|
Bremen posted:The reasons seem huge to me. Ukraine is pleading for help, Russia is basically using every agreement about humane conduct in war as toilet paper, and if Russia wins in Ukraine odds are very high they're just going to keep doing it to other countries as soon as they've recovered. Russia can barely invade and occupy part of Ukraine, and it's going to set their economy back to 90s levels of devastation; what makes you think they're going to invade anyone else anytime soon?
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
As for Belarus, I still cannot envision it. I mean Putin could probably force Luka to order it but how this order will be carried out is who knows. If you see russians morale problems multiply it times ten. Unless attached to a larger russian force I sooner see them shoot their own officers and GTFO ASAP rather than do some kind of battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ukraine_AF/status/1504886120441651203 And these are in the other direction: https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505765466719109121 https://mobile.twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505620604111802370
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Speculative discussion about nuclear exchange is the big one but in general it's posting hypothetical doomsday scenario stuff. We'd prefer this thread stay grounded in reality and facts on the ground (to the extent that we can get reliable facts through fog of war and propaganda lenses). Ok--the current discussion seemed to be about the morality and risks of intervention, though, which seems pretty topical given Poland's recent proposals. But I understand it is subjective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
That....that's just amazing. I have no concept of how this was a good idea to anyone unless they were scared shitless of flying above tree level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:That....that's just amazing. I have no concept of how this was a good idea to anyone unless they were scared shitless of flying above tree level. Maybe short of fuel, or damaged
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Russia can barely invade and occupy part of Ukraine, and it's going to set their economy back to 90s levels of devastation; what makes you think they're going to invade anyone else anytime soon? Russia isn't run by complete idiots. If they win they'll take steps to fix the problems they suffered here, and even if they can't completely recover they can target weaker nations and repeat the technique they're currently using - not trying to win a clean war but just committing warcrimes until their opponent surrenders to save their people. Even if the sanctions never go away, they could potentially end up as a larger, stronger North Korea, and unlike North Korea they'd have borders with nations weak enough to bully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:28
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:That....that's just amazing. I have no concept of how this was a good idea to anyone unless they were scared shitless of flying above tree level. These helicopters are damaged. This happened after the shelling of the Kherson airport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
Bremen posted:Russia isn't run by complete idiots. They'll take steps to fix the problems they suffered here, and even if they can't completely recover they can target weaker nations and repeat the technique they're currently using - not trying to win a clean war but just committing warcrimes until their opponent surrenders to save their people. I just don't think this is the correct way to look at Russia. Ukraine has strategic value to them. Other nations on their border do not, or at the very least are protected by NATO. You can't say "Russia isn't run by complete idiots" and also expect them to take massive risks to conquer countries that are so small as to be all risk and no reward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:I just don't think this is the correct way to look at Russia. Ukraine has strategic value to them. Other nations on their border do not, or at the very least are protected by NATO. You can't say "Russia isn't run by complete idiots" and also expect them to take massive risks to conquer countries that are so small as to be all risk and no reward. On the other hand, the last ~30 years of Russia invading small, weak, strategically irrelevant bordering nations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:That....that's just amazing. I have no concept of how this was a good idea to anyone unless they were scared shitless of flying above tree level. Someone linked a "helicopter guy" in twitter a while back and towing those any appreciable distance is really bad for them because they aren't designed for the loads they'll be subjected to while being towed. Hopefully they won't be back in the war anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
Family Values posted:On the other hand, the last ~30 years of Russia invading small, weak, strategically irrelevant bordering nations. Places like Chechnya and Georgia are pretty strategically relevant to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:Someone linked a "helicopter guy" in twitter a while back and towing those any appreciable distance is really bad for them because they aren't designed for the loads they'll be subjected to while being towed. Hopefully they won't be back in the war anytime soon. My thought is they'll probably be cannibalized for parts to keep other helicopters flying. The airframes are most definitely hosed, but there's probably enough useable components they can put into use elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
Family Values posted:On the other hand, the last ~30 years of Russia invading small, weak, strategically irrelevant bordering nations. Exactly this. There is no "might become" an isolationist terror state; it's just not profitable not to pretend anymore. I love the idea of diplomatic pressure or policy ending this but I feel like a lot of people's assumptions are that this took place with the start of the war change of environment. Majorian posted:Places like Chechnya and Georgia are pretty strategically relevant to them. The RF's idea of their security environment is relevant more to them than it is to reality. DOOMocrat fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Places like Chechnya and Georgia are pretty strategically relevant to them. Russia did not really have a choice to engage in Chechnya after it literally invaded Dagestan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:The only thing we can do it develop more anti missile technology and actively work on mitigating the risk of missiles and sub launches via technological lockouts and other electronic warfare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
I honestly don't know where I am at in terms of being pro- or anti-intervention on the part of NATO, the US, or others, but I would honestly like to know, for those who are anti-intervention, what is the line at which intervention becomes reasonable and/or necessary? Because it seems like people always fall back to "the risk of nuclear war is too great!", at which point isn't that always the case? Putin could invade almost anyone, including nuclear-armed countries like the US, France, the UK, and it seems like these same people would then argue that it wouldn't be worth fighting because Putin could launch nukes. So it seems like when people try to argue that he wouldn't attack a NATO state, because of Article V, that the argument isn't being made in good faith, because if he did, should the other NATO countries then not honor Article V, out of fear of more significant escalation? It just seems like there's always an excuse for inaction when people are suffering, regardless of where it is in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Because a lot of people don't even want to take the chance of everything being ended in a nuclear fireball over Ukraine. Me included, to be honest. I really don't want to strawman you here, but the most charitable way I can think of to read this is "We can't do anything about the people definitely dying right now because the people killing them might kill even more people if we try to stop them" and a cynical reading is more like "We can't do anything about the people definitely dying right now because I, personally, could die and that's worse." Again, I'm not trying to strawman you but I just have a really hard time seeing the concrete death and suffering as the lesser evil when the party causing the death and suffering keeps loudly saying "Don't try to stop us from doing terrorism or we'll do more terrorism!" They're just going to keep doing terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
All the latest conjecture stuff about the US needing to get militarily involved assumes that NATO is unhappy with the current situation in Ukraine and feels compelled to make a play. While the current impending grindy stalemate will cost Ukrainians dearly, a long costly insurgency to bleed Russia and Putin seems great for NATO, or at least great for the US. Beyond knocking Russia down a few pegs, it ensures that Europe must stay on the path to divest from Russian energy. It encourages renewed commitments within NATO and lights a fire under fence sitters to join. Those European plans around replacing Russian energy are just starting and will take months or years. If Russia lost quickly and Putin was ousted, odds are that Europe would cancel those in their infancy and jump back on the Russian natural gas teat, drop many sanctions and resume a lot of trade. "We must support the anti-Putinists and not further destabilize Russia into the demagoguery of radicals" etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I really don't want to strawman you here, but the most charitable way I can think of to read this is "We can't do anything about the people definitely dying right now because the people killing them might kill even more people if we try to stop them" and a cynical reading is more like "We can't do anything about the people definitely dying right now because I, personally, could die and that's worse." Yeah, this is my read on it also. Putin is allowed to get away with whatever he wants, because of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and everyone should just bend over backwards to accommodate him. Because if it's one thing history has shown us, it's how great appeasement works out in the long-run...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I honestly don't know where I am at in terms of being pro- or anti-intervention on the part of NATO, the US, or others, but I would honestly like to know, for those who are anti-intervention, what is the line at which intervention becomes reasonable and/or necessary? It's really easy to say "Killing Hitler was the right thing to do" after you've already done it and paid the costs for doing so. Have Some Flowers! posted:All the latest conjecture stuff about the US needing to get militarily involved assumes that NATO is unhappy with the current situation in Ukraine and feels compelled to make a play. While the current impending grindy stalemate will cost Ukrainians dearly, a long costly insurgency to bleed Russia and Putin seems great for NATO, or at least great for the US. I'm really unsure about trying to apply Realpolitik to something like this when the driving force in US politics is how people feel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
I don't think anyone in the thread is personally invested in anyone dying, but thinking 'I especially do not want to die horribly' is pretty drat normal human response to these kind of things if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:14
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Yeah, this is my read on it also. Putin is allowed to get away with whatever he wants, because of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and everyone should just bend over backwards to accommodate him. That's the way geopolitics works. The U.S. was able to invade countries on a whim based on patently false pretexts, as have all other empires in history. Other empires intervened when the costs weren't considered too great, and declined to intervene when the costs were considered too great. As I pointed out earlier, Russia's ability to wage war is going to be seriously blunted by this conflict and the resulting sanctions. It's not going to be able to invade anybody for quite a while - so "appeasement" really doesn't enter into the equation. You appease an empire that can conquer more of the world by offering it a smaller piece and hoping it will be satisfied. Russia isn't Germany in the 1930s, and Europe isn't the Europe of the 30s either. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I honestly don't know where I am at in terms of being pro- or anti-intervention on the part of NATO, the US, or others, but I would honestly like to know, for those who are anti-intervention, what is the line at which intervention becomes reasonable and/or necessary? I'm not sure whether we are ending up in ClancyChat territory or not here, but nuclear-armed countries have a moral obligation to steer clear of each other and avoid escalation at all costs. One miscalculation and it's not something that can be fixed. The issue with Ukraine is that we had the opportunity for years to draw a red line and tell Russia that they can't cross it, and we chose not to. Now some people want to draw the red line after they've already crossed it, and that is essentially asking to back a nuclear-armed state into a corner. We have countries that we have extended our nuclear umbrella over, rightly or wrongly, and that is a very clearly defined boundary. We should keep to that line and strive to have a predictable foreign policy in regards to Russia, so they understand what will trigger a military response from us and what won't. What we don't want to do is create a Calvinball-like security environment, because that will backfire on us very quickly. I mean, Putin aside - is it the responsibility of the United States to defend every nation on Earth? We have done little in Yemen, despite the Saudis literally using our weapons to commit war crimes for many years. There are lots of African countries undergoing internal conflict we could intervene in. We certainly could have intervened more directly in Syria. Once we start using our military to enforce the greater good instead of sticking to our defined security interests, we end up with something like the Bush Doctrine. Like, I feel like I can turn the question back on those who want to intervene and ask if this is only about Russia or if we really think NATO should be engaged in endless wars against all the wrongdoers in the world. As far as I can tell, we are already doing a lot in Ukraine. We are arming them to the teeth and waging what can only be called a financial war against Russia. The level of overt funding we have given to someone literally shooting Russians is pretty much unprecedented as it is. I think it's working and we shouldn't upset the apple cart because we feel like we aren't doing enough. Concerned Citizen fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
Sally Sprodgkin posted:I don't think anyone in the thread is personally invested in anyone dying, but thinking 'I especially do not want to die horribly' is pretty drat normal human response to these kind of things if you ask me. Nobody in the thread wants to die either, but at some point the "this is hosed up and it needs to stop" part of the brain wins over the "I should do things that are in my own best interest" part of the brain. Society as a whole praises people who trend to the former and shuns people who trend towards the latter for obvious reasons. I'm sure we're all at different places in that continuum, and I don't want to place too much of a value judgement on that here (although I obviously have one), but we have to reckon with the fact that people are slowly moving towards the "this is hosed up and it needs to stop" side and are going to continue to do so until this... stops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:24
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I honestly don't know where I am at in terms of being pro- or anti-intervention on the part of NATO, the US, or others, but I would honestly like to know, for those who are anti-intervention, what is the line at which intervention becomes reasonable and/or necessary? The line is when he attacks a NATO country or ally (I guess he could attack Japan or Australia for example lol). That's the whole point of NATO and has been affirmed and reaffirmed for decades. The argument of "well you won't defend a country with zero defense treaties who wasn't even historically in your sphere of influence, would you defend your own lands?" is just kinda absurd. To put it another way, NATO is trying to avoid an escalation where they are brought into the conflict. If Russia attacks NATO then the escalation already happened, so there's nothing to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
On one hand I really do not want to experience a nuclear exchange with Russia. On the other hand I can't help but fantasize over how quickly this could be resolved with a full-blown NATO response, and by resolved I mean Russia getting absolutely poo poo stomped in a period of probably 12 to 24 hours. cr0y fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
I didn't mean to start this whole derail, I was just unhappy at someone having natural (and noble!) intentions and desires being degraded as 'adventurism' because Putin might get mad that someone was stopping him from willingly and eagerly committing great evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I honestly don't know where I am at in terms of being pro- or anti-intervention on the part of NATO, the US, or others, but I would honestly like to know, for those who are anti-intervention, what is the line at which intervention becomes reasonable and/or necessary? For me it would be the use of WMD's, an attack upon a NATO country, or some other atrocity that is simply too much to let go. The attacking a NATO country in particular would be a major step too far, to the point that I'd be angry if we didn't intervene. Admittedly I lean more towards pro-intervention, but that is mainly because what has happened already is simply too outrageous. It isn't about being the "good guys" or "playing hero" or any of that sort of poo poo. It is about the world that we live in. I'd rather live in a world where straight-up wars of conquest are completely unacceptable rather than one where I wake up and think "lets see what horrible poo poo Russia's done in Ukraine today". I know deep down you can't save everyone, and some conflicts simply are too messy or complicated that foreign intervention is more likely to make things worse. This, to me, is not one of those times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:30
|
|
|
It's worth considering that there are more countries involved than just Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. Poland actually seems to be doing the most saber-rattling right now, for example. It's relatively easy for the United States to say "no boots on the ground" compared to Poland, which is watching this happening right next door and where support for intervention was relatively high even before the invasion. And if predictions are right and we're only beginning a long slog of atrocities and war crimes, how long will it stand by?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
cr0y posted:On one hand I really do not want to experience a nuclear exchange with Russia. Somewhere, a screenplay writer is working on a movie where the ending is Seal Team Six leaving Putin hog tied at the entrance to the ICC in The Hague and it would be absolutely terrible schlock but I would watch it and enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
I am sure there are certain elements in the Polish government that would love to stick it to the Russians/Putin anyway they can. The question is how much they can be reigned in from the more moderate elements in the government and NATO itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:43
|
|
|
cr0y posted:On one hand I really do not want to experience a nuclear exchange with Russia. Ah yes, just kick the door in and the whole rotten structure will come collapsing down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:44
|
|
|
I just woke up from a nightmare in which a bunch of unidentified soldiers suddenly started swarming around our house and we had to flee, because we knew they were looking to take away all men under 60 and straight up kill them and their families. I need to stop reading these threads before going to sleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
Thank you
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
This made me feel a lot better. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:49
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:It's worth considering that there are more countries involved than just Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. Poland actually seems to be doing the most saber-rattling right now, for example. It's relatively easy for the United States to say "no boots on the ground" compared to Poland, which is watching this happening right next door and where support for intervention was relatively high even before the invasion. And if predictions are right and we're only beginning a long slog of atrocities and war crimes, how long will it stand by? If they get directly, boots-on-the-ground involved, that will be the end of NATO. They can invoke Article V all they like; Western Europe and the US will not have their backs. Poland’s government knows that, so they will not intervene, unless they leave NATO and start their own alliance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If they get directly, boots-on-the-ground involved, that will be the end of NATO. They can invoke Article V all they like; Western Europe and the US will not have their backs. Poland’s government knows that, so they will not intervene, unless they leave NATO and start their own alliance. NATO states can take military action without NATO--the U.S. has done so a number of times, as have others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If they get directly, boots-on-the-ground involved, that will be the end of NATO. They can invoke Article V all they like; Western Europe and the US will not have their backs. Poland’s government knows that, so they will not intervene, unless they leave NATO and start their own alliance. Sir John Falstaff posted:NATO states can take military action without NATO--the U.S. has done so a number of times, as have others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Bremen posted:Russia isn't run by complete idiots Events of the last month strongly suggest otherwise
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 08:00
|
|
