Should NATO send troops to help Ukraine?

[Muttley]

I notice Estonia has pledged to send additional Javelin anti tank missile with man portable anti aircraft missiles, ration packs and ammunition. I suspect that with Vlad appealing to the Ukraine Armed Forces to turn on their commanders and politicians that the Russians are not having everything their own way. It is impossible to know how effective the Ukrainian military is being but the Russian MBTs are not of the same quality as M1A1 Abrams, Leopards or Challengers and the Javelin will kill them. When they try to enter the cities the tanks will be very vulnerable and air support of limited use if they want to even pay lip service to avoiding civilian casualties.

That is what we should be doing, getting them the supplies they need to fight.

On the subject of WW2 v WW3 it is a fact that the Germans had Weapons of Mass Destruction in terms of poison gas and I believe nerve agents but did not use them even in the last days of the Reich because they feared the retaliatory strike that we would make. So it is possible that a war wit Russia could be fought conventionally especially if we did not enter Russian territory.

 

[SuperStu]

So let’s see Hungary might be next — or the former Yugoslavia. What then—we just let Putin do what he wants?

Is this realistic? I don't know enough about Russian/eastern Europes modern politics. My understanding was the Putin-NATO-Ukraine stuff has been building up for 20 odd years hasn't it?

Hungary is a NATO member so it'd be another one that automatically means war with the USA for Putin. You'd think Ukraine is more strategically significant as well for Russia - closer, Black Sea adjacent.

Is there an actual reason to think that's what would happen next or is it more of a worst case scenario if Putin is unhinged?

 

[Smoggle]

Is this realistic? I don't know enough about Russian/eastern Europes modern politics. My understanding was the Putin-NATO-Ukraine stuff has been building up for 20 odd years hasn't it?

Hungary is a NATO member so it'd be another one that automatically means war with the USA for Putin. You'd think Ukraine is more strategically significant as well for Russia - closer, Black Sea adjacent.

Is there an actual reason to think that's what would happen next or is it more of a worst case scenario if Putin is unhinged?

He hasn’t the money, military or support to just keep rolling through countries, obviously attacking NATO countries opens up a whole new conflict, so it’s an unlikely outcome.

I alluded to it in another post but if Ukraine falls and becomes a client like Belarus, Moldova would be easy pickings. This then leaves a lot of NATO countries on his borders, he wouldn’t attack directly, but he would use democracies against themselves (as we’ve seen) to weaken the alliance so it loses unity and purpose, or countries pull out and become easier to add to his collection.

 

[Steve8778]

I notice Estonia has pledged to send additional Javelin anti tank missile with man portable anti aircraft missiles, ration packs and ammunition. I suspect that with Vlad appealing to the Ukraine Armed Forces to turn on their commanders and politicians that the Russians are not having everything their own way. It is impossible to know how effective the Ukrainian military is being but the Russian MBTs are not of the same quality as M1A1 Abrams, Leopards or Challengers and the Javelin will kill them. When they try to enter the cities the tanks will be very vulnerable and air support of limited use if they want to even pay lip service to avoiding civilian casualties.

That is what we should be doing, getting them the supplies they need to fight.

On the subject of WW2 v WW3 it is a fact that the Germans had Weapons of Mass Destruction in terms of poison gas and I believe nerve agents but did not use them even in the last days of the Reich because they feared the retaliatory strike that we would make. So it is possible that a war wit Russia could be fought conventionally especially if we did not enter Russian territory.

Spot on assessment. My job is a javelin operator and there isn't an MBT on the planet that can defend against it when in top attack, the Russians tried to build raised turrets with ERA (explosive reactive armour) and there is no stopping it. Give the Ukraine more Javelin is a great start. They aren't cheap though 65k per missile and the launch unit it 500k.

 

[newusername]

I guess the answer rather depends on whether sanctions can be effective.

I repeat. Putin can be defeated without the use of force.
Through real sanctions, cutting them off from all financial markets, destroying their IT systems by hacking and internationally ostracising them the Russians themselves will soon turn on him.

Coming late to the party but have sanctions ever been effective?

It took 32 years of them for South Africa to un-ban the ANC and release Mandela.

The most comprehensive set of sanctions was the US embargo of Cuba. Started in 1958 & ramped up after the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961 to effect regime change without sending the troops in.
The embargo is still in place 60 odd years later and is estimated to have cost the Cuban economy $1.5 trillion since its inception and has utterly failed.
The Cuban government is still communist, has still helped factions in Central & South American countries.

Cuba has sfa to export either.

Russia is the world's 3rd largest wheat producing country, 2nd largest gas, 3rd largest oil, etc.

As was seen yesterday when Imran Khan rocked up to Moscow to get a gas deal for Pakistan, it is completely unrealistic to expect the whole world to stop buying Russian commodities just because the west say they are now persona non grata.

If we start seizing assets there are lots of British companies that have invested heavily into Russia that would lose everything.

All sanctions are is a way to be seen to be doing something rather than doing nothing.

 

[BoroGold]

Troops on the ground and its WW3, nuclear war and billions of lives lost

Absolutely ! and if it comes to another "big one" there won't be a winner this time, that's for sure.

 

[zzzzz]

Coming late to the party but have sanctions ever been effective?

It took 32 years of them for South Africa to un-ban the ANC and release Mandela.

The most comprehensive set of sanctions was the US embargo of Cuba. Started in 1958 & ramped up after the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961 to effect regime change without sending the troops in.
The embargo is still in place 60 odd years later and is estimated to have cost the Cuban economy $1.5 trillion since its inception and has utterly failed.
The Cuban government is still communist, has still helped factions in Central & South American countries.

Cuba has sfa to export either.

Russia is the world's 3rd largest wheat producing country, 2nd largest gas, 3rd largest oil, etc.

As was seen yesterday when Imran Khan rocked up to Moscow to get a gas deal for Pakistan, it is completely unrealistic to expect the whole world to stop buying Russian commodities just because the west say they are now persona non grata.

If we start seizing assets there are lots of British companies that have invested heavily into Russia that would lose everything.

All sanctions are is a way to be seen to be doing something rather than doing nothing.

Every historical point you make is correct.
But the difference now is that the world trades electronically more than ever AND Russia has access to independant sources of info that was never available. In Cuba and SA the populace had no access to IT.
I firmly believe that Russians themselves are the answer.
Cyber attacks, closing their banking systems down where possible, and targetting the oligarchs IMO will have a massive effect.
Are you suggesting military intervention?

 

[UTB70]

Doing nothing is just delaying the inevitable...if russia gets an easy ride theyll invade the baltics soon enough knowing theyll face littlee western intervention. I have lithuanian friends they tell me we need to attack now. They dont seem that afraid of the russians.

 

[SuperStu]

I alluded to it in another post but if Ukraine falls and becomes a client like Belarus, Moldova would be easy pickings.

Is there a reason Russia would want to invade Moldova? Have they had anything similar to Ukraine with potential NATO membership?

but he would use democracies against themselves (as we’ve seen) to weaken the alliance so it loses unity and purpose, or countries pull out and become easier to add to his collection.

How long would that take though? He's not a young guy.

Not asking these to dispute you Smoggle, just trying to understand the reasoning.

 

[br14]

Is there a reason Russia would want to invade Moldova?

Not when they already have troops there and have done for years.

 

[DrummerMan]

I can't figure out if the Ukraine Government have got it right by telling people to stay indoors - at least that was the idea for the last few days

That's essentially given Russia empty streets, obviously, that's beginning to change as more people take up arms

I just feel if 3 million people (the population of Kyiv) were out on the streets, that would be difficult for an army to control

 

[SuperStu]

Not when they already have troops there and have done for years.

I've just googled it. You're right of course, Russian troops in a "breakaway state". So it is quite similar to Ukraine afterall.

 

[DrummerMan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497251352346611714

 

[Jedi boro]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497251352346611714

Exactly that’s why putin won’t attack Estonia. That is Nato.

 

[Smoggle]

Is there a reason Russia would want to invade Moldova? Have they had anything similar to Ukraine with potential NATO membership?

Moldova has little but he’s supported the Transnistria separatists in that country for years. It’s a former soviet state if it’s true he has designs on taking them back.

How long would that take though? He's not a young guy.

Oh you’re absolutely right on that, it would be a long game and potentially beyond his lifetime, his successor is unknown - would they be of the same mind, or more conciliatory? It’s all guesswork and no one knows Putin’s mind but himself. But conceivably he could ramp up the “mind games” once Ukraine is subdued.

Not asking these to dispute you Smoggle, just trying to understand the reasoning.

Dispute away mate, I’m here to learn too and fully accept many of my posts like this are based on little more than a decent grasp of recent Russian history, guesswork and hunches - some of the things I say will undoubtedly turn out to be wrong!

 

[Smoggle]

Not when they already have troops there and have done for years.

Only in transnistria.

They’ve had troops in Ukraine for years too, how’s that working out?

 

[newusername]

Are you suggesting military intervention?

Everything up to but just short of that.

Full access to military intelligence, satellite data, weapon systems, munitions, etc.

 

[zzzzz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1497251352346611714

Dog Shyte.
I'd be OK with it they did mobilise as a warning to Putin.
But who the fk is OSINTDEFENDER?

 

[newusername]

Everything up to but just short of that.

Full access to military intelligence, satellite data, weapon systems, munitions, etc.

Ultimately though we've massively defunded & reduced the scope of our armed forces and so are utterly reliant on what the US decide to do.

 

[SuperStu]

It’s a former soviet state if it’s true he has designs on taking them back.

I find all the analysis in the media saying he wants to recreate the USSR a bit unserious. Maybe I'm wrong, it just feels very similar to the "internet communism!" headlines at the last election. Scary word association propaganda.