13 ms·
I would like to know what the alternatives are. None that I can think of are palatable: 1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more ter
by GMoromisato 2y ago
I would like to know what the alternatives are. None that I can think of are palatable:
1. Support Ukraine enough so that Russia doesn't take too much more territory, but not enough for Russia to feel threatened and escalate the war. This was the Biden plan and it sounds like what Europe wants. I just don't see how this ends the war. Is this just buying time for someone to depose Putin?
2. Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious.
3. Freeze the conflict at the current lines and guarantee the agreement with US/NATO forces. What does that mean in practice? If Russia violates the agreement we go to option #2? That sounds like a hollow threat because we're clearly not ready to do #2 right now, when it could actually help. All this will do is let Russia rearm.
4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.]
Did I miss anything?
The root of the problem is that this is a hard-power conflict and the only solution is going to be hard-power. But neither the US nor the EU are willing to put in hard-power against Russia. In that situation, I honestly don't know how to stop Putin from getting what he wants.
My frustration is that, as awful as Trump's plan is, it acknowledges that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong. I would like to be wrong.
- guax 2y agoThe goal was always to support Ukraine for long enough to pressure Russia into the negotiation table, the concessions could varied, no one knows. Ukraine knows it cannot get it all, but they know they won't settle for nothing either. We know this given how close even Trump got to having discussions with both parties. His competence was not there to finish any deal and took the worse turn possible.
- GMoromisato 2y agoBut if you can't stop Russia from getting some of Ukraine, how do you stop it from getting all of Ukraine? That to me is the key problem. Russia knows that time is on its side. It can just pause enough to rearm and then attack again. What will we do differently then?
- hagbarth 2y agoWhat makes you think it will go any differently than the first time? A pause will allow Ukraine to either rearm again as well or recapture territory.
- GMoromisato 2y agoBecause Ukrainian soldiers are not unlimited, and Russia's population is about 3 times larger. Plus, at some point Russia will start using nukes and then we will be forced to back down. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine.
- NeutralCrane 2y agoUkraine is fighting an existential war. It has far more to lose and therefore can and will commit far more of its population and resources to the fight. Russia has a greater population, but has been relying largely on conscripts among the poor, the incarcerated, and third world nations likes North Korea. Thats a resource that is far smaller in number than their total population. As soon as it’s tapped out, they either have to give up are start conscripting people in the middle and upper classes, and that will turn the Russian population on the war and their leaders faster than anything.
- altpaddle 2y agoRight because countries with smaller populations can't beat larger ones when defending their homeland. Oh wait that's exactly what happened in Afghanistan vs USSR and USA, Vietnam etc.
- guax 2y agoI think Russia would be much more weary to attack a re-armed, well supported and "rested" Ukraine that would be bolstered by defeating goliath, even if at great loss, remember that everyone thought they would capitulate within two weeks. In this war the only winners are US/EU weapons manufacturers, there is no winning scenario. Something Trump cannot understand and Putin cannot accept.
- 2y ago
- namuol 2y agoI’m struggling to see how option 1 is somehow worse than option 4…
- GMoromisato 2y agoMore Ukrainian + Russians dead/wounded and more money spent on weapons, and you end up in one of the other options anyway.
- namuol 2y agoThe only inevitability listed is that Putin can’t live forever. There’s legitimate hope if Russia has a leadership change.
- kajecounterhack 2y ago> Support Ukraine enough so it can take all its territory (maybe minus Crimea). This may not be possible with weapons alone. This might require a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine, which effectively makes us a combatant. I actually would support this path, but the downsides are all too obvious. It _is_ possible with the combo of weapons and economic sanctions. Ukraine (had) more economic support, so it is both a war of blood and endurance, endurance which Ukraine could have by being a porcupine with next-gen weapons and non-stop bleeding for Russia until things start hitting the oligarch's pocketbooks too far and the people of Russia begin to demand regime change. Russia is a glorified gas station. You can hurt it dramatically with economic sanctions because its whole GDP is concentrated into one sector. Imo if Trump really cared about America's long term security, he would be trying to fund research into cheaper / easier to produce next-gen weapons for Ukraine to test for us, instead of complaining how much our HIMARS and tanks currently cost, firing top military brass, cozying up to a dictator, and trying to exploit a ravaged democratic ally.
- GMoromisato 2y agoMaybe. But Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either because they feared Russian reaction. Now, with so many Ukrainian soldiers dead, it will be much harder. Economic sanctions won't affect Russia as long as China is behind them. And if the West is against Russia, they will do anything to keep China as an ally.
- sublimefire 2y agoSanctions work! But their enforcement requires attention. Russians are draining their fund to the last drop and there is not much left, they cannot easily get a credit either. Unfortunately, these last weeks give some breathing room to Russians and their evasion schemes as people who look after sanctions are being fired.
- kajecounterhack 2y ago> Biden and Germany didn't push too hard on either because they feared Russian reaction And this was a mistake, one that they slowly tried to reverse once they realized Ukraine wasn't going to be a pushover especially with modern weaponry.
- B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago> 4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds.] It would have been in the US best interest to have done this twenty years ago, but some greedy bastards thought there would be untold riches in breaking up Russia, to have "two, three, many Ukraines". They failed.
- quickthrowman 2y agoRussia is a mafia that owns a gas station, not a global power. They’d be irrelevant without nuclear weapons. Their economy is roughly the same size as the state of Texas.
- cryptonector 2y agoAnd yet those nuclear weapons, those they do have.
- quickthrowman 2y agoJust because they have nuclear weapons doesn’t make them a reliable partner in global geopolitics. Trusting Russia in any sort of alliance is a foolish move if you’re familiar with history.
- hagbarth 2y ago1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.
- GMoromisato 2y agoI get that. As I said, maybe eventually Putin gets deposed. But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine, and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with nukes). Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and we will have to back down.
- padjo 2y agoRussia is not going to use nukes.
- GMoromisato 2y agoWhat makes you so sure? They have already said that certain events (e.g., Russia itself being "threatened") would make them use nukes. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do?
- gafferongames 2y agoUkraine literally invaded Russia with Western weapons in support. The nukes did not fly. The nukes will not fly.
- Yujf 2y agoRight. And also you can never take that threat seriously when Russia is using it while on the offensive, because following that logic you should let them do whatever they want because nukes.
- 2y ago
- jonathanstrange 2y agoIn my opinion, Ukraine should be supported as long as they are willing and able to fight, allowing whatever strategies and tactics they consider necessary. That's because I believe there is a moral and (geo-)political duty to support Ukraine, also in order to make future territorial wars less likely, and Ukraine is a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders and parliament.
- surfpel 2y ago[flagged]
- jonathanstrange 2y agoIt's not warmongering to allow a country that has been invaded to determine how and how long they defend their country and which approaches they take towards peace. Is it possible that you haven't been raised in a free democratic country? That would explain your patronizing attitude towards elected governments and other countries. Otherwise, I don't know what to say. It's really about sovereignty. On a side note, it is never a good idea to allow your judgments to get clouded by anecdotal "evidence", let alone videos on social media. Use statistical data instead.
- surfpel 2y ago[flagged]
- jonathanstrange 2y agoI merely have an intact and uncorrupted sense of justice. I believe that any country illegally attacked by another country should be helped and the people of that country (if it is democratic) should decide on their own how to defend themselves.
- OfficeChad 2y ago[dead]
- oezi 2y agoI think you need better wording for Option 1: Support Ukraine sufficiently so it can make its own decision if they want to continue fighting. For Option 2 I actually don't see a lot of downsides except dead European soldiers replacing dead Ukrainian soldiers. Russia would absolutely stop if being stopped in their tracks more ferociously. In fact, Russia is already fighting this war all out. If they could they would do more (or at least I can't phantom why they would not).
- pembrook 2y ago> “I actually don’t see a lot of downsides” You do realize Russia has nuclear weapons and a leader who has already hinted at using them if necessary?
- ed_mercer 2y agoNuclear weapons of which some might even work
- oezi 2y agoUnlikely to be used. Why would it become more necessary if Europeans help secure Ukraine's borders?
- Aaargh20318 2y agoRussia had a lot of equipment in storage, equipment that was supposed to be maintained. Strangely enough a lot of that equipment never saw any maintenance despite the maintenance budget being spent. That money 'disappeared' into someone's pockets. Now these were conventional weapons, guns, tanks, trucks, etcetera. Stuff that you could imagine being used at some point, so there was some risk of being found out. Now imagine you are a Russian general in charge of maintaining the nuclear stockpile. Weapons that you can reasonably expect never to be actually used. Even better, if you ever get in a situation where they would be used, it's basically the end of the world and no one is going to be alive to care if you pocketed the maintenance money anyway. How much of the allocated maintenance budget do you expect to have been spent on actual maintenance?
- losvedir 2y agoI think the "mineral rights" deal might play into this. In the full interview[0], Trump mentions it right off the bat, and talks about how it "means we're going to be inside". I think it goes in tandem with your number (3). Like you say, why would Russia not violate the agreement? I think maybe the move is "well now we have citizens in there working so don't blow us up". It's one thing for Russia to attack the Ukraine, but another if they have collateral damage that takes out Americans. I don't even know how valuable the actual underlying resources are, so much as a bit of "kayfabe" between the Ukraine, US, and Russia, that things are different. Anyway, that's my hope. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um19Mf4dYes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um19Mf4dYes
- cloverich 2y agoZelenekys issue with that plan is the lack of guarantees, because of what happened the last time. He believes Russia will restrengthen faster than his country and when interest wanes, comes right back. Trumps issue is he knows the lack of guarantees is a better deal for the US because we gain much and risk nothing. He wants to make a deal and get credit, i dont think he really cares what happens after. Maybe he does, i wish that to be the case. But i dont believe it.
- an_guy 2y agoThe reality is there can't be guarantees only temporary peace. If the deal fails, Russia won't attack mineral deposits owned by US. US would probably send troops to "protect" US resources.
- jedberg 2y agoYou forgot option 1.5: Provide Ukraine with the long range missiles they've been asking for, the ones that they can use to strike Moscow directly. This could escalate the war, but Russia does not appear to be in a position to escalate right now.
- GMoromisato 2y agoThis feels good, but will ultimately fail. Russia will respond with either strategic bombing of Kyiv or tactical nukes. And then what do we do? Nuke Moscow? Send NATO troops in? More sanctions? Russia knows that we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine, which means escalation always ends with us backing down.
- rpmisms 2y ago> Russia knows that we are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine Therefore, ending the war as soon as possible is the moral thing to do.
- fernandopj 2y agoEven if so, it's a poor course of action to invite the defending leader to a talk, and ask publicly for his unconditional surrender _under a threat and praising of the invader_
- ActorNightly 2y agoIts a game. US most certainly has anti ballistic missile tech, however wasting exposing it on Russia is something that is not worth it when there are more capable nations on the line.
- rpmisms 2y agoRussia is special. They're a sophisticated adversary with a drastically different warfighting doctrine. They still optimize airframes for dogfighting, are laser-focused on hypersonic tech, and we don't officially know how good their missile defense is (probably excellent, or at least good enough to be dangerous, which is a bit of a theme). They have a much lower defense budget, and have been forced to actually be creative and clever about problems, as opposed to our throw-money-at-problem-ergo-win approach. tl;dr Russia is not a fun opponent, and they culturally really enjoy statecraft so best to stick with statecraft.
- mongol 2y agoOne obvious alternative is to not to behave like a bully but like a real leader. The US could disengage in much more orderly fashion, if it so pleased.
- GMoromisato 2y agoI would love that! But that doesn't change the underlying problem. How do we stop Putin getting what he wants? If you're saying, there's nothing we can do but the US should be nicer about it, well, I guess that's right, but somewhat useless.
- cloverich 2y agoGive Russia some of what it wants, give Ukraine security guarantees. Put NATO troops in Ukraine. Maintain sanctions against Russia.
- missedthecue 2y agoHe covered that. NATO troops and security guarantees are only credible if the US/EU is willing to send troops to die in the Donbas. If they're truly willing to do that, why not do it now? Russia easily calls the bluff.
- zqna 2y ago5. Ukraine develops nukes ASAP. That's the only viable strategy thar protects (protected so far).
- postalrat 2y agoAt what point would ukraine be justified launching their nukes (if they had them)? Now? After russian launches first?
- cryptonector 2y agoSure, and Russia wouldn't nuke NATO targets in return. And they wouldn't know of Ukraine's nuclear weapons program and destroy it before it succeeds. This sort of gullibility is very dangerous, especially if it manifests in folks in DC who could help your scenario happen.
- zqna 2y agoIf your goal is not to be annihilated in the shirt term, you don't care what they are thinking in DC, Moscow, even London
- Aaargh20318 2y ago> Sure, and Russia wouldn't nuke NATO targets in return. With what? Left over nukes from the cold war that haven't been maintained in decades? I would be surprised if Russia had 1 working nuke left.
- krick 2y agoI don't know what answer you expect. I think you didn't really miss options (broadly speaking), but your interpretation of each option is opinionated, and this is extremely opinionated topic (obviously). So I wouldn't say you are wrong, you are just... opinionated. 1st one isn't really about "buying time". The prolongation of conflict is not a "side-effect" here, it's the whole point. And IMO it's a solid plan, honestly. If I was a citizen of the USA without any morals or inclinations to travel abroad, I would probably support it. This isn't a 100% solid plan, there are actually some questions if it works as it was supposed to work, but the incentive here seems blatantly obvious to me: war weakens Russia, weakens Europe, and nobody cares about Ukraine anyway, so by investing into the war carefully USA ends up winning, same as after WW1 and WW2. To me, the game plan is obvious here. It's just cynical, and that's why Biden (and other public-speaking supporters of the plan) would never say it as it is. No real politician would. As to Europe wanting that... well, I would say it seems current EU leadership wants that, and I have pretty hard time explaining why, so I'll leave it aside. If you want some random data point: I, as a European citizen definitely don't want that. I don't doubt the majority of my fellow EU citizens would say they "support the support of Ukraine", but I don't find it surprising, given all media outlets chant 24/7 about how horrible Russia/Putin is. I mean, yes, that's kinda saying "I think I know better than these guys", but I just don't see any benefits for the actual people (not governments) living in EU. This war hurts the economics, it hurts the relationships, and I personally have relatives in Ukraine, so I just want it to stop. I don't care on which terms, and obviously it cannot be the terms on which the war started. It's way too deep into the conflict and too many lives lost to call it a good outcome, but it's the best outcome. So, not being a citizen of the USA, I am in favor of that alternative which is "as stupid as it sounds", the last one. I mostly have problems not with the option itself, but with the fact that for Trump to want it is not enough for it to happen. Because, as stated, a lot of people don't want this to happen, and it almost seems like Trump is mistaking being POTUS for being God. Meaning, the way he is doing things is stupidly blunt. It might work, it might escalate things more. In any case, having all of HN whining about how ashamed they are of their president is not a good start. And that product he helped BBC to make works awful for him and his plan.
- thesumofall 2y agoIf European leadership does this right, Europe will emerge out of this much stronger than they went into it. It has already strengthened the collaboration across the EU‘s nations, has led to higher defense spending, will lead to even higher defense spending, will drastically increase energy independence, and eventually also increase EU‘s soft power (because they would have the hard power to back it up). If they play it right
- Glyptodon 2y agoI'd look at the minimum viable option as providing enough materiel that the worst case situation is eventually similar to North and South Korea. But I also think it is conceivable that non minimum options are possible.
- gfkclzhzo 2y agoThe USA used to fight proxy vs proxy against Russia. Now we have a chance for us to fight through a proxy against Russia itself. This is a huge geopolitical opportunity to diminish or even destroy an enemy with low risk to the US itself. The whole liberal-democratic world should be all-in on Ukraine assistance. Instead, Trump just made it clear that the optimal time for PRC v ROC round 2 is within the next 3 year 10 months.
- an_guy 2y ago> This is a huge geopolitical opportunity to diminish or even destroy an enemy with low risk to the US itself. They had this "huge opportunity" for last 4 years.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago#1 is the least bad because Putin only has the resources to keep going for so long and will eventually have to quit (while looking for a way to save face). There is a lot of resentment in Russia about their boys dying in Afghanistan and at some point the Russian people will not put up with the loss of life anymore.
- machiaweliczny 2y agoYou seem to be missing $15T in minerals and for sure we can’t afford a freeze on current lines and this will make Russia invasion very profitable.
- cryptonector 2y agoThe U.S. abandoned Georgia in the 00s because it was indefensible. The Ukraine is also very difficult to defend, especially since it seems like such a touchy issue for Russia. I doubt that Russia would go to full-scale nuclear war over Ukraine but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small scale use of nuclear weapons on -say- Brussels. And if Russia makes enough of those Oreshnik missiles they could easily take out most of Europe's air forces in one go without going nuclear, and thus change the balance of power in Ukraine. The question really is: at what price Ukraine? Your (1), (2), and (3) are no solutions. Pausing the war now simply means escalating it later. Depending on Trump's understanding of Russia's limits (I say Trump's because he might have a better understanding that the public), (4) may be the only workable option.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 127 2y agoIf Ukraine received twice the military aid, they would have already won. Drip feeding aid was worst of all worlds, outside allying with Russia. Both US and Europe got deterred by Putin's nuclear threats. Which means logically next step for Europe is drastically increase their nuclear stockpile.
- benrutter 2y agoI think you're at least a bit wrong in that this is about a lot more thn simply the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide. Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide. So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.
- averageRoyalty 2y ago> The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide. Nobody outside of the US has seen the US as that since at least the gulf war. US involvement since the 90s in foreign issues has been primarily for selfish purposes.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aurareturn 2y ago4. Abandon Ukraine and make a deal with Russia against China. [This is Trump's plan and it's as stupid as it sounds. that the only way to beat Russia is to send US troops to fight Russians, and there is no universe in which the US public will support that. This is really Trump's plan? And what makes you think Americans would support sending US troops to defend East Asia if they're not willing to fight for Ukraine? And what makes you think Russia will sit there idling while the US fights China in the pacific?
- TomK32 2y agoRussia had three years, no eleven, to escalate this war but has not done so. You'd think the Kursk invasion would have triggered but it has has not. It is us Europeans who have to escalate this war, show strength because it's the modus that Putin operates on and the only language he understands. I want to see an ultimatum after which we not only create this no-fly-zone over Ukraine but also send men (I'll include my own grey beard here) to Ukraine to help them push the invaders out. If that happens we need to set a second ultimatum after which we simple invade Russia. It's sad to say: But as with my native Germany, it will take a complete defeat for the Russian people to have even a chance to embrace democracy. I'm somewhat disappointed that the future of Russian people is barely ever mentioned. Take away Putin and his cronies, give them democracy like (West) Germany did and the EU re-gains access to a huge market.
- svara 2y agoYes, you did forget a scenario where a EU, US and possibly other countries military presence is on the table as a threat to deter further escalations by Russia, but does not actually occur. To be more specific, you give Ukraine what it needs to freeze the current lines, a cease fire is signed, Russia gets to stop fighting while saving face, and the unoccupied part of Ukraine gets what would amount to NATO membership without formally joining . The status of the occupied territories remains ambiguous, with the West and Ukraine banking on a change in leadership in Russia at some point in the future. As far as I can tell, this is the type of deal that Zelensky thought he came to DC for.
- throwaway290 2y agoRussia is basically not a major player anymore. It's a vassal state of PRC. Thinking it would be a useful ally against PRC is a complete misread of the situation. Sacrificing a state and alliance with EU for this is doubly insane. US and West was doing absolutely fine and held ground and the values (freedom etc) against oppressive dictatorships right up until this year. It's distressing.
- vanviegen 2y agoI'm not sure if Putin/Russia can sustain option 1 for much longer, given the huge economical, military and political drain, especially in combination with effective sanctions. So keeping it up might destabilize Putin, without further escalating the conflict. Seems like the sanest of bad options to me.
- zo1 2y agoHad this on another comment, but decided to respond here more in the root: If Russia invades a NATO country, then you guys can worry about WW3. Until then, leave it be. We could have avoided a million deaths by now if we weren't adamant to "stick it to Russia". Either Ukraine is a part of NATO, or not. If the world let it be back in 2022, Russia would have finished invading Ukraine in a week, and then would have been stuck dealing with incredible amounts of terrorism and guerilla warfare coming from a very large Ukrainian population. What exactly would that outcome have helped them in this supposedly-dangerous "invasion of Europe"? More balls and courage to invade another country? Same outcome if they win tomorrow after 3 bloody years of war. You think they want another European country? What for? You think Putin can continue to convince his populace to keep subsidizing more wars at this point?
- lee 2y agoThis is a war of attrition. Russia is expending its soviet cold war materiel. Its trade embargo is seriously undermining its ability to continue to fight. It may be sooner than we think that they'll run out of weapons and equipment so long as Ukraine has support from its allies.
- SergeAx 2y agoPut economic pressure upon Russia so it cannot support its war efforts. Meanwhile, Ukraine should be given anything it needs to defend itself effectively. Do you think it is palatable?
- mbs159 2y agoHow about 3 + a fortified DMZ like in Korea?
- kulikalov 2y agorussia hasn't been cutoff economically still. 3 years and the economy is going down but not as fast as it should have. The leaders of the west think they are playing a game here with pros and cons. There are no pros and a huge con with number 3 on it. How the fuck can anyone still trade with russia. This should have been retaliation of the western world years ago.