Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[alfred russel]

So the plan is to enter a nuclear war but not use our own nukes? So theoretically a Russia already using nuclear weapons is going to stop usin them when we enter the war, and and be militarily defeated through conventional means, and at some point sign a peace treaty that recognizes ukrainian sovereignty?

Well if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the options are basically:

-do nothing.  Let Russia keep using nukes until Ukraine sues for peace.  Therefore establishing the precedent that nuclear powers can get away with anything, and causing the world to rush to have their own.

-respond with nukes.  Likely end of the world.

-respond, but with conventional forces to act as further deterrent to the use of more nukes.  Destroy the Black Sea fleet.  Start running SEAD missions over Ukraine.  Destroy the Kerch bridge.  Show that you're willing to respond but limit to to the territory of Ukraine.

Is it risky?  Sure.  But sounds like the least risky option after Putin does something that has been unthinkable for the last 67 years.

The first option seems less risky combined with Russia being made a pariah state (which seems likely to actually happen if nuclear weapons are used). I mean nuclear proliferation is extremely serious. But I don't think many countries are in a position to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal as extensive as Russia, and proliferation could be prevented if there is international commitment.

The fear of proliferation is that it makes devastating nuclear war more likely, and embracing NATO entering into an already nuclear war with Russia seems about the most likely course of events to result in a devastating nuclear war.

[Barrister]

The first option seems less risky combined with Russia being made a pariah state (which seems likely to actually happen if nuclear weapons are used). I mean nuclear proliferation is extremely serious. But I don't think many countries are in a position to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal as extensive as Russia, and proliferation could be prevented if there is international commitment.

The fear of proliferation is that it makes devastating nuclear war more likely, and embracing NATO entering into an already nuclear war with Russia seems about the most likely course of events to result in a devastating nuclear war.

I think that being given free reign to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for becoming a "pariah" is something Putin would gladly welcome.

And really - how much of a pariah would Russia be?  It's a nuclear power, and now it gets to use them to bully any non-aligned country it wants to.

[alfred russel]

The first option seems less risky combined with Russia being made a pariah state (which seems likely to actually happen if nuclear weapons are used). I mean nuclear proliferation is extremely serious. But I don't think many countries are in a position to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal as extensive as Russia, and proliferation could be prevented if there is international commitment.

The fear of proliferation is that it makes devastating nuclear war more likely, and embracing NATO entering into an already nuclear war with Russia seems about the most likely course of events to result in a devastating nuclear war.

I think that being given free reign to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for becoming a "pariah" is something Putin would gladly welcome.

And really - how much of a pariah would Russia be?  It's a nuclear power, and now it gets to use them to bully any non-aligned country it wants to.

This is why 200 or so days ago i was saying that we need to find a face saving way out of this for Putin. If the question is: should we let Russia terrorize and kill Ukraine with 40 million inhabitants, or should we enter nuclear war with Russia and put global civilization with ~8 billion people in serious jeopardy, the obvious answer is the former.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The first option seems less risky combined with Russia being made a pariah state (which seems likely to actually happen if nuclear weapons are used). I mean nuclear proliferation is extremely serious. But I don't think many countries are in a position to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal as extensive as Russia, and proliferation could be prevented if there is international commitment.

The fear of proliferation is that it makes devastating nuclear war more likely, and embracing NATO entering into an already nuclear war with Russia seems about the most likely course of events to result in a devastating nuclear war.

I think that being given free reign to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for becoming a "pariah" is something Putin would gladly welcome.

And really - how much of a pariah would Russia be?  It's a nuclear power, and now it gets to use them to bully any non-aligned country it wants to.

This is why 200 or so days ago i was saying that we need to find a face saving way out of this for Putin. If the question is: should we let Russia terrorize and kill Ukraine with 40 million inhabitants, or should we enter nuclear war with Russia and put global civilization with ~8 billion people in serious jeopardy, the obvious answer is the former.

you're still assuming he'll stop at Ukraine. Given the goals he laid out before this war I doubt he'd stop. Even more: he would come into conflict with NATO anyways.

As for inability to develop: if North Korea can manage it, they every dictator with sufficient will can.

[Barrister]

This is why 200 or so days ago i was saying that we need to find a face saving way out of this for Putin. If the question is: should we let Russia terrorize and kill Ukraine with 40 million inhabitants, or should we enter nuclear war with Russia and put global civilization with ~8 billion people in serious jeopardy, the obvious answer is the former.

The only way for Putin to save face after 50k+ dead russians is a Russian victory.

A Russian victory does more to risk global nuclear war in the long run then a NATO non-nuclear military response to a Russian tactical nuke.

[DGuller]

If the question is, should we establish a world order where the craziest person with nukes gets whatever he wants, or should we put 8 billion people in serious jeopardy, then the answer is not obvious.  In either case we have a world where 8 billion people are in serious jeopardy.

[alfred russel]

The only way for Putin to save face after 50k+ dead russians is a Russian victory.

A Russian victory does more to risk global nuclear war in the long run then a NATO non-nuclear military response to a Russian tactical nuke.

I don't see how that logically computes.

If you postulate that:
-Putin needs a victory to save face,
-Putin is desperate enough to go nuclear against Ukraine to achieve that victory,

I just don't see much of a path to enter the war to such an extent to deny him victory and avoid a global nuclear war.

"Winning" in Ukraine is a complete fool's mission, as I think there is general consensus regarding. If he gets some nuclear irradiated territory with people that hate him, and is truly internationally isolated: not like today where he gets to sell shit to non european customers but truly isolated...who wants that as an example to follow? 

[Tamas]

So the plan is to enter a nuclear war but not use our own nukes? So theoretically a Russia already using nuclear weapons is going to stop usin them when we enter the war, and and be militarily defeated through conventional means, and at some point sign a peace treaty that recognizes ukrainian sovereignty?

Well if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the options are basically:

-do nothing.  Let Russia keep using nukes until Ukraine sues for peace.  Therefore establishing the precedent that nuclear powers can get away with anything, and causing the world to rush to have their own.

-respond with nukes.  Likely end of the world.

-respond, but with conventional forces to act as further deterrent to the use of more nukes.  Destroy the Black Sea fleet.  Start running SEAD missions over Ukraine.  Destroy the Kerch bridge.  Show that you're willing to respond but limit to to the territory of Ukraine.

Is it risky?  Sure.  But sounds like the least risky option after Putin does something that has been unthinkable for the last 67 years.

Agreed. To me it seems like clearly the least risky option out of some very risky ones available.

Fucking Putin.

[Jacob]

I don't see how that logically computes.

If you postulate that:
-Putin needs a victory to save face,
-Putin is desperate enough to go nuclear against Ukraine to achieve that victory,

And where does that stop?

What if Putin feels he needs Poland and Germany too to save face? And if China decides they need Taiwan and Japan to save face?

They know the West will back down, so why not?

[crazy canuck]

The only way for Putin to save face after 50k+ dead russians is a Russian victory.

A Russian victory does more to risk global nuclear war in the long run then a NATO non-nuclear military response to a Russian tactical nuke.

I don't see how that logically computes.

If you postulate that:
-Putin needs a victory to save face,
-Putin is desperate enough to go nuclear against Ukraine to achieve that victory,

I just don't see much of a path to enter the war to such an extent to deny him victory and avoid a global nuclear war.

"Winning" in Ukraine is a complete fool's mission, as I think there is general consensus regarding. If he gets some nuclear irradiated territory with people that hate him, and is truly internationally isolated: not like today where he gets to sell shit to non european customers but truly isolated...who wants that as an example to follow? 

I don't think there is a general consensus about that at all.  Rather, the general consensus seems to be that winning in Ukraine is essential.  The how of it is where the interesting discussion takes place.  One strategy that seems to make a lot of sense, is exactly what the Ukrainians are doing - don't make any more massive pushes. But wait for and kill the oncoming Russians.   That way there is no obvious event which provokes the use of nukes, but at the same time support for Putin continues to erode, and he needs to leave.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't believe Putin will use nukes. We've dealt with a lot since the beginning of the nuclear era and there are myriad reasons they were never used. If he does use them it will very likely put us on a WW3 collision course. I don't actually find the scenarios where we limit the escalation from that point very compelling or likely. I also think despite portrayals of him, Putin knows this as well.

Putin's best move is to continue to threaten nukes in hope it limits the quality and type of support we give Ukraine and work under the belief that on a long enough time scale he will ultimately get a sort of win here. The reality is if the conflict devolves into a lower level holding pattern Russia can do this indefinitely.

[Josquius]

I've just got my fingers crossed these draft riots in places like Dagestan can blow up into something bigger.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Russia is a weird dictatorship because the people are well adapted to letting an autocrat do what he wants, but they are also not tightly controlled like in North Korea or even some other places. The trade off after the Soviet era for most of these regions has been obedience but non-interference from Moscow in most things. It is hard to say how stable the Federation is if that tacit agreement gets too seriously broken.

Another interesting difference is Russia's military I think isn't all that loyal. There is a reason all of the security around Moscow are politicized national guard and security services and not regular army. In Iran the Ayatollahs built a supremely loyal, parallel military structure so they would never have to fear a military coup. Putin either couldn't or wouldn't do that, and has mostly insulated himself from military risk by keeping top commanders away from the political seat of power and making sure the regular army doesn't have much manpower in and around Moscow.

The downside to that approach is I can see a scenario where things get bad in some of the fringe Republics, and Putin orders crackdowns, but the military sort of "barely obeys", no direct disobedience but no enthusiasm, and Putin doesn't have the control the push the matter.

[Jacob]

I saw it proposed that the non-nuclear retaliation strike in case Putin goes nuclear includes decapitation strikes designed to kill Putin.

If the US could - with some confidence of success and with some level of speed, kill Putin in response to him going nuclear that may do the trick.

[Grey Fox]

Lyman is about to be liberated.

Yeah eventually. A large motti of Russians to wear down though.

By Friday morning on the US east coast, the pocket will have collapsed.