Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[artis]

What I don't get is why the West doesn't have more leverage over China since we are by far the biggest trading partners?

Because the west outsourced too much of their "vital" manufacturing to China, much like with Russia in the 90's they thought that China will be their new friend and both will stand to gain lots of money while share a vine glass in the afternoon before "bed".
Turns out China did gain a lot of money but when it came time for some "friendship and vine" it smashed the bottle and threatened to cut west's throat. The way it seems to me.

I guess the morale of the story is "don't put greed above family and country" because if you do you risk to lose both

 

[artis]

 

[bob012345]

I guess the morale of the story is "don't put greed above family and country"

As Mr. Spock would say, indeed.

 

[hutchphd]

There are clear historical parallels to Putin's actions in the last 20 years such as the brutal suppression in Chechnya, the invasion of Georgia, takeover of Crimea.

By your definitions we have been in WW3 ever since eastern Europe was partitioned immediately following WWII. The Russian tanks rolled into Hungary under Stalin (1956) and Prague in 1968. Stalin blockaded food into west Berlin. Putin is just the most recent. It is more disappointing because it followed a very short but hopeful interlude in Russia. But steady pressure worked then.
I again remind everyone that we are given the privilege of breathing every morning because carefully measured policies prevailed over these intervening sixty-five years. Their were many times when a less prudent approach would have produced diseaster. Even the measured approach brought us perilously close to the unthinkable in 1962. And there were always always calls for more sabers.
This is an intelligent group. So I find these stated suppositions that we must stop Putin now and the seeming easy analyses that no nuclear exchange would result because he is bluffing to be chilling.
I am heartened that cool heads seem engaged for the moment.
Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

 

[gleem]

What I don't get is why the West doesn't have more leverage over China since we are by far the biggest trading partners?

I think it does. For now, talk is cheap and China can say what it wants. If China does do more than give moral support then it has a lot to risk. It, like the West, is economically strong but that is also a weakness at least psychologically. Ukraine is a strong China trader so it is surprising that they support Russia unless it falls to Russia. China has to be concerned about the use of nukes since it supposedly has a firm no first strike policy. Being in bed with a partner who might be willing to used nukes first is a bit puzzling. Did Russia give China assurance that it will not use nukes? Even if China is not involved in a nuclear exchange it will suffer greatly.

Of course, sanctioning China will have a great effect on the West. I think (hope) that Xi will try to maintain a rational position and not try and test the West like Putin.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What if the bordering states (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Finland and the Baltics) could be declared militarily unaligned?

Why not just hang up a "Welcome, Putin" shingle?

Russia signed a treaty to ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity.. That wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

 

[Astronuc]

Russia is a huge liability to China. How big is to be determined.

This would be a great moment to have Nixon around to play Russia against China.

The situation with Putin is very different from those with his predecessors.

 

[gleem]

So far the West's response has been reactionary letting Putin have the initiative and except for the lack of progress not giving him much additional to think about. Since he has yet to go birds**t over the assistance Ukraine has received from the West, He probably anticipated it. The question then is who has "blood to spare"?

I had read that Russia has three nuclear footballs which all must be activated to launch a nuclear strike one for the president, one for the equivalent of the Sec. of Defense, and one for the Military Chief of Staff. Will all three put themselves in a position to guarantee the destruction of Russia for the sake of one lost venture?
Isn't it better to leave with your tail between your legs rather than no tail or legs?

While the best hope of avoiding the ultimate confrontation might be to eliminate Putin he has probably anticipated this having within the last year or so replaced about 1000 personnel who might have been too close to trust. As in any venture in which a surprise is essential only one person must act surreptitiously. As soon as two or more people know of the plan the chance of discovery increases dramatically.

 

[hutchphd]

Why not just hang up a "Welcome, Putin" shingle?

Russia signed a treaty to ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity.. That wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Yes and Dean Rusk once remarked that the "Soviets had not violated all of their agreements, just most of them" Yet we are still trying.
So no more treaties? When this is ended there will be peace of some sort. That peace will requre constant vigilance regardless. How do we get from here to there?

 

[bob012345]

By your definitions we have been in WW3 ever since eastern Europe was partitioned immediately following WWII. The Russian tanks rolled into Hungary under Stalin (1956) and Prague in 1968. Stalin blockaded food into west Berlin. Putin is just the most recent. It is more disappointing because it followed a very short but hopeful interlude in Russia. But steady pressure worked then.
I again remind everyone that we are given the privilege of breathing every morning because carefully measured policies prevailed over these intervening sixty-five years. Their were many times when a less prudent approach would have produced diseaster. Even the measured approach brought us perilously close to the unthinkable in 1962. And there were always always calls for more sabers.
This is an intelligent group. So I find these stated suppositions that we must stop Putin now and the seeming easy analyses that no nuclear exchange would result because he is bluffing to be chilling.
I am heartened that cool heads seem engaged for the moment.
Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

It's not my definition, just an observation. But in a way we did enter a war right after WW2 which we called the Cold War which did have occasional hot flashes by proxy.

I heard a retired American General at the beginning of the invasion so worried about civilian casualties he suggested they just let the tanks roll in so no one would get hurt. I suggested a well calculated move under a UN mandate not a direct declaration of war by NATO on Russia. If cool heads means doing everything to avoid war then admit that means essentially just giving in. It is also appeasement which emboldens dictators.

 

[hutchphd]

I had read that Russia has three nuclear footballs which all must be activated to launch a nuclear strike one for the president, one for the equivalent of the Sec. of Defense, and one for the Military Chief of Staff. Will all three put themselves in a position to guarantee the destruction of Russia for the sake of one lost venture?

And the wisdom of Vasili Arkhipov in Cuban waters should never be forgotten. Local authority to launch nuclear torpedoes had been given and required consensus of the three command officers. Only Arkhipov demurred. His refusal probably saved my 10 yr old butt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasil...sian: Василий,during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We should remember his bravery

 

[bob012345]

I see another historic parallel. Just as the humiliation of Germany at the end of WWI led to Hitler and WWII perhaps the bungling of policy in aftermath the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to Putin and his dreams of revived empire and a potential WWIII. Maybe it's an endless cycle?

 

[hutchphd]

heard a retired American General at the beginning of the invasion so worried about civilian casualties he suggested they just let the tanks roll in so no one would get hurt. I suggested a well calculated move under a UN mandate not a direct declaration of war by NATO on Russia. If cool heads means doing everything to avoid war then admit that means essentially just giving in. It also appeasement which emboldens dictators.

What does "move" mean and how do we get such a mandate? Only the security council is capable of issuing a binding resolution. And please don't quote anonymous sources as strawmen.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[artis]

The Russian tanks rolled into Hungary under Stalin (1956)

I'm afraid Stalin died in 1953, so that would be under Kruschev

This is an intelligent group. So I find these stated suppositions that we must stop Putin now and the seeming easy analyses that no nuclear exchange would result because he is bluffing to be chilling.

The argument is that it would actually be easier to stop Putin now than later. First of all he himself has given us a few opportunities the biggest one of them would be the overestimation of their capability and the unprecedented Ukrainian solidarity and resistance.
The idea, at least as far as I think, is to arm Ukraine as much as possible , if I had to bet my money I'd say that without direct NATO involvement (missiles from NATO territory or troops) Putin would not push the button and if he did his generals would refuse. Russia would truly need to be threatened within their territory to resort to a nuclear response, that is my opinion.

Russia signed a treaty to ensure Ukraine's territorial integrity.. That wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Not just Russia, US too so that means if one side has betrayed them the other side should at least to the best of their abilities and safety of all of us help as much as possible that would be my take.
After all Ukraine gave up a lot for this worthless treaty, the third largest arsenal of nukes and ICBM's combat ready.

 

[artis]

I see another historic parallel. Just as the humiliation of Germany at the end of WWI led to Hitler and WWII perhaps the bungling of policy in aftermath the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to Putin and his dreams of revived empire and a potential WWIII. Maybe it's an endless cycle?

Well losing is hard for anyone, especially former empires. Both China and Russia have enjoyed multiple periods of being at the top.
Czarist Russia which then fell, then came the Soviet Russia which as @hutchphd noted almost managed to destroy civilization (probably the first empire to ever have such ability along US) and now there is Putin's Russia, only to make matters worse there is also China, and let's not forget smaller but regionally important players as India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, European Union etc, their interests and alignment can also cause destabilization or new balance.
I would argue this greatly complicates the picture. So much variables.
The Cold war I think was easier you basically had 2 players and a bunch of wannabes that were then used as pawns by either side

 

[bob012345]

What does "move" mean and how do we get such a mandate? Only the security council is capable of issuing a binding resolution. And please don't quote anonymous sources as strawmen.

A strategy taken by the West. Of course the big problem is Russia is on the Security Council and has veto power. So the first move might be to have the General Assembly vote to remove Russia from the Security Council. The central thesis behind the WW3 has begun argument came from the NY Times opinion piece by Bret Stephens;

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/15/opinion/russia-ukraine-world-war-iii.html

 

[russ_watters]

By your definitions we have been in WW3 ever since eastern Europe was partitioned immediately following WWII. The Russian tanks rolled into Hungary under Stalin (1956) and Prague in 1968.

No, that was the Cold War, so named because it was relatively free of shooting especially between major powers. The difference on the ground in Europe is the Russia already had full control of Eastern Europe and those actions were to maintain that control against reforms/revolution. In the current situation Ukraine was fully independent and even had a guarantee of sovereignty from Russia prior to it. This looks much more like a reboot of the period prior to WWII with Germany to me.

I again remind everyone that we are given the privilege of breathing every morning because carefully measured policies prevailed over these intervening sixty-five years. Their were many times when a less prudent approach would have produced diseaster. Even the measured approach brought us perilously close to the unthinkable in 1962.
And there were always always calls for more sabers.
This is an intelligent group. So I find these stated suppositions that we must stop Putin now and the seeming easy analyses that no nuclear exchange would result because he is bluffing to be chilling.

We're all speculating here, and your speculations are no more factual than ours are. Nobody knows for sure where this is going and the only one with at least some idea is Putin. No, we don't actually know that a different approach "would have produced disaster" during the Cold War nor do we know if in the 1930s maybe a different approach could have prevented or reduced the severity of WWII. Same applies here.

I am heartened that cool heads seem engaged for the moment.

Where we differ seems to be mostly on the probability of Putin using nukes -- and by similar speculation what the likelihood was during the Cold War. Also -- is Putin a "cooler head"? He's definitely prevailing, but here's the irony: if he's a cooler head then the West entering the war would be a viable option.

Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones".

I wonder if he would have amended that statement if he lived until the end of the Cold War.

I would like to submit a modest proposal for evaluation on the merits by this august multitude:.

What if the bordering states (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Finland and the Baltics) could be declared militarily unaligned? In my mind this would mean extremely limited numbers of foreign troops allowed and no nukes or other proxy weapons. They would otherwise be free to raise a local national army however they desire. Any attempts to circumvent this would cause immediate response from the offended side (NATO or Russian)

I am under no illusion that this would be simple. But is it a useful idea? Could it be made to work ?

Well, two questions/concerns:
1. Declared by whom? Russia and the US? Do those other countries get a say in their own sovereignty?
2. Define "useful"/"work". If your goal is to avoid nuclear war it would probably function while in place. If your goal is to prevent Russian invasion of those countries it probably would not (after which it would become moot). If your goal is to protect sovereignty of countries it seems like it would be explicitly taking that away.

 

[bob012345]

One thing we can bet is going on is all Russia's bordering states are organizing their defenses and arming as much as possible making future aggression harder.

 

[hutchphd]

I'm afraid Stalin died in 1953, so that would be under Kruschev

wow it was Khrushchev. Thanks for the correction. I think that makes it worse because Stalin has his own litany!
I agree that we should try to arm Ukraine to the max including the MIGs (although operationally that may not work). I even think drones of all kinds would make sense but they needtobe locally controlled.

ven had a guarantee of sovereignty from Russia prior to it

The blockade by Stalin of food into West Berlin was I think a direct violation of agreement. But this is splitting hairs. Missiles into Cuba was also pretty aggressive...and Krushchev was supposed to be the new Soviet face...

Well, two questions/concerns:
1. Declared by whom? Russia and the US? Do those other countries get a say in their own sovereignty?
2. Define "useful"/"work". If your goal is to avoid nuclear war it would probably function while in place. If your goal is to prevent Russian invasion of those countries it probably would not (after which it would become moot). If your goal is to protect sovereignty of countries it seems like it would be explicitly taking that away.

1. They can do whatever they want but NATO will not station troops or weapons on their soil nor allow Russia to do so (Belarus for example). I would think they would each want a good standing army.

2 How does this differ from present policy (except for Estonia and Latvia). It would provide a buffer and give Putin no claims of NATO incursion. And this is NATO's choice. Of course those Baltics would need to agree. But it might provide an exit ramp.

All things change. There are no absolutes here. But History should not be ignored because it is not 100% predictive. That is very foolish.

 

[Astronuc]

One thing we can bet is going on is all Russia's bordering states are organizing their defenses and arming as much as possible making future aggression harder.

Putin has already warned Sweden and Finland about any attempt to join NATO or become non-neutral, or perhaps, less neutral. Both nations have a shared turbulent history with Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_Russia_and_Sweden

Putin apparently sees himself as a modern day tsar in the vein of Ivan IV Vasilyevich, commonly known in English as Ivan the Terrible, the grand prince of Moscow from 1533 to 1547 and the first Moscow ruler who declared himself Tsar of all Russia from 1547 to 1584.

 

[bob012345]

Putin has already warned Sweden and Finland about any attempt to join NATO or become non-neutral, or perhaps, less neutral. Both nations have a shared turbulent history with Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_between_Russia_and_Sweden

Putin apparently sees himself as a modern day tsar in the vein of Ivan IV Vasilyevich, commonly known in English as Ivan the Terrible, the grand prince of Moscow from 1533 to 1547 and the first Moscow ruler who declared himself Tsar of all Russia from 1547 to 1584.

Has he threatened to invade if they do? One could make arguments about Ukraine being in Russia's sphere of influence but not Finland or Sweden. He would be committing Europe and its allies to war for sure.

 

[hutchphd]

More bad news: Putin's father lived to age 88.

 

[Bystander]

Putin's father lived to age 88.

Oh, s**t.

 

[PeroK]

More bad news: Putin's father lived to age 88.

I don't see that waiting for Putin to die of natural causes is a viable strategy in any case.

 

[hutchphd]

I don't see that waiting for Putin to die of natural causes is a vable strategy in any case.

Hope springs eternal ...

 

[Borg]

I don't see that waiting for Putin to die of natural causes is a viable strategy in any case.

I'm guessing that's why he sits so far away from everyone at the end of long tables so that he can't be poisoned the same way that he does to others.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't see that waiting for Putin to die of natural causes is a viable strategy in any case.

Get him where it hurts: bring an international court to rule that Russia has to pay for what it destroyed!

They will probably not pay, but it will always be an argument at hand.

 

[.Scott]

I have not read all 1217 previous posts - but in nuclear terms, I do not consider this a "safe" situation.
The types of comments currently coming out of China's government can be taken as at face as unalarming.

They certainly see the parallel between Ukraine and Taiwan.

I am specifically wary of their statements regarding their motives for avoid Western economic sanctions.
Yes, there are motives. But this isn't their typical dialog.

 

[artis]

1. They can do whatever they want but NATO will not station troops or weapons on their soil nor allow Russia to do so (Belarus for example). I would think they would each want a good standing army.

This is not a good point to my understanding, because we in the Baltics are around 6.2 million people while Russia is around 140, when all else fails and you simply take men for cannon fodder then Russia beats by numbers. In fact this is a common Russian/Soviet strategy - when tactics and weapons fail simply send in men until your enemy is exhausted beyond comprehension. This is partly how the Soviets beat Germans during the first half of the war before their tank and rifle manufacturing caught up with the numbers needed.

In fact I read that now in Ukraine they do similarly, the old Soviet WW2 method - send in conscripts to the front and special forces walk behind, those who try to retreat are shot.

 

[Astronuc]

Has he threatened to invade if they do?

He has threatened with an unspecified retaliation vis-a-vis "serious political and military consequences".

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nato-ukraine-invasion-1682715

Maria Zakharova held a press conference on Friday and reflected on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the intentions of Russia going forward.

A clip of her speech has begun to go viral on social media as she appears to issue a threat aimed at Sweden and Finland, saying it would have "serious military-political repercussions."

Maria Zakharova is Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.

"Finland and Sweden should not base their security damaging the security of other countries," Zakharova said during the press conference.

"Clearly [the] accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO, which is first and foremost a military alliance, would have serious military-political repercussions that would demand a response from our country," she said.

Putin is essentially stating that being able to defend the sovereignty of one's nation against a Russian invasion is a threat to Russia. If any nation has to the capability to resist the wims/demands of Putin, the he considers it a threat.

Putin is insane!

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...n-nato-finland-sweden-support-ukraine/626965/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ial-warns-finland-sweden-against-joining-nato

Meanwhile, the US/EU need to be prepared for Putin to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, assuming he doesn't get what he wants, and perhaps in broader context, rather than hope that the Russian military would refuse.

Xi Jinping needs to convince Putin to retire, or for his codependent Russian enablers to retire him.

 

[fluidistic]

Putin apparently changed 1000 people around him for fears of being poisoned.

To be fair, the only reason the world is watching Ukraine being massacred while almost eating pop corn, is because Russia, or better said, Putin, has nukes. (thanks for sending weapons to Ukraine, but they need to take down all planes. People are dying every day due to plane bombings, while we're watching news on the TV and we know that tomorrow is only going to be worse). If NATO or a country outside NATO, let's say Finland, decided to "make a special mission" in Ukraine and take down those planes, or another, say, not limitroph country, where would Putin send nukes? What would that accomplish, he would lose everything in Ukraine no matter what. Nukes won't save him.
At this point, I seriously believe, as crazy and stupid as it may sound, that the best for humanity is that Putin dies very quickly, i.e. in the next days.

 

[Astronuc]

Fox News reports, "Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's plane turns around during flight to China, heads back to Moscow"
https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-lavrov-plane-turns-around-flight-china-returns-moscow-report

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was allegedly on a flight headed to Beijing Thursday, but the plane turned around midway and flew back toward Moscow, according to German newspaper Bild.

The plane allegedly turned around while over Novosibirsk, a city in Siberia, according to Bild. Fox News Digital has been unable to independently verify the outlet’s report.

Novosibirsk is more than halfway from Moscow to Beijing.Meanwhile, back home in Moscow, 'Scum and traitors': Under pressure over Ukraine, Putin turns his ire on Russians
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ne-putin-turns-his-ire-on-russians/ar-AAVcIF6

With his invasion of Ukraine floundering and his economy teetering, Putin doubled down Wednesday — turning his baleful glare on Russians who are against the invasion or who sympathize with the West.

"The Russian people will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors, and will simply spit them out like an insect in their mouth onto the pavement," he said, shoulders hunched and staring down the barrel of the camera.

Putin is apparently very pissed at his principal intelligence officers; "the recent arrests of two high-ranking intelligence officials in Russia's FSB - the successor to the KGB - which may be a sign of Putin's growing frustration."

SOLDATOV: Well, it seems that in terms of intelligence, this war is strikingly different from what we had before with Putin's wars. He started this war with humiliating the chief of his foreign intelligence agencies, SVR, Naryshkin, at this now-famous meeting of the security council. Two weeks later, he attacked the foreign intelligence branch of the FSB, his beloved agency, because the FSB's foreign intelligence branch was largely in charge of supplying intelligence about the political situation in Ukraine and also because this department was in charge of cultivating political opposition in Ukraine, political groups which might be supportive for the Russian troops. That never happened, but it seems that it doesn't change Putin's attitude to Ukraine, so he just attacks his people for being not extremely competent.

 

[artis]

At this point, I seriously believe, as crazy and stupid as it may sound, that the best for humanity is that Putin dies very quickly, i.e. in the next days.

Russian government is the political version of Russian roulette. Till this very day we can't be certain Stalin died of natural causes. There were definitely people in the Politburo and other agencies that had grown tired of him in the decades prior.
Then recall Khrushchev, he was basically removed from office behind his back, as he came back to Moscow KGB guards surrounded him at an airport and KGB chief at the time Semichastny advised not to resist.
The coup plotter was non other than the man with the huge eyebrows - Leonid Brezhnev , the man who is said to have died from "short circuit in eyebrows"...

Then came Gorbachev whose demise is better known to those outside the USSR. Again KGB basically put him under house arrest and proceeded to take full control of the USSR to attempt a coup.

I don't think Putin is immune from the savage and cold blooded forces that actually control Russia from within "behind the stage" so to say, he is still where he is not entirely because of his own mastery but also because those who "enable" him actually support these moves. This is probably the harder part to swallow but I think we need to remember that he is not just a dictator but also a loudspeaker for the amplifier that is driving him, they together form a sort of positive feedback loop.
From learning history I have always noticed that in Russia the state security services, most notably KGB, have always played a fundamental role in the final fate of their leaders.
So I think we maybe need not ask when the Russian people will have enough of him but rather when FSB will have enough of him.

 

[bob012345]

Putin is insane!

I believe Putin is not insane as in irrational. It is just that his logic is that of a medieval warlord and not that of a typical liberal minded Western leader.