How the fall of Ukraine to Putin could lead to WWIII

Ukraine isn't part of NATO, but it's really just a technicality, because Ukraine has a strategic value to NATO, being one of the view remaining countries, once part of the Soviet Union which is not part of NATO.

Putin wants all the Soviet Bock countries under his control, Poland, Ukraine, The Baltics, all the 'stan' countries, etc. He blames the US for the fall of the Soviet Union.

If Ukraine falls to Putin, then the fall of Ukraine would be the first country to fall in the path of those reacquisitions for Putin. Putin is nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, his being a former KGB guy. Once KGB, always KGB, right? You think otherwise?

Thing is, Poland and the Baltic countries are now part of NATO.

And therein exists the problem. If he invades them, which he will, it will force America to defend them and then there will be WWIII as China will invade Taiwan given our preoccupation with Russia and failure to defend Ukraine. Then we'd be at war with both China and Russia, constituting a world war (number 3). But, unlike world war 1 and II, in which those wars were with small counties, WWIII would be with the two big countries who have a lot of nukes.

The consequences for world wide destruction are unfathomable. We must avoid this at all costs and appeasement is NOT the answer. The key to this avoidance is to support the Ukraine.

Nikki Haley, as ambassador to the UN, understood this, still maintains this point of view.

The problem who many (but not all) on the right who do not want to support our aid to the Ukraine, fail to realize.

Ukraine is a strategic country for the security of the United States and NATO.

Open your eyes. We MUST send aid to Ukraine, for the security of the Western Alliance and to prevent WWIII.

There is no greater threat to democracy, US national security and the security of the western alliance than Donald Trump.

If you must vote red, vote for Haley. But don't vote for Trump,

 

Interesting assumption the fact that the Russia in spite of outnumbering its opponent 2 to 1 or so has been fought to a bloody stand still buy people with not much more than a basic knowledge of how to use the weapons systems they've been given and with almost no air cover is likely to take a shot at well trained military who have more and better aircraft and have had extensive train and a much better understanding of tactics, command and control, knows damn well that they have no chance at all aginst Nato forces who all tolled out number them nearly two one even if the only the US furnishes is air assets.

 

Why should I care? I'll either due from Putin's nukes or Greta's climate change. Seems pointless to worry about either.

 

Are you under the illusion that Ukraine, by herself, can force the Russians to withdraw, or are you ready to use the Yooks as cannon fodder to kill Russians?

 

Germany was more formidable than a small county.

 

Ha right!

Unbelievable the extremely low level of foreign policy analysis on this forum these days. Believe it or not, there used to be smart stuff here. Now we get warmed over Nikki Haley.

 

Current strategy suggest we are fighting to make sure all Ukrainians are either dead or converted into Migrants.

 

A good observation.

 

Fear mongering, once a mighty beast now just another toothless joke..

 

Formidable yes but It had no nukes.

Compared to the US it's a smaller country.

Now, would you care to comment on the point given in the OP?

 

And yet you offer nothing to the conversation.

 

You seem to be operating under the assumption Putin is a rational human being.

I wouldn't make that assumption.

 

But in 1941 they were better prepared for war than we were.

 

Wow, you almost did it! Almost made it through the entire thing without saying "trump". I was about to praise you because this thread is quality IMO with some very good theories but then saw him shoved in at the end. (stop letting this man in your head!)
Anyway, back to your actual topic, just curious, how different do you think this would be going if Ukraine was part of NATO?
My knowledge on this topic is not high, so be nice. It seems to me that most of those countries are offering aid and support to Ukraine anyway. Will it be enough to help Ukraine win or will it just delay their loss? (I don't know, just asking).
USA has given billions. There are people here in the USA dying on the street on a daily basis, where is their help? I'm also not saying we shouldn't help them. I believe prevention of WWIII is a worthy use of tax dollars. I'm sure it helps them defend themselves but what is the end game here?

 

I don't think you've accurately assessed the situation here.

Russia is currently stalemated holding less than 1/10th of Ukraine.
The parts it holds are largely populated by people who don't (or didn't, last time a vote was held) view Russia as an enemy and thus arent resisting.
Those parts Russia holds were taken in a blitz years ago. Once a strong defensive line was established and blitz no longer works, Russia hasn't progressed.

And you think there's a realistic chance, based on this 'success' and with the added resources of a tiny little slice of Ukraine, Russia might think it can to take and maintain control over the bulk of a very resistant Eastern Europe while fighting a war with all of NATO?

Thats just flat out ridiculous.

 

Then Democrats should agree to actually secure the border, not even letting in 5K per day, so that Ukraine can get aid. The Senate needs to pass the House border bill and Biden sign it into law.

 

What, precisely, do you mean by 'secure the border'? The US isn't equal to a simplistic understanding, it's not a house with a simple door that can be just shut. It's vastly more complex than that, and are you aware of this?

Then answer the question posited in this thread, considering the facts presented in the thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-you-would-do-if-you-were-president.616622/

 

I don't know what that person means, but a BORDER WALL is one component in having a secure border. Bush put up many miles, so did Obama, Trump put up the most and guess who had the least put up when immigration is at record highs? JOE BIDEN!
I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time finding the diagram that shows how much each one did. i do remember off the top of my head in order of most to least it was Trump, Bush, Obama, and then Biden last.

 

I have, multiple times. I find it interesting though that you actually posted this "argument" as something new, when it's been the default argument of neocon midwits since the war started.


You know, Putin's no rocket scientist; it's not hard to figure out his goals and motivations, but it's constantly warmed over World War II and Putin=Hitler with you guys.

 

You seem to be operating under the assumption that he can't do basic math and is dumb as a box of rocks. I am pretty much convinced this war is primarily about hanging onto Russsia's only warm water port west of the Urals and insuring access to same. You know the same reason Russia went to war with the Turks in the 1850's.

 

First thing I want to do is clarify some of my points:

Strategic Value of Ukraine to NATO: While it's true Ukraine holds strategic value for NATO due to its geographical location and the political signal its membership would send, I realize that describing its non-membership as "just a technicality", that it may oversimplify the complex political, military, and legal processes involved in NATO membership. It's more accurate to acknowledge that Ukraine's partnership with NATO has been strengthening, but full membership involves criteria and processes that have not yet been fulfilled or agreed upon by all NATO members.

Putin's Goals: While it's clear that President Putin has expressed interest in restoring Russia's influence over former Soviet states, stating that he wants "all the Soviet Bloc countries under his control" might be an overgeneralization of his publicly stated objectives. It's more precise to focus on specific actions and statements that indicate a desire to prevent NATO expansion and maintain a sphere of influence in the region. That being said, given his history and KGB membership, I think it is a safe bet that he pines for restoring as much of the former satellites under Russian control as possible.

Consequences of Ukraine Falling: I do believe I correctly highlighted the significant implications if Ukraine were to come under full Russian control, especially concerning NATO's security and the potential for further regional instability. However, the leap to WWIII involves many assumptions, particularly regarding China's actions in Taiwan. While the scenarios are possible, they are contingent on a series of decisions by multiple actors, making the outcome far from certain, noting that such has been true for the last major world wars. I therefore do continue to uphold the idea that being vigilant and concerned about the potential for a world war should not be trivialized or diminished.

Support for Ukraine: I stand by my support for Ukraine aligns with the views of many who see Ukraine's resistance as crucial for regional stability and a deterrent to further Russian aggression. The strategic rationale for supporting Ukraine to prevent broader conflict is valid..

Now then, to your rebuttal:

You raise points about the current military situation and Russia's capabilities. It's true that as of the last updates, Russia's control over parts of Ukraine and its military progress have faced significant challenges. The resistance from Ukraine has been strong, and the international community's support for Ukraine has bolstered its defense capabilities.

However, dismissing the potential for further escalation based on current stalemates overlooks the unpredictable nature of armed conflict and geopolitical strategies. While it may seem unlikely that Russia could extend its military operations into NATO countries without facing insurmountable resistance, the initial argument's core concern was about the broader risks of escalation and the unpredictable consequences of failing to support Ukraine, notwithstanding the simple fact that Putin isn't exactly what I would call the paragon of rationality.

The risk of underestimating the potential for escalation or the strategic calculations of involved parties could lead to miscalculations. The history of international conflicts shows that situations can evolve rapidly, with initial assumptions about military capabilities and political will being upended.

Moreover, the argument that supporting Ukraine is essential not just for the sake of Ukraine but for maintaining international order and deterring further aggression by authoritarian regimes remains a crucial point. The strategic importance of Ukraine in this geopolitical context isn't just about the territory but about the principles of sovereignty, international law, and the prevention of further destabilization in Europe and beyond.

And so, while your skepticism about the immediate likelihood of a broader war involving NATO is not without merit, your argument does not negate the broader strategic considerations and the unpredictable nature of international relations which underscore the importance of supporting Ukraine as a means of upholding international stability and deterring further aggression.

 

Biden said that if more than 5K per day cross over illegally he would shut down the border. What does "shut down the border" mean? Give me the details. How would it be shut down?

 

Would you support an initiative to seek peace based on the current (or similar) military holdings of Russia in Ukraine? Perhaps with the caveat that Russia gets to keep what they now hold (which mostly consists of regions that wanted to split from Ukraine anyway, which is what gave Putin his casus beli in the first place) but also Russia may not consider a buildup of its neighbors defensive forces along its borders any sort of provocation in the forseeable future, and any buildup of defenses will instead be considered justifable response to proven Russian aggression. This all in the interest of current de-escalation and prevention of future hostilities through military strength.

 

Spoken like a true selfish, self-centered baby boomer.

 

I think the narrative that Putin would consider taking further Baltic states has been weakened by poor russian military performance in the Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the wild card is what would follow if the US stops supporting Ukraine. Undoubtedly, Russia would consolidate Donbass and then take the whole country quickly and begin de-nazifying - which is a clever, ambiguous term used to justify Putin to do whatever he wants to get those "pesky upstart 'Ukrainians' "* under the iron grip once again. I imagine a lot of murder and mayhem would occur. If you think subjugation would be an impossibility given how voraciously the Ukrainians are fighting now you only need to look back to how the Soviet union used to rule to see that is that it is not impossible. The Soviet Union crushed the German spirit to smithereens in East Germany and simultaneously kept other eastern block countries under the thumb. For the sake of tasteful discourse no need to go into the details of the babaric cruelty of the Russians, but we should not understate their talent for turning a country's people on themselves. (You can see how effortlessly Putin picked up on right wing talking points in his interview with Tucker to try and drive the wedge in). I believe that Russia has held back on their possible level of cruelty, given the western support for the war and the ability to live stream and record atrocities. However if the US shrugs, gives up, and walks away it could be a different story.

I still don't know by what means Russia would attack or have a further military victory over further neighbouring states. However, it seems to be a real concern. If you look at NATO spending all of the countries that neighbour Russia are investing heavily in military, above the 2% recommended.

*Borderlanders