Ukraine conflict

Given that most Russian and Belarussian soldiers are conscripts, and given that many defenders are seasoned warriors or otherwise willing to fight to the death for their homeland, I can only hope that the Russian army decides "this is a bunch of crap" and refuses to obey orders to kill their neighbors.

Yeah, good luck with that ... were they to try it I suspect an officer would shoot them in the head on the spot, but maybe not: there seems to be little support for this war among the younger Russians.

What about blowback against Putin at the highest level?

If as reported most Russian officials don't support the war like Putin does he could be in for a coup, especially if the people in Russia storm the streets demanding a regime change.

It could happen.

Quote: rxwine

Maxxar Satellite company is reporting updated info that the Russian convoy headed towards the capitol is 40 miles long.

It is a huge convoy but do they have logistics in place to keep it moving? It is kind of weird that it is no moving right along…

Quote: missedhervee

What about blowback against Putin at the highest level?

I don't know if this is true, but guys trying to maintain absolute power probably have similar things.

Quote:

Saddam Hussein famously used to test the loyalty of generals & senior officials by having the Mukhabarat surprise them in their beds late at night. A gun would be held to their temple, and they’d be asked, “The revolution against Saddam has begun! Are you with us, or against us?”

Quote: missedhervee

Given that most Russian and Belarussian soldiers are conscripts, and given that many defenders are seasoned warriors or otherwise willing to fight to the death for their homeland, I can only hope that the Russian army decides "this is a bunch of crap" and refuses to obey orders to kill their neighbors.

Yeah, good look with that ... were they to try it I suspect an officer would shoot them in the head on the spot, but maybe not: there seems to be little support for this war among the younger Russians.

I have heard from a source that I trust that Russia is extremely embarrassed/annoyed that they are making such slow progress (they thought this would be a one two punch invasion), and that the talks that are happening are to buy them more time to respond with greater force. This is essentially Russia buying time so that they can escalate (by more forces, and in a worse case scenario by more severe actions). I hope that this is wrong, but its probably not.

Honestly, I am thinking that this is going to be like WWI and WWII (not saying its going to be WWIII), but Europe is trying to not get involved until it effects them directly, and America is trying to not get involved at all. And, by the time others do get involved it will be weeks-months into the fighting, and it will involve pushing back to retake ground instead of preventing them from taking the ground in the first place).

If I had it my way, America would take Belarus to start and transition it to an acceptable government which could be conditioned to join NATO, it would be easy (most of the normal population would support it, many people hate the Dictator), and then there would only one border to worry about, and then Russia would not be able to withstand NATO. Belarus is basically the only European country that remains in a completely unacceptable state anyway, this is just an urgent reason for a transition. And, this could allow a full push into Russia. And, when Russia is defeated we can give Sakhalin back to Japan, to rebalance the energy economy and they can keep most of their land. This could be a huge opportunity to make things how they should be, without having to be the one on the offensive, Europe, Japan, and NATO just need to be willing to grab the opportunity. Right now, so many people are so worried about minimizing the war, and letting Russia get away with so much, they don't realize how much can be gained by taking initiative. Japan lost Sakhalin because of their aggression, its high time that Russia loses it so that there can be proper governance (really after WWII they should have had it taken from them, but that is another story....). This would be the optimal action, but right now, everyone wants to be the Chamberlin of 2022, instead of the Churchill. There is so much opportunity for progress/advancement while also keeping the "good guy" optics, we only need leaders who can grasp it.

Russia would fare bad against an invasion, because most of the population would be annoyed (unlike Ukraine where it is uniting them), and there would maybe even be more support for NATO than Russia. However, the one danger is their nuclear triad, but that is a risk that can be mitigated if people are willing to accept some level of danger. Their ground military (and even their Navy) is at best lackluster (I mean they are getting destroyed by a country the fraction of their size with a tiny military), compared to NATO it would be a joke, nuclear strikes against EU and US are really the only thing that can be a risk that people would have to accept.

It is times like this, that even as a liberal, I am nostalgic for a Bush Presidency, somebody willing to be bold in the face of adversity instead of waiting on the sidelines. Between this and Afghanistan Biden has been very disappointing to me (Trump would be no better, probably even worse, especially on this issue, so I don't regret my vote, but so many great liberals in history like FDR, JFK, and Johnson would be responding differently).

NATO is one strong leader away from greatness, they just need a single NATO leader who is willing to make the first move (so all others will have to follow).

Interesting analysis.

But yeah, those nuclear weapons Putin has, they're still quite formidable and a valid deterrent to American aggression directly against Russia.

Vlad is probably beside himself watching all of Europe not only side with Ukraine but also sending military and other supplies.

Heck, even perennial neutrals Sweden and Switzerland are calling him a pariah and supporting Ukraine.

Bravo, people: stand up to the big bully.

Hopefully the military aid coming to Ukraine will staunch the tide and force the bear to disengage and seek a negotiated resolution, but that is just hope: the reality will likely be very painful for both Russia and Ukraine.

The amount of damage to the NATO alliance is exactly zero. Functioning to protect nations outside the alliance is not guaranteed.

No weakness was demonstrated.

Quote: Gandler

I have heard from a source that I trust that Russia is extremely embarrassed/annoyed that they are making such slow progress (they thought this would be a one two punch invasion), and that the talks that are happening are to buy them more time to respond with greater force. This is essentially Russia buying time so that they can escalate (by more forces, and in a worse case scenario by more severe actions). I hope that this is wrong, but its probably not.

Honestly, I am thinking that this is going to be like WWI and WWII (not saying its going to be WWIII), but Europe is trying to not get involved until it effects them directly, and America is trying to not get involved at all. And, by the time others do get involved it will be weeks-months into the fighting, and it will involve pushing back to retake ground instead of preventing them from taking the ground in the first place).

If I had it my way, America would take Belarus to start and transition it to an acceptable government which could be conditioned to join NATO, it would be easy (most of the normal population would support it, many people hate the Dictator), and then there would only one border to worry about, and then Russia would not be able to withstand NATO. Belarus is basically the only European country that remains in a completely unacceptable state anyway, this is just an urgent reason for a transition. And, this could allow a full push into Russia. And, when Russia is defeated we can give Sakhalin back to Japan, to rebalance the energy economy and they can keep most of their land. This could be a huge opportunity to make things how they should be, without having to be the one on the offensive, Europe, Japan, and NATO just need to be willing to grab the opportunity. Right now, so many people are so worried about minimizing the war, and letting Russia get away with so much, they don't realize how much can be gained by taking initiative. Japan lost Sakhalin because of their aggression, its high time that Russia loses it so that there can be proper governance (really after WWII they should have had it taken from them, but that is another story....). This would be the optimal action, but right now, everyone wants to be the Chamberlin of 2022, instead of the Churchill. There is so much opportunity for progress/advancement while also keeping the "good guy" optics, we only need leaders who can grasp it.

Russia would fare bad against an invasion, because most of the population would be annoyed (unlike Ukraine where it is uniting them), and there would maybe even be more support for NATO than Russia. However, the one danger is their nuclear triad, but that is a risk that can be mitigated if people are willing to accept some level of danger. Their ground military (and even their Navy) is at best lackluster (I mean they are getting destroyed by a country the fraction of their size with a tiny military), compared to NATO it would be a joke, nuclear strikes against EU and US are really the only thing that can be a risk that people would have to accept.

It is times like this, that even as a liberal, I am nostalgic for a Bush Presidency, somebody willing to be bold in the face of adversity instead of waiting on the sidelines. Between this and Afghanistan Biden has been very disappointing to me (Trump would be no better, probably even worse, especially on this issue, so I don't regret my vote, but so many great liberals in history like FDR, JFK, and Johnson would be responding differently).

NATO is one strong leader away from greatness, they just need a single NATO leader who is willing to make the first move (so all others will have to follow).

We needed to stop trying to play god trying to install our regimes in other countries like decades ago. What gives us the right to pull that self righteous garbage?

Quote: rquiredusername

We needed to stop trying to play god trying to install our regimes in other countries like decades ago. What gives us the right to pull that self righteous garbage?

To make the world a better place. When a country invades another, it invites intervention.

Quote: Gandler

To make the world a better place. When a country invades another, it invites intervention.

It's quite possible the apparent apathy for a western style democracy in Afghanistan has diminished quite considerably now that a lot more people there are experiencing a direct comparison.

A bit late though for them.

Quote: Gandler

To make the world a better place. When a country invades another, it invites intervention.

In OUR view. You’re talking about taking over Belarus, not Russia. Taking Russia invading a separate country as an EXCUSE to install our preferred regime by force. Utterly pathetic and the reason much of the world hates us with cause. The not so justified reason much of the world hates us is propaganda related, we’re the country everyone has heard of so some other countries trash our faults as a way to make their citizens appreciate their own country more. I’m aware Belarus allowed their border to be used as an entry point. Just the excuse, not reason, someone with your views and the military industrial complex would be waiting for to invade.