Russia-Ukraine

[yaxomoxay]

So then what can be done? If Russia sees Ukraine's joining of NATO as an existential threat and it will always be a possibility, it seems that an invasion is inevitable. Does Russia want to risk world war to mitigate its paranoia?

They are not risking the world. No one will come in defense of Ukraine. This planned invasion has been in the news for months - and us political junkies have talked about Russia and Ukraine for years - and did you see anything concrete happening? Anything that would indicate a “if you do it it’s WW3”? Anything that would indicate a “we’re willing to go all the way to defend Ukraine?” (Which would be the main deterrent).

Exactly, I didn’t think so.

Lots of talking - I want to believe most in good faith - and nothing concrete.

 

[Deleted member 215]

If 2014 is an indicator of anything (which, I believe it is), then I agree. If Russia does invade, there will likely be no military response from Europe or the U.S.

 

[yaxomoxay]

If 2014 is an indicator of anything (which, I believe it is), then I agree. If Russia does invade, there will likely be no military response from Europe or the U.S.

Precisely. Russia has nothing to lose. They’ll invade, prices will spike in the west, we the citizens will be pissed off because gas is $5/gallon, time will pass, things will ease, gas will get cheaper and everyone will be happy.

 

[Huntn]

If you want to see a spectrum assessment of Joe Biden Foreign Policy, you can read Donny’s surrogate for a laugh and then move onto the second article:

The worst President of his lifetime, just excuse that he (the author) was in a coma from 2016-20 :

Joe Biden is the worst president of my lifetime: Will Cain

Host of "The Will Cain Podcast" argues Joe Biden in his first year in office may have shown he's the worst U.S. president in history.

www.foxnews.com

…From A to F, a lot of Bs and Cs:

Is Biden’s Foreign Policy Grade A Material?

More than 30 experts grade the U.S. president’s first year of foreign policy.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[yaxomoxay]

If you want to see a spectrum assessment of Joe Biden Foreign Policy, you can read Donny’s surrogate for a laugh and then move onto the second article:

The worst President of his lifetime, just excuse that he was in a coma from 2016-20:

Joe Biden is the worst president of my lifetime: Will Cain

Host of "The Will Cain Podcast" argues Joe Biden in his first year in office may have shown he's the worst U.S. president in history.

www.foxnews.com

…From A to F, a lot of Bs and Cs:

Is Biden’s Foreign Policy Grade A Material?

More than 30 experts grade the U.S. president’s first year of foreign policy.

foreignpolicy.com

No offense meant to you but at the moment I do not give a fuck of Trump, Fox, Carlson or similar.

We - meant as the West - fucked up foreign policy since 2003 at minimum. So don’t be surprised if I don’t cheer at Biden getting a B+ from FP magazine.

 

[Huntn]

So then what can be done? If Russia sees Ukraine's joining of NATO as an existential threat and it will always be a possibility, it seems that an invasion is inevitable. Does Russia want to risk world war to mitigate its paranoia?

Logic would tell me that if Russia invaded Ukraine after it became a NATO member, we had better see a war or the NATO alliance would mean nothing, might as well toss it, and yes, the US would be expected to contribute to the war effort.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Logic would tell me that if Russia invaded Ukraine after it became a NATO member, we had better see a war or the NATO alliance would mean nothing, might as well toss it, and yes, the US would be expected to contribute to the war effort.

Agreed.

 

[Huntn]

No offense meant to you but at the moment I do not give a fuck of Trump, Fox, Carlson or similar.

We - meant as the West - fucked up foreign policy since 2003 at minimum. So don’t be surprised if I don’t cheer at Biden getting a B+ from FP magazine.

All we have to judge our President on is what is reported about him and available in the media, then gravitate to our political favorites. The Afghanistan withdrawal seemed to be fucked up but as I critique him, I also know who set it all for him in advance. We really don’t know what advice our Joint Chiefs gave him, how much he followed or ignored.

 

[yaxomoxay]

All we have to judge our President on is what is reported about him and available in the media, then gravitate to our political favorites. The Afghanistan withdrawal seemed to be fucked up but as I critique him, I also know who set it all for him in advance. We really don’t know what advice our Joint Chiefs gave him, how much he followed or ignored.

I do understand where you’re coming from. I truly do even if some of my evaluations are different than yours. I am simply more focused on the much larger issue now - which has become endemic to the whole West.

Europeans also have been abysmal in this crisis, and this time they can’t and shouldn’t hide behind the “but but but US didn’t do noffin’”

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

If 2014 is an indicator of anything (which, I believe it is), then I agree. If Russia does invade, there will likely be no military response from Europe or the U.S.

We’ve got lines in the sand. I know it’s historical Roman context, but I’ve always found it odd, if not fitting. As drawing lines go, doing it in the sand is probably the easiest to erase and/or move.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

All we have to judge our President on is what is reported about him and available in the media, then gravitate to our political favorites. The Afghanistan withdrawal seemed to be fucked up but as I critique him, I also know who set it all for him in advance. We really don’t know what advice our Joint Chiefs gave him, how much he followed or ignored.

This is one of the reasons I think we give way too much credit/blame to the President. They have their advisors, but either them or directly below them there are people not voted into office who transcend presidencies and who are more concerned about their career and/or wealth than what is good for the country or planet. Then they have to translate what they are given into action.

 

[yaxomoxay]

This is one of the reasons I think we give way too much credit/blame to the President. They have their advisors, but either them or directly below them there are people not voted into office who transcend presidencies and who are more concerned about their career and/or wealth than what is good for the country or planet. Then they have to translate what they are given into action.

The only solution is to have me as the permanent Secretary of State, and permanent National Security Advisor.

 

[Huntn]

I do understand where you’re coming from. I truly do even if some of my evaluations are different than yours. I am simply more focused on the much larger issue now - which has become endemic to the whole West.

Europeans also have been abysmal in this crisis, and this time they can’t and shouldn’t hide behind the “but but but US didn’t do noffin’”

It’s their backyard, they our European partners should have the lead. I absolutely hate that the US has been in a state of War for 20 years, but at least make it a worthy war which the last 20 years have not been. So I’m saying I prefer no war, but as a realist there are circumstances were you war or you get rolled over, or you’re just being preemptive, some pain now to avoid more later, or a trigger sets off nuclear Armageddon. There is some element of a crap shoot in any choice you make.

Ukraine is interesting. They want in with NATO. Are they worth membership if it comes down to a shooting war? Something to think about. My guess is that the NATO countries are weighing how worth it economically would it be to bring Ukraine under their wing If it starts a war between the West and Russia. It seems to me that Russia is a growing threat if we allow it to grow while I look over my shoulder at looming threats. This could all turn into a big turd pie.

 

[Huntn]

This is one of the reasons I think we give way too much credit/blame to the President. They have their advisors, but either them or directly below them there are people not voted into office who transcend presidencies and who are more concerned about their career and/or wealth than what is good for the country or planet. Then they have to translate what they are given into action.

I’m not defending Biden, but as President I can see it often being the best worst choice, and politics in the US are such that you are going to be drowned in partisan buffoonery regardless.

 

[Zoidberg]

Putin certainly got some sort of green light from the western countries. Call me a cynic, but I am pretty sure all the calls and visits to Putin were to make sure that gas would still flow westward even after the invasion rather than actual diplomacy.

That's... something.

Just to take one example (Macron's visit to Moscow), France is 70% nuclear, and doesn't import much gas (it could get it from elsewhere if need be).

Another example: the UK didn't send their best (Truss), but they have been sending a shit ton of weapons to Ukraine in the last few weeks –the kind that can wreak havoc on tanks– hardly a way to keep the "gas flowing".

To see how countries respond when they really are dependent on gas, look no further than Germany's token shipment of helmets, and meek, reluctant response.

If you want something to be cynical about, there's room for that though: I seriously doubt the UK's Tories will impose really harsh sanctions against Russian interests at home, considering all the money they have been receiving from them.

 

[yaxomoxay]

That's... something.

Just to take one example (Macron's visit to Moscow), France is 70% nuclear, and doesn't import much gas (it could get it from elsewhere if need be).

Another example: the UK didn't send their best (Truss), but they have been sending a shit ton of weapons to Ukraine in the last few weeks –the kind that can wreak havoc on tanks– hardly a way to keep the "gas flowing".

To see how countries respond when they really are dependent on gas, look no further than Germany's token shipment of helmets, and meek, reluctant response.

If you want something to be cynical about, there's room for that though: I seriously doubt the UK's Tories will impose really harsh sanctions against Russian interests at home, considering all the money they have been receiving from them.

And this disproves what?

The fact that France can survive without Ukrainian gas doesn’t meant that a) France isn’t interested in Ukrainian gas b) that Macron wasn’t sent as a mediator specifically for energy matters (that way there is no begging). France has absolutely no interest in a gas/energy crisis in other European nations, specifically Germany as you point out.

As for UK I’d argue that anything other than threat of full force is virtually moot. 2000 anti tank missiles and 50 troops are better than 0, and will cause some issues on the Russian side but still it would be like paying pennys for Russia. The Russian win will be easy and swift (sadly).

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I’m not defending Biden, but as President I can see it often being the best worst choice, and politics in the US are such that you are going to be drowned in partisan buffoonery regardless.

Especially in regards to Russia. On some level I'm sure Putin likes all the international importance and attention he's getting.

 

[Zoidberg]

As for UK I’d argue that anything other than threat of full force is virtually moot. 2000 anti tank missiles and 50 troops are better than 0, and will cause some issues on the Russian side but still it would be like paying pennys for Russia.

That's how many Stingers were sent to Afghanistan, and it sent the Soviet Union back home with their tail between their legs. Now Ukraine has that and much more. And you can count on many nations who don't want to go back to the days of the Soviet Union to keep providing as much equipment as needed. They don't need to win the war, they just need to make it costly enough for the Russians that they give up.

(The troops were just to train the locals in the use of the weapons, afaik they are back already.)

 

[yaxomoxay]

That's how many Stingers were sent to Afghanistan, and it sent the Soviet Union back home with their tail between their legs. Now Ukraine has that and much more. And you can count on many nations who don't want to go back to the days of the Soviet Union to keep providing as many equipment as needed. They don't need to win the war, they need to make it costly enough for the Russians that they give up.

(The troops were just to train the locals in the use of the weapons, afaik they are back already.)

Didn’t realize they were back already, thanks for the info.

I still don’t think that it is nearly enough to make it a big deal for Mr Putin otherwise it would’ve been easy to deter him. I guess time will tell.

 

[Zoidberg]

Didn’t realize they were back already, thanks for the info.

I still don’t think that it is nearly enough to make it a big deal for Mr Putin otherwise it would’ve been easy to deter him. I guess time will tell.

From listening to people who know what they are talking about it would seem that the Russians would make huge gains in the first few hours or days, but that the following months/years could become Afghanistan II.
Ukraine has significant military forces. Their equipment is old so they need help in that regard –and their Navy fits in a small marina– but between the regular army and volunteers, they could make it extremely costly for the Russians in the long term, which is why the strategy of giving them top notch weaponry is actually a smart move from the West:

- No Westerners are put in danger.
- It costs very little (a relatively cheap single-use missile can down a very expensive helicopter/tank).
- I stopped counting, but the US, the UK, and several Baltic countries have sent many thousands of these (that we know of). That's much harder to defeat than ~20 aging, fragile fighter jets (or however many Ukraine has) that can only briefly stay airborne and need huge logistics behind.
- The Soviet Union/Russia already knows how much damage these things can do in a long-term guerrilla war so they will think twice.