[gambiting]

>> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev

And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those troops get attacked - and the current strategy is to attack back, which again = end of the world. Arming Ukraine to the teeth and letting them fight back was the second best option and that's exactly what the west has done.

Also, there was a meme recently - it's all fun and games being an expert on the internet, but then you remember you are an able bodied male who would absolutely be drafted in to actually fight. "West should do something" - great, you first. I have kids and family, as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.

[slg]

>And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die?

If we are going by the game theory, mutually assured destruction only works if both sides believe the other is willing to engage. If one side knows the other side will not engage, it becomes easy for the aggressive side to take advantage of the passive side.

Putin also doesn't want to die so the hope would have been that if the west was stronger and made it clear that an invasion would lead to war, there would be no invasion. Putin didn't see that commitment so he attacked.

[gambiting]

Like I said above - Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one? Would he literally attack American/NATO troops to see if we'll really end the world over it?

I really don't want to find out. It's one hell of a gamble.

[slg]

>Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one?

Well that is the point. As I said the west needs to make it clear that an invasion would lead to war. It can't be a bluff. But we all know the west wasn't willing to end civilization over this so here we are. Seems like Putin is going to keep prodding the west until he finds the line he is convinced we won't let him cross. That line was never going to be Georgia, Crimea, or the whole of Ukraine.

[xorfish]

Don't underestimate Ukraine in this conflict.

The Russian military doesn't have the resources for a prolonged guerilla conflict against a motivated resistance.

With the current actions, the Ukrainian population won't easily forget what Putin has done and even dictatorships need some level of approval from the population.

There is a reasonable chance that Putin excavated his own grave with his reprehensible actions.

[thiagoharry]

A guerilla assumes that Russia occupies Ukraine. I think this is improbable, I do not think that Russia want to deal with guerilla warfare and probable terrorist attacks coming from extremists from there. The east part of Ukraine in Donbass, recognized as independent by them, is precisely the part of Ukraine with more ethnical Russians that is against the Ukrainian government and were de facto independent and more pro-russian since years ago during Ukrainian civil war. From there a guerilla would be improbable. This attacks probably are more to send a message against NATO expansion there and to defend Donbass independence, not an invasion for occupation.

[CodeArtisan]

I am not a native English speaker and may have badly expressed myself. I am not urging the "west" or "allieds" to intervene nor i am condemning them for not to. But if they were serious about stopping Putin, they would have sent troops weeks before the invasion. When Joseph Biden went everyday on television to warn that the invasion was imminent and that usa will not send troops but instead establish more economic sanctions, it was pretty clear to me that they already had accepted to abandon Ukraine to Russia.

[jpgvm]

He explained why they can't send troops.

They can send equipment because if equipment is lost it's no big deal.

If you send NATO troops and they are killed then all out war between NATO and Russia is inevitable and that could easily be world ending.

Essentially sending troops to Ukraine has a very poor risk/reward. If it works and Russia is discouraged from attacking then great, everyone goes home. If it doesn't work then it's WW3.

[mort96]

I don't understand. You're not urging the "west" or "allies" to intervene, but you want them to have sent troops to fight russian troops? In what world isn't that "intervening"?

[drewbug01]

My understanding of the comment in question is: "Sanctions are not an effective deterrent; if the West truly wanted to put a stop to this they should have sent troops because that's the only thing that Russia would listen to."

Debatable as to the truth of that sentiment, perhaps. And obviously ... NATO and Russia being at war would be incredibly disastrous. But, I do think it's possible to hold that sentiment in good faith - I feel something similar. I desperately do not want to be in a "hot" war with Russia, but at the same time I recognize that sanctions are ineffective.

The lesson here, perhaps, is that the options range from "bad" to "worse." :(

[ed_balls]

> end of the world

They are all rational actors. Turks killed Russian solders in Syria, where they nuked? Putin is bluffing.

In case of aggression, you have to sand your ground, there is no other option.

[MrDresden]

Are you truly comparing the "accidental" shooting down of a military plane to an actual boots on the ground invasion of a sovereign nation? These are so wastly different that mentioning apples and oranges doesn't even come close to it.

[ed_balls]

It was not accidental. A plane capable of caring nuclear bombs was in their airspace.

I'm not comparing anything - I was referring to "end of the world". According to Turkish strategist, nuclear weapon is not usable, so they have no problem to retaliate.

End of world is impossible.

[gambiting]

>>End of world is impossible.

I wish I had your confidence about this.

[ed_balls]

I should probably add "caused by a nuclear war between Russia and other country"

[misja111]

> And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia

You are assuming here that Russia would be willing to cause a World War by attacking those American soldiers.

> as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.

But the alternative, to let Russia have Ukraine, will become very uncomfortable in the long term. It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future. The analogy with 1938 is striking.

[simonh]

I’m afraid while I support strong action against Russia, I think we should have kicked them off Swift in 2014, sending us troops to Ukraine wouldn’t achieve anything. The Russians would simply ignore them.

If they got hurt during the invasion, the Russians would just claim, possibly entirely legitimately, that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the US is using it as an excuse for escalation. Which in fact is exactly what you’re suggesting. It would be a serious misstep we can’t afford. We should have acted decisively sooner, but now we’re here we should act decisively now. Close the pipelines completely and shut off Russia from swift. Ban all foreign travel for any Russian government employees. We’re at war with this guy, we need to act like it.

[gambiting]

>>You are assuming here that Russia would be willing to cause a World War by attacking those American soldiers.

I think Russia has been "calling the bluff" of the west for a long time. Attacking American soldiers on Ukrainian soil to send a message "look what I can do, you aren't going to attack me back because you know what it will cost you" would be entirely within the standard Russian strategy. And it would place US and NATO into an extremely uncomfortable position - attack back = world war 3, don't attack back = send a message that you can kill American troops without punishment. That's not a position anyone wants to be in.

>>It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future.

I don't think I'm naive, I fully realize that this is what will happen in the future. But again, there's having a nicely formed opinion on the internet, and then there's receiving a letter stating you are to report to your nearest military base for training and deployment. We should do something. I don't want to leave my wife and kid and go fight in Ukraine. Those aren't contradictory statements.

[XorNot]

It's not NATO -> nuclear war, but it can head that way though. NATO is currently desperately trying to not get into a limited-scale shooting war with Russia, because that's an escalation game which then depends on the other side recognizing the scope of the conflict.

[vidarh]

Look at the long history of authoritarian leaders thinking they could act without triggering escalation, e.g. Taliban, Saddam, and consider again if you want to take the risk that Putin will be rational enough to avoid further escalation and the consequences of doing so given the failure to defeat even the Taliban.

[pyuser583]

You’re assuming killing those troops would cause a world war. The US might just say, hey we’re not going to sacrifice more folks over this.

[gambiting]

Yeah, and send a message that says "you can kill American troops without consequences"? And if that's your strategy - why send them there in the first place?

[nosianu]

So.... Afghanistan? How many soldiers from several Western nations died there, and of the US in particular? Only to recently withdraw unconditionally and even hand over lots of military equipment to the enemy they had been fighting for decades?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...

[gambiting]

...but how many of those were killed by Russian forces? If Russia attacked US troops in Afghanistan then yeah, that would have been a comparable situation. US isn't going to nuke Afganistan over killing American soldiers, because that's not the stated policy.

[Paradigma11]

Nobody seemed willing to fight for the government and the taliban were hiding in pakistan waiting for the US to leave. Sometimes you just have to call it quits.

[lupire]

"fighting for decades" is not shipping some people over to die and then walking away, as was proposed upthread.

[nosianu]

> shipping some people over to die and then walking away

Eh??? This is exactly what happened. Soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. Thousands died. The US left, and the enemy took over, both government and equipment.

Also, the parent had said

> Yeah, and send a message that says "you can kill American troops without consequences"?

and again this is what happened. No consequences for the Taliban for killing American soldiers, just as the parent wrote.

[the-dude]

The analogy of the invasion of Iraq ( Shock & Awe ) and Blitzkrieg are striking too. What is your point?

[d3ckard]

Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything.

I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.

[elric]

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~200k people. Any target worth nuking, (say Nato HQ) will result in millions of casualties. Urbanization & increased population density have many benefits, but they make for mind-bogglingly disastrous targets of nukes.

If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nuclear war.

[kgwgk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich

"Although appeasement, which is conventionally defined as the act of satisfying grievances by concessions with the aim of avoiding war, was once regarded as an effective and even honourable strategy of foreign policy, the term has since the Munich Conference symbolised cowardice, failure and weakness. Winston Churchill described appeasement as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".

[elric]

If we're going to be quoting that page, we might as well do it right:

> But when Britain and France did go to war in 1939, they were still unable to save Poland from being conquered and occupied. Clearly, had they gone to war a year earlier, they would not have been able to save Czechoslovakia, either

Churchill is probably not someone we should ascribe too much wisdom to...

That, and nukes changed everything.

[kgwgk]

How is quoting one fragment of a quote appearing in the page (without an indication that it's a quote or by whom) more right than quoting a full paragraph?

[nickpp]

Giving up everything trying to avoid a nuclear war is the surest way to get it. I know, it's counterintuitive, but if you want peace you must be willing to go to war.

[ghostwriter]

> Giving up everything trying to avoid a nuclear war is the surest way to get it.

Nobody is giving up everything, what is given up at the moment is a strip of land in East Europe that could be claimed back via diplomatic arrangements as soon as Putin is gone.

[nickpp]

The west has been giving up stuff since Putin gained power. Nothing has been claimed back yet. And he won’t be gone any time soon. He has plenty of targets after Ukraine too, for example Moldova which already has a separatist Russian mole region inside.

We are watching Hitler raising, not Stalin dying here.

[philistine]

What has been given to Russia is land and people. Economically, Russia has been contracting and losing its grip on the sectors it controlled.

I don't hope for war over Ukraine. I hope for the end of oil purchases from Europe. Total economic sanctions.

[darebak]

Don't you feel you are a bit hyperbolic?

[cute_boi]

The last sentence is an oxymoron. How would there be peace if you go to war?

[Glawen]

It is a old Roman adage "Si vis pacem, para bellum" which held true for centuries

[nickpp]

I didn’t say "go to war", I said "be willing to go to war". That makes the whole difference.

[philistine]

That's some Peacemaker stuff there. "I love peace, and I'd kill any amount of men, women and children to get it."

[llampx]

Current war for future peace.

[cute_boi]

I don't think so. Middle east war, Afghan war never brought any peace. Instead it backfired. So, I really don't like such platitudes.

[catlikesshrimp]

It is easier to come up to that conclusion when you don't have skin in the game.

Poor Ukranians are the ones thinking they shouldn't have given up their nuclear warheads.

[elric]

Everyone has skin in this game.

[Jetrel]

Unfortunately for people with your worldview, this isn't the way the world works. You're thinking under a framework that one set of actions will certainly prevent it, and the other is more likely to cause it.

At this point, neither intervention nor non-intervention is likely to prevent this. It's entirely likely that if Putin loses this assault, or faces an intractable insurgency, he could launch nukes out of a desperate attempt to save face. He's old — at this point, only the reputation he leaves behind is what matters to him, and it's clear that he wishes to be remembered as a fearful and powerful figure. What better way to do that than nuking someone?

Your attitude is the same entrapment that allows abusive spouses to hold their spouse in thrall. I've actually witnessed that backfire to its ultimate degree; in my hometown, a woman in an abusive relationship called her husband's bluff on his threats to kill her if she left, and he wasn't bluffing. Killed her in broad daylight at a local bank, and then killed himself.

The question you have to ask is whether you think her leaving him was the only thing that precipitated him killing her, or whether his killing her was because he realized she no longer loved him.

Everything in life is a gamble.

[gambiting]

>>At this point, neither intervention nor non-intervention is likely to prevent this. It's entirely likely that if Putin loses this assault, or faces an intractable insurgency, he could launch nukes out of a desperate attempt to save face. He's old — at this point, only the reputation he leaves behind is what matters to him, and it's clear that he wishes to be remembered as a fearful and powerful figure. What better way to do that than nuking someone?

I do agree that if he's pushed against the wall he can nuke one Ukrainian city saying it was the hideout of the rebels or whatever, effectively sending a message that he's not afraid to use nuclear weapons, without directly attacking a NATO state. I can only assume that at that point whatever is left of Ukrainian government would voluntarily step down to prevent further destruction.

You're right that he's a madman, and any sort of logical strategy just doesn't apply here.

[lobocinza]

Then he will rule the world and nuke regardless because you are weak.

[lupire]

Why would he nuke if he ruled? That has no benefit to him.

[lobocinza]

Why would he nuke if he didn't? It has no benefit to him.

No rational agent is going to use nukes. And no diplomacy and leniency towards tyranny will save us from the crazy ones.

[bobsmooth]

I guess we let Putin have Ukraine then.

[314]

There are more than options, as the post that you are replying to explained. This kind of cheap response does not add anything.