Posted on 03/01/2022 4:28:41 AM PST by Kaslin
From his principal avenues of attack on Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin began this war with three strategic goals.
Send an army south from Belarus to capture Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, and replace the government. Send forces into northwest Ukraine to capture its second largest city, Kharkiv, with 1.4 million people.
Third, extend the Donetsk enclave westward to establish a land bridge to Crimea and give Russia full control of the Sea of Azov and most of the Ukrainian coast along the Black Sea.
This last objective is almost achieved. Yet, as of Monday evening, five days into the war, neither Kyiv nor Kharkiv had fallen, though Russia had committed most of the troops it had assembled for the invasion.
Putin needs to get this war over with, for time is not on his side or Russia's side.
In a week, he has become a universally condemned and isolated figure, and his country has been made the target of sanctions by almost the entire West. He is being depicted as an aggressor, even a war criminal, who is brutalizing a smaller neighbor, which, in its fierce and brave resistance, has taken on the aspect of a heroic nation.
The world is rallying to Ukraine.
In the UN Security Council, which Russia chairs, only Russia voted to veto a resolution denouncing it for aggression. India, China and the United Arab Emirates abstained.
As for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, his defiance of demands for surrender is being portrayed as Churchillian.
Moreover, serious military aid to Ukraine will soon begin.
Europeans and Americans have promised more Javelin missiles to destroy Russian tanks and armor, and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles of the type that took a heavy toll of Russian helicopters in the Afghan war of the 1980s.
NATO is uniting. Germany has voted to raise its defense budget and send its own anti-tank weapons and Stingers to Ukraine.
Economic sanctions imposed on Russia have crashed the ruble, caused a collapse of the stock market and severely restricted Moscow's capacity to manage its debt.
Russian army units in Ukraine may be sufficient to occupy Kharkiv and Kyiv, but that army is insufficient to control and run a country the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.
The Russians would have to find thousands of collaborators to help run the country. Where would Putin find them among a people that so widely detests him today?
The longer this war goes on, the greater the certainty that it bleeds the invading army to levels intolerable to Mother Russia, which is what eventually happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
If this war does not end soon, Putin is likely to lose it and fail in his goal of pulling Ukraine out of the Western camp and back into the orbit of Mother Russia.
Eventual defeat is becoming visible, and Putin probably cannot politically survive such a defeat.
As his motivation is to hold power and use it to carve a niche in history alongside the greatest Russian rulers of the past who enlarged the nation or empire, Putin is probably not going to accept defeat and go quietly.
Nor was it a sign of resignation that Putin, on Sunday, ordered Russia's nuclear forces to high alert because, "Top officials in leading NATO countries have allowed themselves to make aggressive comments about our country."
This is not the first time Putin has introduced the idea of using a nuclear weapon. On Feb. 19, days before the invasion began, Putin ordered drills of nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles, bombers and warships.
In his speech announcing the military operation in Ukraine, Putin warned that countries that interfere with Russia's actions will face "consequences you have never seen."
Would Putin exercise what has been called the "Samson Option" -- pulling down the pillars of the temple and taking your enemies with you?
What Putin is suggesting is that in the last analysis, if military defeat beckons for Russia, and his own dispossession of power and political if not actual death are to follow, he may use the ultimate weapon in Russia's arsenal to prevent it.
What should U.S. policy be?
Avoid a widening of the war by preventing any escalation to nuclear weapons. Secure the independence of Ukraine. Effect the removal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.
If this requires that Ukraine give up any ambition to become a NATO nation, Putin's declared purpose in launching the war, so be it. We might have avoided this war had we done so before it was begun.
This is not where we appear to be headed.
Finland, and Sweden, it is now being said, should be invited into NATO. Were that to happen, the U.S. would be obligated to help defend the 830-mile Finnish border with Russia.
This would be an act of hubris of the kind that has led to great wars.
Nonsense......think cuban missile crisis. Cuba was in our orbit and Kennedy said get out of Cuba or we’ll take you out.
“Far too many Freepers operate on about a 5th grade understanding of geography and history. They are very easily misled.”
Such as those who still think NATO is a defense organization.
Other cultures, societies, and governments think differently. Liberals don't get it when it comes to diplomacy because of their own ideology.
I hear "China wont invade Taiwan because we do too much business with them" from libs and there is no indication that is going to be the case.
Fools like Thomas Freidman says that countries that have McDonalds do not engage in armed conflict. Hmmmm...
We went to war with Germany over a telegram, and there was no proof the Germans were even going to go through with it or Mexico would have even gone along with it.
Guarantee Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO.
Give Russia a path to the Black Sea.
These warmongers are disillusioned if they think they can contain a nuclear exchange.
Tactical nukes, 10-15 Ktons =Nagasaki size. Hardly small.
The ICBMs will fly if a nuke is used.
The scary thing is Biden in the driver’s seat. His decisions are noted to be 180 deg out of phase 99% of the time.
Pray there are cooler heads up there
Putin already warned NATO countries of sending arms to Ukraine that are used to kill Russians.
Take him at his word.
Or more along the lines of Putin’s sentiments toward annexing Ukraine and reestablishing the USSR.
All the “justification” in the world is insufficient for invading a sovereign country that posed NO threat to them.
Another possibility, though one isn’t betting on it - a coup in the Kremlin, with Vlad’s dead body being hauled out “not unlike” Mussolini, and the Russian Army getting orders to just turn around and go home... Kinda like maybe a made-for-TV movie where everyone lives happily ever after... could happen...
I think Pat has cottoned on to the crowd that is out to accuse anyone of treason who tries to understand what Putin is doing, so he suckers them all in by paragraphs berating Putin, then in the last couple of sentences suggests that we are about to leap into the abysm. This is consistent with Pat's past attacks on our ignorant war mongering neo cons who have poked the bear and ignored he has some sharp teath.
Nonsense......think cuban missile crisis. Cuba was in our orbit and Kennedy said get out of Cuba or we’ll take you out.
JFK was a Leader.
Putin is also a Leader, and knows when to back down. Putin would never pull this stunt with Trump...Leaders have deep respect for one another.
On the other hand we have loser biden. biden doesn’t even know how to spell NATO, or what it is...big difference.
This entire kabuki is to humiliate biden...nothing more.
The real reason was money, big big piles of it, if one's invested in the right place...
Also what leaders say to one another and what they tell the public they say are often not the same. They will do so to protect the public or lead the public....but the true discussions among them we rarely will know as it is.
It just makes me wonder how well he knows Ukraine.
Thanks for the post. Here are my thoughts and I’ve not seen discussed yet I believe plausible. Putin has the evidence that Biden stole the election and has threatened to expose him if he intervenes. Biden has agreed to stay out of the way as long as Putin makes sure to eliminate the evidence of corruption of his Ukrainian kickbacks and payoffs after he takes the country and in return, he’ll keep buying Russian oil.
As I said, I’ve not seen any of these plausible events discussed, much like the effect of the Holodomor on Ukrainian resolve in this war hasn’t been mentioned anywhere.
Freegards
One glaring omission from your exposition is that, unlike Cuba, Ukraine did not invite Russia and its military to enter their country. Uncertain if that changes the calculus of red lines and use of tactical nukes.
I don’t know. I am just channeling the dumb and tough vibes I am watching here. You tell me if I left off a sarcasm tag.
The psychological impact would be enormous, but it would be the reckless action of a madman. It would require instant retaliation in kind, and escalation at the speed of light is the likely result.
I totally get that Ukraine and Poland have been invaded multiple times because it is a plain. However, there was never a “threat” to Russia.
finally someone with some sense here. russia had to act now or accept a much worse strategic situation down the road when nato bases were in Ukraine. nothing about western posture made them think such a situation would not be eventually used against him or more likely his successor.
I do think russia was intentionally boxed into a choice set where their best choice was military action now. they repeatedly asked, publicly in the later cases, for security consultations with ukraine in nato as a top level topic, and were apparently rebuffed (US replies were not public).
While our talking head politicians overall do not seem too bright, their handlers must know exactly what they are doing. I worry that this is intended to become a much larger and nastier conflict.
the central bank sanctions almost certainly will have unintended(?) consequences, and not good ones for the US, even if we manage to avoid nuclear exchanges.
I also think critical thinking skills have been completely lost over 2 years of pandemic right-thinking. this forum is full of people who basically scream at anyone saying anything other than “ukraine good, russia baaaaaad.”
I absolutely agree.
First, because a smart person or nation must always consider the points of view of its enemies or adversaries, even while he or it disagrees with them. Only a fool ignores what another person is thinking.
Second, we have brought this war upon ourselves, to some extent. The simple fact is that we lied to the Russians. When the Soviet Union broke up and it lost its empire, we wanted Germany to be reunified. In return for the Russians allowing that, we promised not to expand NATO to the east. The Russians held up their end of the bargain. We, on the other hand, have utterly ignored ours, relentlessly expanding NATO as Far East as possible and as quickly as possible. It is not just that we lied, it is the history behind why the Russians wanted to prevent NATO from expanding to the east. The simple fact is that twice in the last century they have been invaded from the West by a technologically superior enemy. In the centuries beforehand there were also several invasions from the technologically superior West. The only reason that the Russians were able to win those wars was because of its large population, very large land area, the weather, and the determination of its people to resist an invader. Those victories came at enormous cost to the Russian people. Yet, we kept expanding NATO to the east, not caring what we had promised nor why the Russians feared technologically superior western armies right on their border. We have been utter fools, and bear not a little of the responsibility for what has happened.
That all being said, I condemn Putin for what he has done. This could easily have been settled through negotiations. Putin could have made his case in a very public way to the entire western world. He’s a very smart guy, and he and his advisers could have spun a speech or several of them which would have made the United States and NATO look like a bunch of lying sons of bitches and ginned up a lot of sympathy for his point of view. There was no compelling reason to invade at this time, and the apparent lack of concern regarding civilian casualties speaks to who Vladimir Putin is. He, of course, bears more responsibility for this than we do, because he actually made the decision to invade…but we are not blameless.
NATO ceased being a defense organization in early 1999, if not before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.