4 ms·

The USA should arm Ukrainian citizens to the teeth ASAP and keep US forces out of Ukraine (i.e., avoid any NATO "solution" to Russian aggression). Let the Ukrai

The USA should arm Ukrainian citizens to the teeth ASAP and keep US forces out of Ukraine (i.e., avoid any NATO "solution" to Russian aggression). Let the Ukrainians do the training and organizing - any war should be a guerrilla war. If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) would be nil. It might even increase self- and other-respect among the Ukrainian!8-))

threatofrain 5y ago
US and UK asked Ukraine to disarm in exchange for protection. The US should do better to secure the credibility of their diplomatic promises.
- giardini 5y ago
  The US is not providing protection for Ukraine, nor should they. But they could provide plenty of small arms to Ukrainians.
Reubachi 5y ago
Can't believe this sentiment is somehow popular. See: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Palestine, Bosnia etc. Your described solution will ensure just as much war/suffering as a direct involvement plan would. let's be honest: no combination of armament OR good will will end this anytime soon.
- giardini 5y ago
  The Russians are only allowed to respond (by their government) when their boys come home in body bags. Until then, all wars are "glorious" wars. If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.
baybal2 5y ago
> If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.
- giardini 5y ago
  You think the Russians nuking Ukraine would give them a "win" of some sorts? That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?! That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.
alkonaut 5y ago
They (the US and UK, mostly) did the actually working version of that: they provided the Ukrainian military with several hundred Javelins, Stingers and NLAW. The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.
- giardini 5y ago
  No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate. Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army. OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country. There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns. What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature. So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty). > Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.

threatofrain 5y ago

US and UK asked Ukraine to disarm in exchange for protection. The US should do better to secure the credibility of their diplomatic promises.

giardini 5y ago
The US is not providing protection for Ukraine, nor should they. But they could provide plenty of small arms to Ukrainians.

Reubachi 5y ago

Can't believe this sentiment is somehow popular. See: Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Palestine, Bosnia etc. Your described solution will ensure just as much war/suffering as a direct involvement plan would. let's be honest: no combination of armament OR good will will end this anytime soon.

giardini 5y ago
The Russians are only allowed to respond (by their government) when their boys come home in body bags. Until then, all wars are "glorious" wars. If it is apparent that occupying a region will involve hand-to-hand combat (instead of massed artillery/air/rocket attacks) then the Russian soldiers and officers will refrain.

baybal2 5y ago

> If every Ukrainian citizen (primarily talking about western Ukraine) had a rifle/shotgun and 5 grenades, the likely success of Russian forces in any incursion (short of a nuclear attack, which I presume absurd) It is not absurd because thermonuclear weapons would provide the highest propability of victory.

giardini 5y ago
You think the Russians nuking Ukraine would give them a "win" of some sorts? That's not even the equivalent of an angry child shutting down a ball game and taking the ball home. Instead it's the equivalent of blowing up everyone in the game to achieve, what, victory?! That's a completely different discussion, but before branching into that, I would seriously question your sanity.

alkonaut 5y ago

They (the US and UK, mostly) did the actually working version of that: they provided the Ukrainian military with several hundred Javelins, Stingers and NLAW. The Ukrainian army can’t defend any part of the country against mass invasion but it can at least make the cost of fighting in cities be extremely unappetizing to Russia due to the large cost in both casualties and equipment it would be.

giardini 5y ago
No, no, no. What I meant was arm the Ukraines with rifles/shotguns and grenades. That's all. Set up for guerrilla warfare. Make it easy to participate. Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. Time is too short also. And I'm talking about arming the citizenry, not the Ukrainian army. OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > OTOH if most Ukrainian citizens were well-armed it would be very difficult for anyone to occupy the country. There won't be any large scale occupation of Ukraine. That's not the risk here. Crimea wasn't possible to occupy because the inhabitants lacked guns. What will happen if there is an invasion is that tanks will roll quickly to where they need to roll, artillery and missiles will destroy what needs to be destroyed, forming the gunpoint at which "negotiations" will be held. Infrastructure will be destroyed (military installations, factories, power plants etc) to ensure this capiulation and that Ukraine remains a failed state for a long time. Russia doesn't have any interest in occupying and thereby having to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine being poor and unstable is the feature. So Russia doesn't want to occupy Ukraine. It just wants to ensure that it's a failed state with a russian friendly government (which Russia can ensure, once it throws the country into instability and poverty). > Fighting with Javelins, Stingers and NLAWs is a wholly foolish endeavor, very costly for equipment and training. The equipment was recently shipped, possibly donated. Javelins have been part of the Urainian military for a long time. If you want to stop a gunpoint situation arising from a mechanized assault, it doesn't really matter how many villages of people with rifles the tanks had to drive straight through on their way to the hold position outside Kyiv. They'd make no difference. The villages are never going to be "occupied" and the rifles won't stop the tanks.