Should US & Nato step in to defend Ukraine against this Vladman?

[Matata]

The presumption that one can "take out" the military dictator of a global nuclear power -- who enjoys the support of at least half his countrymen -- while guaranteeing the world's safety is silly.

Imo, the nuclear power is not relevant in this case. It's silly to believe there is no asset already in place who would kill pootin when the time and the price is right. It is and has been discussed among the off the grid organizations that do these things. The half of his countrymen that don't support him are the younger generations who have been signaling they are ready for change a long time before the Ukraine invasion. Of the other half, I suspect two-thirds are now missing the middle class lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and may be rethinking their position about who should lead. Navalny and two other previous opposition leaders gained massive support before pootin poisoned and imprisoned them.

 

[Bonfire]

Russia warns United States: we have the might to put you in your place
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-states-their-place-medvedev-says-2022-03-17/

So this is quite chilling

 

[LilAlex]

Of the other half, I suspect two-thirds are now missing the middle class lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and may be rethinking their position about who should lead. Navalny and two other previous opposition leaders gained massive support before pootin poisoned and imprisoned them.

The last few decades of US history have put me (and almost everyone else) off the notion that nation-building via external intervention is a "thing." "Assisted liberation" immediately following a recent conquest is maybe still a thing -- see Kuwait. But Russia is not an upstart. And Russia is at least half-full of the same dumb thugs who plague the US -- and who fall hook, line, and sinker for whatever propaganda their state media (or state media apologists) pass off.

And to whomever thought I was defending VP, please re-read. I am anti-global-nuclear-holocaust. That is very different from being pro-VP. I hope that's clear. On paper, I am part Ukrainian.

 

[LilAlex]

Russia warns United States: we have the might to put you in your place
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...-states-their-place-medvedev-says-2022-03-17/

So this is quite chilling

No surprise there -- they are all told what to say. But this was kinda my point above.

Russia is no surprise, tbh; they have been doing this sort of thing for decades. The real disappointment is China (and pretty much all of SE Asia in Russia's sphere of influence). As we all know, China has been officially parroting and amplifying Russian state media on "US-funded biolabs" in Ukraine -- and similar gibberish.

We think it is "Russia against the world" but it is really just Russia against Europe, North America, and Australia.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Smart move, feels sincere (to me)

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,
Putin clearly states his aims and goals. He took Crimea, and another territory in 2014. He was hoping that the US would dismantle NATO, but that didn't happen. He is 69 and wants the Russian Empire back. None of this is speculation. He says he's coming for you, so listen.

Surrender or bomb Russia(me) are both extreme and silly. Yes, we are armchair generals, and I hate thinking our boys would be in mortal danger. We hated Vietnam, we hated Iraq and Afghanistan because we could not see what our interests were. Putin has told us what he wants. As each country falls, it will just empower him more.\

I do think all opinions should be heard. We do have to proceed with caution.

Let us not get angry with one another. This is serious business.

Annette

 

[Arkteia]

No.

Aside from the obvious (verifying Putin’s biggest fear), there is one more consequence. To step in means showing ordinary Russians that maybe, their leader was right in his claims (and so far, their biggest fear is not NATO attacking them, but worsening living standards).

Where is the line drawn? At the border of any NATO member.

 

[Arkteia]

No surprise there -- they are all told what to say. But this was kinda my point above.

Russia is no surprise, tbh; they have been doing this sort of thing for decades. The real disappointment is China (and pretty much all of SE Asia in Russia's sphere of influence). As we all know, China has been officially parroting and amplifying Russian state media on "US-funded biolabs" in Ukraine -- and similar gibberish.

We think it is "Russia against the world" but it is really just Russia against Europe, North America, and Australia.

Right. But you understand, “Asia” is just a geographic concept. It is not a monolith. So far, I see Russia turning into raw material appendage of China and widening of yuan zone.

There are other parts of Asia. Some of them might need to be evacuated before they turn into refugees.

 

[LilAlex]

But you understand, “Asia” is just a geographic concept. It is not a monolith.

Of course. I did not say "Asia." I said "SE Asia." And I did not imply that they are all alike as countries -- merely that they are all acting alike in not condemning the invasion. (I do not know if this generalization is 100% correct but it has been cited by media I consider reliable.) That's the bad part I am talking about. Not about their cuisines or religions or genetic ancestries, etc.

 

[CalliopeCladdagh]

why so many people are being swayed by their emotions when it comes to this war yet conveniently overlook all of the other global conflicts and atrocities. It’s called you identify with them bc they look like you.

I disagree.
In my opinion it is called 'This aggressor has nuclear weapons and the ability to kick off global disaster that will end up affecting me and those I love'.

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

We. Are. Not. The. World. Police. And to liken them to an abused woman—not sure how these men who are not allowed to flee would feel about your analogy. Finally. Do your own research about why so many people are being swayed by their emotions when it comes to this war yet conveniently overlook all of the other global conflicts and atrocities. It’s called you identify with them bc they look like you.

Every day i hear people say
they look just like us
its getting almost embarrassing
Like it makes a difference because they are blond and blue eyed

I am reminded of President Clinton's biggest regrete from him time in office
And he has mentioned it many times
not doing anything about the genocide in Rewanda

 

[missy]

A Schelling problem​ ​

"

Since Vladimir Putin began threatening an invasion of Ukraine, the West has had to grapple with the grimmest of dilemmas: How to confront a nuclear power like Russia without risking a nuclear war.​

It is not a new dilemma, however. It inspired much of modern game theory, developed by academic theorists like Thomas Schelling and studied by generals and top government officials throughout the Cold War.​

The basic theory makes clear that it is possible to challenge another country with nuclear weapons. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and other American presidents have done so, threatening force against Soviet troops and, on a few occasions, even using it. Yet these confrontations are extremely sensitive, requiring careful measures to minimize the chances of escalation.​

The Biden administration and its European allies are following a version of this strategy in Ukraine. In addition to imposing tough economic sanctions against Russia, the coalition is arming Ukraine with weapons — while also cautiously signaling it has no plans to expand the conflict by invading Russia, as Putin seems to fear.​

“The balancing act informs every aspect of American policy about the war,” a recent Times analysis explained. As Andrea Kendall-Taylor of the Center for a New American Security says, President Biden and his aides “are trying to figure out how do you get right up to the line without crossing over in a way that would risk direct confrontation with Russia.”​

The balance involves vexing trade-offs in which almost any step that helps Ukraine defend itself also risks offending Putin.​

Some observers — including many conservatives, but not only them — believe that the U.S. and Western Europe have been too timid. (Bret Stephens, the Times columnist, has made this case.) Michael McFaul, a U.S. ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama, wrote in The Washington Post, “More Western military assistance, especially weapons that can shoot down Russian airplanes and rockets or destroy artillery, is immediately needed for ending the war.”​

Other analysts believe that the U.S. and Europe have been quite confrontational. They have levied harsh sanctions, provided Ukraine with weapons and massed troops in NATO countries near Russia’s borders. Going much further, these analysts say, could lead Putin to attack a NATO country, potentially sparking a world war.​

Already, a nuclear attack — while unlikely — has become more plausible than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, my colleague Max Fisher has written. “The prospect of nuclear war,” António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, warned last week, “is now back within the realm of possibility.”​

(“To ignore it,” Thomas Friedman writes, “would be naïve in the extreme.”)​

Today’s newsletter lays out both sides of the issue: How else can the U.S., E.U., Britain, Turkey and others help Ukraine? And how can these countries signal to Putin that they are not seeking a larger war?​

A Ukrainian soldier in Kyiv last week.Gleb Garanich/Reuters​

What the U.S. is doing​ ​

The guiding principle for which weapons the U.S. is willing to send Ukraine is straightforward: weapons that can help Ukraine defend itself but that would not be useful in an invasion of Russia.​

If you’re confused about why anybody is talking about an invasion of Russia, don’t feel bad. The Biden administration and its European allies are in no way considering an invasion of Russia. The problem is that Putin does not believe that.​

He knows that the West wishes he were no longer Russia’s leader, and he knows that the U.S. has a recent history of fighting wars of regime change, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Putin puts these two facts together and worries about a military campaign to remove him from power.​

“It might ring crazy to you or me,” Max says, “but is seen within Moscow as highly plausible and is a point of obsession.”​

For this reason, the West has been sending weapons to Ukraine that are more useful for defense than offense. The list includes shoulder-fired missiles (like Javelins, NLAWs and Stingers) and drones that can shoot guided missiles at troops inside Ukraine but that lack the range to reach Russia. The U.S. and Europe are trying to send large numbers of these weapons to Ukraine before Russia takes over so much of the country that delivery becomes difficult, Eric Schmitt, a senior writer at The Times, says.​

And what it isn’t​ ​

By contrast, the Biden administration has firmly rejected requests from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Doing so would probably require bombing weapons systems inside Russia that help protect its planes while they are over Ukraine.​

The administration has also blocked Zelensky’s request for MiG-29 fighter planes from Poland that could help Ukraine attack Russian troops from the air. The planes would feed into Russian fears of an invasion because — as U.S. generals said during a closed-door session with Congress last week — they could reach Moscow from Ukraine within minutes.​

Still, the Biden administration is discussing one new idea: whether to encourage Turkey to send S-400 antiaircraft missile systems to Ukraine. The S-400 (which happens to be Russian-made) travels on the back of a truck and can shoot down planes. U.S. officials are unsure how Putin might react if Ukraine received them.​

Game theory looms over all of these questions.​

Putin, of course, has an interest in making the West believe that he would be angered by almost any substantive help to Ukraine. Doing so can help maintain Russia’s military advantage. The Biden administration, in turn, would be acting naïvely — and effectively abandoning Ukraine — by taking Putin at his word.​

On the other hand, confronting him so aggressively that he fears for his political life could set off a larger war. It could lead Putin to attack a NATO country on Ukraine’s border, like Poland, through which Western weapons are flowing to Ukraine.​

There are no easy answers. It is a dilemma out of the Cold War, in which both timidity and aggression carry risks. “Brinkmanship,” Schelling wrote, “is thus the deliberate creation of a recognizable risk of war, a risk that one does not completely control.”​

Checkpoints around northern Kyiv.Lynsey Addario for The New York Times State of the War​ ​ The war is reaching a stalemate in many places, as Russia suffers troop and equipment losses that will limit its ability to mount offensives. A stalemate does not necessarily mean peace; it may mean that the war will get bloodier as Russia tries to gain control. Russian forces escalated attacks on the strategic port city of Mariupol, including on an art school where hundreds of people were hiding. Ukraine rejected Russia’s demand that soldiers defending the city surrender at dawn today. Russian forces are deporting thousands of residents from Mariupol against their will to Russia, according to local officials. More on Ukraine​ ​ Zelensky, who is Jewish, asked Israeli leaders to do more to help Ukraine. “Our people are now wandering in the world, seeking security,” he said, “as you once did.” Wheat, corn and barley are trapped in Russia and Ukraine, threatening a global food shortage. Russian soldiers took an apartment complex hostage. It was caught on camera. With increasingly outlandish lies to justify Russia’s war, Putin has created an alternative reality. "

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Spare a thought for future generations of Ukrain
Thankfully this was only a training device but it gave quite a fright 80 years latter

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

 

[kenny]

Spare a thought for future generations of Ukrain
Thankfully this was only a training device but it gave quite a fright 80 years latter

Stuff

i.stuff.co.nz

WOW!

 

[Arkteia]

So, here. I traveled to NY, and as we were walking in the subway, my older son said he would not want to live in the world post-nuclear Holocaust. No such luck, said I, physics predicts that only cockroaches would survive. Then we joked about "hopefully, they'd evolve into someone smarter than humans". And then I suddenly come to realize, how surrealistic it feels, when the nuke aimed at me now belongs to the country I was born in and lived for almost half of my life.

It put me into a depressed state. Not to the degree I can't work or function, but unusual for me. I know that both of our communities here, Ukrainian and Russian, feel the same, although differently. I know people who went to Ukraine, to help, rather than feel this way here. I said to someone that I wake up and ask myself, what if it was a dream? - and to my surprise, found out that I am far from being alone.

I have left Russia too long to understand how people there think now. I think that all the polls do not reflect the reality, because polls depend on samplings, and how the samples are chosen is a huge question. I also suspect that people are horribly scared. Maybe they feel they are living in 1934? With 1937 rapidly advancing?

I have noticed how Ukrainians are feeling, but I don't feel i have the right to speak for them.

Anyhow, it is a horrible tragedy, what is happening, and I hope we avoid the nukes being involved, because, for the mankind, it doesn't matter where they are detonated, it depends how much of them is. Above 1% of the total nuclear arsenal of the world is blown up, and we enter "nuclear winter", and the life for us humans becomes impossible everywhere.

A good leader is the one who is able to balance the understanding of geopolitics with the feeling and care of own people. When a leader sees only the globe and the borders that need to be moved, it is not normal. Such a leader can't be expected to feel compassion to any nation, foreign or own.

 

[Arkteia]

​ A Schelling problem​

"

Since Vladimir Putin began threatening an invasion of Ukraine, the West has had to grapple with the grimmest of dilemmas: How to confront a nuclear power like Russia without risking a nuclear war.​

It is not a new dilemma, however. It inspired much of modern game theory, developed by academic theorists like Thomas Schelling and studied by generals and top government officials throughout the Cold War.​

The basic theory makes clear that it is possible to challenge another country with nuclear weapons. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and other American presidents have done so, threatening force against Soviet troops and, on a few occasions, even using it. Yet these confrontations are extremely sensitive, requiring careful measures to minimize the chances of escalation.​

The Biden administration and its European allies are following a version of this strategy in Ukraine. In addition to imposing tough economic sanctions against Russia, the coalition is arming Ukraine with weapons — while also cautiously signaling it has no plans to expand the conflict by invading Russia, as Putin seems to fear.​

“The balancing act informs every aspect of American policy about the war,” a recent Times analysis explained. As Andrea Kendall-Taylor of the Center for a New American Security says, President Biden and his aides “are trying to figure out how do you get right up to the line without crossing over in a way that would risk direct confrontation with Russia.”​

The balance involves vexing trade-offs in which almost any step that helps Ukraine defend itself also risks offending Putin.​

Some observers — including many conservatives, but not only them — believe that the U.S. and Western Europe have been too timid. (Bret Stephens, the Times columnist, has made this case.) Michael McFaul, a U.S. ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama, wrote in The Washington Post, “More Western military assistance, especially weapons that can shoot down Russian airplanes and rockets or destroy artillery, is immediately needed for ending the war.”​

Other analysts believe that the U.S. and Europe have been quite confrontational. They have levied harsh sanctions, provided Ukraine with weapons and massed troops in NATO countries near Russia’s borders. Going much further, these analysts say, could lead Putin to attack a NATO country, potentially sparking a world war.​

Already, a nuclear attack — while unlikely — has become more plausible than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, my colleague Max Fisher has written. “The prospect of nuclear war,” António Guterres, the U.N. secretary general, warned last week, “is now back within the realm of possibility.”​

(“To ignore it,” Thomas Friedman writes, “would be naïve in the extreme.”)​

Today’s newsletter lays out both sides of the issue: How else can the U.S., E.U., Britain, Turkey and others help Ukraine? And how can these countries signal to Putin that they are not seeking a larger war?​

​ A Ukrainian soldier in Kyiv last week.Gleb Garanich/Reuters​

​ What the U.S. is doing​

The guiding principle for which weapons the U.S. is willing to send Ukraine is straightforward: weapons that can help Ukraine defend itself but that would not be useful in an invasion of Russia.​

If you’re confused about why anybody is talking about an invasion of Russia, don’t feel bad. The Biden administration and its European allies are in no way considering an invasion of Russia. The problem is that Putin does not believe that.​

He knows that the West wishes he were no longer Russia’s leader, and he knows that the U.S. has a recent history of fighting wars of regime change, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Putin puts these two facts together and worries about a military campaign to remove him from power.​

“It might ring crazy to you or me,” Max says, “but is seen within Moscow as highly plausible and is a point of obsession.”​

For this reason, the West has been sending weapons to Ukraine that are more useful for defense than offense. The list includes shoulder-fired missiles (like Javelins, NLAWs and Stingers) and drones that can shoot guided missiles at troops inside Ukraine but that lack the range to reach Russia. The U.S. and Europe are trying to send large numbers of these weapons to Ukraine before Russia takes over so much of the country that delivery becomes difficult, Eric Schmitt, a senior writer at The Times, says.​

​ And what it isn’t​

By contrast, the Biden administration has firmly rejected requests from Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Doing so would probably require bombing weapons systems inside Russia that help protect its planes while they are over Ukraine.​

The administration has also blocked Zelensky’s request for MiG-29 fighter planes from Poland that could help Ukraine attack Russian troops from the air. The planes would feed into Russian fears of an invasion because — as U.S. generals said during a closed-door session with Congress last week — they could reach Moscow from Ukraine within minutes.​

Still, the Biden administration is discussing one new idea: whether to encourage Turkey to send S-400 antiaircraft missile systems to Ukraine. The S-400 (which happens to be Russian-made) travels on the back of a truck and can shoot down planes. U.S. officials are unsure how Putin might react if Ukraine received them.​

Game theory looms over all of these questions.​

Putin, of course, has an interest in making the West believe that he would be angered by almost any substantive help to Ukraine. Doing so can help maintain Russia’s military advantage. The Biden administration, in turn, would be acting naïvely — and effectively abandoning Ukraine — by taking Putin at his word.​

On the other hand, confronting him so aggressively that he fears for his political life could set off a larger war. It could lead Putin to attack a NATO country on Ukraine’s border, like Poland, through which Western weapons are flowing to Ukraine.​

There are no easy answers. It is a dilemma out of the Cold War, in which both timidity and aggression carry risks. “Brinkmanship,” Schelling wrote, “is thus the deliberate creation of a recognizable risk of war, a risk that one does not completely control.”​

​ Checkpoints around northern Kyiv.Lynsey Addario for The New York Times ​ ​ State of the War​ The war is reaching a stalemate in many places, as Russia suffers troop and equipment losses that will limit its ability to mount offensives. A stalemate does not necessarily mean peace; it may mean that the war will get bloodier as Russia tries to gain control. Russian forces escalated attacks on the strategic port city of Mariupol, including on an art school where hundreds of people were hiding. Ukraine rejected Russia’s demand that soldiers defending the city surrender at dawn today. Russian forces are deporting thousands of residents from Mariupol against their will to Russia, according to local officials. ​ More on Ukraine​ Zelensky, who is Jewish, asked Israeli leaders to do more to help Ukraine. “Our people are now wandering in the world, seeking security,” he said, “as you once did.” Wheat, corn and barley are trapped in Russia and Ukraine, threatening a global food shortage. Russian soldiers took an apartment complex hostage. It was caught on camera. With increasingly outlandish lies to justify Russia’s war, Putin has created an alternative reality. "

You know, Missy, I don't think Putin is afraid of a foreign military company to relieve him of power. It comes to a simpler point. Leaving Ukraine sends one message to Russian regions, that the center is weak. And then...Russia has eleven time zones. Take zones +10 + 11 + 12 ... the far East. It has own oil, it trades with China and South Korea, it has fish, access to the Pacific ocean. What happens once it realizes the center is so weak it could not take over a much smaller country?

(Stalin could not take over Finland and yet stayed in power. But in today's Russia, there are very rich people, it is a very different society. )

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

When the Berlin Wall fell, and Russian might was exposed after the fall, it showed Russia was not as strong as we feared, in fact we had over assessed her strength. I recall the US felt it was an error on the part of our intelligence services.

We can see the weakness now as well. However the man leading the war is not to be trusted I think it is a 40% chance this man might use Nuclear weapons if pushed to concede that he lost. His best bet and maybe ours is to let him take more land in the South, where he already took land in 2114.

Personally, I think that is what he is going for. What evil one man can do. One man can make a difference, for evil or good.

Annette

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Allegedly drones dopped chemical substances over Mariupol and more and more rapes are reported.

War crimes galore.

If there should surface evidence they use chemical weapons we'll have to talk about that no fly zone IMHO...