Ukraine

[Cyberyeti]

Is it deliberate that no thread has been created for this ?

 

I'm posting this because I have a very conflicted position on what we should do next.

 

Every instinct of mine says that we should stand up to Putin in any way possible short of putting troops on the ground in Ukraine. If that involves no fly zones and hitting Russian troops from the air so be it, but it's been well explained why this is problematic, and why western leaders are not doing this.

 

The conflicting factor for me is what's happening to ordinary poor Russians, and many will die there.

 

I have a friend (34F, no friend of Putin) living on the outskirts of Moscow. After bills, she lived on about $2 a day. This was just about enough, but now energy prices are going through the roof, and staples like buckwheat have gone up by a third pretty much overnight. Next winter if not before she will starve, particularly if Russia is cut off from money transfers.

 

I'm now looking at if there's any legitimate way of getting her out of Russia, and struggling with how/where to start with the UK immigration process.

[hrothgar]

Let's be VERY clear about what a no fly zone means

 

1. It means shooting down Russian planes that are operating over Ukraine

2. It also requires suppressing Russian air defense assets (because you don't want the Russians shooting down NATO jets)

 

Enforcing a no fly zone means a hot war between NATO and Russia

[hrothgar]

struggling with how/where to start with the UK immigration process.

 

Amazing how positions about immigration are changing.

[Cyberyeti]

Let's be VERY clear about what a no fly zone means

 

1. It means shooting down Russian planes that are operating over Ukraine

2. It also requires suppressing Russian air defense assets (because you don't want the Russians shooting down NATO jets)

 

Enforcing a no fly zone means a hot war between NATO and Russia

 

And 2 is the real problem, because some of those Russian air defence assets are INSIDE Russia.

[Cyberyeti]

Amazing how positions about immigration are changing.

 

She may have a valid asylum claim, she runs a suicide prevention site and telling a suicidal teen "it's OK to be gay" breaks Russia's anti-gay laws and some people apparently have been prosecuted for that. I just don't have the knowledge.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I have no idea what the short / medium term implications are going to be here with respect to Ukraine and its territorial integrity. I wish them the best of luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians try to annex the two (supposed) break away territories.

 

What I am really hoping to see come out of this are concerted efforts to isolate Europe from the Russian energy markets. Seeing the German's talking about starting up the nuclear programs once again is a great first step.

 

Can't make up my mind what I would think about NATO expansion into Sweden and Finland.

[Cyberyeti]

FWIW, I have no idea what the short / medium term implications are going to be here with respect to Ukraine and its territorial integrity. I wish them the best of luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Russians try to annex the two (supposed) break away territories.

 

What I am really hoping to see come out of this are concerted efforts to isolate Europe from the Russian energy markets. Seeing the German's talking about starting up the nuclear programs once again is a great first step.

 

Can't make up my mind what I would think about NATO expansion into Sweden and Finland.

 

My worry in the short term is that Russia feels it's all taking too long and starts flattening Kyiv or using illegal munitions, at which point the west may get dragged into something horrible.

[hrothgar]

My worry in the short term is that Russia feels it's all taking too long and starts flattening Kyiv or using illegal munitions, at which point the west may get dragged into something horrible.

 

The Russians are already using cluster bombs on civilian targets.

 

I doubt that this will cause the West to take direct action.

(It won't bring anyone back to life)

 

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

[Cyberyeti]

The Russians are already using cluster bombs on civilian targets.

 

I doubt that this will cause the West to take direct action.

(It won't bring anyone back to life)

 

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

I was talking about fuel-air in built up areas.

[Winstonm]

It seems Putin is not nearly as good as some other autocrats in selling BS to his troops:

 

 

 

WASHINGTON — Plagued by poor morale as well as fuel and food shortages, some Russian troops in Ukraine have surrendered en masse or sabotaged their own vehicles to avoid fighting, a senior Pentagon official said Tuesday.

 

Some entire Russian units have laid down their arms without a fight after confronting a surprisingly stiff Ukrainian defense, the official said. A significant number of the Russian troops are young conscripts who are poorly trained and ill-prepared for the all-out assault. And in some cases, Russian troops have deliberately punched holes in their vehicles' gas tanks, presumably to avoid combat, the official said.

 

[Gilithin]

Let's be VERY clear about what a no fly zone means

 

1. It means shooting down Russian planes that are operating over Ukraine

2. It also requires suppressing Russian air defense assets (because you don't want the Russians shooting down NATO jets)

 

Enforcing a no fly zone means a hot war between NATO and Russia

Would your position about NATO involvement be different if Ukraine had the same energy reserves as Russia? Should oil/gas really be the main consideration when it comes to defending democracy?

 

And 2 is the real problem, because some of those Russian air defence assets are INSIDE Russia.

2 is not the problem as the advocates of a NFZ tend to be for enforcing it only over the Western portion of the country precisely for this reason. The main issue is as hrothgar lays out, that it means a direct hot air war between NATO and Russia.

[Cyberyeti]

Would your position about NATO involvement be different if Ukraine had the same energy reserves as Russia? Should oil/gas really be the main consideration when it comes to defending democracy?

 

While Ukraine doesn't have that, it does have some VERY serious mineral assets

 

2 is not the problem as the advocates of a NFZ tend to be for enforcing it only over the Western portion of the country precisely for this reason. The main issue is as hrothgar lays out, that it means a direct hot air war between NATO and Russia.

 

I thought the radar, which you normally take out for a no fly zone was in Russia for the whole country.

[kenberg]

Thank you Cyberyeti for starting this thread. I hope it gets me, and others, somewhere toward a better understanding.

These last few days have brought the realization that basically, in this area, I know nothing.

 

[pilowsky]

The lecture from 2015 is extraordinarily prescient.

He points out that the insistence by the USA at a meeting in Bucharest in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members is the root cause of this conflict.

 

[LBengtsson]

In chess the strongest defense is counter attack. The Ukrainians have done it militarily: the West have done this with sanctions. The ordinary Russians will eventually find out that it is Putin that has caused all this and that civil unrest will occur. If many take to the streets, like the Russian revolutions, then the regime will fall. That is all we can hope for. Countless thousands will die. Its a complete stalemate at the moment. Putin has the advantage. He will play the rest of the 'game' like this until his own forces turn their back on him. Only then will some peace be restored.

[Douglas43]

The lecture from 2015 is extraordinarily prescient.

He points out that the insistence by the USA at a meeting in Bucharest in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members is the root cause of this conflict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So nothing to do with Putin copying Hitler's playbook for nibbling at territory? He knows NATO in Europe is a defensive alliance and there's no way a 30-country alliance would launch an attack on Russia (as opposed to defend its members against attack).

 

But if you were a small country bordering Russia, would you (a) think let's join Nato now before we're attacked, or (b) I'll sit here and hope for the best, that Mr Putin seems like a decent chap.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I am current working 18 hour days trying to deal with the fall out from the invasion.

 

Wish that I could comment on the various stuff that is going on.

[Winstonm]

The lecture from 2015 is extraordinarily prescient.

He points out that the insistence by the USA at a meeting in Bucharest in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia should become NATO members is the root cause of this conflict.

 

 

I don’t think this goes far enough. Putin in not threatened by NATO on his doorstep but by democracy surrounding him. Without the ability to gaslight his own people, the dictator is only a thug in constant fear of being overthrown.

[Winstonm]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/message-an-aid-package-italian-girl-sends-hope-ukrainian-children-2022-03-04/

 

 

"Dear Ukrainian friends, my name is Gioia Maria. And I'm Italian. I'm very sorry for this horrible war. I'm very close to you with my heart. I'd very like to do more, but I'm very small and far away. Every night I pray for you and I ask God to help you. With love. Gioia Maria."

[cherdano]

Would your position about NATO involvement be different if Ukraine had the same energy reserves as Russia? Should oil/gas really be the main consideration when it comes to defending democracy?

No, easy decision. You don't enforce a no-fly-zone if it means opening a logical path to escalation to a nuclear WW 3.

[kenberg]

No, easy decision. You don't enforce a no-fly-zone if it means opening a logical path to escalation to a nuclear WW 3.

 

A bit back I noted that I understand nothing of what is going on. But let me pose a question. I mean it seriously.

 

Suppose (and we can discuss whether this suppose is correct) Putin figures that we are reluctant to risk WW 3. From this he concludes that he can absorb Ukraine into Russia. Maybe he can't do it easily but he believes he can do it.

 

Then what?

 

The answer we would like is to stop this from happening but to do that without risking nuclear war.

 

Can we do that?

 

I don't mean this question as just for you, your post just provided the impetus.

 

The idea of going to the edge to see who backs down is seriously ominous. Letting Putin take Ukraine is an awful price.

 

I'll repeat, and repeat again. This is all way over my head. I hope we do what is right, I have no idea what right is.

 

I am very glad to see the substantial cooperation that is taking place

 

This is one hell of a mess and a wrong step can go very wrong.

[hrothgar]

 

Suppose (and we can discuss whether this suppose is correct) Putin figures that we are reluctant to risk WW 3. From this he concludes that he can absorb Ukraine into Russia. Maybe he can't do it easily but he believes he can do it.

 

Then what?

 

 

1. You strangle the Russia economy.

 

No more Western good.

No more Western credit.

No more parts to fix all those oil rigs and gas pipelines.

 

2. You do as much as is humanly possible to insulate Western Europe from the Russian energy market.

 

More nuclear

More Liquid natural gas terminals

 

And then you wait and try to make sure that you have a strong stomach, the next couple years are going to be ugly to watch

[Winstonm]

The only way out that I can imagine is to put enough pressure and negative consequences on those surrounding Putin, oligarchs and others, for them to remove Putin from power. I believe this would require shutting off U.S. purchases of Russian oil. Then the question is are we, and the rest of the Western world, willing to pay that economic price?

 

Then, how much pressure Putin is willing to withstand is impossible to determine. Is there a genuine chance he would start a nuclear exchange? Is there any way to really know this? And if the threat of nuclear action is enough to prevent stopping him, what is the democratic world to do when any other nuclear armed autocrat decides to act?

 

The truly horrible conclusion is that it looks like the West must be willing to match the threat level and be willing to go to all-out war, not anxious to, but willing to.

 

If I am way off base, someone please correct me, This is only how this situation appears to me.

 

Edit: Just after I posted this I read this:

 

WASHINGTON — There is bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that punishing Russia for its war on Ukraine would be worth risking more inflation.

 

Top Republicans and Democrats this week called on the Biden administration to ban Russian oil imports, which have been carved out of economic sanctions in order to protect European and U.S. consumers from higher gas prices.

 

 

[johnu]

Suppose (and we can discuss whether this suppose is correct) Putin figures that we are reluctant to risk WW 3. From this he concludes that he can absorb Ukraine into Russia. Maybe he can't do it easily but he believes he can do it.

 

Then what?

 

The answer we would like is to stop this from happening but to do that without risking nuclear war.

 

Can we do that?

I think that the US made a mistake by not defending Ukraine militarily. At the risk of using reusing the domino strategy, where does Putin go next? Former parts of the USSR like Georgia and Kazakhstan (which has huge oil deposits)? Independent Finland? Or what about NATO countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland? Maybe Putin will stop at Ukraine, but where does the US draw the line? Putin's mental health seems to have devolved closer to Trump's. A megalomaniac bully who has stopped listening to anybody who doesn't agree with him with his trigger on a massive nuclear stockpile.

Now that it looks like the Ukraine will be completely occupied by Russia, we'll never know if not defending Ukraine was a mistake.

[cherdano]

A bit back I noted that I understand nothing of what is going on. But let me pose a question. I mean it seriously.

 

Suppose (and we can discuss whether this suppose is correct) Putin figures that we are reluctant to risk WW 3. From this he concludes that he can absorb Ukraine into Russia. Maybe he can't do it easily but he believes he can do it.

 

Then what?

 

The answer we would like is to stop this from happening but to do that without risking nuclear war.

 

Can we do that?

How do borders between countries work? After all, if troops from country A moved a little into country B, why would country B risk war about some fields of corn? Well, if country B always thought that way, everybody would start doing that to country B. Hence country B develops a credible policy that means any military intrusion into its territory leads to an escalation, even if that might ultimately lead to war.

 

It's not that different with nuclear weapons. For more than half a century, NATO and the Russian/USSR alliance have each developed a credible policy that lays out what would lead to nuclear escalation. The policy has always been that helping your enemy with financial or diplomatic support or by supplying weapons is tolerated, a bit like moving your troops close to the border. But directly using your military to attack my military is answered with an escalation even if that might lead to nuclear weapons being used. When would the line to using nuclear weapons being crossed? Well, Russia's current military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened. I prefer not to find out what that means precisely, even if that would "only" mean the use of tactical nuclear weapons - initially.

 

"Fun" fact: in February 2018 in Syria, Russia dared to stretch that line when Wagner group troops (google them if you can stomatch it) - i.e., a private military company under contract from Russian government - was directly involved in fights with US forces. US seems to have decided to let it go, and hence we haven't all died from nuclear war yet.