Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 362. (Read 76553 times)

NATO selling a few jets to Ukraine isn't enough.



If the propaganda is to be believed, Russia will surrender themselves, withdraw all their troops from the country, and Ukraine will magically be isolated from any future military aggression.

The reality, of course, just involves Putin slaughtering as many civilians as possible until Ukraine eventually concedes, or until Putin is able to assassinate most of the Ukrainian government and install his puppets. Surely Ukraine should fight back, what else could they do? But I only mention this to dispel the false beliefs that war is a one or two month event. It will lasts years, and many more people will die unfortunately. The large crowd of people with Ukrainian flags on their social media profiles are in for a disappointment.

I am interested in knowing what would people who think that the US should send ships or troops to Ukraine think that could happen in that case? I certainly have my own theory.

For those who think that Trump would do so, I am interested in knowing what would they think Trump would do, what would tweet and what consequences do they think that would result. (e.g. nuclear war, Putin cancelling the war impressed by Trumps hairstyle, Putin forgetting about the war and simply tweeting back until he chokes....)


Firstly, there is and there will be abundant "Input" from NATO. Ukraine is not short on experienced soldiers with the ability and the willingness to fight and there is no legal impediment for any neutral country (e.g. NATO countries) to sell weapons (or give then away) to Ukraine's army.

Ukraine is not wining Putin's war in the sense of preserving the territory or entering Russia to decapitate their government. How does an Ukrainian "victory" look like (sorry for being brutally honest):

- Impossibility of Putin preserving his army as it is today. Loosing so much material and troops that it does not recover ever again and, eventually, looses its stance in the world (and perhaps Putin is "retired").
- Getting into a stalemate that Putin simply cannot afford in terms of reputation and in terms of the economy.
- For a total victory, after a massive loss of Russian lives and an economic meltdown, Putin is somehow "retired" by a military junta.

Sadly, none of this happens with Ukraine still being a place to live, nor without anger and hate for generations, nor without an economic shock across the world. The alternative is reaching an agreement. Unfortunately, that cannot be done before a war takes place because it has been proven that giving away territory or accepting aggressions to have peace (e.g. Austria with Hitler) does not work.

Ukraine has no option but to fight and never give up or accept that they will be ruled by Putin - who obviously has zero regard for their future.

U.S. officials believe Kyiv will fall in 4-6 weeks, with Russia/Ukraine war lasting over a decade.

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-kyiv-war-putin-invasion-talks-today/#post-update-8de46653

With the amount of Ukrainian propaganda floating around, there is this notion that Ukraine is winning this war or even has the potential to win this war. It simply is not true. The Russian military has too many resources to throw away and the economic ramifications does not effect Putin directly. His fragile ego will put his political ambitions over his constituency. So without any input from NATO, this is prolonged losing battle for Ukraine. It seems like Russia has been targeting civilian areas over the last few days, and there are some reports that it might ramp up within the coming weeks. A 10-20 year time line sounds reasonable, and at the end Ukraine might end up being a wasteland like Afghanistan.

These odd-looking cannonballs are not missiles as you claim. Although I'm not sure what kind of guidance system they use, which could explain why they fall on playgrounds and apartment buildings.

(I bet that the Russian media will claim either that the Ukrainians put them there or that the photos are fake.)

I know it sounds ridiculously premature, but I think the only thing worse than full defeat and occupation of Ukraine would be if Ukrainians win and go on a vengeful rampage into Russia, shooting retreating Russian soldiers in the back. Fingers crossed that this ends at Ukraine's borders, sooner rather than later.


I think a coup is getting more and more tempting for some of Putin's generals and/or oligarchs. Imagine the personal wealth and worldwide fame one could reap from this. Whoever knocks Putin off would be a hero in the West, and could get away with many things that would otherwise be heavily frowned up. Russian public opinion could be swayed too, what with the massive propaganda machine.

You forgot the obvious


What the Media Is HIDING About Ukraine/Russia
https://rumble.com/vw4t0e-what-the-media-is-hiding-about-ukrainerussia.html


Correct me if i wrong, but is't Russia the only gateway to the international spacestation and NASA / ESA lost access to it, or pay extra ?

Yes, the worst thing you can do to someone who has nuclear weapons is to put them in a situation where they have nothing left to lose. I'm sure a major reason for the sanctions on Putin-associates is to destabilise his allies sufficiently for them to want to remove him. It's difficult to imagine him backing down voluntarily or due to Western pressure.

As for him winning Ukraine, there's a huge difference between taking control and holding control. He can certainly capture the key cities and assume command of the country, but the longer this goes on and the bloodier it gets, the more the Ukranians unite against the common foe. I read an interesting article by Yuval Noah Harari (author of the excellent 'Sapiens') the other day, where he argues that by effectively uniting Ukraine against him, Putin is ensuring that he can never retain control of the country in the longer-term.

While nothing is impossible there are a few reasons why I think that is not likely possibility as of now:

- Insofar as military uses, there are conventional fuel-air bombs that can do a small Nuke's job leaving no radiation.. nor anything else.

- Nuclear weapons are to dissuade, not to be used. He who fires a Nuke has the certainty that he will be equally fired upon. There is no way that US, UK or France can ignore a nuclear strike without responding as this would void the nuclear deterrent.  Getting hit by a Nuke on your territory is likely to end with you being assassinated by your own people.

- It is extremely difficult to de-escalate after a nuclear attack. Relations may be broken for decades, economy would collapse (Putin's army is costly for a small PIB like Russia's)

- Putin is not mad in the usual sense, he understand the consequences of his actions. On Ukraine, I think he has miscalculated the costs and the international reaction, but it was not madness, he simply based his strategy on a divided and slow Europe, a nearly unconditional support from China and a calculated non-intervention by the US.

What is an scenario in which Putin would use a Nuke:

- Direct intervention of NATO troops (e.g. the Black Sea)
- Threat of other using Nukes.
- The war goes so wrong that he is at serious personal risk.
- NATO setting-up Nukes in the Baltic republics.

Overall, once more Europe has a War, we all loose and US (and this time also China) come out stronger.

Imagine this scenario: Putins nukes an Ukranian city. US states that they will nuke a Belorussian city in 24 hours. Can you imagine the chaos?

On Putin having some personal gain... well I do not think that Ukraine will recover the Donbas in any case, so Putin can sell it as a victory.



Yes! that's it!, here's my proposal:

Russian will rename to their old name "Russians of Kiev", Turkey will become the Ottoman Empire or even better, Byzantium and go back to from naming Istanbul to Constantinople. We will look for people to be the new Mongols and threaten Europe (they did a much better job than Putin) and we will mix that with the Brigands, Goths, Celtic tribes, Normans, the Teutonic Order... we can even have a Crusade! Oh, I forgot... we have to revive the Cossack cavalry or Europe would just not be the same.

Oh Lord Wellington where are thou!

I am such a diplomacy genius... Putin, are you there!?

Nobody believed him that he would attack Ukraine and bombard it with missiles. Now no one wants to believe that he can use nuclear weapons, but such a possibility cannot be ruled out, we see that he is capable of anything, especially now when he is cornered. It’s scary to even think that this could happen, I do not know where it will be possible to run from such a catastrophe. I really hope that this will not happen and I will be able to live on my free land.

At least 136 people, including 13 children, have been killed in Ukraine since Thursday, February 24, the UN said Tuesday. Day 6 of the conflict, how does that compare with other operations with bombings?

Since Putin is apparently now a crazy old man with a Napoleon complex, this horrifying thought occurred to me: If Ukraine resists for many weeks, why wouldn't Putin use a nuclear weapon against them? It'd be like the situation with Japan and the US in WWII: Putin can nuke a couple of Ukrainian cities (probably in the western half) and say, "Surrender unconditionally or I'll nuke a couple more." And he could just continue nuking cities until Ukraine capitulated. NATO wouldn't respond with direct military action, Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons of its own, and sanctions are already nearly maxed out. I don't see how Putin has much to lose with this strategy (except that it might horrify his direct subordinates or population enough for them to oust him), and it's a sure-fire way to win Ukraine.

You might think that Putin wouldn't want to get a radioactive wasteland as a prize, but that'd be a misunderstanding of the effects of nuclear weapons. Using appropriately-sized nukes, Putin could destroy dozens of cities without making Ukraine generally uninhabitable. The radioactive fallout would cause serious issues (worse in Ukraine and extending worldwide), but it wouldn't kill that many people in most areas, and it would decay in weeks.

To try to prevent this, the West urgently needs to find some way of giving Putin some sort of hope that he personally can improve his situation without conquering Ukraine. As things stand now, there seems to be zero hope of the sanctions ever being lifted as long as Putin is alive, so Putin sees that his only two options are to give up and become an iron-fisted dictator of a poor country, like North Korea, or continue pursuing his dream of restoring the Russian empire at all costs. The West might offer Russia a series of steps that would lead to progressively removing the sanctions, and it might even be worth offering Putin safe personal exile (like Napoleon) so he can retire in peace. He probably wouldn't take a quiet retirement, but it doesn't hurt to offer it.

---

If you're within about 250km of Ukraine, it'd be a good idea to:
 - Put important files onto optical media, since a nuclear EMP may destroy hard drives and SSDs.
 - Buy potassium iodide tablets. In case of nuclear fallout, adults take 130mg/day. This will help your long-term survival, but will absolutely not make you immune to radiation.
 - If possible, prepare 2 weeks of food and water in case you have to shelter from fallout. An appropriate shelter will put as much matter between you and the outside world as possible, without any direct airflow. Air filtration isn't necessary, but air should not be able to flow freely in from the outside. Fallout will especially accumulate on the ground outside and on roofs, so you want your shelter to be far from those. A basement is good if it's deep enough, but a shallow basement isn't ideal because you're too close to the ground outside. A subway would probably have too much air flowing from outside. The middle floors of a very tall building can be used, staying as far as possible from the exterior walls.

I would suggest 15th century, because it gets better. I found evidence that Ukraine is actually ancient NATO land:

Ancient Kievan lands... 1000 years ago, since before Moscow even existed.

So it's a good thing that NATO membership doesn't allow that? Is that your point?

I understand how you feel, so just posting facts from wiki without comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainians_in_Russia

Any country that boarders a current nuclear power that decides to join a pact which would allow 3rd country to put its nukes on that country's land, would most definitely move the doomsday clock hands in the wrong direction. And that's for the better, this is not a precedent that you want to set. It would allow poor countries to offer their land to (possible) nukes for the right incentives. How would you feel about Mexico joining a pact with Russia for free oil that would allow Russian nukes on Mexico/US border? Or how much do you think would China need to offer to Albania for the rights to place Chinese nukes on Albanian soil?*

*Of course it wouldn't just be for the nukes. It'd be packed in a nice pact with other very lucrative trade deals, single currency, and lending terms, with an option for nukes, so that country could prosper.

In last day Russian attacks end with much more deaths of civilians. They shooting at houses and apartments of people, hospitals, kindergartens, Kharkiv city municipality and Kyiv TV tower. They are still say that Russia attack only military objects, but it's rude lie. If they're doing such things, seems that they have no limits...
It's very likely that Belarus army is going to join Russian forces in attacks. And from what I read, Ukraine would respon with rockets attack towards Belarus.
I'm not sure why you're talking about brinngin nukes. Poland and Baltic states is NATO members and there is no nukes there. How Ukraine would be different? What if Finland will decide to join NATO? Russia will start war against them too?

You are assuming that NATO would require Ukraine to have nukes. That is not the case with many other countries even those close to Russia, so there is no real argument.

The purpose of the sanctions is to cripple the Russian economy, so Russia does not have the ability to continue its war effort. Wars are not won with weapons that each side had at the beginning of the war, they are won with weapons produced during the war. So if Russia is unable to continue to produce tanks, planes, and bombs, they will be unable to continue to fight the war.

Another purpose of the sanctions is to incentivize the people of Russia to overthrow/change their government. Russia is no democracy, and there are risks to speaking out/protesting, however, if these types of things happen in large enough numbers, the Russian government will be unable to suppress the protests.

The gas pipelines from Russia provides Russia with money to finance its war in Ukraine. Russia's only real trading partner left is China, but China is not going to give away goods for free. If Russia cannot sell its gas, the Russian government will stop having the ability to buy things. Russia receives approximately 40% of its receipts from sales of gas.

I don't think this is a good solution, just as it is a bad solution to violent places in Central America.

When people being oppressed can simply leave the control of an oppressive/bad government, there is less pressure on other governments to pursue change because the people being oppressed can simply seek refuge. This also gives the people of these bad governments less of an incentive to try to change their government. Unhappy citizens will try to leave instead of changing their government.

Russia is no democracy, and when citizens dissent in smallish numbers they will be punished. However, if enough of Russia's population resists its government, the government will collapse. Allowing people to immigrate from Russia will reduce the incentive for people to resist their government. It is also something that will take a very long time to have a meaningful impact.

Not sure how much clearer i can be. US will never allow Cuba to enter into any defensive pacts (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Cuba) that would allow other countries to bring nukes into Cuba. China will never allow Taiwan to enter into any pact (regardless of how lawful/democratic/liberating/profitable... it will be for Taiwan) that will allow 3rd country to bring nukes into Taiwan. Now you can argue whether it is right/ethical/lawful etc... but it'd be silly to argue the fact itself.