[ingliz]

Using even a small tactical nuke would be 100x worse than someone using chemical weapons, in terms of world reaction.

If, as @Politics_Observer is seemingly gagging for, the US puts its divisions into Ukraine, I doubt 'world reaction' will stop Russia from nukin' them. It's no secret that they have invested heavily, at least 10 brigades, in short-range nuclear-capable Iskander missiles.

"The possibility of local armed conflicts virtually along the entire perimeter of the border has grown dramatically. I cannot rule out that, in certain circumstances, local and regional armed conflicts could grow into a large-scale war, possibly even with nuclear weapons.”

— General Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the Russian General Staff

[JohnRawls]

Putin is the Dictator of Russia. Let us call a spade a spade. Navalny would be arrested whether Putin's popularity is high or low.

Not necessarily. You don't arrest people because there is blowback usually and as you see, there is a lot of blowback right now for doing this to Navalny. It is an action reserved for situation when he has no other clear choice on what to do which Putin and his regime are in right now.

The same way goes for Snowden, Manning or Assange by the way. It is not like the US don't understand that what they are doing is wrong or against almost everything what America stands for, they consider that the benefit of scaring further classified information leakers/classified information whistleblowers to be more important compared to the blowback from America behaving unAmerican since if they just ignore this then a buttload of others might come out seeing as nothing happens against classified information leakers.

The underlying logic is similar. Just Russian case is more severe when you do it to politicans.

[JohnRawls]

In the West? Perhaps, but not if you ask the Russians.

Putin's approval rating was 60% in July 2020, the highest of any leader in the world. In February 2021, he enjoyed a 65% approval rate.

Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow has 99.2% support.

Authoritarian numbers will always be above 50% for the simple reason that a number less than 50% breaks the illusion and will not be allowed to appear in the press or research.

If Navalny manages to break the apathy of the average Russian voter then he can beat Putin in the polls and he has moved very far in this regard hence he is a threat and must be removed.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

Ohh I am not wanting to put U.S. combat divisions in Ukraine. I do want to supply the Ukrainians with weapons and provide them with assistance so they can take back the land stolen from them by Russia. If Russia were to go in an occupy Ukraine, then I would be happy to see American supply weapons and training to resist a Russian occupation of Ukraine and protract out a conflict and make it very expensive and costly for the Russians.

Now, if Russia were to employ nuclear weapons in Ukraine, bear in mind, that will not end well for Russia either given the radioactive fallout that will blow across the Ukrainian border back into Russia and harm it's own citizens. I seriously doubt that Russia will fight US military troops in Ukraine. On the other hand, if Russia were to attack a NATO member state, then yes, Russia will find itself directly fighting the U.S. military and if Russians employ nukes the U.S. is certain to respond in kind with it's own nukes. It won't end well for anybody, that's for sure.

Another reason it's important to study Russia's new generation warfare in Ukraine is so not only so the U.S. can upgrade it's military were needed and change tatics where needed to counter Russian tactics, but most important, it's to deter Russia and prevent the costs of war. If the U.S. doesn't study the Ukrainian conflict and take it seriously it is less likely to deter Russia in the future given it will be unprepared and war can break out and if that happens, the cost of war are far far greater than any amount of current U.S. military spending. So, taking the profession of soldiering seriously is about preventing the costs of war so that the nation you serve doesn't have to pay those astronomical costs to begin with.

Where Ukraine screwed up was giving up nuclear weapons when reassured by Russia and the U.S. they would not be attacked by Russia. They should have kept those weapons and the Russians would likely not have invaded Ukraine. Such weapons could have guaranteed that Ukraine never returned back to Russian subjugation in the future and guaranteed their continued independence.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

Not meaning to get off topic, but I bring this up to further support my view on the value of studying the Ukrainian conflict. See, the reason the U.S. found itself fighting a war in Afghanistan is because Bin Laden thought he could get away with attacking the World Trade Center towers and drawing us into a protracted conflict in Afghanistan. He didn't get away with it, but the point is, the U.S. failed to deter somebody like Bin Laden because Bin Laden, based on his own statements thought he could get away with those attacks. He also cited American retreats from Vietnam and Somalia as evidence he could get away with attacking the U.S. The failure of America to deter it's enemies created a situation where we ended up paying far more in return due to that failure of deterrence.

The same concept applies when studying the Ukrainian conflict. The goal is to ensure that Russia is deterred from attacking a NATO member and the U.S. If we don't study the Ukrainian conflict and prepare our armed forces accordingly, then we could very well fail to deter Russia in the future and the costs of that war would probably be far greater than the cost of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Even if we fail to deter Russia in the future, at least we will be better prepared to fight Russia because we did study the Ukrainian conflict which in turn will save some of the lives of US troops and hopefully the troops of NATO member states.

Furthermore, Russia needs to pay a price for hacking our elections here in the U.S. and paying bounties to the Taliban for killing our troops in Afghanistan. This will impose costs on such Russian behavior and deter them in the future from partaking in such actions such as interfering in our elections or paying bounties on our troops or citizens. Trump abandoning in Syria our Kurdish allies was also a serious mistake and was the sort of behavior that Bin Laden cited as making him believe he could get away with attacking the U.S.

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, the U.S. Army War college regarded it as a strategic error on the part of the U.S. to invade Iraq and I agree with that assessment. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq even if I personally disliked Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. I don't see where it was in our interests to invade Iraq and topple Saddam even if Saddam was an evil bastard.

[noemon]

Russia wants a Russia-friendly regime in Kiev and they are playing it relatively patiently. Invading and installing a puppet will only make it that much worse. Invading and occupying half the country would be madness.

Russia invaded the Ukraine to prevent it from signing a trade agreement with the EU. Madness has already happened. And that is not really understandable in any sense of the term.

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

In addition to the reason you stated for the reason Russia invaded Ukraine it also invaded Ukraine to prevent having another NATO state on it's border as well as keeping access to the Black Sea via Crimea. Putin figures that if he punished Ukraine for seeking to be independent of Russia he might be able to prevent it from becoming a NATO state and he can keep access to the Black Sea in the process. He is using proxy forces to keep his cost of intervention down. However, if he sends in more Russian troops and tanks, it could get costly for him and his country's economy. Wars cost a lot of money to fight. That's one reason why you want to prevent wars.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

See, the Russians, from reading about their tatics are aware of their own weaknesses. So, their strategy, if they decide from their perspective they have to fight NATO is to hit us hard and fast with the element of surprise. They have gotten quite good at mobilizing a whole bunch of troops really fast, much faster than during Soviet times right up to border NATO border countries. That's impressive and is very smart strategy. If they actually attacked with surprise on their side, they could win that fight if NATO decides to settle politically rather than fight on after a member state has been occupied. Or, NATO might resort to using nuclear weapons to quickly eliminate that surprise attack before it could achieve anything, which the Russians could respond in turn with their own nuclear weapons.

Wars these days between the major powers can quickly escalate to hundreds of millions of people being killed in seconds on all sides. If that happens, nobody wins. This war business can quickly spiral out of control fast. So, that's the game the professional soldier plays. His job is prevent the costs of war and prevent this sort of thing happening through deterrence and studying the other side and fighting when ordered by his government to do so. The job of the soldier is to prevent the cost of wars and if he can't do that or his political leaders won't do that, then his job is to have the willingness to kill and the willingness to die. But the professional soldier seeks to prevent such a need for having to do so in the first place. That's the part of the job that requires brains and education (and of course actually fighting also requires brains and education too). Really, at the end of the day, it's better to outsmart rather than outfight your military opponent because fighting costs a lot of lives and money and nobody really wins in the end.

[ingliz]

studying the other side

So let's get this straight. Your government is encouraging Ukraine to fight a war it knows they will lose?

[Beren]

I would change policy towards Ukraine to make them consider entry into NATO as unnecessary.

Ukraine entering into NATO is not a threat to Russia, in any conceivable way. It can only be a threat to Russian EXPANSION, into the Ukraine.

Ukraine's entering into NATO is practically blocked by the Donbass thing, not that anyone in NATO wants them to join. They're a perfect buffer state between NATO and Russia and that's how the West wants them to be, in the foreseeable future at least.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

In my last post, I was referring to if Russia were to attack a NATO country. Ukraine is not a NATO country. If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, then I think the US should supply more weapons and money to the Ukrainian government to tie down Russian forces and force them to keep forces fighting Ukrainian forces or US supplied Ukrainian insurgent forces. It keeps the Russian military tied down in Ukraine so they can't make trouble elsewhere for the U.S. and we learn more about Russian tactics, techniques and military capabilities which in turn we can use to get any other equipment our military will need to combat Russian forces should our forces ended up fighting Russian forces directly in the future. In addition, we can change our tactics and techniques to defeat Russian tactics and techniques where necessary. It's a big risk for Russia to invade Ukraine because that could present an opportunity for US and NATO countries to bog down Russian forces in an occupation and give us valuable intelligence in the process. I am sure the Russian military is aware of the risks of invading Ukraine and being possibly drawn into an expensive and protracted conflict.

[Politics_Observer]

@ingliz

My position is that given that the U.S. government has tried to be on good terms with the Russian government and Putin rejected those many overtures and instead chose to hack our elections here in the U.S. and pay bounties on our troops in Afghanistan, then we should in return, provide money and weapons to the Ukrainians to take back land stolen from them by Russia. If Russia invades Ukraine, then we should in turn supply money and weapons to the Ukrainians to bog down and tie down Russian armed forces in Ukraine so those forces can't make trouble for us elsewhere like Russian hackers and intelligence operatives have been making us trouble.

[Potemkin]

@ingliz

My position is that given that the U.S. government has tried to be on good terms with the Russian government and Putin rejected those many overtures and instead chose to hack our elections here in the U.S. and pay bounties on our troops in Afghanistan, then we should in return, provide money and weapons to the Ukrainians to take back land stolen from them by Russia. If Russia invades Ukraine, then we should in turn supply money and weapons to the Ukrainians to bog down and tie down Russian armed forces in Ukraine so those forces can't make trouble for us elsewhere like Russian hackers and intelligence operatives have been making us trouble.

In other words, you think Ukraine should be used as a sacrificial lamb to distract the Russian bear?

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

It was the Russians who chose to invade Ukraine and take a chunk of their land. It was the Russians who might choose to invade Ukraine again. The Ukrainians have the right to take back what was stolen and robbed from them at gun point by the Russians. And it was the Russians that chose to hack our elections and pay bounties on our troops. The U.S. has to ensure it's security against Russian threats just as Ukraine has to do it's best to protect it's territorial integrity from a Russian invasion and occupation. And given that Ukraine and the U.S., due to the actions that the Russians themselves chose to take, have a common enemy in Russia, it is in our interests to help the Ukrainians to assure the security of our government and country from Russian threats as demonstrated by their own actions. Nobody else will ensure our security except ourselves so we do what we must to ensure our security.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

It was the Russians who chose to invade Ukraine and take a chunk of their land. It was the Russians who might choose to invade Ukraine again. The Ukrainians have the right to take back what was stolen and robbed from them at gun point by the Russians. And it was the Russians that chose to hack our elections and pay bounties on our troops. The U.S. has to ensure it's security against Russian threats just as Ukraine has to do it's best to protect it's territorial integrity from a Russian invasion and occupation. And given that Ukraine and the U.S., due to the actions that the Russians themselves chose to take, have a common enemy in Russia, it is in our interests to use the Ukrainians to assure the security of our government and country from Russian threats as demonstrated by their own actions. Nobody else will ensure our security except ourselves so we do what we must to ensure our security.

Fixed it for you, @Politics_Observer.

[B0ycey]

It was the Russians who chose to invade Ukraine and take a chunk of their land. It was the Russians who might choose to invade Ukraine again. The Ukrainians have the right to take back what was stolen and robbed from them at gun point by the Russians.

Even if Ukraine stormed into Donbass and Russia did nothing, given it is a pro Russian area Ukraine couldn't control it. So if anything America is prolonging what is going on. Or at least NATO is. There is NO WAY Ukraine is getting membership because it would be certain World War in the future. Like with Cuban missiles, America like the SU back then know where to draw the line and so they will instead supply weapons to Ukraine, at a nice healthy profit for their defend contractors I might add and do absolutely nothing else.

Also as things stand both America and Russia are happy with what is going on. Whilst the attention is on Donbass, it isn't in the Crimea. Ukraine cannot push into Donbass because they are worried about Russia invading in return and America is cashing in on the conflict whilst waving hollow carrots to Zelensky.

[Politics_Observer]

@B0ycey @Potemkin

Don't try to blame America for everything that is happening to Ukraine. Russia is the country that chose to use military force on Ukraine. Not the United States. You are ignoring this fact and giving Russia a free pass. The Ukrainians don't have to accept our aid either. They willing take the weapons and money we supply them. The Ukrainians want our weapons and money and we want to tie down the Russians. It's a fair trade. Neither one of you or anybody else will do anything to assure our security or Ukraine's security for that matter so it is up to us to ensure our security as it is up to the Ukrainians to ensure their own security from continued Russian military action and nobody else.

Had the Russians not demonstrated to be a threat to the U.S. with their past actions, you might have a legitimate point. Had the Russians not been such a threat to Ukraine, they probably wouldn't be taking our money and weapons right now as well. The Ukrainians have just as much right to live in security and have their territorial integrity respected just as much as Russia or the U.S. or the U.K. for that matter. But you don't seem to concerned about the security or territorial integrity of Ukraine and seem more concerned about blaming the U.S. for everything that is happening to Ukraine. The Ukrainians are doing what they need to do to protect themselves just as we over here in the U.S. are doing to protect ourselves as well.

Maybe, after it is all said and done, the Russians will learn a valuable lesson in that, the acme of skill is to win without fighting.

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey @Potemkin

Don't try to blame America for everything that is happening to Ukraine. Russia is the country that chose to use military force on Ukraine. Not the United States. You are ignoring this fact and giving Russia a free pass. The Ukrainians don't have to accept our aid either. They willing take the weapons and money we supply them. The Ukrainians want our weapons and money and we want to tie down the Russians. It's a fair trade. Neither one of you or anybody else will do anything to assure our security or Ukraine's security for that matter so it is up to us to ensure our security as it is up to the Ukrainians to ensure their own security from continued Russian military action and nobody else.

Had the Russians not demonstrated to be a threat to the U.S. with their past actions, you might have a legitimate point. Had the Russians not been such a threat to Ukraine, they probably wouldn't be taking our money and weapons right now as well. The Ukrainians have just as much right to live in security and have their territorial integrity respected just as much as Russia or the U.S. or the U.K. for that matter. But you don't seem to concerned about the security or territorial integrity of Ukraine and seem more concerned about blaming the U.S. for everything that is happening to Ukraine. The Ukrainians are doing what they need to do to protect themselves just as we over here in the U.S. are doing to protect ourselves as well.

Maybe, after it is all said and done, the Russians will learn a valuable lesson in that, the acme of skill is to win without fighting.

The specific area that is being contested is pro Russian. Which means fighting to retain this territory is pointless. You can hid behind chartered borders, legality, conventions, sovereignty, free passes whatever the fuck you like. Even if Ukraine managed to take back Donbass/Crimea they wouldn't be able to control it. Everyone know this. Even America. Which means if they insist on supplying weapons they might not be all the problem but certainly are part of the problem nonetheless. Because if Ukraine wasn't being supplied with weapons they would have to have started talks with Russia by now (something you previously asked for) as they would have no other choice and a solution would have been found so this war would be over. America profit from weapons. They also don't like Russia gaining a strategic geopolitical advange. Russia want to control Crimea. Neither side really cares about the current stalemate. The only people who are losing here is Ukraine. I think they still cling on the hope of NATO membership which they will not get. If it wasn't for that, again I think they would be forced to find a diplomatic solution by now as well. So...

[Istanbuller]

Ukrainians lost hope in West. It is why Ukranian president is asking for Turkey help, both diplomatically and militarily.

Ukraine turns to Turkey as Russia threatens full-scale war
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy meets Turkey’s Erdogan at a time of heightened Russia-Ukraine tensions.

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/1 ... -to-turkey

It is apparent that Zelensky wants Turkish army to be deployed in Ukraine to confront Russia. He will get chance to use Turkey's diplomatic channels and NATO support with this if succeed.

There are also many wins for Turkey. We may get details of Hunter Biden corruption. That will help to pressure Biden administration. Erdoğan also asks for technology transfer of Russian military stuff from Ukraine. It is enough to scare Russians.

[Rugoz]

Even if Ukraine stormed into Donbass and Russia did nothing, given it is a pro Russian area Ukraine couldn't control it.

Why? First of all, the occupied areas aren't the only Russian-speaking areas in the Ukraine. Second, Ukraine controlled these areas for a long time without issues and 2014 wasn't the first color revolution.

The question is, do the pro-West factions in the Ukraine even want them back? After all a lot of Russia-friendly voters were removed from the picture by the occupation.