Russia invades Ukraine

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m not debating any of that. This isn’t really about opinions or what’s right or wrong. We should focus on the facts:



1. Putin has decision making to launch a nuke.

2. Putins opinion therefore matters

3. His justifications, whether or not we agree with them, therefore matter



all of the above IF we want to avoid nuclear war. We can say he’s bluffing. We can say we don’t believe him. We can say we want to save Ukraine, that’s all fine.



I’m saying it’s a bad idea to keep testing a psychopath who has said he will use nuclear weapons if necessary. And we also know that continuing to provoke Russia, in his mind, is what could lead to such outcome.



Allowing Ukraine in lot NATO will be an escalation not de-escalation. It very likely leads to nuclear war based on what we know now.



Again regardless of right wrong etc. we need to be calculating with what outcome we want to avoid.



What do we want more, Ukraine in NATO or avoidance of nuclear war?

I think to not allow Ukraine into NATO because you fear Putin may use Nukes is foolish for a few reasons:

1) This isn't and has literally never been about NATO and Ukraine. This way is one of conquest and Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia. It was and won't stop with Ukraine. Putin was very clear that Ukraine was nothing more than Russia by another name. The western threat stuff is just posturing to justify the war to his people.

2) Putin is threatening Nukes if Western powers continue to give Ukraine weapons. He hasn't used them yet, so what's the line? If Kim Jong Un says he'll nuke if America doesn't withdraw from South Korea, should they? You act in your country's best interests with existential threats as about the only clear line. Otherwise appeasement merely encourages bad behaviour

3) If you waffle due to the threat once, you are encouraging further threats. Giving a bully your lunch money once doesn't deprive you of one lunch. You'll never eat another lunch at school.


I don't think Ukraine should join NATO yet, for the reasons opendoor elaborated on, but not because of nuclear threats.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Kasi

Russia still doesn’t want to send planes into Ukraine controlled ground because their planes can be shot down. Both sides are using Su-24/25s I think which are the ground attack craft. Otherwise not much. Ukraine through all of this has had a functioning Air Force.

Color me surprised that Ukraine has kept control of the air.

Russia had the advantage in terms of a more modern airforce. I mean having the SU-35, Su-34 and the still excellent Mig 29 in your inventory as well as SU-24 ground attack fighter should be a good backbone.

Against the Ukrainian Airforce featuring a lot less of the Mig 29, SU-27, and SU-24. This should have been a mismatch.

However the balance shifted not only with the Western Powers giving the Ukrainian army access to advanced anti-air weapons. But I would expect that the most unpleasant supply was the West supplying the Ukraines with the Aim-9x and Aim 120 air to air missiles which are incredibly advanced and incredibly deadly.

I've read that Ukraine has lost about 20 percent of their airforce so far.

And Russia has lost 50 or more of its air combat aircraft.

Another thing that's interesting is that Ukraine has been effective at going after the excellent SA-200 anti-aircraft system with drones.

However the only ones that have control over the air in that battle are the dead.

Neither side has air superiority.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m not debating any of that. This isn’t really about opinions or what’s right or wrong. We should focus on the facts:

1. Putin has decision making to launch a nuke.
2. Putins opinion therefore matters
3. His justifications, whether or not we agree with them, therefore matter

all of the above IF we want to avoid nuclear war. We can say he’s bluffing. We can say we don’t believe him. We can say we want to save Ukraine, that’s all fine.

I’m saying it’s a bad idea to keep testing a psychopath who has said he will use nuclear weapons if necessary. And we also know that continuing to provoke Russia, in his mind, is what could lead to such outcome.

Allowing Ukraine in lot NATO will be an escalation not de-escalation. It very likely leads to nuclear war based on what we know now.

Again regardless of right wrong etc. we need to be calculating with what outcome we want to avoid.

What do we want more, Ukraine in NATO or avoidance of nuclear war?

Did you just say lets use facts and than make some pretty substantial leaps as to what is going on in Putin's head?

[Firebot]

Mr Coffee should be called Mr Chamberlain.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Itse

Again, false dichotomy. These are not actually related issues.

Russians already said they might consider a nuclear response if Sweden and Finland applied. All the same reasoning about spheres of influence applied, even more so in fact. Finland joining NATO is a much bigger security threat to Russia than Ukraine would be, since our border is so close to St. Petersburg.

This just isn't a real thing.

There's a ton of crazy crap coming out of Kremlin. Putin changes his justifications for the war in Ukraine constantly, and he keeps saying all sorts of other crazy stuff. We can't start living our lives based on what Putin says, because down that path is just insanity.

The only rational way to deal with Russia is to ignore the posturing and focus on things that are real.

I also want to remind you that the most likely endstate for this war is still Putin being removed from power, something which he's not likely to survive.

I do see where you and Street Pharmacist are coming from. You are starting to convince me. It is a tough call. But I still think that we unfortunately are in a situation where Putins reality is our reality. So this is merely a conversation about how much risk you want to take avoiding nuclear war, based on Putin’s reality. Putin’s reality is the one we need to worry about, because Putin is the decision maker.

Also no, not Chamberlain. That implies you’re all Churchills but if you were all Churchills you’d have us fighting in Ukraine right now. Which leads me to my next question. If your contention is that we need to govern ourselves by what we think is rational and just, why are we not in Ukraine today fighting rather than just supplying arms? After all, Russia is probably just bluffing on the nuke front right?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Did you just say lets use facts and than make some pretty substantial leaps as to what is going on in Putin's head?

Fair, but Putin has said these things previously. And in terms of “facts” we need to wonder what the person who factually makes a decision thinks.

Or not. But my personal opinion is that the goal should be first priority avoidance of nuclear war and secondly helping Ukraine in self determination. In that order.

[Firebot]

Need I remind you that Ukraine used to have nukes which would have acted as a deterrent against Russia from an invasion? And they were given away with a signed declaration from Russia in the Budapest Memorandum to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty?

You cannot trust or appease Russia. Period. Chamberlain wanted to avoid WWII through appeasement by giving Germany what it wanted and and ended up getting it anyways against a much stronger German opponent.

And beside, Ukraine gave Russia concession terms at the start of the war that included neutrality which Putin outright refused.

This was never about NATO but about rebuilding the Russian Empire

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I do see where you and Street Pharmacist are coming from. You are starting to convince me. It is a tough call. But I still think that we unfortunately are in a situation where Putins reality is our reality. So this is merely a conversation about how much risk you want to take avoiding nuclear war, based on Putin’s reality. Putin’s reality is the one we need to worry about, because Putin is the decision maker.

Also no, not Chamberlain. That implies you’re all Churchills but if you were all Churchills you’d have us fighting in Ukraine right now. Which leads me to my next question. If your contention is that we need to govern ourselves by what we think is rational and just, why are we not in Ukraine today fighting rather than just supplying arms? After all, Russia is probably just bluffing on the nuke front right?

Getting involved in a war with Russia right now is different than saying - if you invade or attack this country (after a peace is reached) then we will respond.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Need I remind you that Ukraine used to have nukes which would have acted as a deterrent against Russia from an invasion? And they were given away with a signed declaration from Russia in the Budapest Memorandum to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty?

You cannot trust or appease Russia. Period. Chamberlain wanted to avoid WWII through appeasement by giving Germany what it wanted and and ended up getting it anyways against a much stronger German opponent.

And beside, Ukraine gave Russia concession terms at the start of the war that included neutrality which Putin outright refused.

This was never about NATO but about rebuilding the Russian Empire

I agree that we can't appease Russia, at least not while Putin is in charge, but this isn't a 'peace in our time' moment and I think many here are treating it as such.

Despite the massive military blunders and sheer incompetence that they have shown, Russia has the capability of killing millions of people with a few button clicks. Do we want to go there? Why do people think Putin won't go there? He is clearly not thinking logical now, and if you subscribe to the idea that he is a madman, which many here do, why do we think he won't use nuclear weapons?

I think the US has taken the absolute best approach possible so far, but at some point there will likely need to be negotiations in order to drawn down the conflict and declare a ceasefire.

And as all negotiations go, there is give and take. Unfortunately because of the nuclear capabilities Russia has, they will have a serious voice at that table.

I am as supportive of Ukraine as anyone here, but we need to be careful when a madman has nuclear weapons. Would you think differently if it were Calgary or Alberta that would be at risk of being annihilated?

[Mr.Coffee]

Seriously, exactly.

There is flawed logic here.

We can’t put troops in Ukraine to help defend them because Russia might use nukes.

Russia has said Ukraine joining NATO is akin to an attack on Russia by NATO and might be met with nukes.

But Russia is lying about that.

But we still don’t want to send troops.

And I’m Chamberlain because I prioritize avoiding nuclear war and killing millions and millions over Ukraine’s self determination even though thousands may die there.

Got it, makes sense.

If you believe what all of you are saying then logically NATO troops should be in Ukraine helping them, since we can’t believe anything Russia says. This is not 1939, entirely different context. In fact, almost everything is entirely different really. So why are all of you applying 1939 war logic to this? Maybe Churchill would have taken a different road if Germany could wipe London off the map with the push of a button.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Seriously, exactly.

There is flawed logic here.

We can’t put troops in Ukraine to help defend them because Russia might use nukes.

Russia has said Ukraine joining NATO is akin to an attack on Russia by NATO and might be met with nukes.

But Russia is lying about that.

But we still don’t want to send troops.

And I’m Chamberlain because I prioritize avoiding nuclear war and killing millions and millions over Ukraine’s self determination even though thousands may die there.

Got it, makes sense.

If you believe what all of you are saying then logically NATO troops should be in Ukraine helping them, since we can’t believe anything Russia says. This is not 1939, entirely different context. In fact, almost everything is entirely different really. So why are all of you applying 1939 war logic to this? Maybe Churchill would have taken a different road if Germany could wipe London off the map with the push of a button.

Or maybe, just maybe, NATO countries do not have the appetite for sending their troops to war. Does the US want to send their troops on the ground of another grueling war after just pulling out of the Middle East? It would be political suicide - regardless if you believe Putin would, or even could (I doubt his generals would let him get to that point) press the button. No one has the appetite in the West for another war.

There is absolutely no way Ukraine gets admitted into NATO with an ongoing war.

[peter12]

As soon as Russia threatened that nuclear weapons were on the table, there can be no backing down.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Leondros

There is absolutely no way Ukraine gets admitted into NATO with an ongoing war.

And there is likely no peace arrangement with Ukraine joining NATO. As unfortunate as that seems.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Seriously, exactly.

There is flawed logic here.

We can’t put troops in Ukraine to help defend them because Russia might use nukes.

Russia has said Ukraine joining NATO is akin to an attack on Russia by NATO and might be met with nukes.

But Russia is lying about that.

But we still don’t want to send troops.

And I’m Chamberlain because I prioritize avoiding nuclear war and killing millions and millions over Ukraine’s self determination even though thousands may die there.

Got it, makes sense.

If you believe what all of you are saying then logically NATO troops should be in Ukraine helping them, since we can’t believe anything Russia says. This is not 1939, entirely different context. In fact, almost everything is entirely different really. So why are all of you applying 1939 war logic to this? Maybe Churchill would have taken a different road if Germany could wipe London off the map with the push of a button.

I think we are starting to see hints of 'if you don't agree with everything Ukraine is doing you are a Putin lover.'

I have many friends who have family members in Ukraine right now, and they are extremely concerned about nuclear attacks.

You know, which one would be when dealing with a madman that has nuclear weapons.

I think far too many people are playing arm chair general from the safety of North America, and also maybe we sit here and are so willing to sacrifice Ukraine lives to try and dismantle Putin's power hold.

The US has been handling this well, and I admire what Ukraine has done and sacrificed, but at some point they won't get everything they want simply because of the fact that they are bordering Russia.

Unfortunate, but that is generally what happens in a war.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Or maybe, just maybe, NATO countries do not have the appetite for sending their troops to war. Does the US want to send their troops on the ground of another grueling war after just pulling out of the Middle East? It would be political suicide - regardless if you believe Putin would, or even could (I doubt his generals would let him get to that point) press the button. No one has the appetite in the West for another war.

Yeah, the US doesn't even care enough about the war to send tanks, planes, or levels of ammo that would compromise their own stockpiles in any way. I'm not sure why anyone's talking about US troops. It's not Russia's nuclear arsenal that's keeping the US out of Ukraine; it's that the US doesn't have a whole lot of interest in Ukraine other than how it affects American interests, and they can achieve those goals by simply supplying arms and providing some intelligence.

If you look past the idealistic platitudes, the US position really comes down to 2 things:

1) Maintaining their (and NATO's) influence as the predominant military power in Eastern Europe. They do this both by containing Russian expansion and by supplying Western/American-made arms. The amount of weapons that are being bought as a result of this conflict and NATO support is staggering, and most of the revenue from that ends up back in the American economy. And once a nation relies on your for arms supplies, you can exercise a degree of control over them.

2) Bleeding Russia's military (and economy to some extent) to help neuter them as a legitimate threat for potentially decades to come. The amount of equipment Russia is losing will never be replaced which will both reduce them as a threat and limit their ability to fund and arm other countries around the world, again creating more business for US arms suppliers.

The US is effectively trying to achieve those goals with the minimum of cost (both political and financial) and with the lowest chance of escalation. So far at least, I'd say they're doing a masterful job at achieving their objectives.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Need I remind you that Ukraine used to have nukes which would have acted as a deterrent against Russia from an invasion? And they were given away with a signed declaration from Russia in the Budapest Memorandum to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty?

You cannot trust or appease Russia. Period. Chamberlain wanted to avoid WWII through appeasement by giving Germany what it wanted and and ended up getting it anyways against a much stronger German opponent.

And beside, Ukraine gave Russia concession terms at the start of the war that included neutrality which Putin outright refused.

This was never about NATO but about rebuilding the Russian Empire

Ukraine also agreed to split the Black Sea fleet with Russia where Russia got to keep 9 out of every 11 ships at the port. The agreement was more generous than Russia deserved. Part of the decision was because the fleet was expensive to maintain, but there was a level of goodwill and generosity as well.

I do think that when all is said and done, NATO and the West are going to have a level of acceptable loss in order to eventually get peace and stability. I think that the 4 currently occupied territories are a non-starter though and must be returned fully to Ukraine. There will be no bending on that. Crimea on the other hand, I think is seen as something they will negotiate with. I think that is one of the main reasons the bridge is still there. It makes a land bridge nice to have, but not necessary, and therefore Russia more malleable in negotiations.

Crimea would also become something Russia could lose in the future if they don't behave. Kind of like giving a child something to lose if they don't listen to their parents.

I don't believe NATO is as unified as it presents itself. Countries like the U.S., Poland, and the Baltics will definitely want to go the full mile, but some of the other ones have questionable resolve. God forbid Trump wins in 2024, because that could be a killer. It's still too early to know how that is going to go, but I personally see it as a deadline for this thing to end in Ukraine's favour.

[FurnaceFace]

I don’t have any real wisdom and don’t want to write a long message, but my view is this, like most high stakes political things, is all sorts of grey and a binary/black and white statement Ukraine + NATO = nukes/end of world doesn’t capture it. If it did, NATO is already supplying weapons, logistical, and strategic support, effectively making them at war with Russia now. We’re all still here and not hunkering down for nuclear winter. We’ll likely never know, but I’d be fascinated to even know 20% of the diplomacy and back channel discussions that have gone on and will go on. Volumes will be written from this war and I suspect at least one Michael Bay movie.

[GGG]

I liked ISW commentary on whether Russia would use Nukes in the current War with the Ukraine. And it’s conclusion was Russias rhetoric regarding Nukes has not changed to the rhetoric that would likely precede launching Nukes and it is current incapable of gaining military advantage from low yield tactical nukes due to its current training levels.

https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...ter-annexation

[PeteMoss]

North Korea just fired missiles over Japan that triggered Japan to advise some of its population to shelter.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

North Korea just fired missiles over Japan that triggered Japan to advise some of its population to shelter.

Yeah...because s### wasnt hitting the fan sufficiently hard enough for some people's liking apparently.