OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Targan]

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

[Bestbrian]

Originally Posted by Targan

The most dangerous times in the conflict are now approaching. And by that I mean that Putin's plans have gone so very, very off-the-rails that circumstances have now almost certainly moved outside the branching tree of possible outcomes that he had prepared for. He may have the kind of mind that can step back and start planning calmly for the new reality he finds himself in. Or he may start to act more like a caged animal that's paranoid and irrational.

I think the only really smart thing he's done in recent times is put the entire conflict under the operational command of a highly efficient, ruthless killer of a general officer. Smart in terms of having some hope of salvaging the situation on the ground. Perhaps not so smart in that the man he's put in charge has shown no hesitation in Syria to utilise indiscriminate slaughter of civilians on a really large scale, including the use of chemical weapons.

There is probably some red line that NATO and/or the US will regard as the point at which direct intervention is necessary. I could be wrong. I don't think it's anywhere near the point that Russian nukes will start popping off, but I could be wrong about that too.

Russia utilizing NBC weapons would enrage the world, make things very uncomfortable for the Chinese, and pretty much ensure some degree of direct NATO involvement; I like to think they're not that stupid and/or desperate. Additionally, Russian attacks on military aid to Ukraine, inside the borders of third countries, would likely be considered a breach of Article 5, so, despite Russian diplomatic bluster, I consider it highly unlikely. Putin is looking to move the goalposts and to get some positive momentum so that he can declare victory and go home, and widening the war to include first rank military powers isn't going to help him achieve that. I expect them to concentrate every boot, rifle, and track on just hammering away until they can claim they "liberated" the Donbas.

[Raellus]

One has to to wonder what lessons Putin drew from NATO's lukewarm response to Assad ignoring a declared "red line" and continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people in Syria. What did NATO do? A: Lobbed a dozen or so Tomahawks at an airbase or two. Is Putin going to worry too much about a strong NATO response if he authorizes the use of chemical weapons on Ukrainian trench lines in the Donbass?

-

[kcdusk]

I've given up trying to agree on what line to cross is too far. There have been 3, 4 or 6 or 7 times in this war i've thought, Whooa - too far.

Yet no response from NATO. Because they didn't want to provoke Russia. Which left me thinking there is no line that's too far.

It made me think back to high school and no one wanted to stand up to the yard bully. He's walking around hitting people but no one wanted to stand up to him, least they be hit. Do you know what happened? He kept walking around hitting people! By not doing anything, the worst happened any way!

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they? Poland? Spain?!

[Raellus]

South Korea probably wants to steer well clear of the Ukraine War, but its upgraded T-80Us (sent to the ROK by Russia to pay off Soviet-era debts) would be a welcome addition to Ukraine's MBT force. It's not like the ROK really needs them. Their locally built K1 (mini Abrams) and K2 Black Panthers are highly capable, and they still have quite a few upgraded M48s in reserve.

-

[Drgonzo2011]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

I'm not in favour of war. But i also think NATO should be doing more. If they won't get involved during the Ukraine invasion, when will they? Poland? Spain?!

What would you suggest? So far, NATO has figured out a way to keep Ukraine afloat and avoid a direct fight with the Russians, while killing a lot of their men, destroying a lot of their hardware and demonstrating that the Russian military is vastly overrated. Sweden and Finland look set to join NATO, giving the alliance a nice boost and the Germans seem ready to expand the Bundeswher. As an added bonus, China must be seriously questioning their alliance with Russia, feeling much like the Germans did vis-a-vis Italy during World War Two (a nation with a military that looked good on paper, but performed poorly and required constant support). While I won't go so far as to say that the Western policies have been a complete success - the war isn't over yet and the moves in the weeks leading up to the conflict failed to deter the Russians - they have been both measured and effective.

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Drgonzo2011

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

I guess that's why i didn't offer a solution. Its more a feeling of these constant, daily war atrocities in this day and age, feels so wrong. This can't be the lessor of two evils, can it (perhaps it is)?

I agree NATO has done well to impose economic sanctions, and Ukraine has done well to hold its own. Is this because of good management? Was this the plan all along?

Or dumb luck Russia hasn't lived up to expectations?

[Raellus]

I think the sanctions need to be strengthened, or at least tightened up considerably. I've heard that there are multiple loopholes that the Russians are actively exploiting. After the first week of the war, news reports were all like, "The Russian economy is on the verge of collapse!" That was a month ago. In the meantime, it appears that they've figured out how to circumvent some of the sanctions and cope with the economic impact of those that are actually working. So that leverage is apparently not as strong as the media initially reported.

Apart from that, I think the US shouldn't have chickened out on the transfer of Polish MiG-29s. It's not too late, I imagine, to pass them along. They're not going to change the game, but in the absence of a no-fly zone, a few more fighters would help the Ukrainians defend their cities from bombing. Last I heard, the Slovak MiGs are still on the way.

And The Drive recently suggested that the Romanians should give Ukraine their recently grounded fleet of MiG-21s (which are slated to be replaced by second-hand F-16s soon anyway).

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ded-to-ukraine

-

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Drgonzo2011

Given the risks from a more direct confrontation and the limited (if any) additional rewards, what would be gained? I'm curious because I hear this frustration from others, but never have gotten a good reply.

I think there is almost zero chance the Russians would launch nukes in response to direct NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I'm not sure what you mean by "additional rewards", but time after time we've seen western nations go into conflicts essentially to enrich themselves while telling the world it was the "right thing to do". Well this time the right thing to do is to stop a totally unjustified invasion and the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, and that's the reward.

[pmulcahy11b]

What's a good way to rally the people around you? Go to War!

Unless it goes on too long, gets too expensive, the people at home are tired of being downtrodden...

Regardless of what Putin wants, Putin is not Stalin, or even Khrushchev...