Reply to US has no good options in Ukraine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US has no good options in Ukraine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This. Yes, we're getting very close to being drawn into this, but not because we want to. As I've said on here before, Putin is spoiling for a fight and keeps upping the ante to draw NATO in. The question is not whetehr we enter, but when and in response to which trigger.[/quote]
I don't know about that. WHy is he not taking Kiev yet? He could, why is he so slow on the ground? He could have bombed Kiev to the ground by now, but he didn't. Seems to me NATO wants a fight.[/quote]

Yes of course.  That makes complete sense.  Russia hasn't taken Kyiv yet because NATO wants war.  Are you the same derp from the other thread?  Russia's been trying to take Kyiv but they've failed.  It turns out that their vast amy sucks.  No fuel, no food, no maintenance, no air superiority, no morale, [/quote]
And yet, he has bombs that can destroy it which would guarantee he takes it. He has not destroyed it? Why?[/quote]

Russia cannot take Kyiv without bombing it to rubble like it did in Grozny and Aleppo.  If he does this, and he may well, he will cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths. In addition, he will lose many, many soldiers and tanks.   And still, even if he managed to take Kyiv, it would continue to be an ungovernable pile of rubble with an insurgency that would never let him properly govern Ukraine as a Russian state.   I don’t pretend to believe that Putin has any qualms about killing civilians, but the level of death and destruction required to take Kyiv may well undermine his other goal - to rule it as part of Russia.

He may still hope to find a quisling to install as the head of a puppet government, but that is unlikely to be accepted inside or outside of Ukraine.

In addition, it seems doubtful that Putin actually can begin to move on Ukraine.  Russian supply lines are stretched and collapsing. Belarus isn’t providing the troops Putin thought would be part of the invasion due to widespread Belarussian civilian and military resistance, despite Putin trying to provoke Belarus into war with Ukraine by bombing Belarus with a Russian plane from the Ukraine side and claiming it was a Ukrainian plane. Furthermore, the Ukrainians are doing a crackerjack job of defending Kyiv, having attack the long tank column N of the city as well as defeating an airborne assault of a Kyiv airport in the opening days of war.

I fail to understand how it is NATO’s fault that Putin has done such a crap job invading Ukraine? [/quote]

Thank you for the analysis. I think this reluctance to expend too much on Kyiv's destruction is one reason why Russia has continued talks with Ukraine.

Yesterday, Ukraine said they were coming closer to a shared view of the situation. Perhaps that means the Russian-held east will go to Russia (or be "independent"), and Ukraine promises never to belong to NATO (which NATO would be delighted to accept since it wasn't happy to let in all these eastern European nations in the first place). And perhaps Russia keeps that Black Sea land corridor to Crimea, which it wanted for years (sorry, Mariupol). And Ukraine is welcome to belong to the EU, which will have to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction anyway.

[/quote]

Promising to never join NATO wouldn't be enough. Joining the EU is just a backdoor way into support from a number of NATO member countries. However, Putin could let it slide knowing EU membership is a long long way off due to "requirements." Assuming he trusted the west to follow the rules.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics