If Russia invades the Ukraine...

[FireDragon76]

If Russia invades Ukraine what should the NATO response be?

Why do you hold the view you do?

The US has the power over the international banking system to make it so that other countries can't trade in dollars with Russia. Putin can take his chunk of land, but it will come at a grave cost, and it could potentially cost him politically.

 

[FireDragon76]

Very limited sanctions will be the most that might come in reply to an invasion. Nothing got Russia out of Georgia when she invaded that country. Or from the Crimea when she invaded that part of Ukraine, so it's not going to be any different when we have a spineless administration in Washington and NATO is...well, NATO.

However, Putin is sly enough not to try to annex the whole of Ukraine, which also would take too much time. He'll no doubt do what he's done before and take some of the country only, allowing the existence of a Ukraine to continue. That always gives the West the opportunity to avoid doing anything really meaningful.

If Russia takes eastern Ukraine (and it's likely they would also take Kyiv), most likely Ukraine will petition NATO for membership and US and UK forces might be deployed there sooner rather than later. Russia would trade a bit of land and ethno-nationalist pride for long-term security and economic problems, to say nothing of making his country a pariah state.

 

[Albion]

If Russia takes eastern Ukraine (and it's likely they would also take Kyiv), most likely Ukraine will petition NATO for membership and US and UK forces might be deployed there sooner rather than later.

NATO would never respond that way unless Putin tried to annex the whole of the nation and I am certain that this is not his plan.

 

[FireDragon76]

I should note that I would prefer a very strong stance with no question as to what the penalty will be. I would prefer that penalty to be a strong militaristic response, but I just don't think that is really in the cards.

A strong militaristic response would be an international tragedy of potentially epic proportions. The most realistic scenario is that if Russia annexes eastern Ukraine, Russia will face crippling international sanctions. The Moscow regime will bask in a bit of glory before facing long-term problems that might not be solved by a relatively cozy relationship with China (and China would have even more power in that relationship).

I am not sure that NATO or the US have the stomach for that kind of response. The US certainly does not have a President willing to take that kind of strong stance.

It would be a foolhardy stance. While the Russian military has serious problems, they are capable of inflicting a great deal of damage. NATO and Russian troops in open conflict could easily escalate.

Contrast that with Putin who is legitimately popular in Russia and has been leading a desire to throw their weight around the region for decades.

In Russia, that popularity is a mile wide but an inch deep.

He can make the argument that the eastern parts of Ukraine are barely under their control now, are more Russified and Ukrainian, and desire to be a part of Russia.

That logic doesn't work in a post-WWII world. That's the logic that Hitler used to seize the Sudetenland, and there is even less justification in this situation: there are only large numbers of Russians in Ukraine because of previous Russian and Soviet policies that exploited the poorest country in Europe.

 

[FireDragon76]

NATO would never respond that way unless Putin tried to annex the whole of the nation and I am certain that this is not his plan.

If Moscow takes Kyiv and sets up a puppet government, it's alot more probable.

I very much doubt Moscow will try to take the whole country, it doesn't have the resources and it would face opposition by partisans and guerillas. But Kyiv is doable (if costly) and it would be a tempting target.

A good strategic analysis of the Russian situation with Ukraine:

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The deportations of men, women, and children to Russian camps are being accomplished through the head of Putin's front organization, the "Donetsk People’s Republic" which controls parts of Eastern Ukraine.

The Donetsk People’s Republic is lead by Ukrainian dissidents. It has nothing to do with Putin. The Euromaiden coup blew up in Washington’s face with Kiev losing the Crimea and Donbas, and Russia makes a convenient scapegoat.

…and this is how I know that Russia will never invade. The US has reduced the Ukraine to the poorest country in Europe, a land that no rational government would want to rule, because responsibility for it would be a serious liability.

Well, that and the fact that Putin has had political enemies killed, runs an oligarchy, continually meddles with other country's elections in Europe and elsewhere....

There is no evidence for any of this. As I’ve already point out, if you follow the situation at more than a superficial level, it becomes apparent that most of what the Western press says about Russia is lies.

 

[Trusting in Him]

The Donetsk People’s Republic is lead by Ukrainian dissidents. It has nothing to do with Putin. The Euromaiden coup blew up in Washington’s face with Kiev losing the Crimea and Donbas, and Russia makes a convenient scapegoat.

…and this is how I know that Russia will never invade. The US has reduced the Ukraine to the poorest country in Europe, a land that no rational government would want to rule, because responsibility for it would be a serious liability.



There is no evidence for any of this. As I’ve already point out, if you follow the situation at more than a superficial level, it becomes apparent that most of what the Western press says about Russia is lies.

Putin was not behaving rationally when he started this, what makes you think that he is behaving, or thinking rationally now. He might have been hoping to negociate something out of doing all this, but no one is offering him any deal which will give him any credibility if he backs out of this so far. He made the mistake of thinking that Ukraine would do some sort of deal to make him go away, but that has not happened, so he has been escalating the crisis and bringing in more troops, thinking that a bigger threat might make Ukraine reconsider, this has not worked.

Ukraine has got a reasonable sized army and is likely to make this a painful fight for Russia, if Russia invades. It is very unlikely that Ukraine will be able to beat Russia, if Russia is not going to back down, but quite a lot of Russians are likely to get killed while Russia is trying to invade. The French president is offering to help to negociate between the two sides, which maybe why the French have not sent and weapons to Ukraine wishing to remain neutral, so that they can help in any negociations.

I think that it is very hard to see, how this is going to end well for Russia and without Putin loosing face. This war if it comes, could be a long and drawn out war, with America possibly bankrolling Ukraine to keep them in the fight. The Ukrainians are not planning on giving up without a fight, and they would rather fight than become Russia's slaves. Nationalism is a powerful motivation when fighting an agressor and if large numbers of Ulrainian's are willing to die fighting for their country, Russia would have a hard time keeping the population down if they managed to conquer the county.

Putin may be already looking for a way out on terms, which does make him look like a looser. Russia has already spent a lot of money on it's involvement in Syria with nothing to show for some pretty serious expenditure and their economy is not looking as good as it once was. The Russian people might have got behind Putin, if NATO started to fight Russia, but NATO won't get involved and Putin is just making himself look stupid and the bad guy as well. No wonder he is saying that he does not want to invade, as it's not difficult to see that it won't end well for Russia.

 

[tampasteve]

A strong militaristic response would be an international tragedy of potentially epic proportions. The most realistic scenario is that if Russia annexes eastern Ukraine, Russia will face crippling international sanctions. The Moscow regime will bask in a bit of glory before facing long-term problems that might not be solved by a relatively cozy relationship with China (and China would have even more power in that relationship).



It would be a foolhardy stance. While the Russian military has serious problems, they are capable of inflicting a great deal of damage. NATO and Russian troops in open conflict could easily escalate.



In Russia, that popularity is a mile wide but an inch deep.




That logic doesn't work in a post-WWII world. That's the logic that Hitler used to seize the Sudetenland, and there is even less justification in this situation: there are only large numbers of Russians in Ukraine because of previous Russian and Soviet policies that exploited the poorest country in Europe.

In all respect, the statements I made are an opinion, but not necessarily one that I hold personally. The reality is that misinformation, propaganda and outright lies are being spread by both sides and it is nearly impossible for us to really see or understand what is happening on the ground. The truth is probably a mix of what one reads on CNN, RT, and from other sources. If we go just by what our media and government are telling us, we would be foolish. Divining what will happen is clearly an impossible game, and while I prefer non-ambiguous statements, that is not the way of a conflict like this.

In reality I don't see NATO or the US actually getting in a shooting war over Ukraine - and we shouldn't. The most likely way that happens is if our President decides he wants to flex his muscles after the Afghan debacle, but it would be a mistake. In the end we will not do anything other than supply arms and some sanctions.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Donetsk People’s Republic is lead by Ukrainian dissidents. It has nothing to do with Putin. The Euromaiden coup blew up in Washington’s face with Kiev losing the Crimea and Donbas, and Russia makes a convenient scapegoat.

…and this is how I know that Russia will never invade. The US has reduced the Ukraine to the poorest country in Europe, a land that no rational government would want to rule, because responsibility for it would be a serious liability.



There is no evidence for any of this. As I’ve already point out, if you follow the situation at more than a superficial level, it becomes apparent that most of what the Western press says about Russia is lies.

And this is a textbook example of how Russian propaganda has infiltrated the American far right.

 

[Albion]

The Donetsk People’s Republic is lead by Ukrainian dissidents.

Exactly.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I think that the longer this situation continues, without turning into a shooting war, the more it is going to evenually run out of steam and nobody will want to take things any further. At the moment, keeping all those military personel on a high state of readiness it costing both sides a lot of money and they will both get fed up with it dragging on and costing more and more as time goes by.

If nothing changes, then both sides will some day be looking for a way out! This pot is not going to keep boiling forever. One day it's going to run out of steam! Give it a few more weeks, or months and if there is no invasion, then there probably won't be one at all.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Putin was not behaving rationally when he started this

When he started what?

 

[Albion]

And this is a textbook example of how Russian propaganda has infiltrated the American far right.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Trusting in Him]

When he started what?

When he started this whole situation!

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The situation is that Biden has been howling like Chicken Little that Russia is going to invade the Ukraine, but this is an indication of nothing except perhaps his own senility.

 

[Albion]

The situation is that Biden has been howling like Chicken Little that Russia is going to invade the Ukraine, but this is an indication of nothing except perhaps his own senility.

Give us a little time to think that part over before responding.

 

[mark46]

The situation is that Biden has been howling like Chicken Little that Russia is going to invade the Ukraine, but this is an indication of nothing except perhaps his own senility.

so says the most pro-Russian poster on this board

I understand that you don't support the US or its NATO allies. You certainly have that right.

Russian troops have crossed the border, with tens of thousands to follow tomorrow. Georgia, Crimea and now eastern Ukraine. I would note that none of these are NATO countries. Invasion of a NATO country would result in military consequences. We have been providing any military upgrades desired by NATO members Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

I expect that Ukraine will move the capital to Lviv to prepare for further actions. Many more plane loads of weapons will continue to flow to the Ukraine. The need now is for lots of the newest Stingers. But make no mistake, NATO troops will not enter Ukraine to fight against the Russians (although I suppose a few technical folk might come, probably NOT in uniform)
====================

 

[mark46]

If Russia invades Ukraine what should the NATO response be?

Why do you hold the view you do?

I have stated my view. I support the US and NATO as they do whatever necessary (short of direct involvement) to support the Ukranian government in their opposition to Putin.

THAT BEING SAID, a fairly elected government was elected in 2010. The incoming president didn't want closer relations with the West. Many called him a Russian puppet. OK, that means that he favored Putin over the West. The US strongly supported a revolution that removed Yanukovych from power. The West installed what can reasonably called a puppet of the West. His main claim to fame was that he was a comedian that played a president on television. He had zero governmental experience. The ousted premier ran for his life. He was able to escape to Russia.

I see Yanukovych returning as the premier of one of the new Russian republics. He would be ready to lead if Russia should be able to orchestrate a coup (as the US did in 2014). After all, he was previously governor of Danesk from 1997-2002. He also served as PM for almost all the five years between 2002-2007. He lost an election for president in 2007, after the Supreme Court overthrew his victory because of voter irregularities. He ran again in 2010, won and served until the 2014 coup.

 

[Aldebaran]

In reality I don't see NATO or the US actually getting in a shooting war over Ukraine - and we shouldn't. The most likely way that happens is if our President decides he wants to flex his muscles after the Afghan debacle, but it would be a mistake. In the end we will not do anything other than supply arms and some sanctions.

It's a distinct possibility that the Ukraine military will simply realize that they'd lose a shooting war and will simply allow the Russian army to come in and take what they want. We've seen it happen before when the invading army was just a ragtag bunch with not much more than old vehicles. The surrendering military had new American weapons.
I hate to say it, but surrender might be their best option. It would save lives.

 

[mindlight]

The US has the power over the international banking system to make it so that other countries can't trade in dollars with Russia. Putin can take his chunk of land, but it will come at a grave cost, and it could potentially cost him politically.

Doubt if China would go along with that and it holds trillions of dollars. There is evidence with the new pipeline arrangement of a new closeness with China but this is a marriage of convenience rather than of love. If Russia loses badly in this Ukraine debacle China is their only way forward.