Ukraine mega thread

He has acted incredibly rationally if you ignore western ethics - which Putin openly mocks. His stated objective from early 2000's is to undo the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century, and restore Russian/Soviet Supremacy. That can be achieved by nuclear bluffs (they are very effective against Western Democracies) and special military operations. He is not crazy, he simply has different ethical standards (in the West's view he has no ethical standards) which allow all force that preserves or rebuilds the Russian greatness. I still believe he will use tactical nukes in western Ukraine at some point to interdict Western supply chains. But using ballistic nukes is a different ballgame, and that WOULD lead to the destruction of Russia. Which is not in his game plan.

You believe putin is rational, you believe he has "tactical nukes" and he is "ethical" in his own special way. You believe he is bluffing using Nukes on the rest of the World but will use them on Ukraine and you still call him "ethical". I'm sorry, I don't understand how anyone with any decency can try to justify what putin has done or is doing.

Ok set the rational actor vs not rational actor thing aside for a second because I don’t think that’s the main point.

I’m not sure what the difference is between the Berlin Airlift and what we’re actually doing in Ukraine. Because the US and other NATO countries are supplying Ukraine and avoiding direct conflict. And in Berlin supplies were flown in to sustain the Western controlled portions of Berlin. How the supplies are arriving there, whether by land sea or air, I don’t see any relevance. And which countries are providing the supplies, also not relevant.

Further I think you continue to focus on the events of the last 50 days rather than thinking ahead to the next 50, or 500, or 5000. The US and NATO must plan for contingencies, up to and including a Russia-China alliance and co-opted military engagement, the nuclear threat, and a determined Putin who may devalue the lives of his own soldiers - he may be willing to accept more losses than most leaders would to accomplish his objective. He draws that determination from a brainwashed public who supports him.

If Russia has exposed a 40 mile column of tanks with inadequate air cover once, do you not believe they’ll do it again? Or even that the US military even needs a door to be that wide open to walk through it? Just a little ajar is all we need to severely handicap their ground force in Ukraine.

So why rush in? You’re saying we’ve lost a chance, I’m saying we need to be ready for a sustained significant war that the western world can’t lose. First things first, shore up defenses in the Balkans, the Baltics, and complete the indoctrination of Sweden and Finland assuming they do indeed intend to join. Form a plan to maintain maritime control of the Adriatic so as to pin Russia’s navy within the Black Sea. Work with Japan Australia South Korea and India to plan for contingencies should China come to Russia’s aid - requiring a naval blockade of the South China Sea. etc

Because the second we do something like strafe 40 miles of Russian tanks with 30mm cannons from a squad of A10 Thunderbolts you have to assume Russia will activate contingency plans of its own and we have to be ready to maintain the upper hand, no matter which actions they take.

So you sustain Ukraine, don’t escalate unless you have to. Keep Russia busy and bogged down there while you spend your time planning 50 ways to kill them on every front.

You believe putin is rational, you believe he has "tactical nukes" and he is "ethical" in his own special way. You believe he is bluffing using Nukes on the rest of the World but will use them on Ukraine and you still call him "ethical". I'm sorry, I don't understand how anyone with any decency can try to justify what putin has done or is doing.

I didn't call him ethical, I said he is a student of RealPolitik which sets aside ethical concerns. I also am not justifying what Putin has done, I am saying the West should have responded even more forcefully against it.

Ok set the rational actor vs not rational actor thing aside for a second because I don’t think that’s the main point.

I’m not sure what the difference is between the Berlin Airlift and what we’re actually doing in Ukraine. Because the US and other NATO countries are supplying Ukraine and avoiding direct conflict. And in Berlin supplies were flown in to sustain the Western controlled portions of Berlin. How the supplies are arriving there, whether by land sea or air, I don’t see any relevance. And which countries are providing the supplies, also not relevant.

Further I think you continue to focus on the events of the last 50 days rather than thinking ahead to the next 50, or 500, or 5000. The US and NATO must plan for contingencies, up to and including a Russia-China alliance and co-opted military engagement, the nuclear threat, and a determined Putin who may devalue the lives of his own soldiers - he may be willing to accept more losses than most leaders would to accomplish his objective. He draws that determination from a brainwashed public who supports him.

If Russia has exposed a 40 mile column of tanks with inadequate air cover once, do you not believe they’ll do it again? Or even that the US military even needs a door to be that wide open to walk through it? Just a little ajar is all we need to severely handicap their ground force in Ukraine.

So why rush in? You’re saying we’ve lost a chance, I’m saying we need to be ready for a sustained significant war that the western world can’t lose. First things first, shore up defenses in the Balkans, the Baltics, and complete the indoctrination of Sweden and Finland assuming they do indeed intend to join. Form a plan to maintain maritime control of the Adriatic so as to pin Russia’s navy within the Black Sea. Work with Japan Australia South Korea and India to plan for contingencies should China come to Russia’s aid - requiring a naval blockade of the South China Sea. etc

Because the second we do something like strafe 40 miles of Russian tanks with 30mm cannons from a squad of A10 Thunderbolts you have to assume Russia will activate contingency plans of its own and we have to be ready to maintain the upper hand, no matter which actions they take.

So you sustain Ukraine, don’t escalate unless you have to. Keep Russia busy and bogged down there while you spend your time planning 50 ways to kill them on every front.

Overall I hear what you are saying. I hope that the Western world is following these thoughts. I don't think so though. I think we are falling in the same mindset that Neville Chamberlain brought to WW2. Most of the scenarios that we have witnessed up to today follow many parallels of events leading up to WW1 and WW2.

Overall I hear what you are saying. I hope that the Western world is following these thoughts. I don't think so though. I think we are falling in the same mindset that Neville Chamberlain brought to WW2. Most of the scenarios that we have witnessed up to today follow many parallels of events leading up to WW1 and WW2.

I don't think so. I think they're all over it. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley today to CNN:

Top US Gen. Mark Milley told CNN Tuesday that he believes "what's at stake" in this war "is much greater than Ukraine."

"What's at stake is the security, for the security of Europe since the end of World War II. And indeed, you can easily make the case that what's at stake is the global international security order that was put in place in 1945," Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN's Jim Sciutto. "That international order has lasted 78 years. It's prevented great war. And underlining that entire concept is the idea that large nations will not conduct military aggression against smaller nations, and that is exactly what's happened here, by Russia against a smaller nation."
Milley continued by saying that if Russia gets away with its aggression in Ukraine "cost-free," then "so goes the so-called international order."

"If that happens, then we're heading into an era of seriously increased instability," Milley added.

"So right now ... now is the time and right now is the opportunity here to stop aggression and to restore peace and security to the European continent."

CRed I think the US has a red line in mind. They're not going to say what it is. But if and once it looks like Russia has gained the upper hand in Ukraine, the US will be prepared to enter the fray. They can't say that, they can't even hint at it. But I think they're preparing for it, and behind closed doors preparing their allies for it, working to come to a consensus on what that red line is.

Until that red line is crossed, they'll continue supplying Ukraine.

I didn't call him ethical, I said he is a student of RealPolitik which sets aside ethical concerns. I also am not justifying what Putin has done, I am saying the West should have responded even more forcefully against it.

I think Europe without a doubt should have done more quicker. Like him or not Biden has handled this well.

CRed I think the US has a red line in mind. They're not going to say what it is. But if and once it looks like Russia has gained the upper hand in Ukraine, the US will be prepared to enter the fray. They can't say that, they can't even hint at it. But I think they're preparing for it, and behind closed doors preparing their allies for it, working to come to a consensus on what that red line is.

Until that red line is crossed, they'll continue supplying Ukraine.

I think that's a lot of faith in Western Europe and DC. I generally think a red line should be invading a sovereign country without an obvious compelling case. I hesitate writing this because the US has pushed those boundaries - particularly in the middle east. BUT I think that is the standard that should be applied in all cases.

All in all, I hope that the UN/NATO political wings have the will to enforce whatever redline they have agreed on.

I think that's a lot of faith in Western Europe and DC. I generally think a red line should be invading a sovereign country without an obvious compelling case. I hesitate writing this because the US has pushed those boundaries - particularly in the middle east. BUT I think that is the standard that should be applied in all cases.

All in all, I hope that the UN/NATO political wings have the will to enforce whatever redline they have agreed on.

I think your view is just a little on the utopian side, perhaps even naive, that's all. I think the US and NATO is morally outraged enough to want to take action, but they're confronted by the reality that they'll have to give tens of thousands of lives to do so. So they're making a pragmatic choice to let Ukraine continue to make the sacrifices, until there's no other choice.

I think your view is just a little on the utopian side, perhaps even naive, that's all. I think the US and NATO is morally outraged enough to want to take action, but they're confronted by the reality that they'll have to give tens of thousands of lives to do so. So they're making a pragmatic choice to let Ukraine continue to make the sacrifices, until there's no other choice.

I agree with this and IMO it would be "millions" of lives.