It has nothing to do with cowardice. If a hostile nation state is willing to burn resources holding territory that contains insurgent forces we would be stupid to discourage it. As americans well know, it is really hard to maintain an extended occupation without a loss of money, moral, and life.
At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines, make it difficult to get back out of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainians slaughter the captive invading force (which will promptly surrender as they realize what has happened).
The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field.
Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.
It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote.
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
Thanks for the link; very interesting. From that interview, the general seems to like the idea but also notes seemingly impossile obstacles to it ("PB" is retired U.S. General Philip Breedlove):
PB: I am actually a proponent of it [a no-fly zone]. But let me now tell you why it will probably not happen, because the reality of a no-fly zone is, it is an act of war. There are a lot of people who don’t understand no-fly zones. You don’t just say, “That’s a no fly zone.” You have to enforce a no-fly zone, which means you have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone. The second thing, which nobody understands, is if you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. And few understand that. And that’s why, if you talk about a no-fly zone, it is a very sober decision because many in the world would interpret it as an act of war.
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
The analysis I was reading and where it was coming from was their experience in Syria where American and Russian forces have come into contact. But there's an asterisk here. They were Russian solders, but they were disavowed Russian soldiers acting under the Wagner group at an arm's length relationship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
I need to read up on how the no-fly zone was set up in Syria, but IIRC there were active clashes between American hardware and the Russians.
But that was a different context. It was a space far away from Russia's borders. It's another kettle of fish and it's not a good idea to do what was done in Syria here.
I apologize if I sounded too firm earlier, this is not my place of expertise. I am not an expert on geopolitics or foreign policy. It's not my area. I just like to read.
> cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.
I actually understand how reality works, rather than drowning in the irrational, hyper emotionalism of: the world is gunna end if we face off with der Russia, The PuTin will Killeded us all ten times overs with the big nukes. Aka ignorant Reddit thinking.
The most important thing that can happen right now is to aggressively begin confronting Russia. They are weak, the invasion was a very bad idea, and they have zero global support for what they're doing and mediocre support at home for the invasion.
There is only one way to stop Putin and that's military confrontation. NATO is vastly superior to Russia's forces, now is an excellent time to cripple them in the field.
Every time war doesn't go Russia's way they're going to nuke the world? Yeah, sure. Good luck living in that universe. You know, we really can't defend Finland or Sweden or the Baltics (NATO), because hey Russia will nuke everybody, so they just get to keep taking territory at will. Time to go ahead and shut down NATO (you know, the organization that was originated specifically to stand off militarily with Russia, its primary reason for existing). No, time to start standing up to Russia in the field: this is what NATO is for.
Ukraine is doing the job that NATO ought to be doing. At the very least we should be helping them dramatically more than what we are now. Don't like the idea of direct confrontation (no-fly zone) - fine, then flood Ukraine with weapons at a much faster pace and put Russia in a position of having to declare war on NATO to stop it.
It's not a fantasy at all, which is of course why you have no greater retort than flinging ad hominem responses.
Russia's poorly organized, poorly funded, poorly trained military will be hyper exposed as they go fully into Ukraine (it already is). We also have the intel on the ground in Ukraine to help us out, we can maul Russia's tanks, artillery and mechanized forces and wipe out their supply lines, trapping their ground forces inside Ukraine with no supplies (aka they're dead). Russia can't project effectively outside of their borders when confronted with vastly superior NATO air power, so they won't be able to provide cover or resupply for their soldiers trapped in Ukraine. Their hardware will be wiped out. We can dismember their air force at the border as needed. And it'll be Ukrainians killing the Russian soldiers inside of Ukraine, not NATO soldiers. What else does Russia have?
They'd have one fall back: I'm gunna nuke you, I'm gunna nuke everyone, I'm gunna nuke the moon. [insert Putin turned Gollum snarl here] Bullshit. It's not sovereign Russian territory and they're not going to kill everyone in Russia for it.
That is quite a claim for anyone, especially about interational relations and war, which are especially opaque and unpredictable. Why do you believe that, and why would we believe it? Are you an expert or practitioner?
I'm seconding this, if air cover is provided, Ukraine has enough resources to trim off Russia's south, and its access to two seas.
South Russians don't feel pretty much any affinity for Moscow. This can potentially launch a chain reaction of Russia's disintegration.
Russia's Far East will almost certainly secede for its ethnic makeup, and the only ethnic Russian stronghold in the region being uniquely anti-russian (as a state) for so many reason, the latest being harsh draft, and using Far Eastern youth as a cannon fodder for the last 8 years.
Urals, and Siberia are uniquely resource rich, and they will want the money for themselves. There was a precedent: "The Republic of Urals" was a semi-functional regional autonomy for a few months in 1991.
Kalmikia, and Tatarstan can secede as well.
----
Militarily wise, Russia is at its weakest since its loss in first Chechnya war.
They just wasted at least 50% of Russia's current standing force on Ukraine, most of which is now stranded in Belarusian woods without supplies, and fuel, or destroyed in Ukraine.
Their bases near Ukraine are now standing empty.
My many contacts in Vladivostok report the same thing: military brass there "is thinking"
That is too calculating. The public responds to emotions, and for better or worse that narrative is being driven by TikTok and Twitter in realtime. Flattened cities, corpses, and streams of refugees will force the western leaders to do something. It won't look good at home in Russia either, which is probably why it hasn't happened (yet).
