Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[FLEA]

23 minutes ago, Prozac said:

As much as I’d love to see mass desertions/surrenders on the Russian side, I think it’s important that we temper expectations & acknowledge we may be looking at this through the proverbial Western prism. Russians are stoic, fatalistic people and many of them pride themselves on being willing and able to weather hardship and suffering. There may well be some who refuse to fight, especially amongst younger and/or conscripted troops (there appears to be some evidence of this happening already), but Russians have always been willing to put bodies through the meat grinder & I won’t be surprised if Putin is still bashing his forces against the rocks six months or a year from now, regardless of meaningful progress. 

Podcaster talks about the Ukrainian propaganda machine, information space, and what to believe. 

https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-episode/michael-weiss-who-should-you-believe-about-the-war-2

 

On a separate note be brings up an interesting theory of one or multiple high level leakers inside the Russian cabinet who want to see this fail (because they know war with the west will be fatalistic) 

This would explain how the IC got amazingly precise info leading up to the invasion as well as Putin's recent purge of very high level intelligence and military officials. 

[FDNYOldGuy]

50 minutes ago, Prosuper said:

This article says the Sherman had a 580% loss rate. A Poor Defense: Sherman tanks in WW2 – University of Illinois Archives

I can't remember the exact quote and haven't been able to find it through quick searching, but I remember hearing one in the past from Germans about the Sherman. To paraphrase: "It took 10 Shermans to take out one Panzer, but the Americans always had the 11th Sherman coming over the ridge."

[SocialD]

26 minutes ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

I can't remember the exact quote and haven't been able to find it through quick searching, but I remember hearing one in the past from Germans about the Sherman. To paraphrase: "It took 10 Shermans to take out one Panzer, but the Americans always had the 11th Sherman coming over the ridge."

 

So I'm listening to a book Accidental Super Power, which pretty much hit on this.  Although I haven't finished the book yet, from a book that was written in 2014, he seems to have mostly shacked it on the current Russia vs Ukraine conflict.  

[McJay Pilot]

3 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

So I'm listening to a book Accidental Super Power, which pretty much hit on this.  Although I haven't finished the book yet, from a book that was written in 2014, he seems to have mostly shacked it on the current Russia vs Ukraine conflict.  

It’s impressive how well called Russia/Ukraine. Interested to see if COVID affects timeline so his other predictions.

[DirkDiggler]

Ukrainians in Mauripol slugging it out close range with a Russian tank.

[HeyEng]

Being retired since 2014, I miss the monthly UTA intel briefings of what’s really going on around the world. The closest I can get now is following Tom Cooper on FB.
He either works for or owns Helion and Company Publishing, which publishes books on smaller or little known conflicts around the world. 
Tom has posted daily updates on the Ukrainian conflict on his page, (like everything on the internet, you have to take it with a grain of salt) getting into detail that the media lacks.

[HeloDude]

This doesn’t really sound like much of a “democracy” to me.  
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-in-ukraine-with-russia-ties/

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

This doesn’t really sound like much of a “democracy” to me.  
 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-in-ukraine-with-russia-ties/

There’s precedent in multiple other democratic states for things like this.  For example, the Bund organization/party was outlawed in the US after the start of WWII. 

  There’s multiple open source examples of the Russians kidnapping Ukrainian officials and and installing puppets; the 1st party in the above article is openly sympathetic and colluding with Russia, I’m not sure about the others.

  There’s only one large autocracy in Europe currently invading its neighbor, slaughtering thousands of civilians with heavy artillery, forcibly deporting thousands of others, and denying the entire thing.  If the Ukrainian government has to ban political parties supportive/sympathetic of these actions to ensure they remain free of Russia it may not be in line with some idea of a democratic utopia, but perfectly understandable in a fight for survival.

 

[HeloDude]

23 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

There’s precedent in multiple other democratic states for things like this.  For example, the Bund organization/party was outlawed in the US after the start of WWII. 

  There’s multiple open source examples of the Russians kidnapping Ukrainian officials and and installing puppets; the 1st party in the above article is openly sympathetic and colluding with Russia, I’m not sure about the others.

  There’s only one large autocracy in Europe currently invading its neighbor, slaughtering thousands of civilians with heavy artillery, forcibly deporting thousands of others, and denying the entire thing.  If the Ukrainian government has to ban political parties supportive/sympathetic of these actions to ensure they remain free of Russia it may not be in line with some idea of a democratic utopia, but perfectly understandable in a fight for survival.

 

Putin is a very bad dude and clearly an aggressor.  And Ukraine is not some bastion of freedom and democracy that the media portrays them to be…even if they are fighting for their survival.  Two different things can be true at the same time.  But never turn a blind eye to the enemy of your enemy just because.  

 

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, HeyEng said:

Being retired since 2014, I miss the monthly UTA intel briefings of what’s really going on around the world. The closest I can get now is following Tom Cooper on FB.
He either works for or owns Helion and Company Publishing, which publishes books on smaller or little known conflicts around the world. 
Tom has posted daily updates on the Ukrainian conflict on his page, (like everything on the internet, you have to take it with a grain of salt) getting into detail that the media lacks.

I follow Tom Cooper as well. Good synopsis but heavily slanted and sometimes lacking technical detail. 

That said I have seen open source products out there that out detail our own classified level intelligence products but they usually lack extensive analysis. There seems to be a gap somewhere between raw intelligence and finished analysis that's an open space on the OSINT market. 

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Putin is a very bad dude and clearly an aggressor.  And Ukraine is not some bastion of freedom and democracy that the media portrays them to be…even if they are fighting for their survival.  Two different things can be true at the same time.  But never turn a blind eye to the enemy of your enemy just because.  

 

I don’t care what the media or any network talking heads have to say about Ukrainian freedom or democracy (and based on your previous posts I don’t think you do either).  Why any adult with critical thinking skills would is largely beyond me.  
  I think most people on this forum would agree that Ukraine is a young democratic state with serious issues regarding corruption and some press/information freedoms; it’s far from a perfect democracy.  However imperfect a democracy they are, they are still one.  And they’re being invaded/destroyed by a neighbor who is a flat out autocracy ruled by a guy that implicitly rejects the liberal international order, runs his country like a police state, and sees democratic countries on his border as a threat.

  There are very few (possibly none) democratic countries in the world that haven’t made serious mistakes in their past.  The US made serious mistakes as we were developing as a country.  My dad grew up on a Native American reservation so I have direct family experience with some of the ones the United States has made.  I still made the decision to join the US military and serve our country knowing that we’re imperfect and that we make mistakes.  As shitty as some things in America’s history is, we’re still a whole lot better than most places I’ve been in the world.  From your posting history I’ve gathered you’ve been in the military a long time.  In spite of some of the serious mistakes we as a country have made over the last 20 years, I believe you continue to serve, even though we as a democracy have had some struggles.  

The Ukrainian government is having to make some extraordinarily difficult decisions as their entire way of life and state is under threat of destruction.  Banning political parties that support the destruction of your country may not be completely democratic, but IMO we don’t live in a black and white world.

  Assuming that Ukraine survives in its current state, history will probably judge whether the steps they took to preserve themselves we’re justifiable or not.  I sure as shit am not going to be too critical of anything they’ve done up to this point.
  Make you a bet, if Zelensky/Ukraine survives, in 5 years (or whatever their election cycle is), if the Ukrainians continue to banish all opposition parties/there’s no or a staged election, and Zelensky basically becomes a dictator, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite.  If Ukraine continues to work towards being a democracy and a part of the liberal international system, you owe me.

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

Make you a bet, if Zelensky/Ukraine survives, in 5 years (or whatever their election cycle is), if the Ukrainians continue to banish all opposition parties/there’s no or a staged election, and Zelensky basically becomes a dictator, I’ll buy you a bottle of your favorite.  If Ukraine continues to work towards being a democracy and a part of the liberal international system, you owe me.

I have no clue what’s going to happen next year, much less of a clue as to what will happen in 5 years.  
 

Its funny how you use the words “critical thinking” and yet originally sought to discount my original post today by suggesting that since they’re invaded by Putin that my point was irrelevant.  Critical thinking means that you can look  at both points at the same time and without emotion.

As far as the media, Ukraine/Russia is consuming well more than half of the news cycle so I think it’s a valid discussion point.  And the vast majority of the news has Ukraine out to be some model of freedom and democracy all because they’re being invaded by Russia.  Your argument was basically to overlook my points because Ukraine is a lot better than the aggressors, but I appreciate you clarifying afterwards.  However I disagree that banning political parties that a president disagrees with is necessary, and it’s as far from democracy as you can get.

Oh, and I’m personally anti-Russia, but I’m “jury is still out” (at best) when it comes to Ukraine.  If the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to help weaken Russia and that this will benefit the average US citizen, then it’s a valid argument to be made as proxy wars have been part of international politics since lord only knows.  But that’s not the argument that is being made by the president, Congress, the media/elites, etc.

 

[DirkDiggler]

7 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I have no clue what’s going to happen next year, much less of a clue as to what will happen in 5 years.  
 

Its funny how you use the words “critical thinking” and yet originally sought to discount my original post today by suggesting that since they’re invaded by Putin that my point was irrelevant.  Critical thinking means that you can look  at both points at the same time and without emotion.

As far as the media, Ukraine/Russia is consuming well more than half of the news cycle so I think it’s a valid discussion point.  And the vast majority of the news has Ukraine out to be some model of freedom and democracy all because they’re being invaded by Russia.  Your argument was basically to overlook my points because Ukraine is a lot better than the aggressors, but I appreciate you clarifying afterwards.  However I disagree that banning political parties that a president disagrees with is necessary, and it’s as far from democracy as you can get.

Oh, and I’m personally anti-Russia, but I’m “jury is still out” (at best) when it comes to Ukraine.  If the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to help weaken Russia and that this will benefit the average US citizen, then it’s a valid argument to be made as proxy wars have been part of international politics since lord only knows.  But that’s not the argument that is being made by the president, Congress, the media/elites, etc.

 

I didn’t discount your point; I disagreed with it and gave my reasons as to why.  
 

My critical thinking point with regards to the media and talking heads was that I believe far too many people in our country consume that stuff and basically let others do their thinking for them without listening to multiple sides and doing research themselves before they come to a conclusion, belief, or point of view.  And no one looks at things like this this without some emotion or some pre-conceived bias, it’s part of basic human nature.  How and why the media is covering this war would be a separate discussion that I believe is valid.

  You and I are probably not going to agree on this topic and that’s fine, I appreciate that you provide rational, well thought out posts for your points of view.  My disagreement is not discounting, if that were the case I wouldn’t have bothered to engage.

[Lord Ratner]

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

 

Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line.

 

Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. 

 

Basically, everything short of actually invading Russia. The danger of losing the concept of nuclear deterrence, which explicitly requires the nuclear powers to use nukes for defense only, is too vital to let perish because Putin is afraid of losing control of Russia.

 

Barring nuclear use by Putin, the question of genocide is a much tougher red line to draw. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, because the real strategic victory is for the Ukrainians to defeat Putin rather than the West. It seems more and more likely the Ukrainians can win with enough supplies from the West, but it's by no means certain. If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

 

Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line.

 

Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. 

 

Basically, everything short of actually invading Russia. The danger of losing the concept of nuclear deterrence, which explicitly requires the nuclear powers to use nukes for defense only, is too vital to let perish because Putin is afraid of losing control of Russia.

 

Barring nuclear use by Putin, the question of genocide is a much tougher red line to draw. I'm not sure what the right answer is there, because the real strategic victory is for the Ukrainians to defeat Putin rather than the West. It seems more and more likely the Ukrainians can win with enough supplies from the West, but it's by no means certain. If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

I agree if they use a nuclear weapon NATO needs to involve.

However a non nuclear response would be met with another nuclear one. If I red game Putin, and I already executed the will to use one once, even doing what you're doing, I'd still put a nuke into Ramstein. 

That game changes things because NATO falls under nuclear assurances. At that point it's game on. 

[jazzdude]

If they are overrun and a prolonged insurgency becomes a genocide, what do we do? I find it hard to believe the answer is to just watch. 

The US and the UN have and continue to ignore genocide. China and the Uyghurs are probably the one that gets the most attention. But guess who also has nuclear weapons and a seat on the UNSC...

There's also Burma and the CAR. And NATO seems to continue to need to reign in Turkey from killing Kurds.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

I agree if they use a nuclear weapon NATO needs to involve.

However a non nuclear response would be met with another nuclear one. If I red game Putin, and I already executed the will to use one once, even doing what you're doing, I'd still put a nuke into Ramstein. 

That game changes things because NATO falls under nuclear assurances. At that point it's game on. 

I think that might be the difficult thing for a lot of people to reconcile. They're simply might not be a scenario where we are not involved, other than surrendering the world order.

 

Unfortunately, everything now boils down to Putin's insanity and his subordinates' will to follow. I don't think either can be reliably assessed. But I think any use of a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is a guarantee of war, and potentially a world war. I think at that point our response will very much determine whether places like China decide to wait another couple decades before making their move (war), or capitalize on the chaos to advance their strategic goals (world war).

[FLEA]

36 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think that might be the difficult thing for a lot of people to reconcile. They're simply might not be a scenario where we are not involved, other than surrendering the world order.

 

Unfortunately, everything now boils down to Putin's insanity and his subordinates' will to follow. I don't think either can be reliably assessed. But I think any use of a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is a guarantee of war, and potentially a world war. I think at that point our response will very much determine whether places like China decide to wait another couple decades before making their move (war), or capitalize on the chaos to advance their strategic goals (world war).

So exactly this and what is terribly scary about it. 

A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. 

China wont be a problem that just has to wait; it becomes a problem we just have to accept. China's smartest move would be to stay quiet and let the US and Russia overtly remove each other from the world stage leaving China as the sole world super power. 

We need to swallow the pill that the US could be unrecognizable in the end.

But in general I agree that you can't allow Russia to use a nuclear weapon without a military response because it upends the rules of nuclear deterence and sets a precedent that would be worse to accept than the opposite. It's just a terrifying reality. 

[Prozac]

46 minutes ago, FLEA said:

A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. 

What’s your thinking here? We’re the most technologically advanced nation on the planet with the second largest nuclear arsenal and the most capable conventional forces by a long shot. Short of an all out nuclear exchange, in which NOBODY comes out on top, in what world conflict scenario does the US come out behind China or Russia? 

[brickhistory]

I have stated, repeatedly, that the risk of Putin using a tactical nuke inside Ukraine is not 0.  I posited a 1 in 4 chance.

And if he does, no additional nation is going to go to war with Russia, nor should they.

No nation is going to trade London for Kyiv.  Or Paris.  Or Berlin.  Or L.A. (although that might be a fair trade...).

If Putin uses a nuke and we declare war, he has, literally, nothing to lose by escalating with nukes outside Ukraine.

The only realistic hope, should Putin decide to order a nuclear strike, is some insanely brave Russian commander says "Nyet."

If something really big goes bang, the world will absolutely isolate Russia.  I would hope the quarentine makes NK look like Bermuda.  But some nations, in their national interests, won't play along,

Newsflash, the Bretton Woods world order is already changing with the U.S. declining as top dog.  With our economy so beholden to foreigners buying our debt, our dominance is severely degraded already.  Militarily, since WWII, what's our record?  Aside from Desert Storm, they'be been losses or, at best, draws.

Best bet is to keep stuffing Ukraine with as much logistics and weapons as they can use, plus more.

Pulling a trigger will end our worries about inflation really, really quickly.

Ukraine is not worth that.

I'm still waiting for the vital national interest to be identified to justify a hot war for the USA.

[hockeydork]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

With the intelligencia increasingly convinced that nuclear weapons are a realistic possibility, what does the "hands off" crowd here think should be the response should Putin use a tactical nuke in Ukraine?

 

Is there any condition where Russian action within the Ukrainian border justifies an increased and direct global response? If so, explicitly spell out the red line.

 

Personally, I think any use of nuclear weapons justifies the immediate declaration of war with Russia. In fact, that goes for any country. And not economic war. War war. No nuclear counter response, that I believe can/should only be used in response to a nuclear attack on the US, but an immediate and total blockade of Russia, establishment of no-fly over the Western nations surrounding Russia (we aren't going to send US planes over China, but I think they'd join the West against Russia to protect their own nuclear assets), and immediate sanctions against any country that continues to trade with Russia. The only acceptable "surrender" is the removal of the Putin regime and the denuclearization of Russia. 

 

 

100 percent. However I think if he uses a tac in Ukraine, one needs to be used in retaliation on Russian forces in Ukraine. The idea of tac nuke deployment with zero return nuclear repercussions is unacceptable. That precedent will be too damn dangerous. If he lets a bird fly, than that can of worms is open and there is no going back, one needs to fly back or the future of the whole damn world is at stake. That is the code we've all agreed upon.

I think China may have Vlad on a leash. They know full well a nuke going off in their back yard is not at all in their best interests. Xi may be an autocrat, but "self preservation" is also high in his vocabulary. That's whats great about these people, if their willing to abuse their own people, you can bet your ass China will have no hesitation letting Russia choke itself out if they overstep.  He'd rather see Vlad go down alone than be dragged with him if this escalates. 

 

And if this goes genocide? No more pee pee slaps with Stingers and Javelins. Give the Ukrainians heavy weapons. Like Harpoons. Let them sink the Black Sea fleet. Two can play that game. 

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

So exactly this and what is terribly scary about it. 

A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. 

China wont be a problem that just has to wait; it becomes a problem we just have to accept. China's smartest move would be to stay quiet and let the US and Russia overtly remove each other from the world stage leaving China as the sole world super power. 

We need to swallow the pill that the US could be unrecognizable in the end.

But in general I agree that you can't allow Russia to use a nuclear weapon without a military response because it upends the rules of nuclear deterence and sets a precedent that would be worse to accept than the opposite. It's just a terrifying reality. 

I think China is wildly overrated, present day. There's certainly a  future I can see where they represent a real threat, and obviously anyone with nuclear weaponry poses a threat, but their entire existence is propped up on an even more spectacular financial magic trick than ours. Their military, while impressive in size is nowhere nearly as well equipped as ours, and unbelievable less trained. Further, there's been no examples of totalitarian regimes whose militaries perform better, man for man, then the militaries of the West (in particular the US). It would be one thing if we had to invade China (or Russia). That's a fight I don't want. But since the United States does not conquer other lands, we wouldn't have to.

 

The economic warfare being waged on Russia would be far more catastrophic on China. Russia is deeply reliant on trade, but China exists in its present form solely because of it. If anything, I think the economic damage being done to Russia, married with the incredibly poor performance of their military (which is more experienced than China) has given China reason to perhaps push back their ambitions a couple more decades.

There's a lot of smart money out there that's anticipating a Chinese economic catastrophe that rivals Japan's in 1989. I think xi jinping himself is deeply concerned, as his moves to rein-in real estate speculation, possibly too late, indicate a fairly significant level of concern.

Since there are no longer localized recessions, the United States or China going into a recession will send the rest of the world with China relies on growth numbers that we haven't seen in generations, and those numbers are not looking good. Couple that with their version of the baby boomer wave and the population catastrophe the one child policy created, well, let's just say I'm not so sure our position as the top dog is in any short or medium term risk.

Be that as it may, humanity is long overdue for a true war. I think Ukraine shows that it wasn't only the West that wildly underestimated how awful a real war can be. Perhaps it will turn out that Putin did us a favor, giving us a much smaller war to forestall the big one.

 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, hockeydork said:

That precedent will be too damn dangerous.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Once nukes are used there's no precedent that's good. But responding with a nuke just because someone else used one is also setting a bad precedent. With so many smaller countries getting nuclear weaponry, I don't think we want to set the precedent that using a tactical nuke guarantees nuclear annihilation.

But it should still guarantee annihilation (of the offending government). There are other ways to accomplish that, and no matter how many tactical nukes Russia uses in Ukraine, it is still not the same as launching an ICBM into New York.

The problem with brickhistory's logic is that weakness emboldens aggressors. When it becomes clear that you will avoid something at all costs, you no longer have any leverage against someone whose desires do not overlap your own. In this case, Putin can wave nukes around and therefore, we can no longer intervene. Well. What if he decides to start using nukes if we don't lift the economic sanctions? What if he threatens to use nukes if we keep supplying Ukraine with stingers and javelins?

 

Isolating Russia, similar to North Korea would not be an acceptable solution to the use of nuclear weaponry. Deterrence only works if annihilation follows, so the current regime would have to be destroyed. Anything short of Putin's head would be an endorsement of the use of nuclear weaponry to the tyrants of the world.

 

Of course, the response to this would be that we are guaranteeing war. But that's also bullshit. We're not guaranteeing anything, we're just responding to the world we exist in. It's self-flagellating to claim any sort of responsibility to this by the United States. We're the first non-imperial power of this magnitude in history, and just because we didn't disband NATO after the USSR collapsed (though we absolutely did attempt to get Russia to join the West, and they refused), doesn't mean we have any responsibility for what's going on in Ukraine. Bumbling and missteps do not equal guilt, the guilt lies squarely with the Russian government, and should they decide on this path, that will be their fault as well.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[HeloDude]

The US in a nuclear war with Russia to defend Ukraine?  Have you guys lost your minds?

 
I’m mostly with Brick on this one (usually am)—no US city or American overseas base (ie Ramstein) is worth Kyiv.  It’s bad enough that we’re still a member of a Cold War treaty (when the Cold War is over) in which we agreed that an attack on one certain country is automatically seen as an attack on all members (alliances for no other reason can be dangerous…WW1 anyone?), but now we’re literally saying that potentially more than a million American lives should be on the table if a million Ukrainian lives are taken?  I would love to see Biden get on stage and say those very words…the support for Ukraine will quickly change.

Like it or not, Putin is a bad dude and seems capable of just about anything, and he commands a force that is not some 3rd world country of goat herders or some rich oil nation of slackers in the Middle East.  If we go to war with Russia then this will be the first of its kind since the 1940s and of the nuclear age.  Why so many would be eager to see it happen to defend Ukraine is beyond me—nuke or no nuke hitting Ukraine.  And as for potential genocide, yeah, it’s horrible, but now we care about it when Russia is the aggressor?  I don’t recall seeing too many on here wanting to go to war with China or Turkey over their atrocities…what about Myanmar, are we going to war with them?  At some point you have to stop being the world’s policemen.
 

I don’t know how the Ukraine/Russia thing ends, but I’m for whatever outcome that is best for the US.  Hopefully that involves Ukraine staying strong and Russia finally pulling back and realizing that it was a mistake and then that’s that (more/less); but hope is not a strategy.  The more realistic best scenario is for Russia and Ukraine to “negotiate” (I know, it’s a crappy word when you’re invaded) and Ukraine allows some of the pro-Russia eastern areas to break away and Russia pulls out its troops and most (if not all) the sanctions are lifted and things quiet down that way.  And then as for Russia, in terms of their internal politics, time will tell.

Again, what does Putin want?  You can’t say he gets nothing unless you’re willing to deal with the consequences of him not giving up and potentially being even more dangerous than he already is…and then what happens?  If we’re willing to have “peace” discussions with the Taliban, then we have to be willing to do the same with one of the most powerful countries in the world.  Hopefully this will alleviate the need for nukes to be a legitimate concern.

Watching/reading the msm (yes, even Fox News), you would think that the Ukraine story is the most important thing affecting Americans right now…I’m much more concerned with our economy.  But for the left, this is a good distraction and allows someone else (Putin) to take the blame for our woes.  And who doesn’t love a good war on tv? Fox viewers and the neo-cons love it.

Thanks for tuning into my rambling, flame away.

[hockeydork]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

A) With so many smaller countries getting nuclear weaponry, I don't think we want to set the precedent that using a tactical nuke guarantees nuclear annihilation.

B) But it should still guarantee annihilation (of the offending government). There are other ways to accomplish that, and no matter how many tactical nukes Russia uses in Ukraine, it is still not the same as launching an ICBM into New York.

C) Of course, the response to this would be that we are guaranteeing war. But that's also bullshit. We're not guaranteeing anything, we're just responding to the world we exist in.

A) I guess I was looking at it through the lens of it would actually encourage smaller countries to arm up with nukes even more. If they see a big bad country use a nuke on a little guy (for no reason, which makes this scenario even worse) without getting nuked back, what country on earth is ever going to feel secure without having their own nukes? I really don't want to see tac nuke employment becoming a new "normal" element of battle. I honestly don't know, but seeing a country employ nukes in an offensive manner and getting away with it is terrifying.  

B) This would work, but how do we ensure it? Would the entire world unite and basically be like "yea this government has to go"? Would China green light terminating Putin? What if Xi says no? China may not have the best military, but they sure are big and could make a real mess in their sphere. No real way to know, uncharted waters. 

C) Yea this fight for sure would have chosen us. Russia's fault, Putin had his late life crisis and made a huge mess and thinks the world is his personal game board since he himself doesn't have to worry about dying in Ukraine. How someone in his inner circle who maybe has terminal cancer or something hasn't clipped him and taken one for the team at this point beats me. He's annihilating his own country economically, and for what strategic gain exactly besides an ego boost I have yet to figure out.