Ukraine

I don't have a clue if Biden was influencial in the West's quick and massive financial attack on Russia, or the substantial step up of armaments coming from Europe, but I'm very pleasantly shocked at seeing this unfold.  I incorrectly assumed that the US and Europe were going to talk tough and do little.

Nice job, ladies and gentlemen.

Since many of the sanctions imposed have been the direct result of the Biden administration's urging, I think, yes, you can say that Biden was influential. I also think that the bipartisan response to the first part of Biden's State of the Union speech shocked the world. You could have reliably expected the Republicans to stand up and boo, or at least sit there in stony silence, even if Biden had advocated for fluffy white bunnies, cotton candy, and rainbows. So the world was shown that whatever horrible partisan divides exist in the US, responding to a bully nation's naked aggression isn't subject to such divisions.

I think that that in turn reassured the EU nations that we wouldn't leave them holding the bag if they imposed sanctions--because one has to remember, those sanctions hurt them as well, and to a much greater extent than they hurt us. I suspect that NATO felt the same way that Putin did--that the invasion of Ukraine would send us into a whirl of partisan bickering and inaction. And let's face it--NATO, without the US to back it, can't stand up to Russia. They could hold out for a while, but not long.

There's yet another element in play. Poland in particular may not wait for NATO to get its shit together. No other nation on earth knows as intimately the existential danger of having the Russian bear next to you. If the bear should devour Ukraine, the Poles might expect to be next. The Baltic republics certainly have a similar fear already. So here's a possible scenario IMHO:

Russia is slowly grinding Ukraine down. Civilian casualties are piling up. Poland, even with the help of massive foreign aid, is feeling the strain of caring for over a million refugees. So they decide to send their army and air force, having reached the conclusion that waiting for NATO to do something militarily may be futile--or may take too long.

Poland's armed forces are roughly comparable to Ukraine's in size and firepower. Adding the two together would reduce the ratio of Russian offense to Ukranian/Polish defense from 5:1 to 5:2. And modern military doctrine says that given roughly equal technology between the two sides, an attacker needs a 3:1 superiority to succeed. So a Polish/Ukranian alliance could hold the assholes off, probably indefinitely with NATO and US weapons pouring in.

At that point, Putin just might figure out some pretext to declare victory (a la GW Bush) and get the hell out. We have to leave the carrot of rescinding the economic sanctions in place, but overall, we've been shown that no one can rely on Russia for anything. So, long run, we turn it into North Korea--an impoverished pariah nation.

Stop hallucinating, Kevin. Poland will not be entering a war against Russia, obviously bringing NATO in, and possibly triggering a nuclear confrontation. But please, I'd love to know where you got that irresponsible information. A link would be nice.

Or did you just put the wrong kind of mushrooms on your pizza?

It is very likely that Poland will be providing Ukraine with a bunch of MIGs. That's a whole different thing.

Oh, come ON. I only mentioned that as a possible scenario, not something I think is absolutely, positively going to happen. No need to pitch asshole insults. That's the job of the conservitards on this forum.

Maybe you don't know history. A belligerent, victorious Russia on Poland's border would be an existential threat to them, NATO or no NATO. Putin conquers Ukraine, then masses his forces on the Polish border and tells NATO that if they "interfere" with his coming "normalization" and "special military operation," he "will have no choice" but to use tactical nuclear weapons. Will NATO stand up to him and risk Armageddon to defend Poland? Don't bet on it. Bet on them buying a few more months of existence by appeasement.

The Poles know all too well what the Russians are like.

If there's one sickeningly common theme throughout human history, it's when you don't stand up to a bully, that bully isn't satisifed with just a single victory. The bully will go on, picking you off one by one, until you finally realize that you should have collectively stood up to him, at which point it might be too late.

We can sit here across the ocean and think, well, we're comparatively safe here, and we're sort of right. The free nations of Eastern Europe have no such illusions.

A direct assault on NATO would be WW3.   Putin is an asshole but he's not crazy or suicidal.   

It certainly brings perspective to the importance of NATO - and it makes those who wanted for us to withdraw from NATO suddenly seem crazy.   Good thing none of those types are in our executive branch at the moment.   

Well, to use an appropriate analogy, if Putin shoved all his chips into the center, would we call? I say maybe. Are we prepared to have our cities incinerated to save Europe? Maybe.

Also, Putin not being crazy isn't a given. What he's done so far has been so counterproductive and irrational, I don't think we can assume that he's going to act even in his own best interests, let alone Russia's or those of the rest of the world. The whole concept of mutual deterrence flies out the window if one or more of the players isn't a rational actor.

I'm actually starting to agree with Lindsey Graham on this one. And I never thought I'd be saying that.

Yeah, I get that you and Lindsey sometimes get over-emotional.

But targeting a non-combatant is a war crime. And attempting murder against Putin could start WWIII. And just the threat of the murder could be used as a pretext for some horrendous things.

I'm just grateful there are cooler heads in charge.

Calling Putin a "non-combatant" is really stretching the definition. He's already killed thousands of Ukrainians. It's not "over-emotional" (no hyphen actually needed) to react strongly to that.

What I don't think you're getting is that there's a crazy person in charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal. NOT getting rid of him could start WWIII. Appeals to logic won't work, and a directly military attack would probably fail. So maybe picking him off at a distance would be best. I'm sure we can make it look like Iran launched the attack, or something.

Again, I'm guided by history here. "Cooler heads" did nothing in 1938. We all know how well that worked out.

And certainly, we wouldn't announce our intentions--we wouldn't utter any threats. We'd just do it. And if you think that exact scenario hasn't been extensively gamed out, and there aren't any contingency plans to eliminate a crazy, murderous leader of a rogue nation--well, you haven't been paying attention.

Putin fell into the George Bush trap.  He assumed Ukrainians would be dancing in the Street over his unified Russia. No matter what happens he lost the war because when it was clear it wasn't going to be a cakewalk he destroyed the prize. Now he is looking at having to station a large occupation force there and then rebuild the entire country.

I just hope the world severs all commercial and diplomatic ties with Russia and keeps it that way, regardless of the outcome in Ukraine. We have to stop treating them like a responsible nation with a sane leader and pretending that they have a real democracy or are willing to play by the rules. They've been overtly hostile to the entire world for decades. Let's shun them once and for all.