Would the Democrats be up for this? (Limited War over Ukraine).

[Pavel Mosko]

I just got done watching an interesting animated video proposing a possible war situation as something to the affect of "What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?" It was interesting, but seemed a little optimistic.


The basic scenario/synopsis (for those that don't want to watch the video)
The US has soldiers as military advisors in Ukraine that are training Ukrainian troops on weapon systems etc. Russia launches an attack on a base/ facilities these troops are at and that triggers some kind of "red line" that the US has predetermined and this causes Biden to actually ask Congress to declare war on Russia with the expressed purpose to remove them from Ukraine. Congress agrees and we end up fighting a limited war with Russia, kind of like the Gulf War I only it is just us and Poland and the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.


We keep our missile attacks, bombing etc. to just Kalingrad and Ukraine to not have the war escalate. We send troops into Ukraine from the start of the war but they are used sparingly until we can land a lot of our reserve troops from Europe and the US, through Poland and into Ukraine to push the Russians out. Meanwhile we dominate Kalingrad air space keeping them suppressed but we don't sent troops to not antagonize the Russians into nuclear war.

After 6-8 Months we kick the Russians out of Ukraine with modest casualties, the only big losses come from assaulting the well fortified Eastern Ukraine / Donbass region.

My reaction
1) I've seen some speeches from Democrats that suggest they would be up for this kind of thing.

2) I have my doubts how much Republicans and Independents trust Biden when it comes to a real shooting war and one that could escalate into nuclear was as far as "declaring war"

3) Kind of surprised about the "Declaring War" part. I don't think we have officially done that since World War II. Thought it went out of fashion with the nuclear bomb.

4) This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

5) While I sympathize with Ukraine, I think we are already spending a lot there. If we got more problems pop up like the past baby formula issue, this could have some political blow back that would cost Democrats dearly in the next election.

 

[Fantine]

Biden was chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Senate for years. His advisors are similarly experienced.
He didn't choose a retired oil man to be Secretary of State or his son in law to run foreign policy.
He listens to his briefings.
Personally, I feel about 1000% more confident in Biden's ability to handle Ukraine than his predecessor.
Biden will follow NATO's lead, honoring our strong friendship with traditional allies.
He does not seek out barbaric dictators in Turkey, Russia and the Philippines to be role models.
The world is a dangerous place, but my anxiety level is much lower today than it was in 2019.

 

[HTacianas]

I just got done watching an interesting animated video proposing a possible war situation as something to the affect of "What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?" It was interesting, but seemed a little optimistic.


The basic scenario/synopsis (for those that don't want to watch the video)
The US has soldiers as military advisors in Ukraine that are training Ukrainian troops on weapon systems etc. Russia launches an attack on a base/ facilities these troops are at and that triggers some kind of "red line" that the US has predetermined and this causes Biden to actually ask Congress to declare war on Russia with the expressed purpose to remove them from Ukraine. Congress agrees and we end up fighting a limited war with Russia, kind of like the Gulf War I only it is just us and Poland and the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.


We keep our missile attacks, bombing etc. to just Kalingrad and Ukraine to not have the war escalate. We send troops into Ukraine from the start of the war but they are used sparingly until we can land a lot of our reserve troops from Europe and the US, through Poland and into Ukraine to push the Russians out. Meanwhile we dominate Kalingrad air space keeping them suppressed but we don't sent troops to not antagonize the Russians into nuclear war.

After 6-8 Months we kick the Russians out of Ukraine with modest casualties, the only big losses come from assaulting the well fortified Eastern Ukraine / Donbass region.

My reaction
1) I've seen some speeches from Democrats that suggest they would be up for this kind of thing.

2) I have my doubts how much Republicans and Independents trust Biden when it comes to a real shooting war and one that could escalate into nuclear was as far as "declaring war"

3) Kind of surprised about the "Declaring War" part. I don't think we have officially done that since World War II. Thought it went out of fashion with the nuclear bomb.

4) This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

5) While I sympathize with Ukraine, I think we are already spending a lot there. If we got more problems pop up like the past baby formula issue, this could have some political blow back that would cost Democrats dearly in the next election.

The only ones who would be up to it are the far left outliers who care more about pop culture than reality. Those types actually believe the story we've all been told through the media. That story goes "Putin is an evil dictator and he invaded Ukraine as part of some reconquest of Greater Russia".

The adults know better and they're not willing to go to war over the actual causes of the whole thing. Which by the way I accidentally stumbled on to a few days ago.

 

[HTacianas]

Biden was chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Senate for years. His advisors are similarly experienced.
He didn't choose a retired oil man to be Secretary of State or his son in law to run foreign policy.
He listens to his briefings.
Personally, I feel about 1000% more confident in Biden's ability to handle Ukraine than his predecessor.
Biden will follow NATO's lead, honoring our strong friendship with traditional allies.
He does not seek out barbaric dictators in Turkey, Russia and the Philippines to be role models.
The world is a dangerous place, but my anxiety level is much lower today than it was in 2019.

While his predecessor was in office there was no war in Ukraine.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I just got done watching an interesting animated video proposing a possible war situation as something to the affect of "What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?" It was interesting, but seemed a little optimistic.


The basic scenario/synopsis (for those that don't want to watch the video)
The US has soldiers as military advisors in Ukraine that are training Ukrainian troops on weapon systems etc. Russia launches an attack on a base/ facilities these troops are at and that triggers some kind of "red line" that the US has predetermined and this causes Biden to actually ask Congress to declare war on Russia with the expressed purpose to remove them from Ukraine. Congress agrees and we end up fighting a limited war with Russia, kind of like the Gulf War I only it is just us and Poland and the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.


We keep our missile attacks, bombing etc. to just Kalingrad and Ukraine to not have the war escalate. We send troops into Ukraine from the start of the war but they are used sparingly until we can land a lot of our reserve troops from Europe and the US, through Poland and into Ukraine to push the Russians out. Meanwhile we dominate Kalingrad air space keeping them suppressed but we don't sent troops to not antagonize the Russians into nuclear war.

After 6-8 Months we kick the Russians out of Ukraine with modest casualties, the only big losses come from assaulting the well fortified Eastern Ukraine / Donbass region.

My reaction
1) I've seen some speeches from Democrats that suggest they would be up for this kind of thing.

2) I have my doubts how much Republicans and Independents trust Biden when it comes to a real shooting war and one that could escalate into nuclear was as far as "declaring war"

3) Kind of surprised about the "Declaring War" part. I don't think we have officially done that since World War II. Thought it went out of fashion with the nuclear bomb.

4) This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

5) While I sympathize with Ukraine, I think we are already spending a lot there. If we got more problems pop up like the past baby formula issue, this could have some political blow back that would cost Democrats dearly in the next election.

If the Democrats try that I hope everybody else works to block it. But then it may end up just another undeclared war. Declared or undeclared, I have no confidence in the political leadership currently established to not see the end of civilization and the human race.

Maybe there are enough Democrats that are not warhawks to stop this madness. I donno.

 

[Fantine]

No, but we had a war on our own capitol, with revolutionaries cheered on (and some believe even recruited) by his predecessor.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, but we had a war on our own capitol, with revolutionaries cheered on (and some believe even recruited) by his predecessor.

The casualty was shot dead by a police officer. Some war.

 

[Gene2memE]

While his predecessor was in office there was no war in Ukraine.

Because he was largely getting what he wanted. So he didn't need to go to war.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. When you have to go to war, your other political options have all failed.

When the Biden Administration came in, policy towards Russia and Ukraine changed. The US became more formally supportive of Ukraine - particularly with intelligence sharing, which has been SUPER important in the last four months - as well as (marginally) increasing military and economic assistance.

It also took a much harder line towards Russia. Additional sanctions were imposed (several times during 2021), US firms were barred from participating in ruble denominated financial markets, there was cybersecurity and oil sector pushback via EOs and a lot of work was done with the B9 states about a more integrated military bloc.

The US also changed its stance on NATO, re-engaged with Central European military partners via additional European Reassurance Initiative deployments and generally frustrated Russia's regional powerplays.

 

[HTacianas]

Because he was largely getting what he wanted. So he didn't need to go to war.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. When you have to go to war, your other political options have all failed.

When the Biden Administration came in, policy towards Russia and Ukraine changed. The US became more formally supportive of Ukraine - particularly with intelligence sharing, which has been SUPER important in the last four months - as well as (marginally) increasing military and economic assistance.

It also took a much harder line towards Russia. Additional sanctions were imposed (several times during 2021), US firms were barred from participating in ruble denominated financial markets, there was cybersecurity and oil sector pushback via EOs and a lot of work was done with the B9 states about a more integrated military bloc.

The US also changed its stance on NATO, re-engaged with Central European military partners via additional European Reassurance Initiative deployments and generally frustrated Russia's regional powerplays.

What changed under Biden was that the CIA was once again given a greenlight to restart the same operations they had in Ukraine under the Obama administration. And their goal was to expand NATO into Ukraine. Trump didn't care about expanding NATO but only demanded that the European nations live up to their obligations under the NATO charter so that the US wasn't paying the lion's share for Europe's defense. And it was Trump who warned Europe not to rely on Russian for its energy. A stronger NATO with less energy trade between Europe and Russia isn't what any reasonable person would characterize as Putin getting what he wants.

And there was no war.

 

[Gene2memE]

What changed under Biden was that the CIA was once again given a greenlight to restart the same operations they had in Ukraine under the Obama administration. And their goal was to expand NATO into Ukraine. Trump didn't care about expanding NATO but only demanded that the European nations live up to their obligations under the NATO charter so that the US wasn't paying the lion's share for Europe's defense.

If that was true, Trump wouldn't have tried (and failed) to undermine/unwind the Wales meeting commitments from other NATO states (mostly, I suspect, because it was Obama's administration that won these commitment). Non-US defense spending were already climbing before Trump became US president.

And it was Trump who warned Europe not to rely on Russian for its energy.

Trump did? He wasn't, say, just copying what Obama and Bush II had done before him? Or largely continuing US policy concerning European energy mix since the 1990s.

Great northern gas war

Pipeline Diplomacy

Or did he really muck things up by letting 95% of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be build, and then aggravating EVERYONE involved by imposing sanctions at the last minute? Sparking a major foreign relations crisis for US interests in Europe?

A stronger NATO with less energy trade between Europe and Russia isn't what any reasonable person would characterize as Putin getting what he wants.

And there was no war.

Except, Trump didn't want a stronger NATO - his posturing and whingeing was for domestic political consumption. Trump repeatedly discussed withdrawing from NATO with advisors, threatened at least one European leader directly that the US wouldn't live up to invoking Article 5 and informed others that US involvement in any conflict involving Russia and a NATO state was conditional. Then there's his infamous Montenegro comments, his putting EDI funding on a provisional/contingency basis, weird criticism of European NATO members role in the GWOT but not wanting them involved in the Middle East, etc, etc, etc,

As I wrote in April in another Ukraine-Russia thread:

Obama's approach - which was dangling a carrot of better EU military & technology independence from the US by reducing US blocks on export limitations - got (nearly) everyone pulling in the right direction. Non US NATO defense budgets had been increasing since 2014. Trump's approach did nothing except actually undermine previous success.

Despite Trump coming home from Europe in 2017 and 2018 and crowing about increases in NATO defense spending, pretty much every increase out to 2019 had been committed to by NATO states prior to his presidency (with the visible exceptions of the UK and Canada).

In the words of a friend (a relatively senior European aerospace executive), Trump's "inelegant toddler stomping" and threats did more harm than good.


Non US NATO has become - in part - what Trump wanted (more spendy, more Russia focused). But that's none of Trump's doing, that's Europe reacting to the collective "oh excrement" moments of Crimea 2014 and Ukraine 2022.

 

[Pommer]

I just got done watching an interesting animated video proposing a possible war situation as something to the affect of "What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?" It was interesting, but seemed a little optimistic.


The basic scenario/synopsis (for those that don't want to watch the video)
The US has soldiers as military advisors in Ukraine that are training Ukrainian troops on weapon systems etc. Russia launches an attack on a base/ facilities these troops are at and that triggers some kind of "red line" that the US has predetermined and this causes Biden to actually ask Congress to declare war on Russia with the expressed purpose to remove them from Ukraine. Congress agrees and we end up fighting a limited war with Russia, kind of like the Gulf War I only it is just us and Poland and the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.


We keep our missile attacks, bombing etc. to just Kalingrad and Ukraine to not have the war escalate. We send troops into Ukraine from the start of the war but they are used sparingly until we can land a lot of our reserve troops from Europe and the US, through Poland and into Ukraine to push the Russians out. Meanwhile we dominate Kalingrad air space keeping them suppressed but we don't sent troops to not antagonize the Russians into nuclear war.

After 6-8 Months we kick the Russians out of Ukraine with modest casualties, the only big losses come from assaulting the well fortified Eastern Ukraine / Donbass region.

My reaction
1) I've seen some speeches from Democrats that suggest they would be up for this kind of thing.

2) I have my doubts how much Republicans and Independents trust Biden when it comes to a real shooting war and one that could escalate into nuclear was as far as "declaring war"

3) Kind of surprised about the "Declaring War" part. I don't think we have officially done that since World War II. Thought it went out of fashion with the nuclear bomb.

4) This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

5) While I sympathize with Ukraine, I think we are already spending a lot there. If we got more problems pop up like the past baby formula issue, this could have some political blow back that would cost Democrats dearly in the next election.

While an interesting thought-experiment, the idea of the two nations with 15,000 nuclear warheads between them, going toe-to-toe in Ukraine (or anywhere) seems like it would turn out to be counterproductive.

 

[dqhall]

I just got done watching an interesting animated video proposing a possible war situation as something to the affect of "What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?" It was interesting, but seemed a little optimistic.


The basic scenario/synopsis (for those that don't want to watch the video)
The US has soldiers as military advisors in Ukraine that are training Ukrainian troops on weapon systems etc. Russia launches an attack on a base/ facilities these troops are at and that triggers some kind of "red line" that the US has predetermined and this causes Biden to actually ask Congress to declare war on Russia with the expressed purpose to remove them from Ukraine. Congress agrees and we end up fighting a limited war with Russia, kind of like the Gulf War I only it is just us and Poland and the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.


We keep our missile attacks, bombing etc. to just Kalingrad and Ukraine to not have the war escalate. We send troops into Ukraine from the start of the war but they are used sparingly until we can land a lot of our reserve troops from Europe and the US, through Poland and into Ukraine to push the Russians out. Meanwhile we dominate Kalingrad air space keeping them suppressed but we don't sent troops to not antagonize the Russians into nuclear war.

After 6-8 Months we kick the Russians out of Ukraine with modest casualties, the only big losses come from assaulting the well fortified Eastern Ukraine / Donbass region.

My reaction
1) I've seen some speeches from Democrats that suggest they would be up for this kind of thing.

2) I have my doubts how much Republicans and Independents trust Biden when it comes to a real shooting war and one that could escalate into nuclear was as far as "declaring war"

3) Kind of surprised about the "Declaring War" part. I don't think we have officially done that since World War II. Thought it went out of fashion with the nuclear bomb.

4) This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

5) While I sympathize with Ukraine, I think we are already spending a lot there. If we got more problems pop up like the past baby formula issue, this could have some political blow back that would cost Democrats dearly in the next election.

The U.S. and NATO are not directly involved with a war against Russia. There is indirect military support of the people of Ukraine who are fighting to try to keep their homes, businesses and farms in Ukraine. Some Russian demanded the U.S. give Alaska back to Russia. That is a greedy Russian.

Trump had 15% unemployment and some Republicans claimed vaccinations are a problem. No president gets perfect conditions.

 

[Nithavela]

Sounds like a great way to get the nukes flying and end the human race, lets go!

 

[Nithavela]

The only ones who would be up to it are the far left outliers who care more about pop culture than reality. Those types actually believe the story we've all been told through the media. That story goes "Putin is an evil dictator and he invaded Ukraine as part of some reconquest of Greater Russia".

The adults know better and they're not willing to go to war over the actual causes of the whole thing. Which by the way I accidentally stumbled on to a few days ago.

Have you become an adult while accidentally stumbling over the real cause of the war?

 

[Skye1300]

This scenario seems to bet a lot on Putin behaving himself, when he might feel his position in Russia is in jeopardy if he looses.

This part right here. Putin is not going to stand for any kind of interference from the US no matter how small or limited. He still would feel threatened that at any moment the US will escalate to using nukes on him, so he will use his first. We would have to be either all in or all out.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

If readers are interested, I will write what it looks like from Ukraine.

1) Ukraine can theoretically hold out for 6-8 months. In practice, as soon as US aid stops, Ukraine will not be able to put up a serious resistance. As a result, a terrible precedent of impunity arises, when in the 21st century it is possible to attack a neighboring state, break the fate of tens of millions of people, kill and maim hundreds of thousands, and at the same time win, get more than before the war. If Russia is encouraged, then other aggressors will want to act in the same way. And then the United States will definitely not have enough resources to stop wars around the world;

2) A nuclear war is complete despair when there is an exchange: we will die, but many of you will die. Why doesn't North Korea use nuclear weapons to take over South Korea? Because despite the sanctions and the hard life, the North Korean leadership wants to live. If Russia loses more territory than it had before February 24, it can and will drive it to despair. But the defeat in Ukraine is not a reason to despair. It's wiser to just close in on your own territory, like North Korea;

3) Putin's position will not be threatened even if he loses this war. Nothing threatens his power in Russia. Such regimes, as under Stalin during the Soviet era, in North Korea and the like, do not lose power when they are defeated in a war or when there is poverty and hunger. Totalitarian regimes are immune to this;

4)The US has not yet begun to powerfully help Ukraine. The million-strong Ukrainian army cannot hold back the 200,000-strong group of Russian troops. Retreats in the Donbass with huge losses, because the Russian troops have multiple superiority in weapons. Ukraine has 300 combat aircraft, Russia has more than 3,000, and the US has 13,000. The US will have disposed of them in 10 years. They are obsoleting. But Ukraine has not yet received aircraft from the United States. Russia now lives much better than Ukraine and laughs at the sanctions. Until now, Western countries give Russia much more money for gas and oil than they help Ukraine. If you spare money for help now, tomorrow you will have to spend many times more. If Hitler had been stopped in Poland in 1939, he would not have had to be expelled from France and other countries in 1945. Putin's appetite grows during the war. The longer it drags on, the stronger his appetite;

5) Ukraine needs not only military assistance, but also doctors and medicines. Also in need of care for the disableds. All this requires financial resources.

If you don’t help the Ukrainians now, you may have to help the Poles, the Balts, the Germans or someone else tomorrow. But to avoid participation will not work, in my opinion.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

The only ones who would be up to it are the far left outliers who care more about pop culture than reality. Those types actually believe the story we've all been told through the media. That story goes "Putin is an evil dictator and he invaded Ukraine as part of some reconquest of Greater Russia".

The adults know better and they're not willing to go to war over the actual causes of the whole thing. Which by the way I accidentally stumbled on to a few days ago.

I myself was very sympathetic to Russia until February 24th. But on this day, my views were turned upside down. Whatever the reasons, it cannot justify the means by which Russia gets its way. Russia has already launched more than 3,000 cruise missiles in Ukraine. Do you know how many people one cruise missile can kill? They kill everyone: both Russian-speaking and Orthodox. They do not care. They boast that they have already killed more than 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield. But they killed yet more than 50,000 civilians (children, old people, women and civilian men). They made more 200 000 people disabled. They have deprived even more people of housing and work, separated families. They broke the fate of tens of millions of people. The end cannot justify the means. Stalin also found justification for the murders. And Hitler found such excuses. But do we feel better from their pitiful excuses?

Here is a man who, before the war, most of all in Ukraine sought rights for the Russian language. And now he speaks Russian. But listen to what he says:

 

[wing2000]

"What would happen if the US went to War with Russia over Ukraine?"

I take it you are primarily referring to the reaction of the US Congress...that would depend on:
- number US advisors killed in Ukraine
- context and manner in which they were killed - for example did Russia intentionally target them? etc
...and many other factors.

Frankly, I don't see Biden or the Congress supporting a war over American military advisor casualties (...it's more likely the US would deny the advisors were in Ukraine).

As an aside, if the US & Poland were to declare war (without NATO?), I suspect the US could drive the Russians out of Ukraine in a matter of weeks, not months. The Russian military has been exposed as a force that is only capable of taking territory by WW2 style bombing. That strategy will not work against a superior force.

 

[dqhall]

I take it you are primarily referring to the reaction of the US Congress...that would depend on:
- number US advisors killed in Ukraine
- context and manner in which they were killed - for example did Russia intentionally target them? etc
...and many other factors.

Frankly, I don't see Biden or the Congress supporting a war over American military advisor casualties (...it's more likely the US would deny the advisors were in Ukraine).

As an aside, if the US & Poland were to declare war (without NATO?), I suspect the US could drive the Russians out of Ukraine in a matter of weeks, not months. The Russian military has been exposed as a force that is only capable of taking territory by WW2 style bombing. That strategy will not work against a superior force.

During the Vietnam War there were Russians advising North Vietnam. Russian weapons were being used. North Vietnam was getting supplies from China. The U.S. and Russia have opposed each other before, but have not been in direct conflict.

 

[mark46]

Biden will follow NATO's lead, honoring our strong friendship with traditional allies.

I strongly disagree. If Biden followed the lead of the other NATO countries, Putin would be in Kyiv, just as he is in Crimea.

I do NOT want Biden to follow NATO's lead. My strong preference is for the US to lead NATO as it has done since its formation.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

During the Vietnam War there were Russians advising North Vietnam. Russian weapons were being used. North Vietnam was getting supplies from China. The U.S. and Russia have opposed each other before, but have not been in direct conflict.

You can not compare the USSR and today's Russia. The USSR was 30 times stronger than today's Russia, but much smarter. Today's Russia is 30 times weaker than the USSR, but it operates according to the principle: if there is strength, then intelligence is not needed. There were principles in USSR (albeit erroneous in many respects), here one principle is the worship of power (if I am stronger, then I have the right to everything).

If there is even the slightest possibility of resolving the conflict through diplomacy, then it must be resolved without war. But at the same time, it should be taken into account that the world learned about war crimes in the Kyiv region only when Russian troops left there. How our citizens are now suffering in the occupied territories, only God knows. How can they be left under occupation for bullying? But if there is even the slightest possibility of agreeing that the Russians themselves leave the Ukrainian lands, then this, of course, is a better way than war.