War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Beorning]

Alright, who is seriously worried that Russia might actually do it this time? Meaning, launch a full scale invasion against Ukraine?

My heart goes out to the Ukrainian people now...  :-(

Also, I'm worried that this might spill over to Poland. I mean, Lukashenka is aligned very close with Putin these days... and he's been really drumming up his anti-Polish rhetoric. And he's been stoking the immigrant border crisis for months now...

And, of course, the Baltic states can't feel safe now, either...

With all that in mind: if Russia attacks Ukraine, could this lead to another European war? Or, worse, WW3?

Also, does anyone know if that's really true that German government is blocking other countries' military aid for Ukraine? If so... why? Are German politicians so sympathetic to Russia? I thought better of them...

[Laughing Hyena]

Do I think WW3 would happen? I don't think so. The superpowers would be unwilling to frivolously invest in it after a pandemic that caused a world to stop turning. They might go and make sanctions or back one side.

This feels like a proxy war. Nations will put support into backing one side or another without getting their hands dirty. Probably with arms, money and PMCs, rather than their own actual military.

I am more concerned about the potential spin networks like Fox News, Newsmax and OAN will do if the worst outcome happens. They want to see thsee four years be the worst in America and they'll lie and spin it to be the next World War, and put pressure to get that.

We just got out of a war that had been going on for twenty years and ended in a loss for the United States. I'm worried that we will get pushed back into another war when we are already divided and still recovering economically as a nation.

[Beorning]

Well, if that happens, it definitely won't be a proxy war for *Russia*. It seems that, this time around, they might readying for a regular invasion with the actual Russian military.

Anyway, if this happens, it will be a catastrophe for Ukraine... That alone makes me very sad and worried.

I'm also worried that, if that happens, the West won't do anything about it. That they will just slap Russia with some more sanctions... which Russian government doesn't seem to give a damn anyway.

I feel that a just thing for the Europe and NATO to do, would be to step in and send troops to Ukraine (in case Russia does attack). But that could lead to a wider conflict, so that's a scary perspective...

But Europe shouldn't just abandon Ukraine and let Russia invade it! We need to protect each other against agressors...

[Vekseid]

The US and UK are already arming them, on top of the arms they are getting from your country and others. A few hundred troops are their training them. The Harry S Truman strike group was sent to the Mediterranean in December.

Do I think Russia will invade?

I really hate to say this, but this seems like the active plan. This is costing Russia an immense amount of resources. If they push to this brink, only to then do nothing, Russia looks that much weaker internally and externally.

If Putin decides to invade, the first test is going to be how the Ukrainian military holds up. I don't imagine they'll be able to hold the Donbass against invasion. But at a completely random guess the war would be for Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as well, to better secure access to Crimea. These may prove more difficult, particularly Kherson.

As for escalation... there is certainly a risk Russian or NATO forces accidentally fire on each other while NATO forces are doing 'routine exercises'. In face I would say it is quite likely. Meanwhile Russia is parking most of its surface fleet in the Black Sea (probably to help with landlocking Ukraine), and who knows how many of its submarines are in the Mediterranean already. Even if the Russians are on orders not to engage or even antagonize NATO forces under any circumstances, there are tens of thousands of men involved and it only takes a few of them to fuck up.

Someone is going to fuck up.

NATO will probably respond with slow, targeted escalation. A Russian vessel fires on the Meteoro, that vessel gets sunk.

If Putin is smart, Russia will back down. It may look a little bad for him, but perhaps he could play it up as being gracious and forgiving. Hurting Biden's ratings even further.

He might not be, however. Especially if he loses a cruiser.

I would have to think he would be thinking twice. In the encounters between Russian and American tactics and equipment lately, you couldn't remotely describe said encounter as a battle.

The waters of the Black Sea can hide half the Russian fleet beneath them, but no amount of propaganda will.

That would be terrifyingly precarious. And I imagine Putin and Biden would be on the phone with each other throughout.

[Montagne]

Also, does anyone know if that's really true that German government is blocking other countries' military aid for Ukraine? If so... why? Are German politicians so sympathetic to Russia? I thought better of them...

Germany is highly reliant on Russian gas for its industry, and German politicians likely feel that serious military escalation on the European continent is not in Germany's interest.

Ukraine is fundamental to Russian security interests in its western flank, they can't let it become a member of NATO and have enemies that close to its major populations centres, so it seems Russian action is inevitable ever since the rise of a pro-western government in Ukraine. The question is how far do they go, that I still cannot estimate.

There have been numerous missteps by NATO and particularly the US in the recent years. Particularly if the US wants to shift its focus to China, which is the first time it will be trying to contain a greater economic power than itself, then Europeans are going to rightly question whether or not the US has the resources to both provide security guarantees to all of Europe AND all of Asia. Add onto that all the increasing domestic instability in the USA.

If the europeans (and particularly Germany) have concerns over the long term commitment of the USA to European security, then they are realize they will have to be more accommodationist rather than belligerent to the security demands of Russia. It's a massive military power on Europe's doorstep that isn't going anywhere. That's why most continental european powers in the western half of NATO are hedging rather than being aggressive.

[Lux12]

Could it lead to world war 3? Yes. Will it? No one knows. No one can know. All I know is that if anything about the past six years has taught me anything, it will not end well for a great many of those who get involved and this will likely have implications beyond what is immediately visible. Even if someone succeeds in stopping the invasion or better yet, outright kicking Putin out of office, there will be an upheaval and I don't imagine it being a particularly gentle affair. There are factors at play here that go all the way back to the cold war, an event that mind you basically had barely ended by the time I was born 31 years ago which on a scale of history really isn't that much time at all. There were signs present for decades, but people either didn't notice, didn't care, or simply didn't believe it. There's a complex web of factors at play here that even someone whose studied history, geopolitics or any other such discipline may not be aware of. However, this is part of the uber nationalist and frankly far right "strong man" push that a number of people in Russia have been eager for and it will not end painlessly for anyone. All I know is that as I am right now, there's not much I can do except denounce what I think is wrong then pray for the best.

[elone]

In 1962 there was the Cuban missile crisis. Simplified, the Cubans wanted missiles on their soil to deter another Bay of Pigs or a US invasion. Other reasons as well. The missiles were confirmed by a U2. Finally, the missiles were removed after almost coming to a nuclear war.  My question is how is this different than the Russians not wanting NATO in the Ukraine on their doorstep. Does anyone seriously think that we would allow Russians in Mexico or Canada ready to go to battle.

Just a thought.

[Beorning]

The difference is, these days NATO is *not* interested in any kind of war with Russia. Meanwhile, Russia attacks other countries even if unprovoked by NATO - just look at Georgia. And Ukraine's interest in NATO was sparked by Russia taking over Crimea and instigating the conflict in Donbas...

Also, it's not only about Ukraine. Do you know that Russia recently made demands that no NATO troops were based in Poland? In other words, Russia tries to dictate whether a NATO country that doesn't really border Russia (Kaliningrad notwithstanding) allows allied troops to stay on its territory...

Really, don't get drawn into a false symmetries here. Russia under Putin is an aggressive country that threatens its neighbours. There's no justification for what Putin's government is doing.

[Montagne]

Things are sadly a lot more complicated than than Russia under Putin being an aggressive country that threatens it's neighbours.

For example the war in Georgia came 6 months after the '08 NATO summit that announced the intention to integrate Georgia into NATO, so sadly the timeline you presented isn't quite right on that case. Similarly the annexation of Crimea came after the pro-western revolution in Ukraine.

We might think of NATO as peaceful, but given what has happened on NATOs borders like Libya, non-NATO countries often have a different view.

Fundamentally Russia isn't acting any differently than the US acts in Latin America when one of their countries installs a left wing government. That's not a justification, but simply a point that this is not some unique evil.

To list just a few the US has funded death squads, overthrown or interfered in the government's of:
Brazil,
Argentina,
Bolivia,
Venezuela,
Cuba,
Chile,
Nicaragua,
Costa Rica,
The Dominican Republic,
Panama
Paraguay
and Guatemala under the justification that Latin America is the US backyard and it can't have enemies in the region.

[greenknight]

Whataboutism doesn't excuse actions.

[Montagne]

No, it contextualize them.

[Beorning]

No, it contextualize them.

With all due respect, you're not contextualizing. You're effectively providing excuses.

Speaking as a citizen of a country that is living in the shadow of Putin's Russia: you're simply wrong. Whatever evils the US has done, it does not excuse Russia's attempts to re-establish its "zone of interests" and puppetterize the countries in Eastern and Central Europe (as well as other neighbours, such as Georgia).

[Montagne]

Fundamentally Russia isn't acting any differently than the US acts in Latin America when one of their countries installs a left wing government. That's not a justification, but simply a point that this is not some unique evil.

I am explaining why Russia is acting the way it is from a Russian point of view. That's not an excuse. That is again, the context of the situation.

My own opinion is it's not in any European's or American's interest sending people to die to hold off a Russian tank army from taking Eastern Ukraine, and that seems to be the opinion of NATO as well given they have pretty much signalled they aren't going to do anything.

[Beorning]

Hm. Two points:

1. Russia's ultimate goal is *not* taking Eastern Ukraine. Its goal is to take the *whole* of Ukraine. You do realize that both US and UK intelligence services recently made warnings that Russia is aiming to install a puppet government in Kiev? And that Russian troops are positions in an position quite appropriate for attacking Kiev?

2. You speak of "European interest". Ukraine *is* Europe. They are a nation threatened by an invasion by a state whose politicians often claim that the Ukrainian nation doesn't even *exist* and is just wayward branch of Russians (who should be brought "back to the fold").

Please don't tell me about "not dying for Eastern Ukraine". Back in 1939, many Europeans didn't want to "die for Gdańsk". We all know how it all turned out.

[Montagne]

1. Even if Russia reinstalled a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine, it still wouldn't be in NATOs interest to have a showdown with the Russians.

2. That's fine rhetorically, but clearly the EU, most heads of EU countries, and NATO disagree.

Super-powers establish regions of influence and buffer states, this is a normal part of international politics and has been for centuries. It's sensible to not have NATO troops staring eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians.

I don't think we need to deploy reductio ad hitlerum. No one is seriously comparing this to the invasion of Poland in 1939.

The fundamental question is: I'm not going to die to defend Kiev. You're not going to die to defend Kiev. So why do you want someone else's kid to die to defend Kiev?

[greenknight]

My own opinion is it's not in any European's or American's interest sending people to die to hold off a Russian tank army from taking Eastern Ukraine, and that seems to be the opinion of NATO as well given they have pretty much signalled they aren't going to do anything.

That is an entirely separate discussion than "It's okay for the Russians to do it because the Americans did it. And America shouldn't condemn things it itself did." That's trying to excuse bad behavior with whataboutism.

[greenknight]

The fundamental question is: I'm not going to die to defend Kiev. You're not going to die to defend Kiev. So why do you want someone else's kid to die to defend Kiev?

I am someone else's kid and I might go die to defend Ukraine (and/or send others to do so) and I'm okay with that. I have colleagues who are currently in a better position to do just this and they are okay with it.

[Montagne]

That is an entirely separate discussion than "It's okay for the Russians to do it because the Americans did it. And America shouldn't condemn things it itself did." That's trying to excuse bad behavior with whataboutism.

A) "Whataboutism" is just an aversion to thinking about any issue in its context, it's not an amazing counter-argument.

B) No one is having the discussion that it's okay for the Russian's to do it. So once again there isn't "Whataboutism" going on.


- Russia invading sovereign territory is a violation of international law.

Great, that is a different question than what to do about it.

I am someone else's kid and I might go die to defend Ukraine (and/or send others to do so) and I'm okay with that. I have colleagues who are currently in a better position to do just this and they are okay with it.

There are volunteer battalions you can go and join in the Ukrainian military in that case.

[greenknight]

There are volunteer battalions you can go and join in the Ukrainian military in that case.

Not without committing the felony of desertion.

[Beorning]

1. Even if Russia reinstalled a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine, it still wouldn't be in NATOs interest to have a showdown with the Russians.

How about it being in the interest of decency, then? Or international solidarity?

2. That's fine rhetorically, but clearly the EU, most heads of EU countries, and NATO disagree.

First of all, those "heads of EU countries" you mention are simply not in favour of *sending troops* to Ukraine. They are still speaking up in Ukraine's defence. Some EU countries are even sending weaponry to help. So, even though there's no talk of a direct confrontation, the EU and NATO are not saying that Russia isn't in the wrong.

Super-powers establish regions of influence and buffer states, this is a normal part of international politics and has been for centuries. It's sensible to not have NATO troops staring eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians.

You know, it's a really comfortable way of looking at foreign politics... as long as you don't happen to be living in a country that some "super-powers" deemed a necessary "buffer state".

And let me reiterate: Russia doesn't want Ukraine (and Belarus... and the Baltics... and Poland...) as a "buffer state". Putin's Russia wants these countries as *vassals*.

I don't think we need to deploy reductio ad hitlerum. No one is seriously comparing this to the invasion of Poland in 1939.

"Reductio ad Hitlerum" is a false argument, when you are discussing the foreign politics of a country that really does behave in a manner not unlike 1930s Germany.

Also, it's funny that you mention the 1939 invasion of Poland... because, back then, the Soviet Union made similar justifications for its invasion of our territory as Russia is making now to justify its behaviour towards Ukraine. Also, under Putin, Russia's officials have repeatedly *defended* Stalin helping Hitler dismantle Poland. And even went as far as to suggest that the whole WW2 broke out due to Poland's warlike attitude.

The fundamental question is: I'm not going to die to defend Kiev. You're not going to die to defend Kiev. So why do you want someone else's kid to die to defend Kiev?

This is a completely false argument. Nobody *wants* anyone to die for Kiev. Just like during WW2 nobody *wanted* anyone to die for Warsaw, Paris or London. Still, it had to be done to preserve freedom from a nasty regime that attacked the rest of Europe...

[Montagne]

1) I'm not in favour of a war for the concept of "decency". I feel like war is being treated here with a real degree of unseriousness.

2) great. If EU leaders want to condemn it or even send weapons that's fine. Sending NATO forces is different.

If you think that Putin is in some way equivalent to the most genocidal regime in human history then we're just not having a discussion in the same world really so I don't know what to say. *Shrugs*. Luckily cooler heads seem to be prevailing in Europe and in the Biden administration.

[Vekseid]

1) I'm not in favour of a war for the concept of "decency". I feel like war is being treated here with a real degree of unseriousness.

I think you're showing an unmitigated gall and contempt for the independence, rights, and even lives of Ukrainian citizens. Russia orchestrated the deaths of millions of Ukrainian citizens within living memory. For many of them, this is life and death.

If you think that Putin is in some way equivalent to the most genocidal regime in human history then we're just not having a discussion in the same world really so I don't know what to say. *Shrugs*. Luckily cooler heads seem to be prevailing in Europe and in the Biden administration.

I think if a lot of Tories started spewing "Cromwell did nothing wrong" and the PM made active plans to reincorporate Ireland, people would make similar commentaries.

You may not, personally, have much care for the mass atrocities Russia committed. Nonetheless I ask that you give proper respect for those of our members who lived under or in memory of that shadow.

They are terrified.

They have every right to be.

[Montagne]

To start with my apologies, I didn't in any way mean to be flippant about the lives or independence of Ukrainians. I fully understand the fear that these people no doubt live under, for them it is of course life and death and my heart goes out to them. They have every right to be terrified. I was merely stating my view that the solution to this situation is not some great military engagement in Europe between Russia and NATO that would get many people including Ukrainian civilians killed in the crossfire. However I understand it is an emotive topic and I certainly should have continued to restate that first point.

I was not attempting to justify the actions of Russia, but explain the historical context of the causes of this conflict.

That said I don't have much else to add other than my hopes that this standoff ends up being able to be resolved in some peaceful negotiation where everyone can be safe, Ukrainians can keep their independence and war is avoided. I'm going to unfollow the thread and let others contribute their thoughts.

[Oniya]

Just spotted this while reading some other news.  Looks like the US is likely to put some boots on the ground.

[Humble Scribe]

Just spotted this while reading some other news.  Looks like the US is likely to put some boots on the ground.

In eastern NATO countries yes, but not in Ukraine. NATO has been telegraphing its response to Russia quite clearly, presumably to avoid 'misunderstandings', which is a good thing, and that response is: 'we won't intervene militarily if you invade Ukraine, but there will be stringent economic sanctions, but don't think about trying this on a NATO member like Estonia - that's our line in the sand'.

I suspect there will also be some kind of private assurance to Putin that Ukraine will not be allowed into NATO even though NATO can't say that in public, and an agreement to approve the opening of the Nordstream 2 pipeline provided Russia steps down. Whether that will be enough to deter Russia remains to be seen. I don't think Putin actually wants war - this is high stakes poker - but he might judge that the rewards outweigh the risks. Maybe he's after Ukraine 'Finlandising' and accepting the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass region, formally or at least tacitly.

There's also the question of the dog that didn't bark. China has been very quiet, aside from some murmurings that Russia's security concerns "should be taken seriously". I don't agree at all with the idea that as Ukraine goes, so goes Taiwan - China understands that the US commitment in Taiwan is much stronger and longer standing than Ukraine - but they will certainly be studying the international response to this crisis.