Russia's War Against Ukraine

[solops]

Well, the Ukrainians are our buddies and have invited us over. So if special military operations is not nasty war, we could go over and have special military operations along with our friends! No foul!

Why are the Ukrainians "our buddies"?  Who do you mean by "our" and how exactly are they "buddies"?  Assuming you are referring to the United States, what strategic advantage does close alignment with Ukraine give and what strategic benefit would the US achieve by engaging in an armed conflict with Russia?

This is easy, given the world today. I consider them buddies because: They trade with us and our allies in a civilized fashion ( any predatory industrial espionage in kept to a civilized level, unlike China). They conduct themselves in a more or less civilized fashion, compared to so many holes in Asia and Africa. They share more of our historical and cultural values than many countries in other parts of the world. They do not crowd the streets and chant "Death to America". They side with us on most geopolitical issues rather than our enemies and or rivals (Think "Russia" and "China"). While they have been accused of being corrupt, I would, after looking at Washington, blush and reply that they are not THAT bad. They do not challenge us all over the world. And we have made multiple promises to them, both specific and implied that we are their friends and will help them. And lastly, THEY ARE FIGHTING FRIGGING PUTIN, and they need our help. I do not need a formal treaty of buddyship to know if someone is deserving of help or a boot to the rear. I do NOT believe that cold political or economic advantage should be the sole guide as to who or when we give our aid. And I have lost more than one multi-player game to prove it. And I think it is in our best interest to stop Putin. Now.

Thank God you aren't the one making the decisions whether we go to war or not. You're basically willing to start World War III in order to "get" Putin and support a group of people who loosely share your values. By your own admission, you care not that there is no formal defensive alliance, only that it "seems" like the right thing to do. 

Just brilliant. 

Miraculously, there is still no general state of war in Europe or across the globe and we should be doing EVERYTHING to make sure it stays that way.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/ukraine-and-a-guide-to-avoiding-world-war-iii/

"Thank God you aren't the one making the decisions whether we go to war or not."   Absolutely.

"You're basically willing to start World War III in order to "get" Putin and support a group of people who loosely share your values."   Nope, not WWIII. And We share far more than that, as I believe I said. And it is more than that, it is Putin's actions, threats and plans that have an equal weight, as well as our own self-interest. And I do not advocate attacking Putin, I advocate active generous support for Ukraine. I reject inaction due to fear. 

"By your own admission, you care not that there is no formal defensive alliance, only that it "seems" like the right thing to do."     Yes.  I would never be so <edit> shy as to allow lack of a formal declaration to keep me from doing the right thing in the face of evil. We are not there yet with Putin, so far as war is concerned, but we are certainly to the point where aiding his victims is both necessary and in our best long-term interest. The degree of that aid does seem to be the subject of some dispute.

[Skoop]

Jar I appreciate you talking us hawks off the ledge of wwiii.  But this is becoming bigger than nato, this could shape the next 100 years and give all bad actors in the world a blueprint on how to let nukes do douchebag bidding.  It's like America finding out about the holocaust in 1940, should FDR act or continue to cave to isolationist, sooner or later we'd be drawn in.

But to chill from my over dramatics, I watched some drones built under a joint program between Ukraine and Turkey.  They looked really effective and have accounted for scores of Russian vehicles.  I think a 100 predator drones to the Ukraine asap is the way to go.  Forget the no fly and polish migs.  If you flood the airspace with hundreds of attack drones, this will be a decisive game changer.  Plus we still maintain the plausible deniability.  Drones and full oil embargo would end this in a month.  But still doesn't prevent Putin from nuking the world with the "If I can't have it, no one will".

[Gusington]

Protests spreading across Russia:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60640204

[al_infierno]

WW2 weapons in Ukraine - A member of the pro-Ukrainian volunteer Donbas Battalion in Donetsk in 2014 with a DP-27 light machine gun.

[ComradeP]

Probably posted before, but worth posting again: https://maphub.net/Cen4infoRes/russian-ukraine-monitor

Photos and videos linked to locations on the map.

That video of the helicopter being shot down was taken north of Kiev, it's the red pin in Kozarovychi.

Jar I appreciate you talking us hawks off the ledge of wwiii.  But this is becoming bigger than nato, this could shape the next 100 years and give all bad actors in the world a blueprint on how to let nukes do douchebag bidding.  It's like America finding out about the holocaust in 1940, should FDR act or continue to cave to isolationist, sooner or later we'd be drawn in.

Nuclear weapons give states some freedom to act without fear of military intervention by other countries, that has always been the case.

There's also the sad but simple truth that NATO's options for intervention with conventional weapons are very limited.

Air strikes are the only immediate option, and it will be difficult to hit targets on the Ukrainian/Russian border due to Russian AA defences and distance from NATO airfields (which will probably be targeted by missile strikes immediately, just like NATO ships in the Mediterranean and Black Sea). It will take weeks of build-up before an air campaign will be able to reliably disrupt ground operations.

NATO's forces will take weeks to organize in general. The Cold War infrastructure for moving troops from Western Europe to the border between the two Germanys is no longer in place, and that was only a very short distance compared to moving troops to central Ukraine.

NATO's (or the US/UK) window of opportunity to act was acknowledging the Budapest Memorandum and intervening in 2014 when only limited Russian forces were involved, but that didn't happen. Now, NATO simply isn't prepared.

As conventional warfare is less feasible for both sides, that might make nuclear warfare more attractive in the case of a war if it is the only method of striking the enemy aside from cruise missiles.

[Jarhead0331]

People who are talking about NATO and the US engaging in direct kinetic war with Russia at the risk of escalation to nuclear holocaust are fooling themselves and/or are detached from reality. This is simply not a possibility in the modern age and must absolutely be a last case defensive scenario after all other options have been exhausted.

This is not to suggest that NATO and the West should be doing nothing. To the contrary, I fully support measures aimed at altering Putin's cost-benefit analysis by making the war so cost prohibitive that he looks for a way out. These measures are largely what NATO is doing:

1. Sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy
2. Arming Ukraine with lethal weaponry that continue to tip the scales and make Russia pay a heavy price in men and material.

These measures can and should be built upon until Moscow gets the message, but it must be done wisely and with caution. Threading this "policy needle" is very difficult. It means punishing Russia while simultaneously engaging in direct talks, both to avoid accidental escalation and to clearly communicate the aim of Western sanctions. it is an extremely difficult balance to strike and so far, it seems to me that nobody with authority from the West is really communicating to Russia exactly what will result in a reduction or removal of sanctions. Without this, they are not as effective and the risk of escalation remains high.  In other words, even sanctions could provoke Moscow by convincing them that a Western military intervention is imminent, or that sanctions are part of a broader US regime.  This may  cause Putin to strike back against NATO targets and plausibly escalate to a nuclear war that no one wins...this is simply too ghastly to contemplate.

So, while we are arming Ukraine and crushing Russia with sanctions, there needs to be very open lines of communication and dialogue. This will help avoid miscalculations and mistakes, while also signaling to Russia what it must do in order to get out of this very bad situation.  Otherwise, a lack of clarity risks everything while also undermining coercive bargaining. If this dialogue is happening behind the scenes, then continuing the current strategy — even escalating it — is a feasible way to help Ukraine without significantly raising the specter of a US-Russia shooting war, something that I have been arguing all along must be avoided at all costs.

Seriously, anyone who thinks getting involved in a shooting war with Russia is necessary or advisable is a fool. I'm sorry...there is no other way to put it.

[ComradeP]

Seriously, anyone who thinks getting involved in a shooting war with Russia is necessary or advisable is a fool. I'm sorry...there is no other way to put it.

Indeed.

-

As might be expected, both NATO member states and EU countries all have their own ideas on how to deal with this crisis. Though statements by the EU and the US government are widely acknowledged, the precise interpretation varies. This continues to lead to various misunderstandings and "no, we won't be doing that after all" statements by someone on a higher political level after something was announced.

As Jarhead mentioned, the West needs to give Putin some way to de-escalate. An "off-ramp"

At the moment, the West is primarily busy with punishing Putin. On the other hand, for all the talk about Putin's mental stability, the Russian government listens to the measures the Western governments want to implement and responds. By saying delivery of aircraft or enforcing a no-fly zone will be seen as an act of war/participation in the conflict, for example. I don't get the idea that the Western governments are listening to Putins fears and anxieties which he claims make this war inevitable.

It's as if the West and Russia are listening to a monologue from the other side and respond to that in their own way, but are not talking to the other side.

[SirAndrewD]

Emotionally I would love nothing more than to see Putin's war met with utter obliteration by NATO air strikes.

Logically, though, I totally agree with Jarhead.  It simply can't be done.  There's a real possibility that nuclear weapons could come into play even without NATO involvement.  It'd be virtually assured if NATO got directly involved. 

Putin's risk calculus is dangerously faulty right now and he simply has too much power and control to try to count on any cooler heads moderating him.

The farthest NATO should go is military aid, possibly as far as providing aircraft like is being proposed.   

Worrying if Putin will just take our "inaction" here is an invitation to go further isn't a problem based on where his future ambitions would lie.  There's already a line in the sand and that's the membership of the Baltic and Eastern Europe in NATO.   

I don't think he's going to be able to cross that line even if he's willing.  The war in Ukraine is going to break the Russians, even if they defeat the Ukrainian army in the field and take the cities.  The economic damage and inability to occupy the country effectively is going to have Putin's hands uncomfortably full for a long time.

[GDS_Starfury]

and what happens when putin is so fucked across the board that he decides his off ramp is a demonstration strike in the Ukraine?
then what the fuck does NATO do?

[SirAndrewD]

and what happens when putin is so fucked across the board that he decides his off ramp is a demonstration strike in the Ukraine?
then what the fuck does NATO do?

I don't think anyone has a good answer for that. 

I have it on really good authority from a friend who I trust and has a ton of info that I don't generally talk about that the general consensus is "nothing".

[GDS_Starfury]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1500465032966062082

just wow

[GDS_Starfury]

I just dont see how this ends well as long as putin is in power

[solops]

People who are talking about NATO and the US engaging in direct kinetic war with Russia at the risk of escalation to nuclear holocaust are fooling themselves and/or are detached from reality. This is simply not a possibility in the modern age and must absolutely be a last case defensive scenario after all other options have been exhausted.

This is not to suggest that NATO and the West should be doing nothing. To the contrary, I fully support measures aimed at altering Putin's cost-benefit analysis by making the war so cost prohibitive that he looks for a way out. These measures are largely what NATO is doing:

1. Sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy
2. Arming Ukraine with lethal weaponry that continue to tip the scales and make Russia pay a heavy price in men and material.

Agree 100%. This is the position I have been advocating. I would pull out all the stops to give them what they need to stop Putin. Drag the fight out, fill body bags and give the sanctions more and more time. And stop buying the d---ned crude. I am retired from a career in the oil business. There is slack production around the world and the U.S. can EASILY pick up the slack in a year if the oil biz is allowed to.

[solops]

I just dont see how this ends well as long as putin is in power

Very sticky problem.

[ArizonaTank]

A helmet cam of Ukrainian Special Police hunting Russian tanks with RPGs. Video released today.

Seems like they got a couple.

Interesting that in the beginning of the video you can hear a small drone, but does not appear on camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYogJLQ5YAc