Russia invades Ukraine

[chemgear]

It's wild to see some of the videos out there.

One with a first person view from a drone kamikazing into Russian trench right into a guy. Second drone watching shows his compatriots checking on him, wiping his hand afterwards on the wall of trench. Not bothering to give any medical attention, then just puts him down like a horse.

Crazy.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yeah, it would make no sense to allow them in and put all of NATO at risk. Supplying them with intelligence, arms, training, opening our doors to immigration, etc. is the best way to help without escalating and without putting NATO troops at risk. Super sucks for Ukraine, but not sure if we want to commit ourselves to perpetual involvement in the instability of that region with really no upside to us. Strategically, Ukraine is a good buffer between NATO countries (Poland, specifically, and then everything else west of that) and Russia, anyway. Cold way to look at it, but that has to be thinking.

I can't imagine Ukraine being turned down membership after all the aid they have received, being invited to all the conferences and pretty much as close as a member as you can without officially being in. They are doing the very thing that NATO was specifically designed for back in the day; counter russian aggression. Simply put, Ukraine has far more legitimate combat experience in a conventional war against russia than all other NATO members combined. Not even the US has faced off against russia like this. To turn that kind of experience, knowledge and straight up know-how away would be such a foolish move. Otherwise NATO is simply a book club that talks big and puts on cool airshows with all the best "toys" that will never get used. The upside to Ukraine joining is the opposite of what you are implying in terms of stability. Russia surrounded by NATO countries is best for literally everyone in that region. NATO = safety, plain and simple. There is no world where Ukraine joining NATO makes Western Europe more unstable. Ask any European if they hope Ukraine is a member in the future and you'll get a pretty unanimous response. Only russian supporters in europe think it's a bad thing.

As well, buffer zones be damned. Ask Belarussians how awesome it is being a buffer country. Russia is already the largest land mass on earth. If it wants a buffer zone, they can make their own damn >50km wide buffer zone on their own border and proclaim it as the ultimate buffer.

When I lived in Poland I met an interesting group of poli-sci majors and they kind of laughed how Poland was accepted into the alliance with a lot of baggage at the time, because they threatened to nuke-up if they weren't accepted. Not sure how accurate that is, but pretty smart move. I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear state if they are rejected. They simply don't have time to wait around for russia to build up again without having a deterrent. There isn't a better example of a country in the nuclear era that gave away their nuke program and suffered like this. I simply don't see a world where Ukraine gives up being accepted into NATO. Not after living through this war, no way. They kind of "gave up" a few days into the war when Zelensky said they fully understand NATO membership is now out of the question, and hoped it would quell the invasion and make russia negotiate in good faith. Instead, we all saw how those negotiations went the firsts few weeks. A few months later, they submit their formal application for membership. Ukraine will force their way in kicking and screaming, mark my words. Otherwise the only other option is to nuke up, and I am certain they will attempt to follow that path if their application is rejected.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's wild to see some of the videos out there.

One with a first person view from a drone kamikazing into Russian trench right into a guy. Second drone watching shows his compatriots checking on him, wiping his hand afterwards on the wall of trench. Not bothering to give any medical attention, then just puts him down like a horse.

Crazy.

I saw that video as well. It seemed pretty cold, but you would have to think that the guy was probably ripped apart pretty good after taking a direct hit from a drone. He probably had no chance of survival even if medical response was possible.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I can't imagine Ukraine being turned down membership after all the aid they have received, being invited to all the conferences and pretty much as close as a member as you can without officially being in. They are doing the very thing that NATO was specifically designed for back in the day; counter russian aggression. Simply put, Ukraine has far more legitimate combat experience in a conventional war against russia than all other NATO members combined. Not even the US has faced off against russia like this. To turn that kind of experience, knowledge and straight up know-how away would be such a foolish move. Otherwise NATO is simply a book club that talks big and puts on cool airshows with all the best "toys" that will never get used. The upside to Ukraine joining is the opposite of what you are implying in terms of stability. Russia surrounded by NATO countries is best for literally everyone in that region. NATO = safety, plain and simple. There is no world where Ukraine joining NATO makes Western Europe more unstable. Ask any European if they hope Ukraine is a member in the future and you'll get a pretty unanimous response. Only russian supporters in europe think it's a bad thing.

As well, buffer zones be damned. Ask Belarussians how awesome it is being a buffer country. Russia is already the largest land mass on earth. If it wants a buffer zone, they can make their own damn >50km wide buffer zone on their own border and proclaim it as the ultimate buffer.

When I lived in Poland I met an interesting group of poli-sci majors and they kind of laughed how Poland was accepted into the alliance with a lot of baggage at the time, because they threatened to nuke-up if they weren't accepted. Not sure how accurate that is, but pretty smart move. I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear state if they are rejected. They simply don't have time to wait around for russia to build up again without having a deterrent. There isn't a better example of a country in the nuclear era that gave away their nuke program and suffered like this. I simply don't see a world where Ukraine gives up being accepted into NATO. Not after living through this war, no way. They kind of "gave up" a few days into the war when Zelensky said they fully understand NATO membership is now out of the question, and hoped it would quell the invasion and make russia negotiate in good faith. Instead, we all saw how those negotiations went the firsts few weeks. A few months later, they submit their formal application for membership. Ukraine will force their way in kicking and screaming, mark my words. Otherwise the only other option is to nuke up, and I am certain they will attempt to follow that path if their application is rejected.

But what post-war Ukraine are we talking about joining NATO? One that gets back all its territory, pushing Russia to their own borders? Or the far more likely outcome (other than persistent war) where its territory is divided by a tenuous armistice line and Russia maintains control over a significant part of the country? I guess if a miracle happens and they get all their territory back and the war ends, then maybe joining NATO is a possibility. But that chances of that happening at this point are basically zero.

I'd expect some sort of security guarantee (that falls short of Article 5) to be a more likely outcome.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But what post-war Ukraine are we talking about joining NATO? One that gets back all its territory, pushing Russia to their own borders? Or the far more likely outcome (other than persistent war) where its territory is divided by a tenuous armistice line and Russia maintains control over a significant part of the country? I guess if a miracle happens and they get all their territory back and the war ends, then maybe joining NATO is a possibility. But that chances of that happening at this point are basically zero.

I'd expect some sort of security guarantee (that falls short of Article 5) to be a more likely outcome.

Russia will lose the will to fight and keep their occupied areas before Ukraine loses the will to fight to liberate those areas. It's pre-2014, or war as far as Ukrainian leadership is concerned.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But what post-war Ukraine are we talking about joining NATO? One that gets back all its territory, pushing Russia to their own borders? Or the far more likely outcome (other than persistent war) where its territory is divided by a tenuous armistice line and Russia maintains control over a significant part of the country? I guess if a miracle happens and they get all their territory back and the war ends, then maybe joining NATO is a possibility. But that chances of that happening at this point are basically zero.

I'd expect some sort of security guarantee (that falls short of Article 5) to be a more likely outcome.

Is a split Ukraine that different than a split German. West Germany join mid 50s.

I am hopeful that Ukraine pushes back Ivan to their own soil.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is a split Ukraine that different than a split German. West Germany join mid 50s.

I am hopeful that Ukraine pushes back Ivan to their own soil.

Germany's borders weren't in dispute though. The country was totally defeated and the allies carved it up. That's a lot different than an armistice line dividing contested territory.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Russia will lose the will to fight and keep their occupied areas before Ukraine loses the will to fight to liberate those areas. It's pre-2014, or war as far as Ukrainian leadership is concerned.

That hasn't really been the trajectory that wars take though, in the last 70-80 years at least. Most inter-state wars are quite short, lasting a few months. Of the ones that extend longer than year, the average length is something like 10 years because in those situations, neither side is really capable of inflicting a decisive victory on the other (which seems to be the case with this war). So they just keep fighting.

So what you say may be true in the end, but it's probably going to take a very long time for that to happen. And then you have to consider whether the US is willing to continue to provide support at the current level indefinitely. If the Democrats stay in power, that'll likely happen. But if Trump or Desantis gets into office?

[burn_this_city]

Another dead Russian General.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1668370629723312128

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That hasn't really been the trajectory that wars take though, in the last 70-80 years at least. Most inter-state wars are quite short, lasting a few months. Of the ones that extend longer than year, the average length is something like 10 years because in those situations, neither side is really capable of inflicting a decisive victory on the other (which seems to be the case with this war). So they just keep fighting.

So what you say may be true in the end, but it's probably going to take a very long time for that to happen. And then you have to consider whether the US is willing to continue to provide support at the current level indefinitely. If the Democrats stay in power, that'll likely happen. But if Trump or Desantis gets into office?

If you really think about it, the conflict started in 2014. So we might be getting close to that 10 year mark soon. It just took a massive escalation in Feb 2022.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I can't imagine Ukraine being turned down membership after all the aid they have received, being invited to all the conferences and pretty much as close as a member as you can without officially being in. They are doing the very thing that NATO was specifically designed for back in the day; counter russian aggression. Simply put, Ukraine has far more legitimate combat experience in a conventional war against russia than all other NATO members combined. Not even the US has faced off against russia like this. To turn that kind of experience, knowledge and straight up know-how away would be such a foolish move. Otherwise NATO is simply a book club that talks big and puts on cool airshows with all the best "toys" that will never get used. The upside to Ukraine joining is the opposite of what you are implying in terms of stability. Russia surrounded by NATO countries is best for literally everyone in that region. NATO = safety, plain and simple. There is no world where Ukraine joining NATO makes Western Europe more unstable. Ask any European if they hope Ukraine is a member in the future and you'll get a pretty unanimous response. Only russian supporters in europe think it's a bad thing.

As well, buffer zones be damned. Ask Belarussians how awesome it is being a buffer country. Russia is already the largest land mass on earth. If it wants a buffer zone, they can make their own damn >50km wide buffer zone on their own border and proclaim it as the ultimate buffer.

When I lived in Poland I met an interesting group of poli-sci majors and they kind of laughed how Poland was accepted into the alliance with a lot of baggage at the time, because they threatened to nuke-up if they weren't accepted. Not sure how accurate that is, but pretty smart move. I fully support Ukraine becoming a nuclear state if they are rejected. They simply don't have time to wait around for russia to build up again without having a deterrent. There isn't a better example of a country in the nuclear era that gave away their nuke program and suffered like this. I simply don't see a world where Ukraine gives up being accepted into NATO. Not after living through this war, no way. They kind of "gave up" a few days into the war when Zelensky said they fully understand NATO membership is now out of the question, and hoped it would quell the invasion and make russia negotiate in good faith. Instead, we all saw how those negotiations went the firsts few weeks. A few months later, they submit their formal application for membership. Ukraine will force their way in kicking and screaming, mark my words. Otherwise the only other option is to nuke up, and I am certain they will attempt to follow that path if their application is rejected.

Uh yeah, that's precisely what you want, though. In a perfect world NATO is an alliance so powerful that it is a deterrent to actual war. Ukraine is an unstable country and a poor one, too. Obviously it would be great for them to be part of the alliance, but I don't think they offer much in return. As well, a buffer between NATO and Russia is better for us.

Sadly for Ukraine, the status quo is in NATO's best interests. Plus this war has showcased the awesomeness of NATO weaponry. I think that's a further deterrent, too, and didn't cost NATO lives. I agree Ukraine will forever want in, but you can't "force" your way into NATO. NATO needs to want you and I don't know if it will. Assuming Ukraine wins this war, there will be a short period of time where there is momentum and goodwill that could lead to acceptance, but I would bet against it happening, myself.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Uh yeah, that's precisely what you want, though. In a perfect world NATO is an alliance so powerful that it is a deterrent to actual war. Ukraine is an unstable country and a poor one, too. Obviously it would be great for them to be part of the alliance, but I don't think they offer much in return. As well, a buffer between NATO and Russia is better for us.

Sadly for Ukraine, the status quo is in NATO's best interests. Plus this war has showcased the awesomeness of NATO weaponry. I think that's a further deterrent, too, and didn't cost NATO lives. I agree Ukraine will forever want in, but you can't "force" your way into NATO. NATO needs to want you and I don't know if it will. Assuming Ukraine wins this war, there will be a short period of time where there is momentum and goodwill that could lead to acceptance, but I would bet against it happening, myself.

This realpolitik rubbish is why we are where we are. This is a military alliance not an economic union, they will be admitted because they will have one of the largest armies in Europe and easily the most experienced. This conflict has revived NATOs purpose for existence.

[Street Pharmacist]

I think we get a little too wrapped up in the current situation and forget some of what got us here. Russia controlled Ukraine only 9 short years ago because they were so corrupt that they could use money to influence the country. They were still 116th out of 180 countries on the corruption perception index. Things have changed in Ukraine an awful lot since 2014 including on economic and corruption matters, but we need to be careful about wedding the alliance to a country until things are stable. I do believe they'll get there, but it's still early in that transition. What absolutely is missing here is what Ukraine is really asking for. They're not asking to join NATO now, they're simply asking for a roadmap which they have not been given. It's short sighted

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Uh yeah, that's precisely what you want, though. In a perfect world NATO is an alliance so powerful that it is a deterrent to actual war. Ukraine is an unstable country and a poor one, too. Obviously it would be great for them to be part of the alliance, but I don't think they offer much in return. As well, a buffer between NATO and Russia is better for us.

Sadly for Ukraine, the status quo is in NATO's best interests. Plus this war has showcased the awesomeness of NATO weaponry. I think that's a further deterrent, too, and didn't cost NATO lives. I agree Ukraine will forever want in, but you can't "force" your way into NATO. NATO needs to want you and I don't know if it will. Assuming Ukraine wins this war, there will be a short period of time where there is momentum and goodwill that could lead to acceptance, but I would bet against it happening, myself.

If the alliance is so powerful (and it is), then how is that a bad thing if Ukraine joins? I can assure you, Europeans don't enjoy having a war on their doorstep and there is a huge calling for Ukraine to join when the war is done. No war = better for literally everyone. Including Russia.

And again, Ukraine now has significantly more combat experience against the russian army. Not even the US has conventional combat experience like this against them. In what world is that a not useful? It's super duper useful.

And finally, again, ask Belarus and Ukraine what it's like being a buffer country beside russia. It fuggin' sucks. Buffer countries are dumb. Russia can make their own DMZ on their own border if they so choose. Being a buffer country beside russia on their western flank means you get invaded, full stop. So who exactly is it "better" for? North Americans sitting at home where russian wars have no effect on them, or people who live beside russia?

Nah, I think Ukraine will get in. In the "perfect" world, once the war is over, perhaps there is some kind of plan to fast-track them in and put an end to this russian nonsense for the foreseeable future. Probably not likely, but a man can dream. Ukraine isn't perfect, we all know that. But war is one of those things that sometimes brings a country together and really puts on a light on things that need to change internally in order to progress.

[Itse]

While speculating is a worthwhile past-time, it's really hard to know how the war will end, when it will end, and what will the end scenario be like in both Ukraine and Russia.

Many presume that Putin will not survive a loss in the war, and if he goes Russia might take a completely different path. One potential end scenario is that Russia collapses economically, and what would happen after that, no one knows. The whole federation might start breaking apart.

If Trump becomes president, he might end US support for Ukraine and quite possibly cause the collapse of NATO, at which point Europe would need a new defense partnership anyway, with new rules.

Those are just a couple of possibilities that would put a completely new spin on the question of whether or not Ukraine should or could join NATO.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Itse

While speculating is a worthwhile past-time, it's really hard to know how the war will end, when it will end, and what will the end scenario be like in both Ukraine and Russia.

Many presume that Putin will not survive a loss in the war, and if he goes Russia might take a completely different path. One potential end scenario is that Russia collapses economically, and what would happen after that, no one knows. The whole federation might start breaking apart.

If Trump becomes president, he might end US support for Ukraine and quite possibly cause the collapse of NATO, at which point Europe would need a new defense partnership anyway, with new rules.

Those are just a couple of possibilities that would put a completely new spin on the question of whether or not Ukraine should or could join NATO.

And the war may continue for 10 years. Who knows

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

And the war may continue for 10 years. Who knows

Or the war end 12 months from now when the cowardly Ivans have all cut and run

I hope my prognostication is correct.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Or the war end 12 months from now when the cowardly Ivans have all cut and run



I hope my prognostication is correct.

Me too

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Germany's borders weren't in dispute though. The country was totally defeated and the allies carved it up. That's a lot different than an armistice line dividing contested territory.

I'm not sure I totally agree. Germany essentially had The Cold War Armistice Line.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

If the alliance is so powerful (and it is), then how is that a bad thing if Ukraine joins? I can assure you, Europeans don't enjoy having a war on their doorstep and there is a huge calling for Ukraine to join when the war is done. No war = better for literally everyone. Including Russia.

And again, Ukraine now has significantly more combat experience against the russian army. Not even the US has conventional combat experience like this against them. In what world is that a not useful? It's super duper useful.

And finally, again, ask Belarus and Ukraine what it's like being a buffer country beside russia. It fuggin' sucks. Buffer countries are dumb. Russia can make their own DMZ on their own border if they so choose. Being a buffer country beside russia on their western flank means you get invaded, full stop. So who exactly is it "better" for? North Americans sitting at home where russian wars have no effect on them, or people who live beside russia?

Nah, I think Ukraine will get in. In the "perfect" world, once the war is over, perhaps there is some kind of plan to fast-track them in and put an end to this russian nonsense for the foreseeable future. Probably not likely, but a man can dream. Ukraine isn't perfect, we all know that. But war is one of those things that sometimes brings a country together and really puts on a light on things that need to change internally in order to progress.

You bring up Belarus, and that's exactly why it'll be a little bit before Ukraine gets into NATO. The Ukraine people have shown a resolve the Belarusians have not, but we already see the problems we gave in NATO with Erdogan and Orban. Once Ukraine shows a longer period of clamping down on corruption and holding stable government, they'll get it