Anxious
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What next for Ukraine?

Here's my fear for both Ukraine and us in the West. This Sunday on the tv the Ukrainian ambassador to the US viewed the opinion that the war will last till the last Russian soldier has gone not only from the newly gained territory but also the whole of Donbas and Crimea. That means that they're now not only going to fight a war that started way back in 2014 but also that they'll keep the West under a blanket of constant moral chantage. They are the democracy that needs to be saved, as the grand damsel in a fairytale. However, lets not go into that rabbit hole. Realpolitik has been in existence since Cardinal Richelieu supported the protestant side in the Thirty Years War in order to weaken the Habsburg monarchs. Whatever the detail of the Israeli policy towards Ukraine is today, it will for sure be in the interest of the country first. Does one actually need to get the Russian Army reduced to almost nothing in the long run, but rather have the conflict settled with the less death possible and as soon as possible? Remember, the summer months of July and August will favour the Russian armoured columns the most, and furthermore, they consider the battlefield tactical nuclear strike as mere the another artillery option. Obviously Ukraine won't defeat Russia on their own. Will their next step not be trying to directly involve the West in the war? That will mean that the war will only end by either regime change in Moskow, or by the West really taking the crazed bet that the Russians won't use the nuclear option whilst they bomb their army out of Ukraine.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
moral chantage
I count my vocabulary as pretty extensive but that's a new one. What is it? Or what is it a typo for?

If Putin uses nuclear weapons then I thing it would be a signal that all the usual 'rules' of warfare have been abrogated. Then it would be reasonable for any other actor to act directly against Putin and his inner circle by whatever means are available including cruise missiles, drone strikes, infiltrating assassins, and even tactical nuclear weapons. Russia can win as many battles as it likes but that is not a war that Putin can win.

they consider the battlefield tactical nuclear strike as mere the another artillery option
That seems most unlikely to me. The few Russians that I have known have been sophisticated people, I have no reason to believe that the Russian military is less sophisticated than the general population; they must know that this would put them beyond the pale.

As far as I can see, this whole mess is a miscalculation by Putin that was intended to bolster his position at home by making it seem that he was reclaiming some of the grandeur of the Russian past. Eventually it will become clear to everyone in Russia that Putin wanted the grandeur only for himself.
val70 · 51-55
@ninalanyon Try reading some books, darling. You'll be enlightened. And call me a Russian bot and you're deleted. Moral chantage there is, because Ukraine should be treated no different than Rwanda or Bosnia in the past. And yes, the descent into nuclear exchange is indeed never been as real than in the Cuban missile crisis. The rest is your opinion. Come back to me with arguments why Ukraine should be treated indeed different, and why you think that policies of decades long on the nuclear arsenal were wrong. Are you now claiming that nuclear arms for Iran has no consequence?
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
val70 · 51-55
@ninalanyon You shall be deleted. I'm enjoying this one, laddie! 🤪
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@val70 Oh goody!