6 ms·

With each humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, the US comes that much closer to intervening in a direct way. Neither Ukraine nor Russia will capitulate, they're too

With each humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, the US comes that much closer to intervening in a direct way. Neither Ukraine nor Russia will capitulate, they're too evenly matched conventionally. So there will be many, many of these events happening in the future. Already the leadership of certain NATO countries are calling for a no fly zone, and transfer of various weapons systems. It's a simple exercise to ask yourself what humanitarian disaster would be so egregious that the US would be forced to act because if it did not NATO itself would fracture, with newly-added former Soviet republics and eastern block countries acting on their own. That event is not very far away. Mariupol is a disaster, but it's one that none of us can influence. We can, however, take steps now for the inevitable arrival of exchange of fire between US and Russian forces. I'm happy to ratchet down that stand, but until something happens with clear de-escalatory potential, the base case needs to be direct US-Russia confrontation and likely nuclear escalation. Edit: the split in NATO could come quite quickly. A low-yield nuclear first strike by a cornered Russia into Ukraine would put the entire immediate vicinity (the Baltic states, Poland, etc.) on alert that they're next on the list. The pressure on local politicians to act first and receive reprimand from NATO later could be irresistible. The US's "ironclad" commitment to Article 5 does the rest.

ProAm 5y ago
Im honestly surprised they have not intervened directly let. The US invaded Iraq for less. Here is a democratic country needlessly invaded, with obvious civilians being targeted and killed. I think the US politicians are too old and still fear their memories of the cold war. War is hell but not helping is merciless.
- gambiting 5y ago
  The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers). But like OP said, there has to be a threshold, an attrocity so bad that NATO will be forced to intervene. I personally think seeing 18 month old babies killed by shrapnel is enough - but I'm not in charge of the policy(for better or worse).
  - ProAm 5y ago
    Regardless of helping or not helping there will be more devastation, that is unavoidable at this point. Will the world let one person terrorize an entire region and neighboring countries? If US does not intervene in means Putin has won, and can have all of the old soviet states back, the US is too scared to get its hands dirty again. Of course there is massive risk, but we are beyond that point. Without intervention you let Russia expand, rebuild and have the same risk of nuclear war as before, just with a bigger bully. If this invasion was justified in any manner I would feel different.
- scotty79 5y ago
  US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs and they also know Russia really has WMDs.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs Source? I thought the US suspected they did but oversold how good the intel was.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      The idea that they have them was purely fictional and manufactured only for justifying invasion of Iraq to US voters and international community. There are many indications that it wasn't the case of 'Oops, we were wrong' but rather 'Oops, we lied'
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Waiting for that source.
        raphlinus 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA is a pretty good one, actually. It's in the form of a joke, but the fact that it got a laugh conveys a sort of shared knowledge they were pulling a fast one over the public. ETA: If you're asking for more "straight news" types of sources, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... is a pretty neutral and objective retrospective, relying heavily on a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was approved on a bipartisan basis.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Your second seems to validate my claim. > Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It’s too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion.
scotty79 5y ago
I wonder where UN blue helmets are?
skuhn 5y ago
To take the situation to an extreme conclusion: Why doesn’t Putin just have his army start on the east end of Ukraine and proceed west, killing every single person and destroying every piece of infrastructure in their way? Anything up to (and perhaps including) that point clearly won’t result in direct intervention, whether due to the fear of nuclear holocaust or for other reasons. So then why not? If he needs to win at all costs, and he doesn’t care about anything but power, what is holding him back? Is it because he wants to occupy Ukraine and get its people to contribute to his GDP and their resources to sell? Russia is already devastating Ukraine to such a degree that there will be constant guerrilla fighting as an occupied state and it will take substantial investment to rebuild industry. Russia doesn’t seem to have the people or resources for a long term occupation. Because there are escalations that can still happen besides direct intervention? The US and EU could do more, but not that much more. China is the only one that can really put the heat on at this point, and they probably do have a limit at which they would. Or is it because he can’t? Even with the total commitment of all of Russia’s resources, can they not utterly annihilate Ukraine? That seems unlikely (although the cost seems to be far greater than previously believed), although it may require nuclear escalation. So it seems to me like we’re in a waiting game for Russia’s other trade partners (mostly China) to drop severe sanctions, or for Russia to escalate to nuclear conflict and let that genie out of the bottle, or for Russia to bow out due to lack of resources or regime change. I think of those options, the most likely is that Russia continues throwing bodies into the Ukrainian meat grinder until they can finally claim a pyrrhic victory. I can’t imagine NATO intervening, no matter how terrible the events, when nukes are on the table.
- dh2022 5y ago
  Another option is Russia coerces Ukraine into accepting the 3 things [1] Russia asked. It can happen. It will be interesting what will the West do if this happens. [1] the three things are: 1. No NATO integration 2. Recognize Crimea as part of Russia 3. Recognize the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk. Ukraine already conceded first item. In time they may concede the rest. [edit - formatting. Sorry, I am new to HN so I do not know how editing works very well.]

ProAm 5y ago

Im honestly surprised they have not intervened directly let. The US invaded Iraq for less. Here is a democratic country needlessly invaded, with obvious civilians being targeted and killed. I think the US politicians are too old and still fear their memories of the cold war. War is hell but not helping is merciless.

gambiting 5y ago
The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers). But like OP said, there has to be a threshold, an attrocity so bad that NATO will be forced to intervene. I personally think seeing 18 month old babies killed by shrapnel is enough - but I'm not in charge of the policy(for better or worse).
- ProAm 5y ago
  Regardless of helping or not helping there will be more devastation, that is unavoidable at this point. Will the world let one person terrorize an entire region and neighboring countries? If US does not intervene in means Putin has won, and can have all of the old soviet states back, the US is too scared to get its hands dirty again. Of course there is massive risk, but we are beyond that point. Without intervention you let Russia expand, rebuild and have the same risk of nuclear war as before, just with a bigger bully. If this invasion was justified in any manner I would feel different.
scotty79 5y ago
US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs and they also know Russia really has WMDs.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs Source? I thought the US suspected they did but oversold how good the intel was.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    The idea that they have them was purely fictional and manufactured only for justifying invasion of Iraq to US voters and international community. There are many indications that it wasn't the case of 'Oops, we were wrong' but rather 'Oops, we lied'
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Waiting for that source.
      - raphlinus 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA is a pretty good one, actually. It's in the form of a joke, but the fact that it got a laugh conveys a sort of shared knowledge they were pulling a fast one over the public. ETA: If you're asking for more "straight news" types of sources, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... is a pretty neutral and objective retrospective, relying heavily on a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was approved on a bipartisan basis.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Your second seems to validate my claim. > Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It’s too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion.

scotty79 5y ago

I wonder where UN blue helmets are?

skuhn 5y ago

To take the situation to an extreme conclusion: Why doesn’t Putin just have his army start on the east end of Ukraine and proceed west, killing every single person and destroying every piece of infrastructure in their way? Anything up to (and perhaps including) that point clearly won’t result in direct intervention, whether due to the fear of nuclear holocaust or for other reasons. So then why not? If he needs to win at all costs, and he doesn’t care about anything but power, what is holding him back? Is it because he wants to occupy Ukraine and get its people to contribute to his GDP and their resources to sell? Russia is already devastating Ukraine to such a degree that there will be constant guerrilla fighting as an occupied state and it will take substantial investment to rebuild industry. Russia doesn’t seem to have the people or resources for a long term occupation. Because there are escalations that can still happen besides direct intervention? The US and EU could do more, but not that much more. China is the only one that can really put the heat on at this point, and they probably do have a limit at which they would. Or is it because he can’t? Even with the total commitment of all of Russia’s resources, can they not utterly annihilate Ukraine? That seems unlikely (although the cost seems to be far greater than previously believed), although it may require nuclear escalation. So it seems to me like we’re in a waiting game for Russia’s other trade partners (mostly China) to drop severe sanctions, or for Russia to escalate to nuclear conflict and let that genie out of the bottle, or for Russia to bow out due to lack of resources or regime change. I think of those options, the most likely is that Russia continues throwing bodies into the Ukrainian meat grinder until they can finally claim a pyrrhic victory. I can’t imagine NATO intervening, no matter how terrible the events, when nukes are on the table.

dh2022 5y ago
Another option is Russia coerces Ukraine into accepting the 3 things [1] Russia asked. It can happen. It will be interesting what will the West do if this happens. [1] the three things are: 1. No NATO integration 2. Recognize Crimea as part of Russia 3. Recognize the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk. Ukraine already conceded first item. In time they may concede the rest. [edit - formatting. Sorry, I am new to HN so I do not know how editing works very well.]