It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now.
The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater).
The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table.
I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).
Just sensible climate policy at a global level would be enough to crush Russia economically. I feel like this recent drama effectively stems from trying to distract the Russian people from this looming fact while the oligarchs get as much money as possible out the country.
>>The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field.
The USA has not fought an symmetric war since WW2.
Russian has some of the most advanced surface to air missile technology in the world, capable of denying NATO air power from operating effectively. Russians S400 missiles can detect and take out even F35s. A direct air assault like you saw in 1990s Iraq war would be suicide.
You would be looking at defeating 100,000+ soldiers equipped with armored vehicles and tanks with primarily ground forces. This is not the kind of scenario we want to see.
I wonder if S-400 is as hyped as S-300 that has been less than performant in Armenia and Syria.
Pantsir-S1 has also shown limited success in Libya, Syria and Armenia.
Granted, it was the export variant. So we'll see how the "full fat" version fares in Ukraine.
Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
I think the other thing Putin is betting on, is that after 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is not going to support another significant foreign war. Additionally one important thing that came out of the Trump presidency, is that the hawkish "Team America: World Police" wing of the republican party has been knocked from the dominant position they've held at least since Reagan. The Trumpish base of the party is now much more nativist and not all that interested in providing military support to other countries.
No one wants nuclear war. It has long been believed that those are mostly threats against countries that don't have them as for combat between nuclear powers it will probably stay conventional as there is absolutely no winner if it starts.
Indeed, if Ukraine hadn't given up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't be in this position. This attack is another reminder to Iran, North Korea, etc, that if you don't maintain a nuclear arsenal your nation is a colony.
your notion of winning might be different to Putin's. If you haven't heard him saying "Aggressors Will Be Annihilated, We Will Go to Heaven as Martyrs" [1], then you don't know your opponent.
> It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.
If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
> Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way.
I mean think it through: if what you say must be avoided, then no country could go to war, even to defend others, unless more than half the population was enlisted in a ponderously oversized military.
> Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not?
Because it's a superficially appealing idea that actually makes no sense. In a democracy, anyone gets to ask its government to do anything. Putting extra conditions who can ask is just muzzling democracy. Should the decision to go to war only be up to only the members of the military? No, since that would be clearly undemocratic.
And your idea can be applied to so many different questions, to equal nonsense: Are you a member of the police? Then you better not express any opinion that high crime rates should be lowered, since you're not willing to be the guy to stop them. Don't like trash on the street? Better not complain unless you're willing to quit your job and become a garbageman.
What you're forgetting here is that there is a clear precedent for what I'm suggesting. People forget this, but in WWI, the British upper classes actually lost children at a higher rate to the war than those in lower classes. This was because, at the time, the British elite would never have been okay with the idea of sending people to die, without having skin in the game themselves. It was a matter of basic morality (and honor).
What you're suggesting is, on the other hand, completely immoral. It's far too easy for us to sit in our comfy homes, earning nice salaries for tapping away on our keyboards all day, while some poor kid from middle America or inner city LA has his life cut tragically short because people like us say, "Oh man, that Ukraine situation is really bad, someone should really do something about that"
That isn't actually a precedent for what you're saying, unless the UK at that point was sufficiently undemocratic that the lower classes you're saying participated in the war at a lower rate didn't have a say in the decision to fight it.
It's also a bit presumptuous of you to assume that anyone posting this kind of thing on Hacker News has never had "skin in the game." I was still part of the 1st CAV headquarters in 2014 when we sent two brigades to Estonia in response to Russia invading Crimea. Military veterans are not exactly unheard of in software development or any other field of work. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe my vote should be worth more than yours because of that. We're not living in the world of Starship Troopers.
For starters, not everyone is of military age. Does that disqualify them from having an opinion on matters of nation and international security?
Additionally, even if they aren't willing to enlist themselves, that shouldn't disqualify them from having an opinion on this. They pay taxes that fund the military and other agencies for the purpose of national security. Countries have militaries for exactly these purposes. Citizens enlist in the military with full knowledge that they could be called to battle one day. Do you think the military should only engage in war if every enlisted member agrees to do so? No other input should be taken?
I refuse to work in a solid waste plant, yet I ask others to do so.
I refuse to work as a Doctor, yet ask others to do so.
There are many jobs I refuse to be engaged in, but need doing.
So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it?
> That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way.
Bullshit. This is how democracy works now because of universal suffrage. Historically it is not the only form of democracy and it is most definitely not a fair system.
I don't know about starship troppers. I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf. That is the current situation with men and women in the vast majority of countries today, including mine: men and women can vote but only men are conscripted into military service.
True. But a democratic President may not still be President by the time it progresses. The problem is Putin can gamble on nobody willing to shaft their own career/party to oppose him.
Right, it might. We should press forward and see how far he's willing to go and encourage his leadership to kill him to save their families and save themselves from potential nuclear disaster.
Russia is exceptionally weak compared to their prime Soviet days. Both militarily in terms of bulk and economically. The rest of the world has gotten a lot bigger, stronger militarily and economically since those days. We should press on Russia and reveal their weakness. They would be obliterated exposed in the field as they are right now by NATO's forces.
Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Let's find out what Putin's answer is and what the consequences are for him, when the people (including those around Putin that can assassinate him) in Russia realize what he's leading them to. Putin's expansion doesn't end until there are very severe consequences; some other nation in Europe is next after Ukraine.
If Putin threatens to kill everyone with nuclear war, then we'll deal with that as it happens. It's important to understand what you're really dealing with, and with Putin we need to go further to find whatever his lines really are. So far Putin has almost never faced a real push back from NATO / the West, we have no idea where he'll go or not, and we need to figure it out one way or another. Putin made clear his return to Empire plans, we already know what he wants.
> I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure
As an American, I'll support another foreign engagement when I see the sons and daughters of presidents and congressmen shipping off the the Ukraine. Until then, I can't support sending American boys and girls to die in yet another foreign war.
Any talk of U.S. involvement should cease until the American public sees AOC, Hunter Biden, and Donald Trump Jr. (or maybe Baron) in uniform and on the ground in the Ukraine.
Yep. I'm just waiting for our own border to be recognized before I'll support any foreign conflict. But we'll continue exploiting our neighboring southern countries for cheap wage cutting labor. We're promising a generation of people citizenship, but they'll be held in limbo and exploited.
Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. are above the maximum enlistment age for every service (though exceptions might be made for direct commission physicians if they happened to be licensed physicians). Barron is still a minor.
I guess that leaves AOC, but it might be worth remembering a fair number of Congressional reps and Senators actually have served or even continue to serve in the Guard and Reserve. A much higher rate than the population at large. It's currently 19% for Congress and 7% for American adults in general.
Hunter Biden already has an Other-than-Honorable Discharge (IIRC) from the US Navy, because of his well-known drug problems. Age can be waiverable but I doubt that drug discharge can.
The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater).
The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table.
I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).