. I don't think NATO would go nuclear, but such an invasion would, unquestionably, be the start of WW III. Nuclear is a whole different calculus.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 9:23:29 GMT -5
I have been saying this for years. link
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 9:29:02 GMT -5
He's threatened the Baltic States several times, he CLEARLY believes they're rogue states which should be part of Russia, and that Russia can handle them militarily. And I think there's at least a 50-50 chance he thinks NATO would never go nuclear over Latvia. I don't think NATO would go nuclear, but such an invasion would, unquestionably, be the start of WW III. Nuclear is a whole different calculus. Well... that's the thing. At this point, if Putin invaded the Baltics, NATO would get involved, and the Russian military would get wrecked. Then the calculus becomes: does NATO cross the line into Russia? I think the answer to that almost has to be yes. Because once Putin makes it clear he's willing to cross that line, the only way to prevent him from doing it again is to go get him. But the problem then becomes it's an existential threat to Russia, and that's when the nukes are going to start flying.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 10:58:39 GMT -5
I don't think NATO would go nuclear, but such an invasion would, unquestionably, be the start of WW III. Nuclear is a whole different calculus. Well... that's the thing. At this point, if Putin invaded the Baltics, NATO would get involved, and the Russian military would get wrecked. Then the calculus becomes: does NATO cross the line into Russia? I think the answer to that almost has to be yes. Because once Putin makes it clear he's willing to cross that line, the only way to prevent him from doing it again is to go get him. But the problem then becomes it's an existential threat to Russia, and that's when the nukes are going to start flying. Absolutely disagree. Chase him to the border and push him across. Strike only those targets in Russia that are being used to strike NATO forces on the western side of the border. Under no circumstances, send troops into Russia, and make that clear from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 11:02:47 GMT -5
Well... that's the thing. At this point, if Putin invaded the Baltics, NATO would get involved, and the Russian military would get wrecked. Then the calculus becomes: does NATO cross the line into Russia? I think the answer to that almost has to be yes. Because once Putin makes it clear he's willing to cross that line, the only way to prevent him from doing it again is to go get him. But the problem then becomes it's an existential threat to Russia, and that's when the nukes are going to start flying. Absolutely disagree. Chase him to the border and push him across. Strike only those targets in Russia that are being used to strike NATO forces on the western side of the border. Under no circumstances, send troops into Russia, and make that clear from the start. That's simply not a workable solution. It sets up a forever stalemate war at the border, and facilities and troops will need to be targeted in Russia because they'll be launching aerial attacks into NATO territory. There is no way to conduct a war like that without attacking Russian territory directly.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 21, 2024 11:14:51 GMT -5
Well... that's the thing. At this point, if Putin invaded the Baltics, NATO would get involved, and the Russian military would get wrecked. Then the calculus becomes: does NATO cross the line into Russia? I think the answer to that almost has to be yes. Because once Putin makes it clear he's willing to cross that line, the only way to prevent him from doing it again is to go get him. But the problem then becomes it's an existential threat to Russia, and that's when the nukes are going to start flying. Absolutely disagree. Chase him to the border and push him across. Strike only those targets in Russia that are being used to strike NATO forces on the western side of the border. Under no circumstances, send troops into Russia, and make that clear from the start. One would think they'd learn from Napoleon and Hitler's failures after invading Russia. I think some sort of DMZ or buffer zone in Ukraine is a workable solution for de-escalation and long-term security guarantee for Ukraine. The question is, can Putin agree to NATO troops on the western Ukraine side of the armistice line? Not clear that he would accept those terms.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 11:21:23 GMT -5
Absolutely disagree. Chase him to the border and push him across. Strike only those targets in Russia that are being used to strike NATO forces on the western side of the border. Under no circumstances, send troops into Russia, and make that clear from the start. That's simply not a workable solution. It sets up a forever stalemate war at the border, and facilities and troops will need to be targeted in Russia because they'll be launching aerial attacks into NATO territory. There is no way to conduct a war like that without attacking Russian territory directly. As I said, attack Russian territory and specifically, those sites targeting NATO forces.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 11:22:26 GMT -5
That's simply not a workable solution. It sets up a forever stalemate war at the border, and facilities and troops will need to be targeted in Russia because they'll be launching aerial attacks into NATO territory. There is no way to conduct a war like that without attacking Russian territory directly. As I said, attack Russian territory and specifically, those sites targeting NATO forces. You do understand that's going to be the entire front line on the Russian side of the border, right?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 11:25:25 GMT -5
Absolutely disagree. Chase him to the border and push him across. Strike only those targets in Russia that are being used to strike NATO forces on the western side of the border. Under no circumstances, send troops into Russia, and make that clear from the start. One would think they'd learn from Napoleon and Hitler's failures after invading Russia. I think some sort of DMZ or buffer zone in Ukraine is a workable solution for de-escalation and long-term security guarantee for Ukraine. The question is, can Putin agree to NATO troops on the western Ukraine side of the armistice line? Not clear that he would accept those terms. Don't forget, my post was under the presumption that a NATO-Russian war had already started, and as such, the issue of a DMZ has already been resolved; there will be none. Any DMZ that does exist once a conventional war between NATO and Russia has started would have to share an equal allocation of zone on both sides of the border. And once a war has started, what Putin gets to agree to will be determined on the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 11:27:24 GMT -5
As I said, attack Russian territory and specifically, those sites targeting NATO forces. You do understand that's going to be the entire front line on the Russian side of the border, right? Come on RJ, of course I do. While I don't agree that using Hitler and/or Bonaparte as examples is necessarily appropriate, the fact is that crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for Russia and that is something we want to avoid.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 11:47:09 GMT -5
You do understand that's going to be the entire front line on the Russian side of the border, right? Come on RJ, of course I do. While I don't agree that using Hitler and/or Bonaparte as examples is necessarily appropriate, the fact is that crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for Russia and that is something we want to avoid. Yes, it does do that. The problem is NOT crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for the country Russia is attacking.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 11:54:56 GMT -5
Come on RJ, of course I do. While I don't agree that using Hitler and/or Bonaparte as examples is necessarily appropriate, the fact is that crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for Russia and that is something we want to avoid. Yes, it does do that. The problem is NOT crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for the country Russia is attacking. But that existential problem exists now and has existed pretty much for the last decade. The last thing we need to do is make Putin even more desperate, as crossing into Russia would do. A crossing into Russia would likely activate the Russian people to work against NATO forces, at least for a while. Right now, Putin has a rebellion going on that has at least gotten his attention. We should be watching that carefully, though direct support is a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 11:59:30 GMT -5
Yes, it does do that. The problem is NOT crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for the country Russia is attacking. But that existential problem exists now and has existed pretty much for the last decade. The last thing we need to do is make Putin even more desperate, as crossing into Russia would do. A crossing into Russia would likely activate the Russian people to work against NATO forces, at least for a while. Right now, Putin has a rebellion going on that has at least gotten his attention. We should be watching that carefully, though direct support is a mistake. That existential problem exists only in theory right now. A military invasion of say, Estonia, would take a theoretical existential problem and make it real. Look, I don't want it to be true that we would need to launch an invasion into Russia to defend a country like Estonia, but if an invasion comes from Russia, there is no practical alternative without just surrendering Estonia. And that would only encourage Putin. I agree that there are elements rebelling inside Russia, and that we should not offer direct support, but that's another potentially existential threat to Putin and a potential catastrophe if Russia collapses again.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 21, 2024 12:00:40 GMT -5
Yes, it does do that. The problem is NOT crossing into Russia creates an existential problem for the country Russia is attacking. But that existential problem exists now and has existed pretty much for the last decade. The last thing we need to do is make Putin even more desperate, as crossing into Russia would do. A crossing into Russia would likely activate the Russian people to work against NATO forces, at least for a while. Right now, Putin has a rebellion going on that has at least gotten his attention. We should be watching that carefully, though direct support is a mistake. Is it a rebellion though? That implies that it’s an internal uprising. The fact is, they are Russians attacking Russia from Ukraine and there’s little evidence that they have any popular support within Russia. It will likely flame out soon. The rebels have resorted to killing Russian civilians. The Wagner mutiny last summer was a real internal uprising. Putin legitimately looked vulnerable then and that’s why Prigohzin and his allies were all killed under suspicious circumstances…
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 12:04:07 GMT -5
But that existential problem exists now and has existed pretty much for the last decade. The last thing we need to do is make Putin even more desperate, as crossing into Russia would do. A crossing into Russia would likely activate the Russian people to work against NATO forces, at least for a while. Right now, Putin has a rebellion going on that has at least gotten his attention. We should be watching that carefully, though direct support is a mistake. Is it a rebellion though? That implies that it’s an internal uprising. The fact is, they are Russians attacking Russia from Ukraine and there’s little evidence that they have any popular support within Russia. It will likely flame out soon. The Wagner mutiny last summer was a real internal uprising. Putin legitimately looked vulnerable then and that’s why Prigohzin and his allies were all killed under suspicious circumstances… Russia isn't just Russians. They've got a lot of smaller ethnic groups inside that country that don't especially like Putin or Russians generally (think Chechnya). With the Russian military mostly deployed into Ukraine, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of some of these ethnic groups that there's an opportunity to at least make trouble if not actually secede from Russia.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Mar 21, 2024 12:08:52 GMT -5
Is it a rebellion though? That implies that it’s an internal uprising. The fact is, they are Russians attacking Russia from Ukraine and there’s little evidence that they have any popular support within Russia. It will likely flame out soon. The Wagner mutiny last summer was a real internal uprising. Putin legitimately looked vulnerable then and that’s why Prigohzin and his allies were all killed under suspicious circumstances… Russia isn't just Russians. They've got a lot of smaller ethnic groups inside that country that don't especially like Putin or Russians generally (think Chechnya). With the Russian military mostly deployed into Ukraine, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of some of these ethnic groups that there's an opportunity to at least make trouble if not actually secede from Russia. I’m aware of that. Russia’s war in Chechnya in the 90s was probably as brutal as Israel’s war in Gaza. But the rebels attacking Russia currently aren’t ethnic minorities. They’re Russian neo-nazi allies of Ukraine. It has no chance of succeeding because they have little to no political support within Russia…
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Mar 21, 2024 12:17:16 GMT -5
Russia isn't just Russians. They've got a lot of smaller ethnic groups inside that country that don't especially like Putin or Russians generally (think Chechnya). With the Russian military mostly deployed into Ukraine, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of some of these ethnic groups that there's an opportunity to at least make trouble if not actually secede from Russia. I’m aware of that. Russia’s war in Chechnya in the 90s was probably as brutal as Israel’s war in Gaza. But the rebels attacking Russia currently aren’t ethnic minorities. They’re Russian neo-nazi allies of Ukraine. It has no chance of succeeding because they have little to no political support within Russia… Don't care if they are neo-nazi. Don't care if they are Russian. They could be Incan neo-meerkats for all I care. They are diverting Russian attention. I'd love to see them blow something up much further into Russia. St. Petersburg would be a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Mar 21, 2024 12:26:45 GMT -5
Russia isn't just Russians. They've got a lot of smaller ethnic groups inside that country that don't especially like Putin or Russians generally (think Chechnya). With the Russian military mostly deployed into Ukraine, I'm sure it hasn't escaped the notice of some of these ethnic groups that there's an opportunity to at least make trouble if not actually secede from Russia. I’m aware of that. Russia’s war in Chechnya in the 90s was probably as brutal as Israel’s war in Gaza. But the rebels attacking Russia currently aren’t ethnic minorities. They’re Russian neo-nazi allies of Ukraine. It has no chance of succeeding because they have little to no political support within Russia… Yes, I remember a few months back when the neo-nazi Wagner group rebelled. That's not an ally of Ukraine. There are other ethnic groups inside Russia that are not happy that they're inside Russia. It hasn't risen to the level of a rebellion yet, but again, it can't have escaped disaffected non-Russian minorities inside Russia that Putin's ability to project power into the interior of Russia has been compromised.
|
|