Ukraine mega thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Not saying I disagree with you about more help[ but you seem to want to sacrifice millions over this. A mad man has his fingers on the button to end the world, yes caution is advised.

There isn't a button that Putin has a finger on. Russia has a defense complex, similar to the US and they are not going to launch nukes over Ukraine any more than the US would. Fact is, Biden was scared and inept early on, and Putin took that weakness for what weakness always is in the geopolitical realm - an opening.

A strong response (my opinion stealth bombers taking out that 40 mile column of tanks) would have blunted Putin's aggression, and as long as we stayed out of attacking Russia proper, the world would have rallied behind US leadership (again, drawing on the Kuwait parallel)

Rule 1 of international order should be - you cannot invade a non-aggressive sovereign country

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

There isn't a button that Putin has a finger on. Russia has a defense complex, similar to the US and they are not going to launch nukes over Ukraine any more than the US would. Fact is, Biden was scared and inept early on, and Putin took that weakness for what weakness always is in the geopolitical realm - an opening.

A strong response (my opinion stealth bombers taking out that 40 mile column of tanks) would have blunted Putin's aggression, and as long as we stayed out of attacking Russia proper, the world would have rallied behind US leadership (again, drawing on the Kuwait parallel)

Rule 1 of international order should be - you cannot invade a non-aggressive sovereign country

I think you’re making the mistake of assuming Putin is a rational actor. He’s sending in conscripts with little logistical support. These aren’t the 2nd Rangers. He’s using his own as cannon fodder.

I’m as morally appalled as you are and I too want to see something done. But as long as Russia is being this ineffective there’s wisdom in letting Ukraine be the ones to give their lives grinding up the Russian war machine while NATO retains a position of strength and poise. Maintaining that readiness with no worse strategic position while Russia weakens itself points to an eye on the long game.

So far we can’t say the decision to supply Ukraine is leading to failure. If this does indeed lead to WW3 we can’t lose it, playing the long game is prudent.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think you’re making the mistake of assuming Putin is a rational actor. He’s sending in conscripts with little logistical support. These aren’t the 2nd Rangers. He’s using his own as cannon fodder.

I’m as morally appalled as you are and I too want to see something done. But as long as Russia is being this ineffective there’s wisdom in letting Ukraine be the ones to give their lives grinding up the Russian war machine while NATO retains a position of strength and poise. Maintaining that readiness with no worse strategic position while Russia weakens itself points to an eye on the long game.

So far we can’t say the decision to supply Ukraine is leading to failure. If this does indeed lead to WW3 we can’t lose it, playing the long game is prudent.

I hear what you are saying, and I do agree to the extent that on the ground, Ukraine troops are doing amazing, and may maintain their own. Where my main disagreement is, is particularly the initial 40 mile column of tanks, which we could have helped take out with drones or stealth attacks that minimize the risk of full escalation, and more importantly the siege of Mariupol. My comparison of the Berlin Airlift is where I stand. send in UN planes, with supplies and rescue efforts, and put it on Russia to attack them.

Putin isn't a rational character by western standards, but he most definitely is by RealPolitik standards. He gambled that the nuclear bluff would hold the west at bay while his forces quickly drove in and took Kiev. Had Ukraine's army collapsed in those first 5 days, as Putin's intelligence said it would, they would have successfully taken over Ukraine. Once that intelligence proved false, he has played the cards he was dealt with depleted forces.

I would argue that nothing Putin has done, hasn't been telegraphed as his intentions, and the West's response to Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea led to his RealPolitik belief that he could act with impunity in Ukraine.

Edit : Defining Rational Actor

What is the rational actor model theory?
The most widely cited foreign policy analysis approach is the rational actor model. This approach assumes that the main actor in foreign policy is a rational individual who can be relied on to make informed, calculated decisions that maximize value and perceived benefits to the state

Western Standard - actions are assumed to follow moral and ethical considerations as well as greater global welfare
(UN - 93 countries supported suspending Russia from the Human Rights council - theoretically supporting a Western Standard of rational actor)

Realpolitik Standard - a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
(UN - 82 countries either voted against or abstained in the same vote)

The world doesn't revolve around Western Morality politics, and a good portion of it actually rejects it outright.

[Giantone]

Putin has proven he is anything but rational, as much as I respect your opinion many superior Military minds disagree with your theory on whether putin would push the nuclear button and yes we all know it's not one button but as you pointed out the russian Military complex will do what putin says, if he says launch them , they will.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Putin has proven he is anything but rational, as much as I respect your opinion many superior Military minds disagree with your theory on whether putin would push the nuclear button and yes we all know it's not one button but as you pointed out the russian Military complex will do what putin says, if he says launch them , they will.

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.