Ukraine War Escalation

[eddiememphis]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2d1lj3nwqo

US President Joe Biden has agreed to give Ukraine anti-personnel land mines, a US defence official told the BBC, a move seen as an attempt to slow Russian troops who have been steadily advancing in Ukraine's east in recent months.

Russia and the US are not signatories to the Ottawa Convention banning the use or transfer of anti-personnel landmines, although Ukraine is.

Trump said he would end this war on day one if elected. Is the current administration so petty and spiteful as to sabotage those efforts?

[buffalobo]

Yes.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim.

[BushMasterBoy]

Putin says he is taking the conflict global. Not sure what he means by that. If he attacks a NATO base, then game on.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-say...174448527.html

[FoxtArt]

Putin says he is taking the conflict global. Not sure what he means by that. If he attacks a NATO base, then game on.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-say...174448527.html

"Could". Honestly he is less likely to over escalate than NATO is. Why? Escalation poses more risk to RU than anyone else. Russian isnt near peer and can hardly fight Ukraine. For those wondering too, the threat of nukes is not too likely an actual risk.
Not because of the US or NATO but because of China. To China's credit, they WILL NOT let putin use nukes offensively, in any case. And a lot of that is because they depend on that mutual consideration being unbroken when they invade Tiawan down the road... Iran and China do not want the international threshold for usage being lowered by their buddy pootie.

[Sawin]

"Could". Honestly he is less likely to over escalate than NATO is. Why? Escalation poses more risk to RU than anyone else. Russian isnt near peer and can hardly fight Ukraine. For those wondering too, the threat of nukes is not too likely an actual risk.
Not because of the US or NATO but because of China. To China's credit, they WILL NOT let putin use nukes offensively, in any case. And a lot of that is because they depend on that mutual consideration being unbroken when they invade Tiawan down the road... Iran and China do not want the international threshold for usage being lowered by their buddy pootie.

Ummm Putin does what Putin wants… if you actually believe what you’re saying about China and Iran not letting him, you’re even more naive than I already thought.

[FoxtArt]

Ummm Putin does what Putin wants… if you actually believe what you’re saying about China and Iran not letting him, you’re even more naive than I already thought.

If you look at all of Rusisa's red lines that have been crossed, and the sabre rattling and threats that have shifted on over 30 times, they would've nuked Ukraine already if Putin could do whatever he wanted willy nilly. Is the US stopping him? No, NATO isn't going to return fire with nukes if he launches a tactical at Ukraine. And no, Putin doesn't do what he wants, whenever he wants, because he is critically dependant on China. They have resorted to NK assitance in munitions/equipment/soldiers for f's sake, which screams desparation far more than "control". If he pisses of China, he promptly loses the war. Economically and for certain war supplies/electronics, it's the only source he has. And China has vested interest in Russian territory as well. (some of it is historically Chinese....). They are slightly better than frenemies, but not by a whole lot. Research China's nuclear doctrine and some of the deeper news; when we wanted to discourage the use of Nukes in this war, where did we go?... China.

[tmckay2]

If you look at all of Rusisa's red lines that have been crossed, and the sabre rattling and threats that have shifted on over 30 times, they would've nuked Ukraine already if Putin could do whatever he wanted willy nilly. Is the US stopping him? No, NATO isn't going to return fire with nukes if he launches a tactical at Ukraine. And no, Putin doesn't do what he wants, whenever he wants, because he is critically dependant on China. They have resorted to NK assitance in munitions/equipment/soldiers for f's sake, which screams desparation far more than "control". If he pisses of China, he promptly loses the war. Economically and for certain war supplies/electronics, it's the only source he has. And China has vested interest in Russian territory as well. (some of it is historically Chinese....). They are slightly better than frenemies, but not by a whole lot. Research China's nuclear doctrine and some of the deeper news; when we wanted to discourage the use of Nukes in this war, where did we go?... China.

What exactly do you see being the end game? Putin has pretty clearly shown he will burn as many Russian lives as needed to dig his heels in. Right now it's like a ww1 meat grinder where an entire generation of male citizens are being chewed up on both sides without much of an end in sight. I'm not sure why leftists are so against trying to end that killing before it escalates further. Neither side is going to be thrilled with a compromise but we dripped the ball when we disnt adequately respond to the invasion of crimea. At that point the land was lost but we should have reinforced ukraine to the point that further incursions aren't possible. Maybe that's nato membership, maybe that's a base, maybe that's "joint training exercises" and you drop a brigade in the country making it impossible for putin to invade without risking the death of a nato soldier. But instead we did nothing and got what anyone could expect.

Sure, there have been strategic and tactical advantages for our military in this whole deal, but its pretty twisted to use that as a rationale to send more young men into the grinder. Whether they are Russian or Ukrainian they're still people, most of whom likely don't really want to be there.

As far as the money, yeah it's not nearly as much of a waste as that we typically do to flush money down the toilet but we do have a lot of problems state side and we cant police the entire world indefinitely. Patrolling the seas is already starting to become a problem and with China saber rattling we can't just keep dumping money and more importantly armaments indefinitely. I dont know where that limit is but one does exist.

Ultimately to me, I'm pretty open to options, but all I see is leftists lamenting the idea of trying to negotiate a truce (which would undoubtedly require ukraine to give up territory in exchange for nato protection, and not just words but troops) but yet they never put forth any rational idea as to how they see this ending. Russia isn't going to just tuck tail and run to 2021 borders. Ukraine doesn't have the man power to completely remove Russian troops if they dig in. So is the plan to just let people die until someone runs out? I mean unless the plan is a putin assassination, which is fine by me, I dont really see why dragging iut the stalemate is a good idea. At some point someone is going to get stupid and really up the ante.

[Joe_K]

Praying the war ends as soon as possible, with the fewest lives lost. It cannot end soon enough.

[Scanker19]

I only own part of a globe so my reference isn’t the best, but isn’t the fact that North Korea is assisting Russia, and NATO (US, UK, Germany, et al) assisting Ukraine kind of, partially, probably global?

[BushMasterBoy]

I am expecting a coup. The Rus peoples are going to revolt at the cost of the incursion. What happened to his chef will happen to him. A study of Napoleon would be a good start. A failed military expedition ending in exile or even more severe. History repeats itself.