Russia Invades Ukraine

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I dunno, I don’t think we can allow Russia to dictate what other sovereign nations can and can’t be part of. That’s kinda why we are here.
The point at which we'll get involved military has been quite clear for many years. It's when a member of NATO gets attacked. We're not risking nuclear war for anything short of that.

Right now, we're doing all sorts of other things to hurt Russia and encourage Ukraine. But if the fight is unwinnable, is that really the right thing to do? Putin is intent on taking eastern Ukraine for a number of reasons. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, we aren't going to risk direct military action against Russia to stop him. So where does that leave us? And the Ukrainians?
 

stpeteirish

House Skeptic
Messages
4,323
Reaction score
1,819
The point at which we'll get involved military has been quite clear for many years. It's when a member of NATO gets attacked. We're not risking nuclear war for anything short of that.

Right now, we're doing all sorts of other things to hurt Russia and encourage Ukraine. But if the fight is unwinnable, is that really the right thing to do? Putin is intent on taking eastern Ukraine for a number of reasons. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, we aren't going to risk direct military action against Russia to stop him. So where does that leave us? And the Ukrainians?
they all have guns now. When the Russians take over they're going to have to deal with that. A lot of Russians are going to get shot in the Ukraine over the next few years.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
they all have guns now. When the Russians take over they're going to have to deal with that. A lot of Russians are going to get shot in the Ukraine over the next few years.
True, but many more Ukrainian civilians will die thinking they can take on Russian armor with Molotov cocktails. And to the extent we've encouraged them to view themselves as the protagonists in a Marvel movie, we (or at least our media) may share some of the blame for their deaths.

The "reasonable chance of success" component of just war analysis is important.
 

ShamrockOnHelmet

Refreshman
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
1,750
The point at which we'll get involved military has been quite clear for many years. It's when a member of NATO gets attacked. We're not risking nuclear war for anything short of that.

Right now, we're doing all sorts of other things to hurt Russia and encourage Ukraine. But if the fight is unwinnable, is that really the right thing to do? Putin is intent on taking eastern Ukraine for a number of reasons. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, we aren't going to risk direct military action against Russia to stop him. So where does that leave us? And the Ukrainians?

I understand that, I really do, and you aren’t wrong, but the constant cycle HAS to change at some point. We just can’t keep conceding to the dictator-of-the-month in Russia. They just don’t get to decide what another sovereign nation can do, we just can’t keep having that.
 

INLaw

Hardcore chooch
Messages
4,537
Reaction score
4,095
Some people do find encountering contrary opinions to be very upsetting. If you'd prefer an echo chamber, there are lots of other options out there. But that's not IE.
Prefer the ignore feature extend to all users and you not act like the dictator of your own little site
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I understand that, I really do, and you aren’t wrong, but the constant cycle HAS to change at some point. We just can’t keep conceding to the dictator-of-the-month in Russia. They just don’t get to decide what another sovereign nation can do, we just can’t keep having that.
We shoot first and ask questions later for any bad guy that doesn't have nukes. See the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. Can't bully a country that has strategic weapons though. Would be nice if we could just uninvent those.
 

ShamrockOnHelmet

Refreshman
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
1,750
We shoot first and ask questions later for any bad guy that doesn't have nukes. See the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. Can't bully a country that has strategic weapons though. Would be nice if we could just uninvent those.

or we make our stand now. I’m not sure I know what’s worse anymore, the constant sword of Damocles, or watching innocents get butchered because we have reasons to let it happen. Maybe it’s time to let the chips fall where they may…
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,591
Reaction score
20,046
Didn’t read the article, but Saw a headline on CNN that China asked Putin to put off the invasion until after the Olympics.
 

ShamrockOnHelmet

Refreshman
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
1,750

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
or we make our stand now. I’m not sure I know what’s worse anymore, the constant sword of Damocles, or watching innocents get butchered because we have reasons to let it happen. Maybe it’s time to let the chips fall where they may…
The horror that would result from even a single nuclear strike far outweighs whatever is going to happen in Ukraine.

This is the world we live in.
 

Te'o4Heisman

Well-known member
Messages
2,510
Reaction score
2,616
The horror that would result from even a single nuclear strike far outweighs whatever is going to happen in Ukraine.

This is the world we live in.
I agree. I think the scary thing is the precedent this sets for Putin should he decide he wants some other country next, or China, or anybody really. It is a clear sign that as long as its not a Nato country, sovereign nations are fair game. It also puts us in a precarious situation the next time some country that we have a strong vested interest in is engaged in conflict. If they are not a Nato country, how do we protect our interests without sending a clear message that the lives of the people in country X are worth more than the Ukrainian lives were. Its a precarious predicament.
 

tussin

Well-known member
Messages
4,153
Reaction score
1,982
The horror that would result from even a single nuclear strike far outweighs whatever is going to happen in Ukraine.

This is the world we live in.
In your view, what should NATO do to prevent Russia from hypothetically rolling over all non-NATO ex-Soviet states?
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
In your view, what should NATO do to prevent Russia from hypothetically rolling over all non-NATO ex-Soviet states?

Russia wants the central Asian 'stans to be exactly what they are, a nonthreatening buffer zone between Russia and China.

Moldova is the interesting one, because of the population's close ties with Romania. Many Moldovan citizens are also Romanian citizens and thus EU citizens. Moldova is also home to the most bizarre place in Europe, Transnistria. The government in Transnistria wants to be Russia. The moment Russian troops connect to Transnistria, they will declare independence and demand to formally join Russia IMO.
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
We shoot first and ask questions later for any bad guy that doesn't have nukes. See the Taliban, Saddam, Gaddafi, etc. Can't bully a country that has strategic weapons though. Would be nice if we could just uninvent those.

Well, with Qaddafi we were asking questions. It was the French who learned the hard way the same lesson America learned in 2003 (and Putin might learn in 2022): you can't occupy a country with air power and precision weaponry.

IIRC, the Obama Administration didn't want to topple Qaddafi because he voluntarily ended his WMD program. They reluctantly agreed to finish the job after the French and Co ran out of munitions. Truly, the American military dominance in the world truly shines with logistics. No other nation can project sustained power overseas.
 

BilboBaggins

Well-known member
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,320
Here's a clip of Col. Doug MacGregor claiming that Putin has no interest in claiming anything west of the Dneiper, and would be happy to withdraw from it provided western Ukraine remains a neutral state. One of the first plausible explanations I've heard as to how this could deescalate back into a stable status quo.
That fellow was pathetic. It was victim blaming 101. I love the reasoning that we should let Russia invade a nation because they told us they wanted to....ughhh, what? He says Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians....tell Ukrainians that. It would be really easy to show Ukrainians cheering for Russian intervention, if there were any.

One look at the guys wikipedia page and the guy was been on RT spouting pro-Russian talking points since they annexed Crimea. So of course Donald Trump wanted him to be the ambassador to Germany lolol
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
That fellow was pathetic. It was victim blaming 101. I love the reasoning that we should let Russia invade a nation because they told us they wanted to....ughhh, what? He says Ukrainians are indistinguishable from Russians....tell Ukrainians that. It would be really easy to show Ukrainians cheering for Russian intervention, if there were any.

One look at the guys wikipedia page and the guy was been on RT spouting pro-Russian talking points since they annexed Crimea. So of course Donald Trump wanted him to be the ambassador to Germany lolol
I have no investment in MacGregor's credibility. Saw the clip on Twitter and shared it for the reason I stated--it gave a credible account of how this deescalates from the present crisis. Dismiss him as a Russian stooge if you want, but do share your alternative scenario: (1) Ukraine can't repel the Russian invasion; (2) NATO will not risk open war with a nuclear-armed Russia; (3) so where do we go from here?

And terms like "victim blaming" really have no place in serious IR discussion. Great power relations haven't changed much since Thucydides quipped that "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." Kennan--the primary architect of our Cold War strategy-- opposed NATO expansion for this very reason. And Mearsheimer predicted this exact scenario 7 years ago. I suppose all the Realists are now Russian stooges because they take Russia's stated goals into account when planning to avoid nuclear conflict?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
In your view, what should NATO do to prevent Russia from hypothetically rolling over all non-NATO ex-Soviet states?
Sanctions and diplomacy. We've got some incredibly tempting carrots to offer in the way of shared prosperity, which is very effective in taking the fangs out of a regime (see OMM's point about China a few pages back). That might not be an option while Putin remains in power, but the oligarchs aren't going to put up with pariah status for long.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,701
Reaction score
6,002
Doesn’t really have anything to do with Urakine so much…. But thanks for following along closely. 👍
It has literally everything to do with Ukraine.

If you have watched what has happened in the last week or two and have fears of Russian tanks rolling through Warsaw or Berlin then I can't help you.

NATO's function was to build a coalition against the USSR dominating Europe. Ukraine falling to the Russian Federation has limited impact on NATO countries beyond waking them up that they should take their obligations more seriously.

You can feel bad for the people in Ukraine and send them some aid... and punish Russia economically without getting billions killed. Crazy...I know.
 
Top