Law Negative Thirty-Five

[Grant]

Now?

Now???

Reports of Iranian ballistic missile attack on Erbil, Iraq.  Supposedly close to the US Consulate there. 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44728/breaking-reported-ballistic-missile-attack-near-u-s-base-in-erbil-iraq

First distributed as video on Twitter.  Seems to be confirmed. 

I don't get it.  The Grandpa admin seems to be working hard to drop sanctions on Iran so they can get some more Iranian oil.  Seems to be a bad time to hit US bases. 

I've read it suggested that the attack may have been in retaliation for Israeli attacks on IRGC officers. 

Plenty not known.  Just not good timing.  Plenty going on. 

[cherrypoptart]

I don't know about that specifically but it's not surprising to see the same results of the Democrats' proud attacks on law and order that we see in our national crime wave manifest themselves internationally as well, first in Afghanistan, then in Ukraine, and now it's off to the races. They don't seem to get that there is real evil both among our own people as well as abroad and it isn't stopped with social workers or leaders who telegraph our weakness and unwillingness to fight.

[Fenring]

I don't know about that, cherry, but I do think there's an argument to be had that when America is extremely divided it may appear to be a prime time to make certain moves. At the moment it probably appears to the outside eye (and to the inside one) that half of America is perpetually looking to undermine the other half, at war with each other at this point. Politically, government is starting more and more to look like a gang turf conflict. The kinds of rhetoric I hear on a daily basis slamming each other...man, who wouldn't think that America or its dependents are prime targets? Half the Congress would probably use a foreign problem as a way to undermine the other half, rather than come together to solve the problem. As sad as it sounds, the Project for a New American Century (prior to and after 9/11) had this unbelievably morbid idea that nothing short of a 'new Pearl Harbor' would galvanize America (in the way they wanted, for their purposes). And it's starting to feel like it would take a ridiculous disaster to get the infighting to stop, which is a scary thing in itself for other reasons. Meanwhile maybe it does mean America looks weak.

[NobleHunter]

Yeah, a major disaster--like a pandemic--will totally bring the US together. If Pearl Harbour happened today, the GOP would refuse to support a declaration of war because winning a war would make Biden too popular.

It's worth pointing out that Putin's assessment of both Ukraine and NATO's resolve was murderously wrong. If the war continues as it began Putin will have done more to destroy the Russian army than even Stalin.

[TheDrake]

Since this thread is loosely based on missiles, I'll hijack it to say, WTF India - launching a cruise missile at Pakistan and not alerting them or even admitting it until days later? How long until the conspiracy theorists link all this to the illuminati wanting to depopulate the earth while they are safe in their bunkers?

[TheDeamon]

Oh, just wait for the food riots and populist revolts likely to be coming in the next 14 months or so.

And that is ignoring what China may get up to. Looking like the post-WW2 order led by America dies this year under Biden.

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

[TheDrake]

Oh, just wait for the food riots and populist revolts likely to be coming in the next 14 months or so.

And that is ignoring what China may get up to. Looking like the post-WW2 order led by America dies this year under Biden.

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

Okay, Chicken Little.

[rightleft22]

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

I thought American withdraw from leadership was the last Administrations thing and what large percentage of the population wanted? 

How should American be leading?

[TheDeamon]

What replaces it probably won't be known for a few more years yet. Fingers crossed on it still being American led, but that isn't happening with the current President or VP.

I thought American withdraw from leadership was the last Administrations thing and what large percentage of the population wanted? 

How should American be leading?

It is the long term trend. Sleepy Joe is just more of that trend. Just concerning we have the guy who has been wrong on practically every major US foreign policy initiative during his entire political career calling the shots right now.

At least his team has caught on that ambiguity is useful in the scenario where you don't want to fight.

Telling Putin he would only face sanctions in December all but assured what we're seeing now.

Subsequent declarations about what we won't do also was no help in the deterrence department.

[NobleHunter]

The only thing the US could have done to prevent the invasion would have been to send US troops to Ukraine. That would have been bad.

[rightleft22]

I thought the Administration has done a ok job in how it parsed information about what Putin was planning/doing
Calling Putin on his crap (attempt to gas light) when he said things like the troops around Ukraine weren't a threat or prep to invasion.

And so far the Administration has been pretty working with NATO. I guess for those of a isolationist bent that would not be a positive.
I can't imagine the pervious Administration dealing with this issue very well.

[cherrypoptart]

Of course we'll never know for sure but losing Afghanistan the way we did, with a humiliating defeat in which we turned tail and ran exactly like Vietnam, certainly couldn't have helped. And TheDeamon is right that Biden threatening sanctions is tantamount to promising that the only response will be sanctions, and then talking about a "minor incursion" just gave the green light. As for Chicken Little, you can't legitimately fault someone for saying the sky is falling when we already saw it fall, many times. Covid under Joe worse than under Trump even with more vaccinated, "transitory" inflation through the roof, Afghanistan lost and Ukraine invaded. Of course if Ukraine manages to defend itself that's great, but "just" it getting invaded is already a skyfall level event and the shockwaves through the markets along with the extra inflation and supply chain problems we're seeing are going to be devastating to the U.S. and the world.

For the record Biden has done a pretty good job handling the invasion and now with the U.S. not buying Russian energy, against Biden's will by the way, and all the other economic screws being put to Russia as an entire country gets canceled, Russia will lose even if it takes Ukraine, and even that is looking less and less likely. Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion in the first place which whatever you want to say about Trump did not happen on his watch. If China is watching, hopefully they are seeing a serious economic deterrent here. Even if governments did nothing, you see one news story pointing out the companies that are still doing business in Russia, basically doxxing them, and within half a day half of them have done an about face and canceled contact. Of course I'm not one generally for cancel culture but in this case it's serving a purpose. It's a bit heartbreaking seeing it applied to individual Russians though and I would not go that far. Even some that have denounced the war have been canceled because they can't pass the new shibboleth standard of personally denouncing Putin. I don't think cancel culture should be applied to innocent Russian people that way but seeing it applied economically to a country by public pressure above and beyond what is required for by law is something China should note with fear before they decide to start helping Russia commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.

[rightleft22]

If you leave out the partisan sound bits like - Russia getting Canceled - as cancel culture is responsible  - or a shot at it - or whatever your point is about that statement.
The ending of Afghanistan was written in 2003.  But your not wrong After 2003 Afghanistan was a failure for all following Administrations.

Your argument and or concern might be better understood if you left that crap out.

Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

So dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't - Schmoozing Putin = giving Putin what he wants???

Ukraine is a Lose Lose for everyone (it make no sense)

Your man would likely have handed Ukraine over to Putin and as for--- now we can argue if only, what if stuff for all the good that will do

[rightleft22]

Sorry to late to delete the above. The latest breitbart talking point/marching orders - taking actions against Russia - canceling Russia bugs me

[rightleft22]

Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

I think the Administration got this right. Putin would have used any pre-emptive sanctions as proof of western aggression an justification to invade. Any pre-emptive sanctions could not be too aggressive or they would make the west look bad.

Like the parent that punishes thier kid for something they haven't done yet

.  That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

As for Schmoozing Putin - that hasn't worked for 20 years. Putin invitation into the G8 was a schmooze that didn't work because Putin has no regard for international laws or norms. Putin is the kind of man who if you give him a inch he will take a mile.

So if you were in charge how would you have schmoozed Putin?
What would you have done to deter him? 

[msquared]

Well  you could have at least gotten damaging info about your political opponents, right?

[TheDeamon]

If China is watching, hopefully they are seeing a serious economic deterrent here. Even if governments did nothing, you see one news story pointing out the companies that are still doing business in Russia, basically doxxing them, and within half a day half of them have done an about face and canceled contact.

The "individual corporate initiative" aspect might concern China. But I don't think the rest of it concerns them much. The Russian Oil imports drama demonstrates one of the core beliefs of many Communist Chinese Nationalists. That the western nations are going to be highly reluctant to do anything that endangers their economies in any meaningful way. China is far more connected to the economies of the US, and NATO, than Russia is. Even if Oil/Natural Gas is far more important to Germany than many of the goods China offers them--but at the same time, China has become a very important link in the "value added" chain for many German products. Germany is simply one of the worst off among the EU in total dollar value due to being one of the largest economies in the EU. They're not particularly unique otherwise.

Chinese planners had to expect sanctions at a minimum should Taiwan be invaded. Why they likewise probably expect is minimal endurance on sustaining those sanctions for what they expect/hope to be a "fait accompli" event once they move. (They remember the Iraq sanctions issues from the 1990's, although again, that's more directly relevant to Russia than China)

There also is the matter of massively debt-fueled growth that China has been pursuing for the past decade+ under very onerous interest rates. China is under a mountain of corporate and LGFV debt that makes the sub-prime crises of 2008 look like child's play by comparison. While they're also past their demographic peak for labor pool size.

The Paralympic Games just ended today, so their 3, nearly 4 month pause on industry is now at an end. Their ability to hide any lingering "economic weakness" starts to disappear quickly now. Something not helped with a global energy market that has hit highs not seen in over a decade. "Discounted Russian Oil" doesn't mean much to China either, when the physical infrastructure doesn't exist to get that "excess" Russian oil to China, and would takes years to build out if they started today. (Also not helped by the matter that Russian oil production was being bolstered by American and European technical expertise, which has not left the nation.. Russian production is likely to drop soon(tm) from that loss of expertise and support as those systems begin to need maintenance and repair/replacement)

I still hold to the premise that China's economy started tanking last summer, their situation has not improved appreciably since then. At this stage, for Xi Jingping's government, faced with a potential 3 way fight for control of the government in October, the "last refuge of scoundrels" is likely to be exercised very soon. He's going to play on nationalist sentiment, and invade Taiwan. He can then try to blame-shift the failed economy on the Western Sanctions "interfering in their internal matters(Taiwan)" and hope that he has established a sufficiently strong Cult of Personality with "Xi Jinping Thought" among other measures that win or lose on the invasion of Taiwan, he still holds power on the Mainland after everything is said and done.

It is now the 16th of March in China, now that the "Traditional Cease Fire" for the Olympic and Paralympic Games has concluded, now we get to see what China is willing to openly do. And just how evil Xi Jinping may be. If he's Putin level or worse, then Taiwan is getting invaded by May, and the preparations have been in process since before the Winter Games began.

[TheDrake]

Biden's failure was in not either schmoozing Putin enough or deterring him enough to stop the invasion

I think the Administration got this right. Putin would have used any pre-emptive sanctions as proof of western aggression an justification to invade. Any pre-emptive sanctions could not be too aggressive or they would make the west look bad.

Like the parent that punishes thier kid for something they haven't done yet

.  That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

As for Schmoozing Putin - that hasn't worked for 20 years. Putin invitation into the G8 was a schmooze that didn't work because Putin has no regard for international laws or norms. Putin is the kind of man who if you give him a inch he will take a mile.

So if you were in charge how would you have schmoozed Putin?
What would you have done to deter him?

That's an interesting question, about pre-emptive sanctions. I don't think you would have them activated, but you could draw up a specific laundry list of how bad it would be. If there had been a US law, or even a declaration of SWIFT removal, oil embargoes, yacht confiscation, et al. That might have been a more effective deterrent than the vague "bad things will happen if he invades. real bad sanctions" See, specificity can be equally as scary as vagueness - and particularly important if your adversary things you are weak. Problem was, it took a while to win over the EU. It took actual invasion to goad them into action or to generate the necessary domestic support. And you are really screwed if you claim you're going to have a specific consequence and it falls through.

[rightleft22]

That's an interesting question, about pre-emptive sanctions. I don't think you would have them activated, but you could draw up a specific laundry list of how bad it would be. If there had been a US law, or even a declaration of SWIFT removal, oil embargoes, yacht confiscation, et al. That might have been a more effective deterrent than the vague "bad things will happen if he invades. real bad sanctions" See, specificity can be equally as scary as vagueness - and particularly important if your adversary things you are weak. Problem was, it took a while to win over the EU. It took actual invasion to goad them into action or to generate the necessary domestic support. And you are really screwed if you claim you're going to have a specific consequence and it falls through.

Good points  First thought that camas to mind is that anything you say can and will be used against you.  You lay out a red line and specific consequences and then can't deliver when the line is crossed. I don't know if you can come back from that.

I think someone in the administration has done a really good job gaming out the scenarios. My guess is that the plan was to avoid giving Putin any possible pretext where he could pretend not to be the aggressor.

[TheDrake]

He should have threatened him with the loss of McDonalds, but I guess that didn't work because Russia is about to make China look like a stalwart defender of intellectual property rights.

[Grant]

It is the long term trend.

Well, dang.  Are y'all ready to bring Dubya back?  Raise McCain from the grave?  Give Romney his due for basically being right? 

LOL.  I didn't think so. 

[Grant]

The only thing the US could have done to prevent the invasion would have been to send US troops to Ukraine. That would have been bad.

Why?  How could it be bad if it prevents an invasion? 

Edit: Kinda sounds like a Nobel Peace Prize moment to me.  That's why eastern NATO countries are now scrambling for American troop deployments to their countries. 

[Grant]

That the problem with the Pre-emptive strike, it will be used against you.

Note that Ukraine didn't call up its reserves until after Russia attracted.  Putin would have used any call up as a treat and excuse to invade.

I suspect many in America would have agreed with Putin on any Pre-emptive measures and sided with him

Pooter didn't need an excuse to invade.  He was always going to invade anyways. 

The many Americans (and Europeans) who would have agreed with Putin in the case of pre-emptive measures were wrong.  Will they learn from their error?  "Not giving Putin an excuse" didn't work and is not working.  Pooter doesn't need an excuse. 

The easiest way to have prevented the war would have been putting American or NATO troops into Ukraine.  By trying to prevent a war, NATO invited one. 

[TheDeamon]

It is the long term trend.

Well, dang.  Are y'all ready to bring Dubya back?  Raise McCain from the grave?  Give Romney his due for basically being right? 

LOL.  I didn't think so.

Obama and Romney were both right, just a matter of time scale. Russia is a "has been Empire" in its death throes as it fails to realize it is effectively dead. Alternatively you could compare Russia the ethno-state to a drowning man. One nobody except other dogmatic ethno-states care to try to save.

The problem is one of those Ethno-States is China, and they're headed for serious distress as well.

[Grant]

Obama and Romney were both right, just a matter of time scale.

I have no idea what this means. 

All I know is that NATO and the United States missed every opportunity to prevent this war from happening over the last 8 years. 

I can't say if Romney being elected would have made a difference.  The United States is only part of the problem.  I'm pretty sure McCain being elected would have solved the problem, lol, but we might be still in Afghanistan and more heavily involved in Iraq too today.  And he wouldn't be President today anyways.  Likely Obama or Clinton would be President today.  I don't like dealing in a bunch of hypotheticals.  The focus needs to be on how to solve the problem now and lessons learned to prevent it from happening again. 

As for China, they are very closely monitoring how scared the American public is of nuclear war.  They're likely reevaluating their nuclear strategy. 

[NobleHunter]

Pooter didn't need an excuse to invade.  He was always going to invade anyways. 

The many Americans (and Europeans) who would have agreed with Putin in the case of pre-emptive measures were wrong.  Will they learn from their error?  "Not giving Putin an excuse" didn't work and is not working.  Pooter doesn't need an excuse. 

The easiest way to have prevented the war would have been putting American or NATO troops into Ukraine.  By trying to prevent a war, NATO invited one.

Putting NATO troops in Ukraine would have drastically increased the chance of escalation, if Putin (or the people providing information to Putin) decided NATO was bluffing. It may have also spurred an invasion if Putin got enough warning to attack before the troops arrived.

It's easy to say know that the invasion was inevitable and so pre-invasion diplomacy should have been more aggressive but I don't know if it was that obvious beforehand and it certainly would have been impossible to get NATO to present a unified front. Even now NATO's not 100% together on how to respond to Russian aggression.

[Grant]

Putting NATO troops in Ukraine would have drastically increased the chance of escalation, if Putin (or the people providing information to Putin) decided NATO was bluffing. I

Escalation to what?  Pooter just nuking Brussels? 

Bluffing what?  Saying that you're moving troops into Ukraine and then not doing it?  Why would we bluff that? 

It may have also spurred an invasion if Putin got enough warning to attack before the troops arrived.

Good luck.  Not sure if the Russians could have gone in early, especially if they didn't want to piss off the Chinese, and the US can put boots on the ground in 48 hours, and could have flown fighter squadrons in within 24-48 hours. 

It's easy to say know that the invasion was inevitable and so pre-invasion diplomacy should have been more aggressive but I don't know if it was that obvious beforehand

Not obvious to whom?  Ostriches with their heads buried?  *censored*, Grandpa President was saying that the decision had been made a month out.  The intel community had some source. 

and it certainly would have been impossible to get NATO to present a unified front. Even now NATO's not 100% together on how to respond to Russian aggression.

Kind of brings back the benefits of unilateralism, yes? 

United States:  "Hey, that piano is going to fall and crush that little girl"
Germany:  "Well, that's not obvious.  Better not do anything. It could cause the piano to fall."
France: "Let me talk to the piano"
UK:  "I'm not going to do anything by myself"
Little Girl:  "Hey can somebody help me?"
Poland: "Put on a hardhat, little girl"
United States: "Well, I'm not getting involved, this is a European problem.  Sorry little girl.  It's *censored*ed up what is about to happen to you, but it's not my problem."
Italy: "Sorry little girl, but we don't have a treaty.  I know you want to sign the treaty, but we won't let you, because we don't really want to fight pianos. " 

The only relevant player in the discussion is Ukraine, which would have welcomed troops or planes.  I recognize the benefits of mulilaterialism and know it is preferable.  But the drawbacks are obvious. 

[NobleHunter]

Global nuclear war and the end of human civilization is the endpoint of escalation.

Bluffing as in moving troops into Ukraine but not letting them shoot at Russians. Because of the whole 'end of human civilization' thing.

We also didn't know how bad the Russian army was so spurring Russia into acting early seemed more plausible. Disunity in NATO would be very bad in ensuring Russia believes they can't attack Poland or the Baltics without big bad booms.

ETA: Just because the decision had been made in January to invade, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been unmade. Especially since none of the usual flow down had been done until well after the invasion. It would have made far more sense (i.e. likely to serve Russia's interests) if it had been a massive bluff on Putin's part. Officially making the decision could have been part of it.

[Grant]

Global nuclear war and the end of human civilization is the endpoint of escalation.

Bluffing as in moving troops into Ukraine but not letting them shoot at Russians. Because of the whole 'end of human civilization' thing.

Y'all need to seriously get over this global nuclear war thing and the end of human civilization fear, because it is causing insidious paralysis.  According to this theory, we should not have been in West Germany during the cold war, because the Soviets could invade and then "end of civilization".  I know people were scared *censored*less back then too, but none of it came true.  Nobody was crazy enough to open the box.  Even when American ships blockaded Cuba. 

Tell me how nuclear escalation goes to "end of civilization".  Give me your scenario, all you nuclear war experts out there.  Pooter just ups and goes full release?  Hits all 2000 targets in the US, Europe, etc? 

[Grant]

ETA: Just because the decision had been made in January to invade, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been unmade. Especially since none of the usual flow down had been done until well after the invasion.

That's right.  And the best way to have the decision "unmade" would have been putting US or NATO troops or planes into Ukraine, back in January. 

It would have made far more sense (i.e. likely to serve Russia's interests) if it had been a massive bluff on Putin's part. Officially making the decision could have been part of it.

I think it's time for a bunch of people who are trying to make sense of everything to understand that they don't understand Pooter in particular, and possibly people in general. 

[NobleHunter]

If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.

[yossarian22c]

If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.

Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.

[Grant]

If you're wrong about the decision getting unmade, you've just ended human civilization. Oops.

That's not an assessment, that's just a record being stuck on "end of human civilization".  That thought process prevented this war from being stopped early on, and is threatening to prevent it from being stopped, and is threatening to lead to further escalation into eastern Europe.   

[NobleHunter]

Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.

I'm not entirely clear how the chain of decision would unfold from Russians being shot at to Washington getting nuked but given the maximum severity even minimal risk can be unacceptable.

That's not an assessment, that's just a record being stuck on "end of human civilization".  That thought process prevented this war from being stopped early on, and is threatening to prevent it from being stopped, and is threatening to lead to further escalation into eastern Europe.   

Possibly prevented this war from being stopped. Unless you're claiming that you understand Putin in particular.

[rightleft22]

That's right.  And the best way to have the decision "unmade" would have been putting US or NATO troops or planes into Ukraine, back in January. 

That would have made NATO appear to be the aggressor. I suspect the intention was to insure the if Putin attacked he would be the aggressor with no excuses other then the ones he made up.

That said I have no idea what Putin was/is thinking. None of it makes sense.

[Grant]

Not quite. As long as our troops didn't cross the boarder into Russia I think the nukes stay in the silos. But I don't know the mind of Putin to say how he would have handled the situation. But declaring war on Russia isn't something to be done lightly or without considering all the risks.

I'm not sure if this is referring to putting troops in in January, or getting involved now.  Putting troops into Ukraine in January wouldn't lead automatically with war in Russia.  The point would be to prevent war with Russia.  But it's prudent to be prepared for war with Russia just in case they do.  Yes, we are prepared for war with Russia.  Much better than the rest of NATO, lol, which is part of the reason NATO sucks so much, because they depend on the United States.  Yes, that includes their nuclear armament.  We wouldn't be very good at deterring war against NATO unless we were ready for such things happening.  And deterrence has worked.  That's why Pooter is invading Ukraine and not the Baltics. 

I'm not going to sit here and say that there is no element of risk.  There is.  And that does include "end of civilization", though a bunch of stuff has to go wrong before that happens, and a bunch of people have to be convinced that the other person would not retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack.  MAD still holds.  The only question remains the risk posed by tac nucs used in Europe, or even on the United States. 

Personally, I don't think anybody is going to risk the "end of human civilization".  But they will be willing to risk turning Ukraine into a radioactive moonscape.  The Russians, not the Europeans. 

The risk is there, I will not say it is not, I just don't see it going there.  But I can't see the future.  But I can promise that as long as we are afraid of nuclear confrontation, Russia will win, because they can threaten the US and NATO.  They already are.  We just don't believe them in certain cases yet are terrified of others.  It makes zero sense.  There is a mental block somewhere.  We've convinced ourselves that the Russians would launch/escalate in these cases, but not in these cases.  Honestly, I think Pooter is already planning tactical nuclear attacks on Ukraine and possibly Poland or even Brussels.  That's Pooter's only route to getting sanctions lifted and keeping the other eastern European countries out of the war. 

[Grant]

That would have made NATO appear to be the aggressor.

Appear to whom?  They would have been wrong.  I'm sure Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Germany and whomever would have pitched a fit.  Germany and France couldn't see it.  They just couldn't.  But we knew. 

This "caring about appearances" might be part of the problem. 

That being said, I can't say that waiting for Pooter to make the first move hasn't reaped benefits.  NATO more united.  Germany paying more.  Russia sanctioned. But the fact of the matter is that the best outcome would have been deterring the war from happening in the first place.  For everyone.  For Ukraine.  For Europe.  For Russia.  For the US. 

I suspect the intention was to insure the if Putin attacked he would be the aggressor with no excuses other then the ones he made up.

Well, we got what we wanted.  What's the next step, Cap? 

I mean, was that the whole plan?  To make sure Pooter looked bad and we looked good?  Not sure if we really look good to some people.  Not sure if we do, but hindsight is 20/20. 

[NobleHunter]

A lot of very serious people are taking the risk of unintentional end of the world very serious. I more or less have to assume they see a plausible chain of decisions with the worst possible results. Granted, most of the thinking on this comes out of the Cold War and assumes the Soviets are invading Germany but it remains an accepted premise that tactical nukes pose an acceptable risk of total escalation.

[Grant]

A lot of very serious people are taking the risk of unintentional end of the world very serious.

Can you link to their very serious assessments and scenarios of how the end of the world happens? 

I'm usually on the side of expertise here, but I've got other experts saying it's go time and we should have gone earlier.  General Clark.  General Joulwan.  Other "very serious people" who I wouldn't call experts though. 

The crux of the matter is that the risk of intervention was lowest in January, before Pooter had sunken costs in Ukraine.  Before, Pooter could have just bowed out and made the United States look like a nut on the world stage.  Let him.  But now many "very serious people" are saying he needs some sort of victory to maintain his position before he quits. 

I don't want to hear about "very serious people".  I think some "very serious people" got us into this.  Including many "very serious people" in Europe that can at least admit to being wrong.  I'll listen to arguments, not allusions to "very serious people". 

[NobleHunter]

No one presents a full up scenario. They just assert escalating series of risks. It's frustrating.

[rightleft22]

Appear to whom?  They would have been wrong.  I'm sure Russia and China and Iran and North Korea and Germany and whomever would have pitched a fit.  Germany and France couldn't see it.  They just couldn't.  But we knew.

Exactly the point. Any Pre-emptive action by the US or NATO would have been used against it. I can't see how it couldn't have been anything but divisive and playing into Putin's hands. Can you imagine how it would have played on Fox?

Note that Ukraine did not mobilized until after Russians forces attacked. I suspect that had Ukraine mobilized earlier it would have been used as a justification by Putin. See  Ukraine is the threat. Who would fall for that... Lots

If the US put boots on the ground in January without NATO consent, I don't see how NATO survives that. If it has NATO consent would that have meant that Ukraine for all intense and purposes was now a member. And Putin could with some evidence complain to the world.

I mean, was that the whole plan?  To make sure Pooter looked bad and we looked good?

I doubt It was the whole plan. but it is a important factor that allowed NATO and much of the world to act in a unified manor. And that's Huge. I don't see that happening if the US or NATO or even Ukraine acted pre-emptily.   

But I'm only a Cap Your move Gen

[Grant]

RNGesus, save us. 

Some people have managed to convince themselves that moving troops into a country, at their request, ostensibly to protect it, is escalation and reason for invasion. 

Some people have been drinking too much of Pooter's Kool-Aid.  You're swallowing Russian propaganda.  Spit it out. 

I honestly don't care how it plays on Fox News, and I don't see why anyone else would either. 

In order to make the US look bad, Pooter would have had to abandon his invasion, which he would have.  In return for looking bad in front of Germany and Fox News, we would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine, and it would have been better for Ukraine, Russia, eastern Europe, NATO, and the United States.  Now we're stuck. 

[NobleHunter]

Pre-positioning troops can actually be a casus belli. That it wouldn't be in this case wouldn't stop the preemptive measures from utterly confusing the post-invasion response. So there was a high chance of still being at war but now there's no effective sanction regime because there's a lot more noise about who did what.

Nor is it certain that Putin wouldn't have invaded if there were American troops in Ukraine. Especially since we know Putin's goal wasn't to make the US or NATO look bad but to annex Ukraine. Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance. After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place. And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.

[Grant]

So there was a high chance of still being at war but now there's no effective sanction regime because there's a lot more noise about who did what.

I don't think there would have been a high chance of being at war at all, and you don't need a sanction regime if there is no war. 

Nor is it certain that Putin wouldn't have invaded if there were American troops in Ukraine.

Sure.  It's not certain.  But highly unlikely. And I know exactly what would happen when the Russians tangle with the US Army and USAF.  They can barely handle the Ukrainians.  They have in fact been losing to the Ukrainians and are only now figuring out the only way to make gains is to destroy the entire country. 

Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance.

Nothing ever has a "perfect chance" except death and taxes. 

After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place.

Ehhhh.  Depends on who the trip-wire is and how much you can get there.  Sure, I suppose Pooter could think that a brigade from the 82nd or a mechanized brigade would not put up enough of a fight.  But he'd be wrong.  So here are your outcomes:  a) war is prevented, b) war is not prevented but is won quickly, preventing the death of thousands and thousands of people from a long drawn out war, and the destruction of an entire country. 

And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.

Nobody wanted to invade Russia.  Nobody.  Everybody knew this.  Everybody knows this.  The only people saying that it would look like an invasion are Putinverstehen and kool-aid drinkers. 

There is a vast difference between having the troops necessary to defend something, and the troops necessary to invade something.  That's obvious to anybody with any professional education in arms.  The United States cannot defeat the entire Russian army with a single brigade.  Even with all of USAFEUR behind it.  It's ridiculous.  It's Russian propaganda. 

[yossarian22c]

...

 Moving troops was likely to have the highest chance of preventing an invasion but not a perfect chance. After all, the assumptions that make the invasion anything but an idiotic waste of lives (that neither NATO nor Ukraine will mount effective opposition) still holds even if there's a trip wire force in place. And you can't move in enough troops to have survive the expected Russian attack without making it look like you're about to invade Russia.

Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

[NobleHunter]

Sure.  It's not certain.  But highly unlikely. And I know exactly what would happen when the Russians tangle with the US Army and USAF.  They can barely handle the Ukrainians.  They have in fact been losing to the Ukrainians and are only now figuring out the only way to make gains is to destroy the entire country.

If they invade, they'd probably assume the American forces wouldn't engage. Why wouldn't they engage? Because there's 70 odd years of policy that says US troops don't shoot directly at Russians. And Russia wants Ukraine much more than NATO wants to defend it.

Nobody wanted to invade Russia.  Nobody.  Everybody knew this.  Everybody knows this.  The only people saying that it would look like an invasion are Putinverstehen and kool-aid drinkers.

One reason everyone knows this is because there aren't any NATO troops in Ukraine and never any possibility of NATO troops in Ukraine. Once you put NATO troops in Ukraine, after decades of promising it wouldn't happen, the narrative becomes a lot more flexible.

Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.

[yossarian22c]

...

Based off the ineffectiveness of the Russian invasion I think a 5 to 10 thousand paratroopers and rangers would be giving the Russians hell right now and with American forces on the ground our air force would keep the skies above Ukraine clear. The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.

Agree, hindsight is much easier to justify putting a small but significant force in Ukraine. The effectiveness of the deterrent may not have worked because the Russians clearly overestimated the capacity of their armed forces.

[Grant]

 The invasion would be a complete disaster for the Russians but the risk of escalation would be higher because they would be getting their asses kicked so bad.

I'm not certain of this because I feel that Russia would be less likely to use tactical nukes on American troops or inside Ukraine while American troops were there, than the situation we are in now, where Pooter may feel he can get away with nuking Ukraine to make a point and to compel surrender when there is no NATO presence there.  I honestly feel that the risk of a nuclear weapon going off is higher in the situation we are in, though the chance of a nuclear exchange would be higher in the other scenario. 

[Fenring]

I know people were scared *censored*less back then too, but none of it came true.  Nobody was crazy enough to open the box.  Even when American ships blockaded Cuba. 

It appears most of your arguments are based on this: that the nuclear fear is causing general paralysis. However since you sited this example as the ultimate case of 'it never happed and probably still won't', I thought I'd ask you whether you're aware of how it actually *did* happen in Cuba. There are a few stories like this in history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Now you can argue that these cases are not identical (one didn't originate from Moscow) but that hardly matters. When stuff starts happening stuff can happen. And once it happens that's it. Luckily these particular Russians in history did in fact fear the nuclear insanity enough to prevent it, but over the objections of others. So it's not like we can actually trust human nature on this front. These incidents were basically just dumb luck, all things considered.

[Grant]

If they invade, they'd probably assume the American forces wouldn't engage. Why wouldn't they engage? Because there's 70 odd years of policy that says US troops don't shoot directly at Russians.

RNGesus, forgive us our bad memories.

Tell that to the guys in the Berlin Brigade in 1984.  Tell it to the entire US Army garrison in West Germany. No, we never shot directly at the Russians.  Because they never invaded West Germany.  Because we were there.  If they HAD invaded West Germany, we would have shot them!  Why would the US Army or Air Force be in Ukraine if they didn't have permission to shoot at Russians if they invaded!?!?!?!?

Tell that to the guys who slaughtered 300 Russian mercenaries in Syria.  Just destroyed them with massive air power. 

Tell that to the USN ships blockading Cuba in 1962.   

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. 

And Russia wants Ukraine much more than NATO wants to defend it.

So now you're telling me it's a simple matter of will?  Pooter vs the American public?  Pooter vs NATO public?  Ukraine is destroyed because NATO just doesn't CARE ENOUGH? 

I'll buy that.  But it doesn't make it right or wise. 

One reason everyone knows this is because there aren't any NATO troops in Ukraine and never any possibility of NATO troops in Ukraine. Once you put NATO troops in Ukraine, after decades of promising it wouldn't happen, the narrative becomes a lot more flexible.

Narrative is BS. It's simple math, as I pointed out before.  You could have put enough troops into Ukraine to defend it while making clear that it wasn't enough troops to launch an attack.  I don't care what Russian propaganda wants to make the narrative.  It's lies.  I'm not interested in lies. 

This would be a better argument if anyone expected the Russians to do so poorly.

Meh.  Nobody expected the Russians to do so poorly against the Ukrainians.  I don't think anybody would have expected the Russians to do well against American troops.  Especially because they would be bringing the USAF along with them.  The boots on the ground really isn't what makes the difference.  It's American air power.  The boots on the ground are just a tripwire, though I fully expect them to be able to do some damage.