[CodeGlitch]

Here's my prediction:

Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.

As it stands the West can do nothing.

In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).

It seems to be that there's no way out for the Ukrainians :(

[tablespoon]

> Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.

I doubt Ukraine will surrender as long as it can supply its forces with food, drinking water, and ammo.

> As it stands the West can do nothing.

The West can do a lot of things that it chooses not to do out of fear. IMHO one of the biggest mistakes it has made has been to be very, very clear about what it won't do, while letting the Russians be very, very unclear about what it won't do. The result has been the Russian leadership is not afraid, and has taken advantage of the freedom that affords to bomb the shit out of Ukraine.

If NATO had massed soldiers in Poland in January and been deliberately ambiguous about its intentions, it's quite possible that Russia might not have invaded Ukraine at all (and then mocked the NATO by saying "LOL guys, we were really just doing exercises").

[nxm]

Please elaborate on what else the West can do? No fly-zone is a non-starter

[WJW]

Supplying the Ukrainians with food, water and weapons is a good start. Supplying them early warnings about troop movements from satellite imagery and cracked Russian communications would be a second, and it would be very deniable to boot. Sanctions will reduce the ability of the Russians to keep up the offensive in the mid-term, and there is indirect pressure to be exerted via the Chinese (who are miffed at the lack of warning they got from "close friend" Putin about his plans) and other diplomatic means. And finally there are of course all sorts of black ops you can do in an active warzone, similar to how Russia deployed "little green men" in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014.

[bcrosby95]

> Supplying the Ukrainians with food, water and weapons is a good start.

Countries have been very public about doing this.

> Supplying them early warnings about troop movements from satellite imagery and cracked Russian communications would be a second, and it would be very deniable to boot.

They're pretty obviously doing this, Ukranian forces seem to have a lot of knowledge about Russian movements.

> And finally there are of course all sorts of black ops you can do in an active warzone

Something like 20k "volunteers" have gone to Ukraine to fight. Many of these people are likely not random couch surfers that decided to sign up.

I think the west is already doing almost everything you've outlined here. We just aren't in a position to know.

[tablespoon]

> They're pretty obviously doing this, Ukranian forces seem to have a lot of knowledge about Russian movements.

There are direct reports of this. IIRC, they're taking raw intelligence, scrubbing it to hide sources and methods (they think the Ukrainian government is full of Russian spies), and refraining from recommending specific actions based on it (because they feel like that would cross some stupid line and irritate the Russians too much). My understanding is that they've been able to get timely updates the the Ukrainians pretty quickly.

[tablespoon]

> Please elaborate on what else the West can do? No fly-zone is a non-starter

No fly-zones. It's pretty clear that falls into the category of something the West can do, but chooses not to out of fear. Because the West is afraid, Putin isn't.

Stepping down from that: have Zelensky invite the west to bomb certain Ukrainian roads and bridges in Ukrainian territory that the Russians are using, then do it. Maybe even be funny about it and post a notice of emergency demolition due to unsafe conditions on some Ukrainian DOT-equivalent site. Or supply the Ukrainians with advanced weaponry like anti-ship and cruise missiles (perhaps in-fact secretly operated by Western advisors) to attack Russian landing ships and supply lines.

[peeters]

> No fly-zones. It's pretty clear that falls into the category of something the West can do, but chooses not to out of fear.

NATO shooting down Russian planes is war between nuclear powers. This isn't Libya. This isn't the West being afraid, it's the West acting like adults.

[tablespoon]

> NATO shooting down Russian planes is war between nuclear powers. This isn't Libya. This isn't the West being afraid, it's the West acting like adults.

That is the West being afraid, specifically of Russian escalation. They're so afraid, they've pretty much explicitly told Russia it can do whatever it wants.

[alangibson]

Bring back the old lend-lease program. It was basically a way to remain officially neutral while arming your allies.

[peeters]

The U.S. isn't officially neutral, so lend-lease is pointless in this case. The west is already overtly arming Ukraine.

[khazhoux]

I agree. I fear Ukraine will “win” when Russia retreats from the scorched, destroyed-to-rubble ruins of their nation.

[pvaldes]

Getting rid of the Russian interference forever would be still pay back. We must remember that Germany was fully destroyed to rubble also and now is the largest economy in the EU.

Under the correct environment things can recover surprisingly fast.

[WJW]

The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians. The Ukraine is so large that to keep it occupied would take hundreds of thousands of troops and Russia cannot afford to keep up such mobilisation for long. They have a few months at most and properly beating an insurgency takes years if not decades.

I don't really buy the Chernobyl argument either. If the NATO starts shooting the Russians already have nuclear weapons to act directly. No need to crack open an old nuclear plant and hope the wind doesn't change.

[pessimizer]

> The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians.

This would be a great tactic to reduce Ukraine to a pile of smoking rubble over a couple of decades of war. I'm not sure that's a great outcome for Ukrainians.

[WJW]

What the West does is what will be the best for them, not necessarily what will be the best for Ukrainians. I'm sure there are a couple of foreign policy officials somewhere that would love the idea of Russia being tied up in the Ukraine for decades instead of using that capacity for bothering other countries.

[henrikschroder]

Why would Russia stay in Ukraine for decades?

The will to commit Russia's military in Ukraine is pretty much Putin's alone. His narrative around the invasion was proven completely untrue within days. The sanctions are making life extremely difficult for both ordinary Russians, and for the wealthy oligarchs. Ordinary Russians are being asked to go die in a war against their Ukrainian brothers and sisters, who keep telling their Russian brothers and sisters to stop the madness and get the fuck out. And finally, Putin is 70, how much longer is he going to stay in control?

[paxys]

Nuclear fallout in Ukraine is going to affect Russia more than it affects "the west". It makes zero strategic sense to start bombing nuclear plants.

[sillysaurusx]

Russia can't do that. They have no way of moving supplies from Russia into Ukraine. That means Russia's operational capabilities are limited to five days, at which point their troops are stranded.

[Trasmatta]

> In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).

Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

[CRConrad]

> Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

OTOH, starting a nuclear WW3 would also make zero strategic sense, and still the West is worried about him doing that. So maybe worrying about this is also valid.