If you want to dispute something dispute it - there's no need to dance around things and talk about how much one can predict the future or not. I don't think I am speculating that saying a no fly zone may fail without US involvement. My point all along is that you can't say for sure that Putin won't resort to nukes. That's not a speculative statement.
This. I am not telling people their opinions concerning what we should or should no do are invalid. I am simply stating, as someone that became very interested in military strengths, etc. 15 years ago..... people, especially in the West do not realize just how incredibly strong and powerful the US military is. We tend to look at things like Vietnam and Afghanistan and say that the US military is not exceptional.... but what isn't considered is how little the USA put into those conflicts relative to what the military is capable. We haven't come close to unleashing what can be unleashed since WWII and that is when our superiority really started to develop. We also have regulations on our military that others do not. In Afghanistan they were telling soldiers to not shoot to kill while they were under attack. Even when it comes to nuclear weapons, the Russians are certainly more than capable of destroying the modern world, but there are some in the pentagon that think they could stop a very high percentage of nuclear attacks from Russia. Is that a game we want to play? No it isn't.
I did. Nobody is saying for sure that Putin won't resort to nukes but you sure are saying stuff he will do if there is a no-fly zone.
This is the other reason why I don't think this country is prepared for a major all out war. We are far too divided. If we actually fought a protracted war against Russia, or any other country, I'm not sure there wouldn't be a portion of the population that not only wouldn't want to fight but would be willing to undertake actions, like storming the Capital, to oppose and even sabotage the war effort. To paraphrase Von Klauswitz. War is not only politics by other means but politics is war by other means and a democracy cannot sustain a war effort without strong political support at home.
Yeah, I'll echo that I'm not saying we should go to war with Russia. Everyone will have their own opinion on that based on how they feel about what's going on. But the reason to avoid it is NOT that we would lose a conventional war with them. They'd get whipped in a conventional war. We'd rain fire down on their forces from above and they'd have no way to contest the skies. We could lob missiles from Poland and devastate their supply lines. Our drones would carve them up, just like drones carved up Russian assets in other conflicts. That's before our superior ground force in number and training and equipment even came into play. We'd be buoyed by not needing to occupy Russia. Russia already struggling against an entrenched Ukrainian force. Put 200k US soldiers and another 50k NATO troops into the zone and Russia would be completely overwhelmed. Unless and until they decided to drop tactical nukes into the equation to break up defenses, then suddenly the calculus would be different. But conventional war? They'd get creamed.
Nobody knows for sure what would happen, but Russian military policy is in fact "escalate to deescalate." A simple map of that could be the use of chemical weapons to retaliate followed by tactical nukes if the situation doesn't get resolved. The Russian idea is that the use of smaller tactical nukes instead of planet killers would NOT be met with nuclear retaliation by the West, rather it would force us to the negotiating table.
It is very possible that he would not do anything. The question is do you want to take that risk? The issue I have is that the "He has nuclear weapons he will use" is something that has to have a definitive end, or he can just stroll through Crimea, Ukraine, Moldova, Finland... Sweden and do what he wants.... because of the threat of nuclear weapons. Putin isn't stupid.... he sees the response of the West and he knows how to bluff very well.
I'm fully aware of how strong the US military is and how relatively weak the Russians are right now but just looking at recent military history we've had two humiliating withdrawals from enemies who didn't even have air power or armor, and a defeat by the another Russian backed country. So yes the US didn't put everything into those conflicts, I mean we could've nuked them, but we certainly put overwhelming force relative to them into the conflict. For example we dropped more bombs on Indochina than we did in all of WWII. If you look at Russian history they've suffered many historical defeats and come close to complete annhilation on a couple of occasions. What they have done though is that in an all out war they are willing to completely commit to a battle to defend their homeland and if this war were to spread into Russia itself it is very likely they would do that again. And of course all of this is ignoring the wild card of nuclear weapons which many seem to be downplaying with, well Putin isn't suicidal. No one knows that for sure, especially given that many didn't think he would invade Ukraine in the first place.
I agree. I can't see how Putin does not react to the shooting down of his planes by US or any other ally. No one knows what will happen, but would anyone be surprised if he retaliates will strikes against one or more NATO bases? All I hear is about how weak Putin is. People act like he's Saddam or Gaddafi. Well even Saddam launched missiles at Israel. I think it's really easy to underestimate Putin and buy into the narrative that he is mentally ill or crazy and is going to cower one we show resolve. That hasn't been how it works in a lot of history. I don't get why so many people are advocating for something that could put the world on a very dangerous path and potentially increase the loss of life 2 weeks into a war where we nor our allies have been attacked.
Agree on their official public military policy. Also, based on what has happened thus far, they are probably right that smaller tactical nukes would likely bring the USA to the negotiating table.... the West, and especially the USA are not used to that degree of suffering and would not think it is worth the loss.
I'm going to ask the basic question that we are all getting at: Are you willing to risk the possibility of nuclear war for Ukraine? I will answer that for as bad as I feel about the Ukrainians and what is happening I don't think that is worth the risk.
He could do nothing, he could escalate the stakes and put us in a more difficult position. All of a sudden we find ourselves stuck in a spiral towards something more and more horrific. Is that worth going down that path when it's questionable it will actually save lives? I hear a lot of mentioning if we don't stop him here than he will take Moldova, Finland and Sweden. How do we know? He's taken a bit of Georgia and he's invaded Ukraine. Some are saying his military is weak - so then why would he attack Finland? Some are saying it is strong - so then engaging will certainly lead to a broader war. At the end of the day, we have to do what's in the best interests of NATO, not Ukraine, not Moldova, and not even Finland. We can certainly take steps to discourage him from continuing in Ukraine and expanding his theatre of war - and we have taken significant steps in that regards. I just don't know why we need to do "more" given the stakes and risks.
The USA largely dabbled in those countries..... they never came close to full out war in those areas, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam we were closer, but the technology was not as good and even then we really did not go all out. You can have the heart of a lion and the will of an elephant, but drones and the US technology would destroy Russia. This part of the discussion is based on the hypothetical of IF there is an all out war.... I am not advocating the USA attack Russia. Also anyone that thought Putin would not attack the Ukraine was not paying attention.... everyone really interested knew it would happen. He had done it before, he has often spoke of the desire to bring it back to Russia.... he attempted to interfere in their elections, he moved covert Russians into the region.... he has done everything to destroy NATO and also to scare other nations into joining. He laid out his blueprint, but he knew the West wouldn't do anything.
Another sign that there still is possible solutions to this without us getting directly militarily involved. Also I just heard in other news sources that the PRC isn't willing to supply airplane parts to Russia to make up for the loss from sanctions. If the PRC were to put pressure on Russia including isolating them even further this might be enough of a push to convince Putin that Ukraine isn't worth it. Or at least compel Putin to make some sort of deal short of taking over Ukraine. U.S. Intel: China Alarmed by Russian Brutality in Ukraine (msn.com) U.S. Intel: China Alarmed by Russian Brutality in Ukraine Paul D. Shinkman - 36m ago The brutality of President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has “unsettled” President Xi Jinping and spurred fissures between Russia and China, U.S. intelligence believes, undermining concerted public efforts by the two powers to appear aligned in their respective efforts to grab power internationally. Despite heavy Chinese investments in its partnership with Russia in recent years, “the Chinese leadership, President Xi in particular, is unsettled by what he’s seeing” in Europe, CIA Director William Burns told Congress on Thursday, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on a scale unseen on the continent since World War II. “His own intelligence doesn’t appear to have told him what was going to happen,” Burns said of Xi, citing also the Chinese Communist Party leader’s new concerns about “the reputational damage that China suffers by associating with the ugliness of Russia’s aggression with Ukraine.” Burns’ comments to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as a part of annual hearings regarding threats to the U.S., represent the first major public assessment of what China knew in advance of Russia’s assault on its former Soviet ally. And they signal troubling tensions between Moscow and the Chinese financial juggernaut that Putin appears to have believed would bail out Russia in the wake of predictable Western economic sanctions. The CIA director similarly cast doubt on those assumptions from the Kremlin. He cited Beijing’s stinginess with Moscow in negotiating new pipelines following the international fallout it faced from forcibly annexing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. “They weren’t particularly flexible or sympathetic in a way during that period,” Burns said. “I suspect there’s not going to be an easy way out for President Putin as he looks to try to deal with these economic consequences – not from the Chinese, not from anyone else.” Publicly, Putin and Xi have attempted to show a united front in recent weeks – an indication they believe their partnership can help weather predictable Western constraints on their respective geopolitical ambitions. In practice, however, the U.S. believes China likely considers Russia to be unpredictable and likewise Moscow believes Beijing does not respect its leaders as peer partners, according to current and former officials speaking to U.S. News on the condition of anonymity. The pair held a high-profile meeting in early February at the outset of the Winter Olympics that Beijing hosted at a time of skyrocketing tensions with the West, though little is known about what they discussed – including the extent to which Putin forewarned Xi about his ambitions in Ukraine. After their meeting Xi and Putin issued a joint statement that appeared to offer pre-emptive support for Russia's ambitions toward Ukraine and China's designs on Taiwan – which it considers a renegade province. However, the relatively uniform international condemnation of Russia’s subsequent aggression in Ukraine has likely created pause among decision-makers in Beijing who likely consider their ambitions to reintegrate Taiwan with mainland China as far from inevitable. Indeed, Russia’s latest acts of aggression not only strain its relations with China but also endanger Beijing’s own investments. Burns said Thursday that China, like Russia, also does not appear to have anticipated the extent to which European powers and their allies across the Atlantic would unite in their condemnation of Russia and willingness to punish Moscow for its invasion. “The Chinese leadership looks at Europe not just as a market but as a kind of player with whom they can have an independent relationship and try to look for ways in which they can drive wedges between us and our European allies,” Burns said. “And what President Putin has so successfully done is to make that much less likely.” Copyright 2022 U.S. News & World Report
Some people believe that we already have been spiraling towards escalation by not doing anything the last decade plus. That the Ukraine is just the next stop for Putin. How do we know? Based on his past actions and what he has said..... he has repeatedly said that he views the former Soviet states and lands were not legally broken off, and Russia has the right to them. His actions against the Georgians, Chechens, in the Crimea and the Ukraine are all consistent with that.... as are his outbursts and threats against Sweden and Finland about the consequences of joining NATO. Why? NATO is arbitrary. There is nothing that says that the USA and the West cannot protect their NATO allies. It is an arbitrary line, and one that I am not even sure that the West would follow. This is a double edged sword. Do YOU think he is suddenly going to quit taking lands? I sure as hell don't and would rather deal with him before he has the Ukraine and other nations under his control and even stronger ties with China and others.
Remember when everyone thought the Russian military is a "superpower" and would just wipe out Ukraine quickly? But many thought that even if that happen, they will still be stuck in a long war with Ukrainian. Superpowers do not win over hearts and minds of the locals will lose that war, at least in recent history. What we are witnessing now is Russia's military is blah. Ukraine is still going to likely lose the gov but at a great cost to the Russians and there is a very good chance they are going to be stuck there and will eventually lose the war. I'm very sorry for Ukraine but I have no idea why anyone wants to escalate this to something that involves a bigger part of Europe (much more likely to result in more death than if it's just limited to Ukraine) with the worst-case scenario of hundreds of millions of death. What I have heard is no, we do not want war (a relief). But hey, we should do fly-over protection (back again to war).
