Achieving Ukrainian victory while not getting into a nuclear war

Great Debates
1

I think most of us agree that

  1. we would like to see Ukraine win this war and
  2. we don’t want a nuclear war with Russia.

The trick is threading the needle. As it currently stands, it appears that the ongoing flow of men, supplies and weapons is not going to be sufficient to stave off eventual Ukrainian defeat (the definition of victory and defeat may be a bit murky in this war, but at a certain point, a Russian win is a win.) In other words, we may be doing fine as far as Objective 2# is concerned be we’re in danger of missing out on Objective 1#.

What more could we (US/NATO) do for Ukraine that we haven’t? Are there any weapons that we have yet to give? (We’re balking even at the donation of MiG-29s.) Is the pipeline of reinforcements too narrow? Are we dragging our feet on some things we could give?

2

While I agree, that in the best of all worlds, we would achieve both goals, if the cost of meeting goal # 1 is to fail goal # 2, it’s a choice that has to be made. And I think that the leaders of the US and NATO both see that -substantial- material aid being given to the Ukraine would fall under the heading of direct support - which would encourage Russia to step up it’s nuclear sabre rattling.

I think that’s the issue with the Polish jets - it would be (probably correctly) seen as a direct involvement in the war by Russia, far more than the more limited man-portable weapons. Do I think it would lead to a straight-up nuclear exchange? No, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a ‘demonstration’ made, possibly up to and including a tactical level nuclear device somewhere in Ukraine. A “look at what you made us do” moment from Russia, with heavy mentions of what happens the next time such an intervention takes place.

So, back to the what else should we do? I’d say, put more pressure on China and other powers that haven’t agreed to non-military sanctions yet. I understand that the US doesn’t want to further compromise relations with China, but now might be a time to suggest ‘unofficially’ that the US is considering a resolution, in light of China’s lack of concern about break-away territories, that we might move towards a formal recognition of Taiwan.

YES, that would be dangerous as well, don’t get me wrong, which is why it’s a unofficial suggestion. The standard realpolitik playing out, in that if you want to preserve the current status quo, then they need to help preserve it as well.

A second point, and yes, another one that makes me feel dirty, is to fast-track the Iran Nuclear treaty - I’m sure Iran would be happy to be able to sell oil at the current prices, and it’ll relieve NATO/US costs for oil, while simultaneously limiting Russia’s non-military threat and ability to fund itself.

Will any of this ‘save’ the Ukraine? No, but ideally, if Russia wins, but is economically crippled, the Ukraine (or most of it) can be recovered at the diplomatic table. To keep Russia from going nuclear, I strongly suspect that the break-away territories will be lost, and any new Ukraine state will be de-militarized as well as being bound by treaty to stay out of the EU and NATO. But that may be the best compromise we can hope for - Putin gets to say he won, and the Ukraine gets to continue to exist in part.

3

China really was the deciding factor. If the world’s three largest economies (China, US and EU) had stood solid against him, Putin may well have balked.

But China weighed its options and stayed out, figuring its Winter Olympics was ample demonstration that it’a a big player on the world stage. If they had bullied the bully Putin, it would have made it more possible to put forward a timetable for Taiwanese reunification. But of course they already blew that with Hong Kong and Xinjiang. It’s just human nature to prioritize ones authority over ones own prosperity.

4

As all parties are well aware, Soviet pilots covertly fought against US forces in Korea and Vietnam.

For us to say that now NATO can’t send a few covert “advisers” into Ukraine – and not even provide planes – seems to me to be excessively restrained.

NATO is not going to engage in open combat against Russian forces or attack Russian territory.

And in any case, if Putin wants to start a nuclear war in order not to lose in Ukraine, then he’ll find a reason, and we won’t be able to stop him by citing any “rules.”

5

We are the Good Guys. When the first American is captured, Russia can say they are at war with NATO.

6

Why do we HAVE to make a choice for nuclear war? Exactly what is the point of that?

7

It is my understanding that there may already be or at least will be American volunteers heading to Ukraine to help fight Russians as well as foreign nationals from other nations. I think Russian has even called upon Syria volunteers to help their side in urban warfare. If one of the volunteers is captured then it doesn’t necessarily mean war with whatever country the volunteer was from. I don’t know the number of Americans pilots who can fly Russian made MiGs but that might be something worth looking into. They would have to be stripped of all military regalia designating them as American servicemen men of course, maybe even making a “fake” discharge record for the servicemen but it would give the U.S. plausible deniability. I mean if the Russians did it to us in Korea without escalation then we have a precedent to return the favor. NATO would just have to keep the secret for 40-50 years.

8

If there is one thing history has taught us it is that Russia wins in the long run. They are so big and so willing to keep tossing bodies at a problem that they tend to slowly overwhelm whatever military problem they have (I know there are exceptions but those exceptions the Russians never really bent all their will to winning).

The question is their resolve. Now, with a lot of oligarchs who like traveling and chilling in Monaco and London as well as a population that likes Big Macs and PlayStations can Putin force the country to suck it up and just keep banging away?

Then, is Putin the kind of person who can back down from a bad decision if he finds he cannot keep forcing the country to do whatever he wants?

My guess is Putin is not a person who will suffer defeat of any sort. That makes his nuclear threat more frightening because he might well go there.

9

Tell that to the East Germans, the Poles, the Finns, the Estonians… you get the gist.

People got the wrong lesson from WWII, which wasn’t “don’t fight Russia” - it was that a wealthy country arming and supplying a different people willing to throw themselves into the grinder works very well.

10

Did the Russians ever really lean into those?

11

You mean the ones they completely occupied and ran, or Finland?

12

Occupied and “ran” when the Soviet Union collapsed?

Or the Finns who negotiated a peace and gave concessions even though they did quite well?

13

So, using a Sheen-like definition of “winning”, I take it?

14

Did Russia go to war with Poland or East Germans or Estonia?

15

Are you making some cute USSR =/= Russia distinction, here? In which case, sure, you win :roll_eyes:

Otherwise, yes, yes and yes.

16

Russia lost in World War I, which is only the second biggest war in human history.

17

I’m not even sure of your point. Did the USSR fight Poland and Estonia and East Germans and lost and ran?

I mean, East Germany didn’t even become East Germany until the Soviets defeated Germany and magicked East Germany into existence.

18

“In the long run”, yes, that’s exactly what happened.

Was it not a part of Germany that they occupied? And then they … ran from it.

19

I think we could do more wrt getting them more weapons. Sure, this is pushing Putin’s buttons, and I think it was that more than anything that seems to have killed the deal to transfer Polish fighters to Ukraine. We need to get past that. If Ukraine is going to have to do this themselves, we need to give them all the tools we can. This would also encompass loans or outright giving them funding as well. We also need to keep the pressure upon the sanctions, and we need to start looking at whether secondary sanctions might be applied to try and get some of the very large fence-sitting countries to pick aside.

None of this will be easy, all of it will cause pain to the world’s economy. We need to accept that this is the case. Putin decided to do this little adventure, so this is on him and Russia alone, though the pain will be shared by all of us. We need to stay focused on what the cause of this pain was, however, and who decided to take the world down this path…all the while threading the needle wrt bringing NATO and the west into a direct conflict, and the ramifications of that.

Probably not different weapons, but more of the same we’ve been giving them, which seem to have helped quite a lot.

We need to get past stuff like this and work it out. These Migs would have been perfect for the Ukrainians, so we need to work through the issues and the anxiety of those who are putting the brakes on and get Ukraine the weapons they need to fight for themselves. It’s the least we can do since they are pretty much all on their own wrt the actual fighting…and dying…part.

20

I would be absolutely unsurprised that the call for foreign volunteers that went out a while ago saw some unit wide resignations from various special operations groups (especially ones that focus on training foreign militaries).