I’m very concerned that the worse this war goes for Putin, the worse it will get for Ukranians. There is no way Putin will suffer a perceived humiliating defeat, so if he thinks he can’t take Kyiv block by block, he’ll resort to indiscriminate shelling and claim every citizen to be an enemy combatant (citing ubiquity of Molotov cocktails for one).
Congress has already been briefed that this war will likely go on for 10-20 years. I have a really hard time just sitting here on the sidelines watching innocents get slaughtered. It just seems morally wrong. I’m thinking we can end this war a lot sooner AND give Putin a face-saving out by committing US and or NATO military to some degree (probably just air support).
We can claim that the inordinate killing of civilians (should that materialize) morally compels us to keep the security assurances promised by the Budapest Memorandum (even though they were vague). We give Putin a certain amount of time to withdraw forces at which time we will support Ukraine with direct military action. We also promise that our forces will not enter Russian territory (our version of course). It would be a lot easier for Putin to save face at peace negotiations if US or, ideally, all of NATO, has joined the fight. Losing to Ukraine is humiliating; but all of Europe and US --not so much.
Now the obvious obstacle is the question of Putin’s mental state and his threat of nuclear weapons. I don’t think he’s so far gone that he’ll let nukes fly as long as we don’t enter Russia proper. Maybe we could even throw him the LPR and DPR as a bone.
Now being wrong on that calculus has potentially disastrous consequences, but I think it’s worth it to call his bluff. We can’t let anyone with nukes dictate what territory they’re gonna annex. We could be saving a lot of Ukrainian and Russian lives as well as let Russia and China know that nukes aren’t a deterrent to limited warfare. I’m no general, armchair or otherwise so I’d love to hear from the militarily-inclined as to the feasibility/advisability and from everyone regarding whether you support some military intervention.
I think this would potentially be an extremely bad idea. Once NATO or the EU jump in on the side of Ukraine, what’s to stop more countries from jumping in on the other side? And once other countries are involved, their territory becomes fair game as well. This is how the last two world wars started.
The UN could theoretically intervene but of course Russia currently still has veto power. US, NATO and EU could continue to provide weaponry and other aid to Ukraine. We can continue to impose sanctions. All those things are likely to help.
But there is no scenario in which expanding the number of combatant nations makes things better.
Yes I would be fully supportive. However, I would hope that it comes solely in the form of airpower alone. Committing any form of ground forces would be exposing NATO/US to casualties.
IMHO, if the United States were to use as surgical an approach as possible - intervene just barely enough to tilt the tide of war in Ukraine’s favor, but no more - that might not cross the threshold for Russia to go nuclear or escalate big time. Something like, for instance, just a single CBU-105 bombing run over the Russian convoy near Kyiv.
People who say “If the US intervenes on Ukraine’s behalf, it means global nuclear holocaust” never say, “If the US intervenes if a NATO ally is attacked, it means global nuclear holocaust.” On the contrary, such people usually always say that NATO must intervene if a member is attacked, no matter what - and usually assume such a war will stay conventional.
So if Russia wouldn’t go nuclear if NATO acted to protect one of its own, why would Russia go nuclear if NATO or America acts to protect a nation that’s not one of its own?
I’m not saying these are necessarily your views, I’m just saying this is something I’ve seen repeatedly and it baffles me.
Russia knows that there will be retaliation from NATO if it attacks a NATO member, so it hasn’t done so. Ukraine is not a NATO member, so it had no reason to believe NATO would step in. NATO stepping in would be a serious escalation.
I don’t think people assume that. I think people assume* that Putin wouldn’t attack a NATO country to begin with. Nuclear powers don’t directly attack other nuclear powers.** MAD never went away.
*assumptions about Putin are of course less reliable with each passing day
**Anyone know if this has ever happened?
MAD doesn’t imply that if two nuclear countries go to war, they will both be obliterated. It implies that if one launches strategic nukes, so will the other. Hell, even people in street fights know that picking up a glass bottle is a whole new ball game and so most people don’t do it. For a rational actor, nukes would only be viable when your very existence is in doubt. That, of course, leaves you to determining who is a rational actor. But you can’t let anyone with nukes just decide what territory they want.
This pretty much the way I see it. Defending a NATO ally is a vital interest worth fighting for. Defending a neutral non-ally is not.
We should do what we’re doing; condemn Russia for its acts, impose sanctions against Russia, and offer logistic support to Ukraine. But this is not a situation where we should be sending troops in. Ukraine is not a cause worth fighting a war with Russia.
In general, the best help would come from countries that people would NOT implicitly assume to be US flunkies.
Germany, for example, probably has fairly good standing to go in there. The UK, maybe not so much.
That said, if the UN has officially declared everyone to be a war criminal where they stand, one potential weapon is simply to fly over with a bullhorn and make their legal condition absolutely and unambiguously clear to them, as well as the situation back in Russia. Make them aware that they’ve already lost and their mission from here is to start digging themselves out of the hole, not to try and keep claiming more territory.
The West needs to move from thinking of this as a war that is still being fought to a war that has already been lost. The soldiers in the field need to understand that
Ain’t no one coming back to a greater, happier, nor more glorious Russia. The options on the table are getting sent back to live in New North Korea or going back to live in New North Korea with the memories of all the people you murdered.
If that’s not a loss, I don’t know what is.
It is only digging yourself out of the hole at this stage. How far under you want to start from is the choice being made.
Serious question - Does “no boots on the ground” include “no drones/missles in the air, no ships in the water/planes in the air”? It really is appealing to send rockets to destroy that convoy, but I realize that would be interpreted as a MAJOR escalation - which we likely would not want.
Question 2 - does Ukraine have mutual defense treaties with any other individual nations?