5 ms·

At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off

At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines, make it difficult to get back out of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainians slaughter the captive invading force (which will promptly surrender as they realize what has happened). The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine. It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field. Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.

Sporktacular 5y ago
- adventured 5y ago
  I actually understand how reality works, rather than drowning in the irrational, hyper emotionalism of: the world is gunna end if we face off with der Russia, The PuTin will Killeded us all ten times overs with the big nukes. Aka ignorant Reddit thinking. The most important thing that can happen right now is to aggressively begin confronting Russia. They are weak, the invasion was a very bad idea, and they have zero global support for what they're doing and mediocre support at home for the invasion. There is only one way to stop Putin and that's military confrontation. NATO is vastly superior to Russia's forces, now is an excellent time to cripple them in the field. Every time war doesn't go Russia's way they're going to nuke the world? Yeah, sure. Good luck living in that universe. You know, we really can't defend Finland or Sweden or the Baltics (NATO), because hey Russia will nuke everybody, so they just get to keep taking territory at will. Time to go ahead and shut down NATO (you know, the organization that was originated specifically to stand off militarily with Russia, its primary reason for existing). No, time to start standing up to Russia in the field: this is what NATO is for. Ukraine is doing the job that NATO ought to be doing. At the very least we should be helping them dramatically more than what we are now. Don't like the idea of direct confrontation (no-fly zone) - fine, then flood Ukraine with weapons at a much faster pace and put Russia in a position of having to declare war on NATO to stop it.
  - Sporktacular 5y ago
    So your NATO-to-the-rescue movie plot is how reality works? I'd be glad to see them beaten back, but you're living a fantasy.
    - adventured 5y ago
      It's not a fantasy at all, which is of course why you have no greater retort than flinging ad hominem responses. Russia's poorly organized, poorly funded, poorly trained military will be hyper exposed as they go fully into Ukraine (it already is). We also have the intel on the ground in Ukraine to help us out, we can maul Russia's tanks, artillery and mechanized forces and wipe out their supply lines, trapping their ground forces inside Ukraine with no supplies (aka they're dead). Russia can't project effectively outside of their borders when confronted with vastly superior NATO air power, so they won't be able to provide cover or resupply for their soldiers trapped in Ukraine. Their hardware will be wiped out. We can dismember their air force at the border as needed. And it'll be Ukrainians killing the Russian soldiers inside of Ukraine, not NATO soldiers. What else does Russia have? They'd have one fall back: I'm gunna nuke you, I'm gunna nuke everyone, I'm gunna nuke the moon. [insert Putin turned Gollum snarl here] Bullshit. It's not sovereign Russian territory and they're not going to kill everyone in Russia for it.
      - Sporktacular 5y ago
        NATO will not fight this war. That is reality. Everything else is fantasy sports: war edition. Let's show some respect for the seriousness of this.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    I'm seconding this, if air cover is provided, Ukraine has enough resources to trim off Russia's south, and its access to two seas. South Russians don't feel pretty much any affinity for Moscow. This can potentially launch a chain reaction of Russia's disintegration. Russia's Far East will almost certainly secede for its ethnic makeup, and the only ethnic Russian stronghold in the region being uniquely anti-russian (as a state) for so many reason, the latest being harsh draft, and using Far Eastern youth as a cannon fodder for the last 8 years. Urals, and Siberia are uniquely resource rich, and they will want the money for themselves. There was a precedent: "The Republic of Urals" was a semi-functional regional autonomy for a few months in 1991. Kalmikia, and Tatarstan can secede as well. ---- Militarily wise, Russia is at its weakest since its loss in first Chechnya war. They just wasted at least 50% of Russia's current standing force on Ukraine, most of which is now stranded in Belarusian woods without supplies, and fuel, or destroyed in Ukraine. Their bases near Ukraine are now standing empty. My many contacts in Vladivostok report the same thing: military brass there "is thinking"
- VirusNewbie 5y ago
  I'm going put my dang hat on and say please follow up with substantive arguments if you're going to lead with hyperbolic/insulting questions.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
This is so unrealistic, it's the political equivalent of a hacker saying "Oh they used Bromoanovski encryption, hold on, I'M IN".
- areoform 5y ago
  It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban. This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start. As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder. Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus Not any I've seen. Could you link to some actual, recognized experts who say that?
    - areoform 5y ago
      Sure! https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-make-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-prohibitively-expensive/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-ma...
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote. Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
wolverine876 5y ago
> cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines > NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine. NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.

Sporktacular 5y ago

adventured 5y ago
I actually understand how reality works, rather than drowning in the irrational, hyper emotionalism of: the world is gunna end if we face off with der Russia, The PuTin will Killeded us all ten times overs with the big nukes. Aka ignorant Reddit thinking. The most important thing that can happen right now is to aggressively begin confronting Russia. They are weak, the invasion was a very bad idea, and they have zero global support for what they're doing and mediocre support at home for the invasion. There is only one way to stop Putin and that's military confrontation. NATO is vastly superior to Russia's forces, now is an excellent time to cripple them in the field. Every time war doesn't go Russia's way they're going to nuke the world? Yeah, sure. Good luck living in that universe. You know, we really can't defend Finland or Sweden or the Baltics (NATO), because hey Russia will nuke everybody, so they just get to keep taking territory at will. Time to go ahead and shut down NATO (you know, the organization that was originated specifically to stand off militarily with Russia, its primary reason for existing). No, time to start standing up to Russia in the field: this is what NATO is for. Ukraine is doing the job that NATO ought to be doing. At the very least we should be helping them dramatically more than what we are now. Don't like the idea of direct confrontation (no-fly zone) - fine, then flood Ukraine with weapons at a much faster pace and put Russia in a position of having to declare war on NATO to stop it.
- Sporktacular 5y ago
  So your NATO-to-the-rescue movie plot is how reality works? I'd be glad to see them beaten back, but you're living a fantasy.
  - adventured 5y ago
    It's not a fantasy at all, which is of course why you have no greater retort than flinging ad hominem responses. Russia's poorly organized, poorly funded, poorly trained military will be hyper exposed as they go fully into Ukraine (it already is). We also have the intel on the ground in Ukraine to help us out, we can maul Russia's tanks, artillery and mechanized forces and wipe out their supply lines, trapping their ground forces inside Ukraine with no supplies (aka they're dead). Russia can't project effectively outside of their borders when confronted with vastly superior NATO air power, so they won't be able to provide cover or resupply for their soldiers trapped in Ukraine. Their hardware will be wiped out. We can dismember their air force at the border as needed. And it'll be Ukrainians killing the Russian soldiers inside of Ukraine, not NATO soldiers. What else does Russia have? They'd have one fall back: I'm gunna nuke you, I'm gunna nuke everyone, I'm gunna nuke the moon. [insert Putin turned Gollum snarl here] Bullshit. It's not sovereign Russian territory and they're not going to kill everyone in Russia for it.
    - Sporktacular 5y ago
      NATO will not fight this war. That is reality. Everything else is fantasy sports: war edition. Let's show some respect for the seriousness of this.
- baybal2 5y ago
  I'm seconding this, if air cover is provided, Ukraine has enough resources to trim off Russia's south, and its access to two seas. South Russians don't feel pretty much any affinity for Moscow. This can potentially launch a chain reaction of Russia's disintegration. Russia's Far East will almost certainly secede for its ethnic makeup, and the only ethnic Russian stronghold in the region being uniquely anti-russian (as a state) for so many reason, the latest being harsh draft, and using Far Eastern youth as a cannon fodder for the last 8 years. Urals, and Siberia are uniquely resource rich, and they will want the money for themselves. There was a precedent: "The Republic of Urals" was a semi-functional regional autonomy for a few months in 1991. Kalmikia, and Tatarstan can secede as well. ---- Militarily wise, Russia is at its weakest since its loss in first Chechnya war. They just wasted at least 50% of Russia's current standing force on Ukraine, most of which is now stranded in Belarusian woods without supplies, and fuel, or destroyed in Ukraine. Their bases near Ukraine are now standing empty. My many contacts in Vladivostok report the same thing: military brass there "is thinking"
VirusNewbie 5y ago
I'm going put my dang hat on and say please follow up with substantive arguments if you're going to lead with hyperbolic/insulting questions.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

This is so unrealistic, it's the political equivalent of a hacker saying "Oh they used Bromoanovski encryption, hold on, I'M IN".

areoform 5y ago
It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban. This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start. As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder. Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus Not any I've seen. Could you link to some actual, recognized experts who say that?
  - areoform 5y ago
    Sure! https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-losing-hand-ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-make-a-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-prohibitively-expensive/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-to-ma...
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote. Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.

wolverine876 5y ago

> cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines > NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine. NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.