The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Regardless of which side, if any, is right or wrong, I honestly think that America is making too big of a deal out of this. It is highly unlikely that Putin would invade Ukraine in the first place. The Ukrainian military of 2022 is far better trained, better organized, better equipped, more experienced, and better motivated than it was back in 2014. While Russia's military is still a lot larger and stronger than Ukraine's, it would suffer heavy casaulties in any new invasion. When you consider that the Ukrainian civilian population is also fairly well-armed, the Russians would have a difficult time holding and occupying any territory that they take. Furthermore, the Russian people would not like the cost of an offensive war. The Russian economy is already struggling enough and the disasterous Soviet War in Afghanistan is still somewhat fresh in Russian memory. As Russia takes casaulties and the Russian economy suffers even more, Putin would lose a lot of his popularity as his own people turn against him.

Putin is a smart man, and I am sure that he knows that any invasion would be a bad idea. Even the Ukrainian government and society know that an invasion is highly unlikely. I think that what Putin is trying do is just make a point by flexing his muscles while simultaneously airing his grievances against a military alliance that is gradually encircling Russia. Biden isn't helping the situation with his opportunistic saber-rattling to try to distract everyone from his numerous failures in office.

Eh, well...How Ukraine's air defense?

Because once that goes, all conventional war is in Russia's favor.

Ukraine seems to have a decent number of SAMs (including S-300s) and anti-aircraft artilley, plus a large number of MANPADS. Not that it really matters. You don't need air superiority to win a war. The Viet Cong had no air defenses and they defeated the Americans. The Taliban had no air defenses and they won. The Iraqi insurgents had practically no air defenses, and they still inflicted large American casaulties.

[The Two Jerseys]

Eh, well...How Ukraine's air defense?

Because once that goes, all conventional war is in Russia's favor.

Ukraine seems to have a decent number of SAMs (including S-300s) and anti-aircraft artilley, plus a large number of MANPADS. Not that it really matters. You don't need air superiority to win a war. The Viet Cong had no air defenses and they defeated the Americans.

Viet Cong got their asses kicked by the US and had to have the NVA bail them out.

The Taliban had no air defenses and they won.

That's about as accurate as saying that China only had matchlocks and spears but won the Opium Wars because Britain eventually got bored and left Hong Kong.

The Iraqi insurgents had practically no air defenses, and they still inflicted large American casaulties.

Yet they accomplished nothing because the Americans could call in air strikes and wipe them off the map.

[Salus Maior]

Eh, well...How Ukraine's air defense?

Because once that goes, all conventional war is in Russia's favor.

Ukraine seems to have a decent number of SAMs (including S-300s) and anti-aircraft artilley, plus a large number of MANPADS. Not that it really matters. You don't need air superiority to win a war. The Viet Cong had no air defenses and they defeated the Americans. The Taliban had no air defenses and they won. The Iraqi insurgents had practically no air defenses, and they still inflicted large American casaulties.

The key term here is conventional war.

You only listed unconventional wars.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

And like I said, Ukraine seems to have decent air defense capabilities. They have some modern SAMs like the Buk, TOR, and S-300, lots of MANPADS, and plenty of anti-aircraft artillery. Besides, Putin isn't going to invade Ukraine anyway. He isn't stupid. Even though the Russian military is much stronger than Ukraine's, the fact is that the Ukrainian military of 2022 is nothing like the one of 2014.

In 2014, the Ukranian military was large on paper, but was plagued by rampant corruption which resulted in lots of ghost soldiers and highly incompetent people rising to command positions through simple bribery. It was poorly trained, poorly equiped with most tanks and aircraft being inoperable, disorganized, made up largely of unmotivated conscripts, and inexperienced. At the time, the Ukrainian Ground Forces only had 6,000 troops who could be considered combat-ready.

Now fast forward to 2022. The Ukrainian military of today has far less corruption, has more actual soldiers (no more ghost soldiers), and has more people rising through merit rather than bribery. They are much more well-trained and have recent combat experience fighting in the Donbass. They repaired most of their tanks and aircraft and even upgraded some, in addition to importing new weaponry and developing some of their own. They are now more organized and their ranks are now primarily made up of motivated professional contract soldiers who enlisted voluntarily. Rather than having only 6,000 combat-ready troops, they now have 150,000+, and that's not counting police, paramilitaries, and reservists.

While Russia's military is still a lot stronger, any invasion of Ukraine today would be disasterous for them. Sure, they'll probably win. But they will take heavy casaulties in the process and have a lot of trouble with holding any captured territory as paramilitary forces and armed civilians (of which, Ukraine has A LOT) make life hell for the Russian occupation forces. It would be a long, bloody, and expensive war in which there is nothing to gain. Do you think that Putin wants to add a territory whose populace is armed and extremely hostile to him? No! All he is doing is flexing his muscles while airing his grievences against a military alliance that has been gradually encircling Russia since the end of the Cold War. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Salus Maior]

And like I said, Ukraine seems to have decent air defense capabilities. They have some modern SAMs like the Buk, TOR, and S-300, lots of MANPADS, and plenty of anti-aircraft artillery. Besides, Putin isn't going to invade Ukraine anyway. He isn't stupid. Even though the Russian military is much stronger than Ukraine's, the fact is that the Ukrainian military of 2022 is nothing like the one of 2014.

In 2014, the Ukranian military was large on paper, but was plagued by rampant corruption which resulted in lots of ghost soldiers and highly incompetent people rising to command positions through simple bribery. It was poorly trained, poorly equiped with most tanks and aircraft being inoperable, disorganized, made up largely of unmotivated conscripts, and inexperienced. At the time, the Ukrainian Ground Forces only had 6,000 troops who could be considered combat-ready.

Now fast forward to 2022. The Ukrainian military of today has far less corruption, has more actual soldiers (no more ghost soldiers), and has more people rising through merit rather than bribery. They are much more well-trained and have recent combat experience fighting in the Donbass. They repaired most of their tanks and aircraft and even upgraded some, in addition to importing new weaponry and developing some of their own. They are now more organized and their ranks are now primarily made up of motivated professional contract soldiers who enlisted voluntarily. Rather than having only 6,000 combat-ready troops, they now have 150,000+, and that's not counting police, paramilitaries, and reservists.

While Russia's military is still a lot stronger, any invasion of Ukraine today would be disasterous for them. Sure, they'll probably win. But they will take heavy casaulties in the process and have a lot of trouble with holding any captured territory as paramilitary forces and armed civilians (of which, Ukraine has A LOT) make life hell for the Russian occupation forces. It would be a long, bloody, and expensive war in which there is nothing to gain. Do you think that Putin wants to add a territory whose populace is armed and extremely hostile to him? No! All he is doing is flexing his muscles while airing his grievences against a military alliance that has been gradually encircling Russia since the end of the Cold War. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tbh Putin would probably just annex the Russian majority parts of Ukraine and put a puppet government in charge of the rest. That seems to be most observers' opinions.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

And like I said, Ukraine seems to have decent air defense capabilities. They have some modern SAMs like the Buk, TOR, and S-300, lots of MANPADS, and plenty of anti-aircraft artillery. Besides, Putin isn't going to invade Ukraine anyway. He isn't stupid. Even though the Russian military is much stronger than Ukraine's, the fact is that the Ukrainian military of 2022 is nothing like the one of 2014.

In 2014, the Ukranian military was large on paper, but was plagued by rampant corruption which resulted in lots of ghost soldiers and highly incompetent people rising to command positions through simple bribery. It was poorly trained, poorly equiped with most tanks and aircraft being inoperable, disorganized, made up largely of unmotivated conscripts, and inexperienced. At the time, the Ukrainian Ground Forces only had 6,000 troops who could be considered combat-ready.

Now fast forward to 2022. The Ukrainian military of today has far less corruption, has more actual soldiers (no more ghost soldiers), and has more people rising through merit rather than bribery. They are much more well-trained and have recent combat experience fighting in the Donbass. They repaired most of their tanks and aircraft and even upgraded some, in addition to importing new weaponry and developing some of their own. They are now more organized and their ranks are now primarily made up of motivated professional contract soldiers who enlisted voluntarily. Rather than having only 6,000 combat-ready troops, they now have 150,000+, and that's not counting police, paramilitaries, and reservists.

While Russia's military is still a lot stronger, any invasion of Ukraine today would be disasterous for them. Sure, they'll probably win. But they will take heavy casaulties in the process and have a lot of trouble with holding any captured territory as paramilitary forces and armed civilians (of which, Ukraine has A LOT) make life hell for the Russian occupation forces. It would be a long, bloody, and expensive war in which there is nothing to gain. Do you think that Putin wants to add a territory whose populace is armed and extremely hostile to him? No! All he is doing is flexing his muscles while airing his grievences against a military alliance that has been gradually encircling Russia since the end of the Cold War. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tbh Putin would probably just annex the Russian majority parts of Ukraine and put a puppet government in charge of the rest. That seems to be most observers' opinions.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. Any puppet government would not be sustainable in the face of a bloody anti-Russia insurgency. It would require extensive, long-term financial and military support from Russia, which translates into even more Russian lives lost and even more money being spent on a pointless war. No matter how you slice it, the fact is that Putin will be looking at a massive net loss with any military action against Ukraine. He knows this and is not stupid enough to try it.

He is just flexing his muscles and trying to deter NATO from continuing its encirclement of Russia. If Mexico joined the CSTO, then the US would certainly deploy a large, heavily armed force along the US-Mexico border.

[EnVadist party]

Modern humanism is bunk and the EU is a decrepit, imperialist entity only lauded by out-of-touch liberals and global corporate interests.

So please explain to me that as a human being, why am I happier in European countries ? I do not feel safe in Russia or I do not feel safe in countries in the Asian region The proof that social liberals have done a better job for humanity than communists and capitalists is the European Union.

Obviously you're gonna feel safer because these countries are built on the backs of colonialism and imperialism
When you make your colonies pay taxes, force countries to privatise their minerals for your companies and outsource all your factories with low wages to Asia, you're obviously gonna look better.

Why do you think is Asia unsafe?
Is it cause Asians are inherently violent??

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

So please explain to me that as a human being, why am I happier in European countries ? I do not feel safe in Russia or I do not feel safe in countries in the Asian region The proof that social liberals have done a better job for humanity than communists and capitalists is the European Union.

Obviously you're gonna feel safer because these countries are built on the backs of colonialism and imperialism
When you make your colonies pay taxes, force countries to privatise their minerals for your companies and outsource all your factories with low wages to Asia, you're obviously gonna look better.

Why do you think is Asia unsafe?
Is it cause Asians are inherently violent??

To give the best example, there is no sexual revolution, states are constantly pursuing conservative policies, unfortunately they do not treat people like human beings. It is a fact that it is economically exploited, but this is not an excuse, remember that the Chinese state has the largest economies in the world. I just want liberal liberties and the welfare of social democracy.

[GB and Ireland]

Obviously you're gonna feel safer because these countries are built on the backs of colonialism and imperialism
When you make your colonies pay taxes, force countries to privatise their minerals for your companies and outsource all your factories with low wages to Asia, you're obviously gonna look better.

Why do you think is Asia unsafe?
Is it cause Asians are inherently violent??

To give the best example, there is no sexual revolution, states are constantly pursuing conservative policies, unfortunately they do not treat people like human beings. It is a fact that it is economically exploited, but this is not an excuse, remember that the Chinese state has the largest economies in the world. I just want liberal liberties and the welfare of social democracy.

Something else that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine/Russia/NATO?

You surprise me.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

To give the best example, there is no sexual revolution, states are constantly pursuing conservative policies, unfortunately they do not treat people like human beings. It is a fact that it is economically exploited, but this is not an excuse, remember that the Chinese state has the largest economies in the world. I just want liberal liberties and the welfare of social democracy.

Something else that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine/Russia/NATO?

You surprise me.

What I have said on this subject is relevant to the subject. short summary If the imperialist states can put aside their money greed and reach the standards of the modern humanist European Union. I will be a happier person like everyone else. Now can you tell me why Russia is threatening war against ukraine? Answer: Because of the American imperialist perspectives under the cover of NATO.Just keep the American soldiers at home and the European Union set up its own special military defense units. The European people, unlike the US government, do not solve all our problems with drone attacks. Have you heard of diplomacy ?

show it to racist people who love war

[Lord Dominator]

Have you heard of diplomacy ?

How’s that going with Russia right now?

show it to racist people who love war

0/10, video demonstrated knowledge of the locations of five countries - only one of which (the US) is relevant to this thread.

[Novus America]

Something else that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine/Russia/NATO?

You surprise me.

What I have said on this subject is relevant to the subject. short summary If the imperialist states can put aside their money greed and reach the standards of the modern humanist European Union. I will be a happier person like everyone else. Now can you tell me why Russia is threatening war against ukraine? Answer: Because of the American imperialist perspectives under the cover of NATO.Just keep the American soldiers at home and the European Union set up its own special military defense units. The European people, unlike the US government, do not solve all our problems with drone attacks. Have you heard of diplomacy ?

show it to racist people who love war

It might be due to language difficulties but you seem to make excessive use of the “royal we” as if you speak on behalf of all Europeans, despite the fact the vast majority of European’s do not agree with you at all on many of not most things.
It comes off as pretentious. You are not Emperor of Europe.

Anyways actually the US would absolutely love it if Europeans would handle their own defense.

In your blind hatred of the US you fail to see ironically you want something close to what the US rather than most European governments want.

The US has long complained about Europe neglecting its own defenses and freeloading off the US.

The US would rather be able to deploy resources elsewhere, as for the US Europe is now a side show. The main event is in the Pacific.

Ironically the US wants the Europe to take over its own defense, it is the European governments dragging their feet in the matter!

You place the blame in the exact opposite place!

Anyways even if the US pulled all troops from Europe (we have very few there anyways, the idea Russia is some how actually and justifiably terrified over a handful of brigades is absurd) it would hardly solve the tensions over Ukraine.

Or make “diplomacy” magically solve this. The Russian government gives zero shits about “doing what is right” because some Europeans pontificate about it. The only way to deal with a “realpolitik” might makes right driven revanchist regime is by hard leverage.

Russia will obviously not base on decisions on anyone else’s views of morality, rather Russia will only do what it is compelled to do via sufficient leverage.
If the perceived cost to Russia (based on the warped Siloviki perception) is less than the perceived gain, Russia listen. Otherwise it will not.

Diplomacy without credible threats to back it up is not going to work here.

Diplomacy cannot be separated from military, economic and energy matters.
The foolish belief that it can be (such idiocy is particularly but not exclusively prevalent amongst the German government) is why European diplomacy is failing.

[Rumasaya]

show it to racist people who love war

Why does she of all people have to be involved in this discussion?

[Novus America]

Tbh Putin would probably just annex the Russian majority parts of Ukraine and put a puppet government in charge of the rest. That seems to be most observers' opinions.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. Any puppet government would not be sustainable in the face of a bloody anti-Russia insurgency. It would require extensive, long-term financial and military support from Russia, which translates into even more Russian lives lost and even more money being spent on a pointless war. No matter how you slice it, the fact is that Putin will be looking at a massive net loss with any military action against Ukraine. He knows this and is not stupid enough to try it.

He is just flexing his muscles and trying to deter NATO from continuing its encirclement of Russia. If Mexico joined the CSTO, then the US would certainly deploy a large, heavily armed force along the US-Mexico border.

Putin is just a man, who at times makes emotional and stupid decisions.
He is not nearly as smart or rational as people make him out to be. He is driven in no small part by his personal emotions and experiences. Moreover even the smartest people at some time do stupid and emotional things.

Foreign policy is only as rational as the people making it. The fact is we do not know what he plans on doing. So we need to prepare for different possibilities. It is very possible this is just a bluff. And I think it very possibly is. But then we need to call his bluff. But also be prepared in care we were wrong. You should not bet all your chips on the fact your opponent might be bluffing or you end up with a very real possibility of losing everything.

Anyways what “encirclement”? NATO only applies to the North Atlantic. The fact that Russia focuses nearly all of its forces in Eastern Europe, leaving the rest poorly defended says it is not looking at all directions and thus does not feel “encircled”. The more Russia masses to its west, the weaker Russia gets in its South and East.

On the last part, if the US treated Mexico so badly that the felt they had to join CSTO to guarantee their survival, whose fault would that be?

Russia actions are the only reason Ukraine is pushing to join NATO. Only a minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership before Russia’s latest war on Ukraine.

If Russia wants to keep Ukraine away from NATO Russia should stop threatening it. Even if you think Russia is right to discourage Ukraine from joining NATO, this is a bad way to do it, because it is having the OPPOSITE effect.

Now even Finland is looking more at joining NATO, because of this! So how is this rational if the objective is to weaken NATO? Also proving Putin is not some genius, or even completely rational after all. The rational thing to do would be to change course, not double down on the mistakes that caused the issue in the first place.

And Ukraine as not even joined NATO! And is not going to do so any time soon!

Sure if Russia massed huge forces in Mexico the US would respond by moving forces to the border.

But the US is not doing so now, just because theoretically that MIGHT happen. Do you think the US should start waging a lower intensity war against Mexico, annex Baja, and mass forces on Mexico’s border now?
And if we did would that not increase the likelihood Mexico would want to join CSTO? Thus being completely counterproductive?

[Duvniask]

Something else that doesn't have anything to do with Ukraine/Russia/NATO?

You surprise me.

What I have said on this subject is relevant to the subject. short summary If the imperialist states can put aside their money greed and reach the standards of the modern humanist European Union. I will be a happier person like everyone else. Now can you tell me why Russia is threatening war against ukraine? Answer: Because of the American imperialist perspectives under the cover of NATO.Just keep the American soldiers at home and the European Union set up its own special military defense units. The European people, unlike the US government, do not solve all our problems with drone attacks. Have you heard of diplomacy ?

show it to racist people who love war

Get a load of this guy. He seriously thinks Russia would not do the exact same thing if it was a combined EU military instead of NATO being on its borders.

[Nova Catania]

Lemme give my take: Putin is holding a gun to Ukraine's head, but he's not pulling the trigger. He wants to test the West's reaction. I don't think he'll send in troops, he's not that dumb(?). But if the US, or enough other countries impose sanctions now, then a major incentive for him not to invade is gone. He'll go right ahead without fear of sanctions, because they'll have been imposed already. That's just my opinion.

[Christian Confederation]

Lemme give my take: Putin is holding a gun to Ukraine's head, but he's not pulling the trigger. He wants to test the West's reaction. I don't think he'll send in troops, he's not that dumb(?). But if the US, or enough other countries impose sanctions now, then a major incentive for him not to invade is gone. He'll go right ahead without fear of sanctions, because they'll have been imposed already. That's just my opinion.

Putin may be bad for the individual Russian people's rights but militarily and Economically he knows his stuff. -Russia knows the West and Particularly America is Hesitant to get in another War so soon after the Afghanistan failure.
-We know Russia can't replace substantial losses of troops thanks to there declining birthrate.
-Donbase is under the Control of Pro Russian Separatists. -Belarus is essentially a Russian puppet and would likely be used to distract the west whall Russia did whatever they had planned in Ukraine.
-Crimea has all fresh water brought in from Russia and at a significant cost to Moscow every since Ukraine cut the flow of Fresh water after the Annexation.
-Russia is mad about NATO surrounding Russia and going East of Poland in violation of a Gentlemen's agreement between Yeltson and Bush Sr era Diplomats.
-Ukrainian and Russian officials are saying war is highly unlikely.
-The military Industrial Complex requires war to function.
-President Trump was a negotiator and wanted to end foreign wars.
-Biden is a geriatric Disaster in desperate need of a distraction from his domestic and international policy failures.

So added all together it seems Russia is showing off in Aggression to voice there displeasure of the more and more surrounded and threatened motherland, America and the West are looking for distractions from there home policy failures and in some cases brink of revolution nations, China is eying Taiwan and is just waiting for an excuse/ distraction to invade. Point being if our leaders aren't careful world war 3 could start over overlapping spheres of influence that never needed to overlap in the first place.

[Lord Dominator]

Here’s a lovely article from The Economist about the current scale of Russian military buildup:

The crisis on the Russia-Ukraine border shows no sign of easing. On January 27th Joe Biden, America’s president, told Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ukrainian counterpart, that a Russian invasion of Ukraine in February was a “distinct possibility”. On January 31st Russia jousted with America in a special session of the un Security Council. Russian social media is abuzz with videos of troops on the move by rail and road. But how large and unusual is the build-up?

To grasp its scale, it is necessary to understand the currency of modern Russian deployments: the battalion tactical group, or btg, a fighting formation of 600 to 1,000 troops equipped with their own artillery, air defence and logistics. During the worst fighting of the Russia-Ukraine war, in 2015, Russia sent no more than a dozen btgs. Today it has 74 to 76 deployed to the border areas, according to Konrad Muzyka of Rochan Consulting, who tracks Russian military movements. Around a fifth of those are in Belarus; on January 30th an American official said that “up to 30,000” troops were being sent there.

In total, says Mr Muzyka, elements of ten out of the country’s eleven Combined Arms Armies—a high-level formation that typically contains several divisions—are now near Ukraine. The btg-count excludes air and naval forces, as well as vdv units, or paratroopers, who are now available after a brief jaunt in Kazakhstan earlier this month. Add them all up, and Russia may have more than 130,000 troops in place.

That is not yet at the scale of the very largest mobilisations of the cold war. When the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968, they sent in a quarter of a million troops, with ten more divisions in the rear. But it is not far off the biggest Soviet exercise ever held during the cold war, “Zapad-81” in 1981, which involved as many as 150,000 troops, and it has surpassed the biggest nato exercise, “Reforger” in 1988, which gathered 125,000. Russia’s build-up today is also larger than America’s in Europe ahead of the first Gulf war in 1991 or the nato air campaign against Serbia in 1999. It far surpasses the first and second Chechen wars, which began in 1994 and 1999 respectively, each of which involved fewer than 50,000 Russian troops.

In raw numbers, the last mobilisation of this size was Operation Storm, a Croatian offensive against Serbia in 1995, during the Balkan wars, in which as many as 130,000 Croatian troops were thrown into action. Yet Russia’s armed forces are better armed and equipped than those Croatian ones, with considerably more capable air and missile forces at their disposal. In other words, this is probably the largest accretion of firepower seen in Europe for 40 years.

Nor is it confined to land. On January 20th Russia’s defence ministry announced that all four of its naval fleets—the Baltic, Black Sea, Northern and Pacific Fleets—would hold drills in January and February involving more than 140 warships and support vessels and 10,000 personnel, including missile launches off Ireland’s west coast. Warships from Russia’s Baltic and Northern Fleets are already streaming towards the Black Sea, including landing craft that could enable an amphibious assault or raids on Ukrainian ports. Key ships from the Pacific Fleet are headed for the Mediterranean. Some ships are even being moved south overland—including Vladimir Putin’s presidential boat.

The most worrying aspect of the build-up, though, may be the least eye-catching of all. Military planners divide combat forces into “teeth” (crudely, things with guns) and “tail” (the things that support them). Soldiers and tanks are of no use if they cannot be kept fuelled, armed and on the move. Petri Mäkelä, a Finnish military analyst, points to examples of several such enablers being prepared or moved, including many that are usually controlled by high-level formations and rarely deployed to exercises. These include long-range radar sets, radio relay systems and spare missiles for offensive launchers and air-defence systems.

Engineering, logistics and medical enablers have also been spotted. Russian “pipeline troops”, which rapidly refuel mechanised forces, and can lay up to 80km of pipeline a day, have been seen in Krasnodar, close to Crimea. American officials have also said that Russia has moved blood supplies closer to the Ukrainian border, according to both Reuters and cnn. There are also signs that Russian combat forces are limbering up in other ways. “I think we are starting to see signs that they are moving into smaller locations near the Ukrainian border,” says Dara Massicot of the rand Corporation, a think-tank. “That is generally not great. Once units deploy like that it is usually one of the final signposts.

”Not everything is in place just yet. Many of the deployed units are under-strength, though troops could be flown in within three days. Janes, a defence-intelligence firm, says that the “final indicators” of an offensive would probably include the activation of paratroopers, transport planes to move troops and the large-scale movement of warplanes to air bases near the border (some have begun moving). If it were serious about a big offensive, Russia would also be expected to mobilise reserves on a large scale, as well as forces from omon, a gendarmerie-type unit, and other paramilitary forces, to generate the manpower necessary to hold any ground it captured.

Even so, the notion that Russia’s build-up might be nothing more than a “simple rotation”, as Mr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, suggested on January 28th, is preposterous. Perhaps most striking is that Russia has activated units from every corner of its territory. Even the Eastern Military District, an administrative zone that stretches to the North Korean border, has been virtually emptied out, with most of its forces sent to Belarus. “Not since 1922 have there been so few forces on the border with Mongolia and China,” observes Alexei Karpychev, a Russian military analyst—not even, he notes, in the “hardest year” of 1941, when Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union. ■

[Umeria]

Even so, the notion that Russia’s build-up might be nothing more than a “simple rotation”, as Mr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, suggested on January 28th, is preposterous.

We totally need to start World War 3 to defend Ukraine, please don't listen to the Ukrainians begging us to calm down.

[Lord Dominator]

Even so, the notion that Russia’s build-up might be nothing more than a “simple rotation”, as Mr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, suggested on January 28th, is preposterous.

We totally need to start World War 3 to defend Ukraine, please don't listen to the Ukrainians begging us to calm down.

Apparently this forum is weirdly hawkish, but I don’t think the various NATO countries actually intend WW3 if Russia invades - at least so long as they cross other borders.

That Ukraine wants there not to be war is self-evident - I do think that pleas for war to not begin are better directed at the 100,000+ Russian troops nearby however.

[Novus America]

Even so, the notion that Russia’s build-up might be nothing more than a “simple rotation”, as Mr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, suggested on January 28th, is preposterous.

We totally need to start World War 3 to defend Ukraine, please don't listen to the Ukrainians begging us to calm down.

I agree with the fact we have played up the whole “massive new invasion coming right now” thing when we do not know that is what Russia intends. But regardless we should call out Russia’s behavior, a threat is that you do not intend to carry out might still be a crime. If I hold a gun to your head and say “your money or hour life”, it is still a crime even if the gun is fake and I have no intention of killing your, merely scaring you to get your money.

Rather we should acknowledge there are a lot of possibilities, we thus need multiple contingencies, and we should prepare and take actions to deter the worst possibilities.

The big issue is if Russia does not intend to launch anything how do they back out of it? They cannot maintain that many troops there indefinitely, it will cost to much and weaken Russia’s other areas too much.
So does Russia simply withdraw the extra troops and go back to normal levels? Maybe that seems rational but Putin does not want to be seen as weak. Surely he remembers what happened to Khrushchev, who impart was overthrown because of Cuba. That is the difficulty, how he can extricate himself from a crisis he caused without looking weak.

Note these should be generally short of outright war on our part. We have a lot of options short of actually launching an all out war on are part in response.

Russia will do what Putin judges to be likely to gain more than it costs. So we need to up the potential costs for the more undesirable things he could do, such as by preparing real sanctions, supplying the Ukrainian military with the best weapons and training we have available and would be suitable for them, etc.

And simultaneously offer to negotiate on areas such as the deployment of MRBMs in the region, or adequate warning and transparency in military exercises, etc. (but only if the EQUALLY apply to the CSTO as well as NATO Russia so far has basically only made demands, not offered anything much in return).

There is a middle ground to be found here.

[TheFlyingDutchman]

Yeah, that's not gonna happen either. Any puppet government would not be sustainable in the face of a bloody anti-Russia insurgency. It would require extensive, long-term financial and military support from Russia, which translates into even more Russian lives lost and even more money being spent on a pointless war. No matter how you slice it, the fact is that Putin will be looking at a massive net loss with any military action against Ukraine. He knows this and is not stupid enough to try it.

He is just flexing his muscles and trying to deter NATO from continuing its encirclement of Russia. If Mexico joined the CSTO, then the US would certainly deploy a large, heavily armed force along the US-Mexico border.

Putin is just a man, who at times makes emotional and stupid decisions.
He is not nearly as smart or rational as people make him out to be. He is driven in no small part by his personal emotions and experiences. Moreover even the smartest people at some time do stupid and emotional things.

Foreign policy is only as rational as the people making it. The fact is we do not know what he plans on doing. So we need to prepare for different possibilities. It is very possible this is just a bluff. And I think it very possibly is. But then we need to call his bluff. But also be prepared in care we were wrong. You should not bet all your chips on the fact your opponent might be bluffing or you end up with a very real possibility of losing everything.

Anyways what “encirclement”? NATO only applies to the North Atlantic. The fact that Russia focuses nearly all of its forces in Eastern Europe, leaving the rest poorly defended says it is not looking at all directions and thus does not feel “encircled”. The more Russia masses to its west, the weaker Russia gets in its South and East.

On the last part, if the US treated Mexico so badly that the felt they had to join CSTO to guarantee their survival, whose fault would that be?

Russia actions are the only reason Ukraine is pushing to join NATO. Only a minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership before Russia’s latest war on Ukraine.

If Russia wants to keep Ukraine away from NATO Russia should stop threatening it. Even if you think Russia is right to discourage Ukraine from joining NATO, this is a bad way to do it, because it is having the OPPOSITE effect.

Now even Finland is looking more at joining NATO, because of this! So how is this rational if the objective is to weaken NATO? Also proving Putin is not some genius, or even completely rational after all. The rational thing to do would be to change course, not double down on the mistakes that caused the issue in the first place.

And Ukraine as not even joined NATO! And is not going to do so any time soon!

Sure if Russia massed huge forces in Mexico the US would respond by moving forces to the border.

But the US is not doing so now, just because theoretically that MIGHT happen. Do you think the US should start waging a lower intensity war against Mexico, annex Baja, and mass forces on Mexico’s border now?
And if we did would that not increase the likelihood Mexico would want to join CSTO? Thus being completely counterproductive?

When the Cold War ended, the West promised no more NATO expansion and that both sides would respect each other's sphere of influence and national security. NATO has constantly broken that promise by expanding to Russia's borders and encircling them on east and west. The US military nows has troops permanently stationed within rifle range of Russia and its people. Russia wanted good relations with the West, but America broke its promise and also treated Russia as an enemy. They are backed into a corner and acting out of a very reasonable fear. How can they fall back when they have nowhere to fall back to?

[Hemakral]

They are backed into a corner and acting out of a very reasonable fear.

Bullshit. Russia is the largest country on the planet in terms of landmass, they haven't been backed into anywhere. They're actively making moves on a smaller country in the hopes of assimilating them into Greater Ruskitopia or whatever Putin has planned, which is quite obviously not an act of self preservation

[Farnhamia]

They are backed into a corner and acting out of a very reasonable fear.

Bullshit. Russia is the largest country on the planet in terms of landmass, they haven't been backed into anywhere. They're actively making moves on a smaller country in the hopes of assimilating them into Greater Ruskitopia or whatever ol' Pooty has planned, which is quite obviously not an act of self preservation

*looms ominously* "Ol' Pooty" is political nicknaming or, basically, trolling. Don't do it.

[Lord Dominator]

The US military nows has troops permanently stationed within rifle range of Russia and its people.

[citation needed]

Rather, I’m not seeing US troop deployments in countries bordering Russia before now, where are you seeing them (except perhaps in Norway, can’t tell the border there).