NATO has already said what it would do. Nothing.
Various western countries (mostly in NATO) have however listed a number of sanctions which will be enacted the moment a single Russian toe cap crosses the Ukrainian border.
If NATO arms the Ukrainians to the teeth and stands back (as it is doing), we can give Putin a black eye by proxy – and he cannot respond to us in kind. All upside, no downside for the West.
If NATO fights the Russians directly, in Ukraine or (God forbid) Russia, there is serious risk of a wider war, even a nuclear war, breaking out. Not worth risking. Too dangerous to even contemplate.
I apologize that I have not been studying this, but have we armed Ukraine in a manner that will make much/any difference? What specific sorts of arms will be effective against a significant Russian incursion?
Is there reason to expect that Ukrainians will use their weapons more efficiently than - say - the Afghan army?
I’m no expert either, but the US sent Ukraine hundreds of anti-tank missiles. They won’t stop a Russian invasion, but they could make it more costly.
As De Gaulle said when the Soviets occupied Eastern Europe, swallowing these countries is easy, but digesting them is much harder. The West hopes that Ukrainian partisans can make the Russian occupation a very difficult one.
The Afghan army, as I understand it, had few trained or even literate fighters, was highly unmotivated, and was easily corrupted. No comparison with the Ukrainians.
The Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe went pretty smoothly, to be honest. The flareups in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were swiftly contained. There was, otherwise, no significant resistance at all.
There has been no local resistance in Crimea I am aware of.
I’d agree with that. But the functional implementation of doing that is still land grabbing, in this instance.
You know what? I think the fool is going to do it.
The thing about missiles is that you never be sure who launched them, or where they were launched from. The U.S. might give the Ukrainians some missiles; it also might shoot some missiles itself and let the world assume the Ukrainians did it. You never know.
The missiles in question are Javelin ATGMs which have a range of 4,000 meters. The UK has also sent NLAWs which have a range of 600 meters. These aren’t long range cruise missiles; there is no upside to US troops firing them rather than Ukrainian troops and incredibly huge downsides should a living or dead body wearing a US uniform be found by invading Russians. There’s also no upside to the US firing cruise missiles or such into a conflict either, as it would be abundantly clear who fired them as the Ukraine doesn’t own any US designed cruise missiles.
Anti-tank missiles are generally infantry and light armor weapons. These aren’t things you can use with your own troops without having them at the front lines.
LOL. He isn’t able to respond like for like. He has plenty of ways to respond generally. For instance, most of the “West” is suffering from internal unrest right now. You have all seen the truckers who blocked the bridge at the US Canada border. The protests in France? The FSB could start manipulating them so these protests occur more often and more violently.
Sanctions, support to Ukraine, and probably covert action. Nobody in NATO would attack Russia directly over that.
He will take it up to eleven.It won’t be Twitter trolls, and protestors. It will be violent protestors.
Javelin missiles by us, violent protestors by him. I’m ok with that trade.
No need for the scare quotes - I’m certain the Russians lurk outside US territory just as much as the US lurks outside their territory.
It will make some difference, although if Russia is truly determined to invade and is willing to pay the cost of doing so (which might be steep) it will be a delay of the inevitable.
Actually, yes - because Ukraine is a different nation than Afghanistan, and this would be an existential threat to the nation. Whether the US-backed group or the Taliban are in charge of Afghanistan it would still be Afghanistan. In this case, though, if the Russians take over Ukraine ceases to be a nation and they will be subservient vassals in their own homes. In addition, Ukraine is not a bunch of loosely-connected warlords, they’re a fully modern state in their own right with a sense of national, rather than tribal/local, identity.
Crimea had a hefty portion of Russia-identifying people in it. What resistance there was was rapidly and decisively suppressed.
What do you mean start? There is already (apparently) considerable evidence foreign parties are stirring the pot for the Canadian convoys, and likewise trying to stir trouble up on the US side as well. Putin & Co. have already been doing the social media manipulation thing for years.
Not to mention international hacking. Lots of that comes from Eastern Europe and the Russians shelter the yahoos doing it.
If Putin is genuinely taking this seriously, and chooses to go ahead with a real-deal full-scale invasion, then the first thing that happens is the Russian air force carpet-bombs every base and building and forward position where the imported materiel has been or is likely to be stashed and/or deployed, with the aim of eliminating as much of it as possible before it can even be used against the ground troops that will follow.
This is not a Lebensraum type of op for Russia, not a need for more acreage. Retaking Ukraine is seen as a matter of national pride for some, like retaking the Alamo. These people are a slim minority, but Putin happens to be one of them. He’s an authoritarian who needs to look strong, so he’s decided to prove this by retaking their “Alamo.”
That’s why all the negotiations have been unserious and unproductive. Of course the invasion threat does give Putin some leverage to extort concessions, and he’d be a fool not to test how much he could get. But he was always going to invade, absent total capitulation to his demands. And he hasn’t gotten any capitulation AFAIK.
This whole showdown has proven to be a bad idea for Putin. A typical leader would back down, but a dictator like Putin really needs to look strong. He’s made a huge financial and reputational outlay on this, so he’ll follow through to the detriment of his country. Nobody is going to win from this.
OK, so maybe I misspoke. China will profit from this. But they won’t get involved. They don’t need to. They see it (correctly) as an ultimately unimportant regional affair for Eastern Europe. They know Russia will suffer crippling sanctions, to China’s benefit. They know the West will eat the embarrassment of losing Ukraine, to China’s benefit. They know Russia will suffer in military readiness for this, to China’s benefit. They have their own problems, they specialize in the long game, they’re not into risky Pearl Harbor-style dramatics. They will bank these profits and reinvest them for later, perhaps much later.
I am reading a book on disinformation, frankly I think everything I read now is false. Nonetheless, reports indicate the insurance companies are closing the airspace over Ukraine to civil traffic.