Could this be the beginning of Ukraine being a Nato protectorate like Kosovo?

[bendog]

Democrats worry Zelensky offered GOP key talking point

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to members of Congress on Wednesday and pointedly highlighted President Biden’s role in helping to stop the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, so…

thehill.com

MSN

If the stalemate becomes permanent, with Russia attacking civilian targets and Ukraine killing any target that presents itself to drone, artillery, anti tank missile or rifle .... is there any other logical outcome?

And would Putin dare to actually withdraw with nothing beyone a promise Ukraine will not join nato?

What happens if he resorts to chemical weapons?

 

[jwoodie]

Incoherent.

 

[White 6]

Democrats worry Zelensky offered GOP key talking point

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to members of Congress on Wednesday and pointedly highlighted President Biden’s role in helping to stop the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, so…

thehill.com

MSN

If the stalemate becomes permanent, with Russia attacking civilian targets and Ukraine killing any target that presents itself to drone, artillery, anti tank missile or rifle .... is there any other logical outcome?

And would Putin dare to actually withdraw with nothing beyone a promise Ukraine will not join nato?

What happens if he resorts to chemical weapons?

What if, what if, what if. BS. Biden is playing this just right and is doing the right thing, in the way he has asserted leadership on the situation. I may not like some of his domestic leadership or lack there of, but I'll go with Joe on this one, with no qualms.

 

[kyzr]

What if, what if, what if. BS. Biden is playing this just right and is doing the right thing, in the way he has asserted leadership on the situation. I may not like some of his domestic leadership or lack there of, but I'll go with Joe on this one, with no qualms.

Which is what? How is Biden playing this just right?
1. I like that NATO is unified
2. I'm not seeing NATO telling Putin WTF happens if this or that. Like what if NATO said Putiboy, you're either out of Ukraine by ______ or we give Zelensky the MIG-29s and double sanctions ban you from SWIFT, etc.
3. What if NATO tells Xi that if he helps Putiboy in ANY way this is what happens
4. Biden is NOT leading NATO when we need someone to lead NATO, or NATO to vote on actions as an entity.

Biden is not using the clout of NATO plus Japan and Switzerland.
Approve Sweden & Finland into NATO ASAP, etc.
Turn the screws on full blast.

 

[para bellum]

Once again, the real worry for dems is how they appear domestically. The warmongering will ramp up.

I know Poland feels the heat, but putting NATO forces in Ukraine or NATO pilots in the skies would play right into Putin's hands. He's losing- you don't want to validate his excuse for invading now.

Ukraine doesn't need NATO "peacekeepers" and they sure don't need NATO aircraft. They need surface-to-air, anti-tank, ammunition, and crypto.

The bulk of Ukraine's army is still facing off in the east, and they're at risk of being encircled. They might have to give up some ground. If Putin encircles them, he can claim to have achieved his goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, and he can hold his position in Donetsk and Luhansk.

What he's not going to get is the guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality.

This has been much more costly than Putin expected and exposed a lot of weaknesses in Russian capabilities. They have no joint operations capability at all. They have to stop their air defenses to do a strike mission for fear of shooting down their own planes. So they have no close-air support and their ground forces and supply lines are vulnerable to hit-and-run attacks. Their crypto doesn't work in Ukraine so their comms are in the clear, and they can't use their EW because it would shut down their own comms at the same time. It might have been all three, but for sure that last General that was killed was tracked by his cell phone.

We were over-rating Russia based on what we saw in Syria, but we see now that they can't do the same thing at scale.

We should keep giving Ukraine the weapons they know how to use and have been successful with, and let them bleed Putin. The International response has been overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine, and the sanctions will cut deep. Even Xi is starting to hedge. Some very large Chinese companies are honoring the sanctions, and Xi has hinted at financial support to Ukraine.

Putting NATO in the middle of this also breaks up that International unity, another reason the US and NATO need to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.

 

[kyzr]

If the stalemate becomes permanent, with Russia attacking civilian targets and Ukraine killing any target that presents itself to drone, artillery, anti tank missile or rifle .... is there any other logical outcome?
And would Putin dare to actually withdraw with nothing beyone a promise Ukraine will not join nato?
What happens if he resorts to chemical weapons?

1. There won't be a stalemate. Russia is getting weaker and Ukraine is getting stronger, especially if NATO cranks up the heat.
2. The logical outcome is for Putin to save face by some diplomatic agreement.
3. Who knows what Putin would agree to, especially with his army in tatters, and his economy non-existent.
4. NATO needs to tell Putin what happens if he uses chemical weapons. Maybe a "no fly zone" plus NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine guaranteeing their security?

 

[kyzr]

Once again, the real worry for dems is how they appear domestically. The warmongering will ramp up.

I know Poland feels the heat, but putting NATO forces in Ukraine or NATO pilots in the skies would play right into Putin's hands. He's losing- you don't want to validate his excuse for invading now.

Ukraine doesn't need NATO "peacekeepers" and they sure don't need NATO aircraft. They need surface-to-air, anti-tank, ammunition, and crypto.

The bulk of Ukraine's army is still facing off in the east, and they're at risk of being encircled. They might have to give up some ground. If Putin encircles them, he can claim to have achieved his goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, and he can hold his position in Donetsk and Luhansk.

What he's not going to get is the guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality.

This has been much more costly than Putin expected and exposed a lot of weaknesses in Russian capabilities. They have no joint operations capability at all. They have to stop their air defenses to do a strike mission for fear of shooting down their own planes. So they have no close-air support and their ground forces and supply lines are vulnerable to hit-and-run attacks. Their crypto doesn't work in Ukraine so their comms are in the clear, and they can't use their EW because it would shut down their own comms at the same time. It might have been all three, but for sure that last General that was killed was tracked by his cell phone.

We were over-rating Russia based on what we saw in Syria, but we see now that they can't do the same thing at scale.

We should keep giving Ukraine the weapons they know how to use and have been successful with, and let them bleed Putin. The International response has been overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine, and the sanctions will cut deep. Even Xi is starting to hedge. Some very large Chinese companies are honoring the sanctions, and Xi has hinted at financial support to Ukraine.

Putting NATO in the middle of this also breaks up that International unity, another reason the US and NATO need to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.

Your last point needs to say as long as Putin doesn't use chemical or nuclear weapons. Otherwise the "no fly zone" and NATO forces will protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

 

[White 6]

Which is what? How is Biden playing this just right?
1. I like that NATO is unified
2. I'm not seeing NATO telling Putin WTF happens if this or that. Like what if NATO said Putiboy, you're either out of Ukraine by ______ or we give Zelensky the MIG-29s and double sanctions ban you from SWIFT, etc.
3. What if NATO tells Xi that if he helps Putiboy in ANY way this is what happens
4. Biden is NOT leading NATO when we need someone to lead NATO, or NATO to vote on actions as an entity.

Biden is not using the clout of NATO plus Japan and Switzerland.
Approve Sweden & Finland into NATO ASAP, etc.
Turn the screws on full blast.

You want NATO to threaten Putin to raise the stakes?
You want NATO to threaten China, to raise the stakes in that international theater?
NATO wasn't this united, even back in the Reagan days, and you know it.
I trust his judgment on this far more you the right wing morons on here, and so does the rest of the world.

 

[bendog]

Once again, the real worry for dems is how they appear domestically. The warmongering will ramp up.

I know Poland feels the heat, but putting NATO forces in Ukraine or NATO pilots in the skies would play right into Putin's hands. He's losing- you don't want to validate his excuse for invading now.

Ukraine doesn't need NATO "peacekeepers" and they sure don't need NATO aircraft. They need surface-to-air, anti-tank, ammunition, and crypto.

The bulk of Ukraine's army is still facing off in the east, and they're at risk of being encircled. They might have to give up some ground. If Putin encircles them, he can claim to have achieved his goal of demilitarizing Ukraine, and he can hold his position in Donetsk and Luhansk.

What he's not going to get is the guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality.

This has been much more costly than Putin expected and exposed a lot of weaknesses in Russian capabilities. They have no joint operations capability at all. They have to stop their air defenses to do a strike mission for fear of shooting down their own planes. So they have no close-air support and their ground forces and supply lines are vulnerable to hit-and-run attacks. Their crypto doesn't work in Ukraine so their comms are in the clear, and they can't use their EW because it would shut down their own comms at the same time. It might have been all three, but for sure that last General that was killed was tracked by his cell phone.

We were over-rating Russia based on what we saw in Syria, but we see now that they can't do the same thing at scale.

We should keep giving Ukraine the weapons they know how to use and have been successful with, and let them bleed Putin. The International response has been overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine, and the sanctions will cut deep. Even Xi is starting to hedge. Some very large Chinese companies are honoring the sanctions, and Xi has hinted at financial support to Ukraine.

Putting NATO in the middle of this also breaks up that International unity, another reason the US and NATO need to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.

It's actually gopers who are accusing biden of timidity. But the point of the thread wasn't dems-vs-gopers. I'm sure that if mitt were potus the dems would be criticizing him.

 

[para bellum]

Your last point needs to say as long as Putin doesn't use chemical or nuclear weapons. Otherwise the "no fly zone" and NATO forces will protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

Yes, that would change things- however putting NATO into Ukraine right now would increase that risk, not decrease it. Direct confrontation with NATO gives Putin domestic cover to claim an existential threat to Russia.

Russians know Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia. It is much more difficult for Putin to use those weapons in a Ukraine without a NATO presence.

 

[bendog]

1. There won't be a stalemate. Russia is getting weaker and Ukraine is getting stronger, especially if NATO cranks up the heat.
2. The logical outcome is for Putin to save face by some diplomatic agreement.
3. Who knows what Putin would agree to, especially with his army in tatters, and his economy non-existent.
4. NATO needs to tell Putin what happens if he uses chemical weapons. Maybe a "no fly zone" plus NATO peacekeepers in Ukraine guaranteeing their security?

I think there will be a stalemate unless Nato does turnup the "heat." China could allow Putin to carry on indefinitely by propping up the econ, too. That's worst case, imo.

But I agree that a policitical solution for Putin to agree to something would be the best outcome, at least in terms of dead childen. One of my reasons for starting the thread was to ask .... what could that agreement look like? I don't see Ukraine ceding any territory. They wouln't three weeks ago, and now they're winning I really can't see it. So, I don't see an outcome for Putin.

3 weeks ago, I think Putin could have had his leases in Crimea just for what Ukraine owes russia, and some partition in donask with a Russia/Nato peacekeeping effort. And Ukraine as a non alligned free trading country, with guranteed borders. But Putin's end game was regime change. How can Putin have an out? He's trying to cement his legacy

 

[Sunni Man]

The Ukrainian insurgents don't stand a chance of winning the war.
Putin will double down and do whatever it takes to win the war.

 

[ESay]

Yes, that would change things- however putting NATO into Ukraine right now would increase that risk, not decrease it. Direct confrontation with NATO gives Putin domestic cover to claim an existential threat to Russia.

Russians know Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia. It is much more difficult for Putin to use those weapons in a Ukraine without a NATO presence.

You don't take into account one thing. Putin doesn't need any domestic cover to use any weapons possible to crush Ukraine. Ask any Russian or read Russian forum, and you find out that they believe that Russia is already at war with the West.

 

[para bellum]

You don't take into account one thing. Putin doesn't need any domestic cover to use any weapons possible to crush Ukraine. Ask any Russian or read Russian forum, and you find out that they believe that Russia is already at war with the West.

I could pontificate on this subject a long time, I'll try not to do that.

I'm not making predictions of Putin's next move. He has miscalculated at every level. What I was saying in March was that a NATO presence makes it easier to use those weapons (wmd's). It would validate his rationale for the invasion.

Russia for the most part follows it's treaty obligations as it applies to weapons. Using chemical weapons would be a big escalation, and it would be an admission that Russia has been violating her treaty obligations under the International Convention on Chemical Weapons and the Geneva Convention.

Russia could use chemical weapons in a false flag operation. Release a small amount of something and blame Ukraine or NATO. Then use that as a justification for an escalation. That, imo is the greater risk.

Chemical weapons are used against civilian populations, and Russia already has plenty of conventional weapons that are good for that purpose. Putin can inflict mass casualties on civilians without using chemical weapons and dealing with the additional backlash that would invoke.

I do try to pay attention to the Russian state media narrative. The demonization of Ukraine and NATO has stepped up a lot in the past month. It doesn't surprise me that it's reflected (and amplified) in Russian social media.

The underlying current is that "we want this to be over". The frustration over the RF's inability to prosecute the war is pushing some people to the "win at any cost" mindset.

At the same time, Putin is finding out that it's very hard to get people willing to go in and actually fight, and a general mobilization will not be popular.

So a month later, I still stand by my comment- a NATO force presence in Ukraine would increase the risk that Russia will escalate, not decrease it. But I also think Putin is willing to escalate either way, and that's why the narrative has shifted from "special military operation" to "Russia is being attacked".

(* sorry, this was longer than I intended...)

 

[kyzr]

You want NATO to threaten Putin to raise the stakes?
You want NATO to threaten China, to raise the stakes in that international theater?
NATO wasn't this united, even back in the Reagan days, and you know it.
I trust his judgment on this far more you the right wing morons on here, and so does the rest of the world.

1. Yes I want NATO to raise the stakes. Putin's Ukraine disaster has gone on too long already.
2. Yes I want NATO, including Switzerland, Japan, Sweden, and Finland, to tell China to back the fuck off
3. NATO as a defensive unit, needed a real invasion by a real dictator to prove it is a very necessary alliance.
4. To quote Obama; "never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up"

 

[kyzr]

Yes, that would change things- however putting NATO into Ukraine right now would increase that risk, not decrease it. Direct confrontation with NATO gives Putin domestic cover to claim an existential threat to Russia.
Russians know Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia. It is much more difficult for Putin to use those weapons in a Ukraine without a NATO presence.

1. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons with the understanding outlined in the Budapest Memorandum, i.e. the US, France, et.al. would protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. If Putin wants a direct confrontation with NATO that's his decision. Bad idea.

3. We disagree. The Budapest Memorandum, which Russia signed, gives NATO cover to protect Ukraine and end the war.

 

[kyzr]

I think there will be a stalemate unless Nato does turn up the "heat." China could allow Putin to carry on indefinitely by propping up the econ, too. That's worst case, imo.
But I agree that a political solution for Putin to agree to something would be the best outcome, at least in terms of dead children. One of my reasons for starting the thread was to ask .... what could that agreement look like? I don't see Ukraine ceding any territory. They wouldn't three weeks ago, and now they're winning I really can't see it. So, I don't see an outcome for Putin.
3 weeks ago, I think Putin could have had his leases in Crimea just for what Ukraine owes Russia, and some partition in Donask with a Russia/Nato peacekeeping effort. And Ukraine as a non alligned free trading country, with guranteed borders. But Putin's end game was regime change. How can Putin have an out? He's trying to cement his legacy

1. If China supports Putin's war that would be a very good time for the "united" west to start cutting back business with China. That also shows China that invading Taiwan would be a very bad idea.

2. What could the peace agreement look like? How about the Ukraine border goes back to where it was before Putin invaded, and the war is over, with NATO guaranteeing Ukraine's border and that no nuclear weapons would be allowed in Ukraine, similar to the Budapest Memorandum? Or, better yet, a formal treaty signed by all governments instead of an informal "Budapest Agreement" to those terms.

3. Putin doesn't get a political "off ramp", it was his stupidity that started the mess. His out is his fancy yacht and a few billion Rubles.

 

[kyzr]

The Ukrainian insurgents don't stand a chance of winning the war.
Putin will double down and do whatever it takes to win the war.

I'll take that bet.
NATO won't let Putin win his war of aggression, that is NATO's only purpose, and Putin's resources are limited and shrinking.

 

[ESay]

I could pontificate on this subject a long time, I'll try not to do that.

I'm not making predictions of Putin's next move. He has miscalculated at every level. What I was saying in March was that a NATO presence makes it easier to use those weapons (wmd's). It would validate his rationale for the invasion.

Russia for the most part follows it's treaty obligations as it applies to weapons. Using chemical weapons would be a big escalation, and it would be an admission that Russia has been violating her treaty obligations under the International Convention on Chemical Weapons and the Geneva Convention.

Russia could use chemical weapons in a false flag operation. Release a small amount of something and blame Ukraine or NATO. Then use that as a justification for an escalation. That, imo is the greater risk.

Chemical weapons are used against civilian populations, and Russia already has plenty of conventional weapons that are good for that purpose. Putin can inflict mass casualties on civilians without using chemical weapons and dealing with the additional backlash that would invoke.

I do try to pay attention to the Russian state media narrative. The demonization of Ukraine and NATO has stepped up a lot in the past month. It doesn't surprise me that it's reflected (and amplified) in Russian social media.

The underlying current is that "we want this to be over". The frustration over the RF's inability to prosecute the war is pushing some people to the "win at any cost" mindset.

At the same time, Putin is finding out that it's very hard to get people willing to go in and actually fight, and a general mobilization will not be popular.

So a month later, I still stand by my comment- a NATO force presence in Ukraine would increase the risk that Russia will escalate, not decrease it. But I also think Putin is willing to escalate either way, and that's why the narrative has shifted from "special military operation" to "Russia is being attacked".

(* sorry, this was longer than I intended...)

I think much will depend on the results of a planned push in the Donbas. There are various reports that Moscow plans a big offensive there and encircling of Ukrainian troops.

If they doesn't achieve their goals and suffer big losses, then escalation is highly possible. What form it can take, I am not sure, though. All depends on what weapons and on what scale the US and allies will be ready to provide for Ukraine's defence.

 

[para bellum]

1. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons with the understanding outlined in the Budapest Memorandum, i.e. the US, France, et.al. would protect Ukraine's sovereignty.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. If Putin wants a direct confrontation with NATO that's his decision. Bad idea.

3. We disagree. The Budapest Memorandum, which Russia signed, gives NATO cover to protect Ukraine and end the war.

The Budapest Memorandum was not a NATO agreement. It allows the US and UK to provide security assistance. I have never argued that we were not within our rights to provide help to Ukraine.

If Biden sends US combat forces to Ukraine he can defend the decision under that agreement. A NATO presence has to be unanimous.

The question is, is that a wise decision? It hasn't devolved to that point for me.

For me, our interest in Ukraine extends only as far as this affects our NATO allies, not Ukraine particularly. To put that another way- if NATO Europe comes to us and says "Ukraine is part of Russia", we don't go to war with Russia over Ukraine. At that point, it's none of our business. Basically.