21 ms·

I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real counter attacks? Is this just the

• anigbrowl 5y ago
  Basically if EU/US forces engage Russians directly it's ww3. I think that's going to happen anyway, but mismatches in tempo are common and rational in the early stages of a conflict.
• Johnny555 5y ago
  The EU and USA can't attack Russian troops directly without escalating the war far more than anyone wants. No one wants to provoke a nuclear nation, not even another nuclear nation. As long as Putin doesn't try to advance out of Ukraine, I doubt that NATO will offer any direct support beyond supplying arms and training.
  • ethbr0 5y ago
    There was a missed opportunity to seriously prevent war. NATO should have been requested to by Ukraine and declared a no fly zone for military aviation west of the Dnieper, before Russia invaded. An inability to use aviation would have severely slowed Russian plans.
    • Johnny555 5y ago
      I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being willing to shoot down Russian military aircraft, which would surely escalate the war.
      • ethbr0 5y ago
        Neither Iraq (1991+) nor Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993+) were NATO members, and it served its purpose there. And hence declaring it before Russia invaded. Which forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or operate outside those zones.
        • Johnny555 5y ago
          When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were willing to fight (and eventually did fight) a war with Iraq. NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia.
          • aszen 5y ago
            You are forgetting the fact that the odds are heavily against NATO, in a RAND wargame it was found that russia can occupy the baltic States within 48 hours while nato would be still warning up
            • Johnny555 5y ago
              It's not clear what I'm forgetting when I said "NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia."
              • aszen 5y ago
                It is simply not in their favour, why would they be willing to lose their face over something like Ukraine. It seems that many in the West think they have unlimited power to do anything and interfere in any conflict. Reality is those days are over now.
                • fancifalmanima 5y ago
                  You seem to explicitly agree with the person you're replying to, but are claiming they're forgetting something. That's the disconnect here.
        • the_snooze 5y ago
    • ajuc 5y ago
      Ukraine did (or some similar arrangement, I'm not sure about details). NATO declined.
• causi 5y ago
  EU and US will use every diplomatic and financial weapon against Russia, but they've long since decided Ukraine and the Ukrainian people aren't worth actual war over. That call was made in 2014 and stopping Russia then would've been easier than it would be now.
  • whatshisface 5y ago
    It's not clear whether every financial weapon will be used. For example, > The foreign ministers of the Baltic states called for Russia to be cut off from SWIFT, the global intermediary for banks' financial transactions. However, other EU member states were reluctant, both because European lenders held most of the nearly $30 billion in foreign bank's exposure to Russia and because China has developed an alternative to SWIFT called CIPS; a weaponisation of SWIFT would provide greater impetus to the development of CIPS which in turn would weaken SWIFT as well as the West's control over international finance.[262][263] Other leaders calling for Russia to be stopped from accessing SWIFT include Czech President Miloš Zeman[264] and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.[265] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
    • jandrese 5y ago
      This is where diplomacy should shine. It's clear that Russia has been hardening against western sanctions for years now, and CIPS is a big piece of that. If NATO can convince China to also shut them out of CIPS at the same time we turn off SWIFT the Russian Oligarchs will start applying pressure to Putin.
      • GrayShade 5y ago
        They won't. They want Russian support when they invade Taiwan.
        • newuser94303 5y ago
          They don't need Russian support to attack Taiwan and Russian economic support is meaningless. They won't do it because there is no incentive to. The US has to bribe them. Think of China like an evil corporation. They won't do anything except for their own best interests. Like Facebook with nukes.
• ncallaway 5y ago
  The EU and America have promised to help with economic sanctions on Russia and by providing military aid and lethal aid. The EU and America have explicitly not promised to help out with direct military action against Russia. The United States and Biden have said multiple times that the US will not have forces engage Russia directly in Ukraine. What specific promises are you referring to?
  • shawn-butler 5y ago
    The US makes empty promises. Read the Budapest memorandum in which we made security guarantees so Ukraine would give up its nuclear arsenal[0]. Russian aggression would certainly be much more calculated if Ukraine still had that capability. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
    • jaywalk 5y ago
      > Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. What could they have done, throw the unarmed nukes at Russia? You also leave out the fact that Russia and the UK signed as well.
      • adrian_b 5y ago
        When you have nuclear weapons in your possession, obviously you will not be able to discover how to detonate them in an hour or a day. Nevertheless when you have the resources of a state, it is very easy to disassemble them and discover, in a few weeks or months at most, how to replace the part that initiates detonation with one that you control.
    • fancifalmanima 5y ago
      If you look at what was actually agreed to, it seems like the US and EU are already doing more than obligated. I don't see any nuclear weapons being used, the west has respected their sovereignty, and is even economically sanctioning Russia and providing intelligence and equipment. Bringing this to the security council would do nothing anyways, as Russia is a part of it and any resolution would just get vetoed. The only party that's actually breached the agreement is Russia. Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[17] Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[13][18]
• newaccount2021 5y ago
  EU is incapable and the US doesn't have near enough assets nearby in any case, Putin would likely respond with a nuke (he already basically hinted this), this is an endgame for everyone, Ukraine, Russia, Putin...there will be no de-escalation or peace process. Putin already said Ukraine "does not need to exist"...either the Ukrainians can fight him off or not. Probably not. Sanctions won't matter. Scolding Putin at the UN won't matter. China will golf-clap the whole thing. By the end of 2022, the only issue will be when the West just recognizes the new borders or not.
  • mrtranscendence 5y ago
    Putin responding with a nuke would be suicide. Maybe literal suicide. He's surely not that stupid?
    • yaris 5y ago
      Maybe he is not stupid, but there are hints that his contact with reality is becoming somewhat unstable.
    • simonklitj 5y ago
  • sveme 5y ago
    I doubt that Russia can hold Ukraine for long. Once Putin is gone, everything he accomplished will fade away quickly.
    • Aeolun 5y ago
      You'd hope so right?
• TameAntelope 5y ago
  Ukraine isn't part of NATO, I think it's a big reason why troop deployment hasn't happened.
  • netsharc 5y ago
    Even if they were, what's easier, to honour such an agreement with an expensive (materially and in terms of human lives) and dangerous (would cause the conflict so spread) deployment or to say "Sorry, you're going to have to tough it out yourself.". The USA and UK already abandoned the Afghani people, feels like the once mighty US military really doesn't want to be in a shooting war against Russia. As someone living in Europe, I would also be wary of how it would escalate if NATO got involved.
    • outside1234 5y ago
      The US will defend NATO. They will nuke Russia's forces if they try to enter Poland. There is no doubt in my mind that is a red line.
      • jaywalk 5y ago
        There should always be plenty of doubt in your mind if you're saying that the US will use nukes in any situation short of someone else using them first.
        • gambiting 5y ago
          The difference is that US is actually putting their troops and equipment in Poland though. I also think that attack on Poland would trigger full out response by US.
          • the_snooze 5y ago
            Poland is a NATO state. An attack on Poland would trigger World War 3 because the whole alliance is set up to jump in.
• gpm 5y ago
  The EU and America have been clear throughout that they will not be putting troops on the ground or directly fighting Russia in response to an invasion of Ukraine. No one is willing to risk a nuclear war. The calm before the storm as Russia places their troops was the last few months. This is the storm, as Russia takes Ukraine by force. Assuming they succeed in taking it (which seems very likely) it's unclear what they plan to do - either installing a puppet government or incorporating Ukraine into Russia (or a mix of the two) seems most likely. The EU and America (and other friends) have promised severe sanctions on Russia in response to this - which they are currently announcing, and they will probably continue to extend over the coming days. They have also promised to support Ukraine with intelligence, military supplies, and economic aid. They have been providing that over the past months, and every indication is that they will continue to do so as long as it's possible. NATO is also greatly increasing it's readiness, in case Russia chooses to go beyond Ukraine/Moldova (Moldova is the only neighbor to Ukraine uninvolved in NATO and the conflict, and Russia already occupies a piece of it) into any NATO country. In that eventuality the various NATO countries have all committed to going to war - there's a reasonably high chance it would be a nuclear one - which also means it's very unlikely that Putin will try this.
• pishpash 5y ago
  Nobody promised helping out for real. It's all posturing to get a proxy pawn to sacrifice for the suzerain's benefit. Ukrainians got sold down the (Dnieper) river and I'm surprised they still have not realized somehow, when they should have realized in 2014 at the latest. I'll eat my words if there is some other grand strategy behind it but from today it would seem that even sanctions haven't been agreed upon and readied to go unlike what we were told.
  • pc2g4d 5y ago
    Sanctions responding to the invasion were announced today, within half a day
• dekhn 5y ago
  NATO/US is preparing to handle the refugee flood into countries invading Ukraine. They are not keeping russia from taking ukraine or holding it, by using military force. It looks like the takeover of Ukraine will be done by tomorrow.
  • gpm 5y ago
    You're overestimating the speed of the attack. Even if the Ukrainians put up no resistance (and they have been putting up resistance) - tanks just don't move that fast/ukraine is a big place. See the dotted lines in this map - that's a rough estimate of how far the Russians have made it in a day. Even if they continue at the same pace overnight (unlikely), and the next day, and the next night, there's still a lot of the country they won't have physically reached yet. https://twitter.com/OSINTNS/status/1496880680143568901/photo/1 https://twitter.com/OSINTNS/status/1496880680143568901/photo...
    • dekhn 5y ago
      Since they're already shelling Kyiv, they obviously have more options than tanks to take ownership of the governmental apparatus. I can't see how Ukraine can put up any realistic defence given they now have no radar tracking or air support. If your point is "it takes tanks a few days to get to Kyiv", then, yes, that is technically correct. If your point is "Russia needs to invade the whole country", no. They own the country when they control the governmental apparatus in Kyiv.
      • gpm 5y ago
        I think you underestimate how easy it will be to take control of the government and country. Ukraine knew that they would be able to take Kyiv quickly. Intelligence sources have been saying that for weeks. They (Ukraine and it's friends) have been preparing for this - openly talking about partisan style resistance. I'm willing to bet that they need to seize pretty close to the entire country to maintain any sort of control.
        • 5y ago
• rmk 5y ago
  Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was never a concrete possibility. In fact, the US has had to tread very carefully simply to place missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Poland, which is a neighbor of Ukraine. Russia had a buffer state that was content to do its bidding in Yanukovich et. al. but after the Ukrainians overthrew their corrupt government and made moves to establish a genuine western-style democracy with rule of law, Russia were forced to shore up their vulnerable flank. This is part of that process. But they now face bad consequences, including neutral Finland and Sweden deciding to join NATO, perhaps Georgia also, and Germany (and Europe in general) starting to look for alternate energy sources in earnest (Russia supplies a huge percentage of Europe's energy needs, and is also a huge supplier of many rare earths and raw materials that are critical to the Semiconductor Industry). EDIT: Belarus is also a client state of Russia's, and there has been unrest there, so perhaps Russia is sensing that they might slip as well. Putin is desperate to do whatever it takes to stay in power in Russia, and these things play into that as well.
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.
    • ngcc_hk 5y ago
      It is still an independent state and a member for a long term of un. Can one just take one like japan say if it is not part of nato.
      • kasey_junk 5y ago
        If no one has the will to stop it… yes. But Japan is a bad example because the US & Japan maintain mutual defense agreements. If it’s invaded the US will act.
• sAbakumoff 5y ago
  Putin warned the West that he wouldn't hesitate to conduct a nuclear strike if they try to meddle.
  • nickpp 5y ago
    Source? He never said that.
    • lijogdfljk 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oAOSTiumsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oAOSTiumsg How can you ask for source but then confidently claim otherwise. Ugh. edit: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/t0di4z/to_scare_nato/ https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/t0di4z/t... is a crappy Reddit link, but also goes on to include the nuclear mention as well. How can you view this as anything but a nuclear warning?
      • nickpp 5y ago
        Watch those again. He never pronounced the word nuclear. It was just a (more or less empty) threat in the poker game he is playing to keep cowardly politicians from helping an independent nation being invaded. Looks like it worked. I wonder what else are people willing to give up at the mere hint of a nuclear threat: their houses? Their freedom? Their friends? Their spouses? Their children?
        • lijogdfljk 5y ago
          People are already giving up their freedom, friends, spouses and children. They're called Ukrainian. Also, he did say it, according to that _transcription_. I don't speak Russian, so i wouldn't know beyond that. Regardless don't play dumb, you and everyone else knew what he meant. Whether or not he'll follow through is the question - but what he meant was obvious. He knew what he was implying.
          • 5y ago
• f311a 5y ago
  Russia has nuclear power. That’s the main reason.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• arisAlexis 5y ago
  What do you want them to do exactly, send nukes?
  • qbasic_forever 5y ago
    There are plenty of sanctions the US and EU can impose on Russian oil and gas, but they aren't doing it.
    • bombcar 5y ago
      Which tells you everything you need to know about how this is going down.
• jcims 5y ago
  I just had two chinooks fly overhead from the direction of Wright Patt. I see them maybe once a year.
• brabel 5y ago
  It's interesting that people think that when an enemy country (as most people in the west think of Russia) attacks a neutral country (after endless warnings and the ocupation of a sizable part of its territory several years prior, so it's not like this came out of the blue), that they should intervene as if they were the world police who decides who can attack who. Or some kind of righteous peace force who is above it all, that can attack anyone who attacks anyone else, not seeing the irony in their position of attacking others who do something they don't like. This thinking really needs to go away. No, it's not ok of Russia to attack another country. But if your country then counter-attacks on behalf of Ukraine, you should expect Russia to then declare war on you immediately. This sounds far-fetched, but that could actually happen. And something like it did happen numerous times in history and we all remember very well how that ended (well some of us do, others seem to have never even heard of that). We like to think Germany was defeated in WWII and the West and the Soviet Union (for those few who remember the USSR actually arrived in Berlin first, in fact - but lost more lives than everyone else combined) won... but that's not true; no one ever wins a full-scale war like that. Everyone loses, some just lose a bit less than the others... Germany was nearly flattened, but not before most of the rest of Europe was as well - priceless property, artistic treasures, not to mention lives, were lost well beyond anything that someone who claims to be a "victor" may admit. This is what happens when a country "helps" others just to stop a bully they don't like (and then the other side's allies help them, and so on). I really, really hope Europe will never get flattened again, but seeing what is happening in Ukraine, and how people react online (some of whom may one day be in a position where they can actually act) makes me very doubtful of that even in my lifetime (I still have quite a few decades ahead, I hope...). I don't think we should sit and do nothing! But please stop asking our leaders to lower themselves to the same level as the aggressor and just drop bombs on other human beings! Let's show Russia that while they may, on the very short term, win a battle, that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable anymore in the 21st century, and that for a long time ahead, Russia should find itself isolated form the greates economies of the world, politically, financially and in any way possible to make sure they understand that they must never do this again, and anyone watching should take note that no one is above the law (that includes the USA!)... if you use violence, we will not use violence against you (well, not until we're the direct target of the aggression, even I would concede), but we'll see you with utmost distrust from then one and make you regret deeply to have behaved like that. If NATO had from the beginning worked this way, we wouldn't have found ourselves in this situation... most things went on as normal after Russia took over Krimea. And Putin was not completely wrong in saying NATO has expanded a lot in the last 30 years, which entailed planting bombs right at the Russian's doorsteps from all directions, flagrantly provoking the bear knowing very well that this was not making them happy, in a behaviour quite similar to the bully of the story.
• TheCondor 5y ago
  Is Ukraine even issuing counter attacks? I'm not sure what the west is expecting, some sort of massive retreat like when Iraq pulled out of Kuwait? It looks pre-ordained that Ukraine will fall and should we want to stop it, we probably need to strike Moscow or something like that. I don't know how much appetite there is for something like that in the US, Trump and his supporters seem to support Russia here.
  • terafo 5y ago
    Yes. For example: russia took airport in Hostomel earlier today. Ukrainian army started counter attack and prevented russian planes from landing. Airport isn't retaken yet, there are heavy fights out there, but the main objective of preventing massive russian troops landing is achieved.
• bayesian_horse 5y ago
  All NATO members categorically ruled out military involvement in this conflict.
• newuser94303 5y ago
  The whole thing is very puzzling. Russia will take Ukraine but Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe. There is no way that Russia can conquer all of Europe. The West will not attack because Russia has nukes. The sanctions will eventually wear Russia down. What is the end game? Is he that confident that the West will just forgive and forget?
  • CobrastanJorji 5y ago
    It reads to me as different goals. You know those slightly asymmetric board games where different players have different objectives? I think Putin has already amassed effectively infinite money and power, so his new goal is immortality, which I think means establishing a greater legacy by restoring as much of the the Soviet Union's old borders as it can. This is probably not actually in Russia's interests, but the goal isn't "Russia succeeds," it's "Putin remembered as great."
    • vanviegen 5y ago
      This explanation seems rather plausible to me, but is getting downvotes. What am I not seeing?
  • t-writescode 5y ago
    Yes. And we probably will. He wants a warm water port.
    • LandR 5y ago
      Russia has no warm water ports currently ?
      • t-writescode 5y ago
        I don't believe they have any Western, warm-water ports.
      • NateEag 5y ago
        Not sure if GP is serious or joking. Russia's history has been half-jokingly summarised as "the search for a warm-water port." https://www.jstor.org/stable/44642451 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44642451
• 13415 5y ago
  Some analysis (not by an expert though): 1. There will be no EU or US troops coming to aid Ukraine, and Ukraine knows that. It was clear from the start that direct NATO involvement could lead to WW3 and there is currently no will to risk that for a non-NATO member. 2. In numbers, the Russian military is about 6 to 12 times stronger than the Ukrainian military (in terms of tanks, fighter planes, heavy weaponry). They have already gained air superiority, so they can move around airborne troops quickly, albeit with a certain risk from portable ground-to-air missiles. They are also trying to install an air bridge near the capital, although it's unclear at the moment whether they have succeeded. 4. The main target of the Russian military are currently all major cities in the East of Ukraine. Russian forces can be expected to occupy the capital Kyiv within hours or days from now. If the Ukrainian forces fight exceptionally well, they might delay this for weeks but that's unlikely. 5. Once Kyiv is occupied, Russia will quickly install a puppet regime, send around death squads, and basically instill terror to break active and passive resistance. Pro-Putin Ukrainians will emerge and take over. It's going to be similar to what happened in Chechnya in the past and the Donbas region. Armed men without insignia will snatch people from the street and torture them, citizens will disappear, etc. There will be fake elections. I hope I'm wrong but that's about my prognosis. The civilized world can currently not do much about it except imposing sanctions and delivering arms to Ukraine. A good response now would be to break diplomatic ties with Russia and to exclude Russia from the Swift system. It would also make sense to sharpen media control and party financing laws in various countries since the Russian government has been using loopholes to finance willfully ignorant evil and divisive parties all over the world to weaken the EU and divide US and Europe.
• decafninja 5y ago
  As others have said, Ukraine isn't in NATO so there is no obligation for the US or EU to militarily come to its aid. That said, Putin is increasing his risk appetite. Ukraine will most likely fall and have a puppet government installed, probably within weeks at most. But then next year, what if he decides to up his ante and target one of the NATO member ex-USSR Baltic states for "reasons"? Will NATO come to their defense militarily? Will the UK, France, Germany, as well as the US decide it is worth going to war with Russia to defend Estonia, Latvia, etc.? What about China and Taiwan? If China decides to invade Taiwan, will anyone decide it is worth going to war with China to defend Taiwan militarily? My prediction to those questions is - no. The authoritarian regimes have the upper hand in the current global state of affairs because the Western democracies are afraid of the consequences of going toe to toe militarily against them. I don't not sympathize - to be honest I have no clue what the solution is. I don't think the opposite is necessarily true. If the US were to attack a country that Russia or China would truly lose face over (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. frankly are not), I feel Putin or Xi would, in fact, choose to wage war.
• bart_spoon 5y ago
  A counter attack by the US/EU was never on the table, as Ukraine isn’t a NATO member. Some of those nations have provided weapons and supplies for the Ukrainian defense in recent weeks, but from an actual conflict perspective, the Ukrainians are on their own. The EU/US are attempting to retaliate in non-military ways, primarily through the form of economic sanctions. However, it seems like some of the most impactful actions available, like cutting Russia out of Swift, are being held up by Germany and Italy. The US and NATO are sending military reinforcements to Eastern NATO nations such as Poland, but they will not actually engage or enter Ukraine so long as Russia doesn’t push through Ukraine into NATO nations, which I don’t think anyone expects.
• dangStupid 5y ago
• kilroy123 5y ago
  The EU finds itself in a very tough bind. It can't really do anything at the risk of Russia cutting off energy supplies to Western Europe. That's why it's all talk and sanctions. The US isn't going to put boots on the ground and start an all out war, over Ukraine, and NATO doesn't have to do anything, as Ukraine isn't in NATO. So what are the options? Well, Europe can start to unwind being dependent on Russia or energy, but that's a slow process that is already on its way. There isn't much that can be done. It's very sad and messed up innocent people have to pay with their lives because of geopolitics and a dictator hell bent on shoring up his negative image.