https://i.imgur.com/jo6vMYB.jpg">
Posted on 03/01/2022 4:28:41 AM PST by Kaslin
From his principal avenues of attack on Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin began this war with three strategic goals.
Send an army south from Belarus to capture Ukraine's capital, Kyiv, and replace the government. Send forces into northwest Ukraine to capture its second largest city, Kharkiv, with 1.4 million people.
Third, extend the Donetsk enclave westward to establish a land bridge to Crimea and give Russia full control of the Sea of Azov and most of the Ukrainian coast along the Black Sea.
This last objective is almost achieved. Yet, as of Monday evening, five days into the war, neither Kyiv nor Kharkiv had fallen, though Russia had committed most of the troops it had assembled for the invasion.
Putin needs to get this war over with, for time is not on his side or Russia's side.
In a week, he has become a universally condemned and isolated figure, and his country has been made the target of sanctions by almost the entire West. He is being depicted as an aggressor, even a war criminal, who is brutalizing a smaller neighbor, which, in its fierce and brave resistance, has taken on the aspect of a heroic nation.
The world is rallying to Ukraine.
In the UN Security Council, which Russia chairs, only Russia voted to veto a resolution denouncing it for aggression. India, China and the United Arab Emirates abstained.
As for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, his defiance of demands for surrender is being portrayed as Churchillian.
Moreover, serious military aid to Ukraine will soon begin.
Europeans and Americans have promised more Javelin missiles to destroy Russian tanks and armor, and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles of the type that took a heavy toll of Russian helicopters in the Afghan war of the 1980s.
NATO is uniting. Germany has voted to raise its defense budget and send its own anti-tank weapons and Stingers to Ukraine.
Economic sanctions imposed on Russia have crashed the ruble, caused a collapse of the stock market and severely restricted Moscow's capacity to manage its debt.
Russian army units in Ukraine may be sufficient to occupy Kharkiv and Kyiv, but that army is insufficient to control and run a country the size of Texas with a population of 44 million people.
The Russians would have to find thousands of collaborators to help run the country. Where would Putin find them among a people that so widely detests him today?
The longer this war goes on, the greater the certainty that it bleeds the invading army to levels intolerable to Mother Russia, which is what eventually happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
If this war does not end soon, Putin is likely to lose it and fail in his goal of pulling Ukraine out of the Western camp and back into the orbit of Mother Russia.
Eventual defeat is becoming visible, and Putin probably cannot politically survive such a defeat.
As his motivation is to hold power and use it to carve a niche in history alongside the greatest Russian rulers of the past who enlarged the nation or empire, Putin is probably not going to accept defeat and go quietly.
Nor was it a sign of resignation that Putin, on Sunday, ordered Russia's nuclear forces to high alert because, "Top officials in leading NATO countries have allowed themselves to make aggressive comments about our country."
This is not the first time Putin has introduced the idea of using a nuclear weapon. On Feb. 19, days before the invasion began, Putin ordered drills of nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles, bombers and warships.
In his speech announcing the military operation in Ukraine, Putin warned that countries that interfere with Russia's actions will face "consequences you have never seen."
Would Putin exercise what has been called the "Samson Option" -- pulling down the pillars of the temple and taking your enemies with you?
What Putin is suggesting is that in the last analysis, if military defeat beckons for Russia, and his own dispossession of power and political if not actual death are to follow, he may use the ultimate weapon in Russia's arsenal to prevent it.
What should U.S. policy be?
Avoid a widening of the war by preventing any escalation to nuclear weapons. Secure the independence of Ukraine. Effect the removal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory.
If this requires that Ukraine give up any ambition to become a NATO nation, Putin's declared purpose in launching the war, so be it. We might have avoided this war had we done so before it was begun.
This is not where we appear to be headed.
Finland, and Sweden, it is now being said, should be invited into NATO. Were that to happen, the U.S. would be obligated to help defend the 830-mile Finnish border with Russia.
This would be an act of hubris of the kind that has led to great wars.
I would not rule it out. For Russia, this is on a level with our Cuban missile crisis. Allow me to explain.
You might not agree with an adversary (Russia in this case), but to dismiss and ignore their legitimate security concerns is dangerously stupid. It is always wise to look at a war or a potential war from the other side’s perspective, if only to improve the effectiveness of your own efforts.
Russia is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya or Serbia, easy (and safe) for America and NATO to slap around. Russia has the most powerful nuclear force on the planet. Miscalculation over Ukraine can rapidly escalate into full-blown war and a nuclear exchange. For Russia, Ukraine joining NATO is a redline worth going to war over. We ignore this at our own peril.
In 1962, we already had medium-range nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in Turkey. When the USSR obtained a client state (Cuba) 100 miles from Florida, they thought it would be fair turnabout to also have their own MRBMs in range of America. (ICBMs were not yet available.) When the missiles were discovered in Cuba, the result was that America was outraged, rightly, and we very nearly had a nuclear exchange.
It was not “JFK backed down Khrushchev!” as American media portrayed it. Diplomats and generals on both sides later wrote that we came within a hair-breadth of a full nuclear exchange. In the deal that was worked out, we also (quietly) removed our MRBMs from Turkey. Part of the agreement was that the USSR would not crow about how they forced us to move our missiles out of Turkey.
Today Russia looks at Ukraine, and they see it as the 1942 invasion route of the Nazis, which came very close to cutting off their Caspian oil, which would have caused the rapid collapse and defeat of the USSR. The idea of NATO forces prepositioned across Ukraine, directly on the Russian border, armed with tanks and MRBMs, is a redline they have repeatedly said they could not tolerate.
The Russians think: at least the Germans had to fight their way to Ukraine and and then across it. How much worse to have NATO forces already in Ukraine, poised in striking range with missiles and tanks, ready to nuke Moscow in minutes, and occupy or destroy the Caspian oil fields in days?
We teased Ukraine into believing that if they were compliant with American, EU and NATO desires, they’d eventually join both groups. Instead, Russia was provoked into removing the possibility of NATO forces ever being positioned in Ukraine by their own invasion. This was all entirely foreseeable.
Imagine Khrushchev saying to JFK: “Our Cuban allies requested these armaments to protect them from continued Yankee aggression. So screw you, our missiles will stay in Cuba.” It would have meant nuclear war. This is how dire the Russians consider even the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as a full partner.
We ignore their perspective at our own peril.
Open border, inflation, destruction of our energy independence, terrorism on the rise, 9000 Americans trapped in Afghanistan, China about to invade Taiwan, Iran about to become a nuclear power, Russia invades the Ukraine, and to top it off nuclear war may soon potentially start.
Yes, this is SOOOOO much better than excessive tweeting and calling corrupt politicians nasty names.
https://i.imgur.com/jo6vMYB.jpg">
If Putin should use nukes they most likely would be low grade tactical artillery. And, these would only be practical against large military units. The Ukrainians don’t have many if any such units in the field. So, it appears to me that Putin is running a bluff, using scare tactics. Unless of course he really has become deranged as some are suggesting……🙄
Why, exactly?
NATO already has a very long border with Russia. And NATO could use the additional military might of Sweden and Finland.
(Am reminded of the punchline to my favorite Finnish joke: "They're LYING! There are TWO of them!")
Regards,
Good post.
We all have this image of a red button in the office of the Russian and U.S. leaders, but isn’t the actual protocol to launch through several fail-safe layers within the high command of the military? So if they refuse to fire, then what? I don’t think this nuclear threat from Putin is meant to apply to the Ukraine battlefield, it is meant to deter NATO countries from joining the conflict, and it has enough ambiguity to include strikes in NATO countries not near the borders for military purposes alone.
One detonation of one nuke in any NATO country, and we could presume that Russia would be subjected to a full barrage, so assuming they know that, they might figure no reason not to launch a massive strike. We have to hope Putin is not crazy and also that there are layers of command between his decision and the actual action.
Your post is a very reasonable analysis. It is sad that so many who are supposedly on our side turn into hysterical nancy boys the minute someone tries to understand the other side. In war, you must know know the enemy as much as yourself. I would expect any Russian leader to act in the same manner. Unfortunately, we are led by the kind of evil hubris that will only serve to get millions killed.
In case of nuclear attack, government advises face masks and social distancing in shelters…
Amen to every word you wrote.
You are right on Travis. The capture of Chernobyl and the biowarfare labs should be raising lots of red flags. What this means should be of concern to everyone especially after what just happened in Afghanistan.
What would be the purpose and target of tactical nukes? If he tried to use them on any city in NATO territory, wouldn’t a massitve retaliatory strike ensue? If he used a tactical nuke on a Ukrainian city, a retaliatory strike isn’t automatic but then he’s stuck mopping up a radioactive mess on land that he claims as his own. Putin is making noises suggesting the mad-man-I’m-taking-the-whole-down-with-me scenario. Which is scary as hell because I don’t think we can rule it out.
He Bigly, over here you dumb oaf. Efforts to understand what is going on in Putin’s head are breaking out all across the FR front. You are gonna need a lot more ammo.
Short answer: no.
How would that help his situation?
To your point, Putin may in fact be feeling his own mortality at nearly 70 years old.
The current life expectancy for Russia in 2022 is 72.84 years. Not a lot of time left for him.
Agree on every point.
You idiot. Buchanan is making my point, not yours.
Wouldn’t it just be a LOT easier if Russia just joined NATO?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.