Ukraine Intervention

[Thoughtful Monk]

Thus far in the Russia-Ukraine War, the western countries have just supplied military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. There are probably also volunteer fighters from various countries as well. Thus far that seems to be the most the citizens of the western countries want.

However, the Western leadership says democracy is important and a value to be stood up for.

Question: can the war in Ukraine reach a point where the West should send in the military? Some points to consider: Russia uses chemical weapons or biological weapons. Russia goes beyond war crimes and starts a genocide against Ukrainians. Russia gets really frustrated and nukes Kyiv. The war reaches a year old, five years old, etc.

Is there a point where intervention becomes necessary?

[Ronson]

Thus far in the Russia-Ukraine War, the western countries have just supplied military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. There are probably also volunteer fighters from various countries as well. Thus far that seems to be the most the citizens of the western countries want.

However, the Western leadership says democracy is important and a value to be stood up for.

Question: can the war in Ukraine reach a point where the West should send in the military?

I'd say "possibly."

Some points to consider: Russia uses chemical weapons or biological weapons.

Probably not.

Russia goes beyond war crimes and starts a genocide against Ukrainians.

Probably, but this would be something the UN would have to get involved in as well, to make it universal and official. Not just NATO.

Russia gets really frustrated and nukes Kyiv.

Again, the UN.

The war reaches a year old, five years old, etc.

I'd say "no."

Is there a point where intervention becomes necessary?

If this starts looking like a genocide, then intervention becomes likely.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I'd say "possibly."

Probably not.

Probably, but this would be something the UN would have to get involved in as well, to make it universal and official. Not just NATO.

Again, the UN.

I'd say "no."

If this starts looking like a genocide, then intervention becomes likely.

I see in your answers that you're looking to the UN for leadership. Considering Russia, China, and a host of not-friendly-to-democracy countries are members, is it realistic that the UN will pull itself together and say "Yes, intervene in Ukraine?"

[Ronson]

I see in your answers that you're looking to the UN for leadership.

Not really "leadership" but authorization, or a sanction to act. If NATO were to act on it's own it would appear more like entering a war.

Considering Russia, China, and a host of not-friendly-to-democracy countries are members, is it realistic that the UN will pull itself together and say "Yes, intervene in Ukraine?"

My thoughts are that the use of nuclear weapons or an attempt at genocide would also frighten the belligerents into a vote against Russia.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Not really "leadership" but authorization, or a sanction to act. If NATO were to act on it's own it would appear more like entering a war.

My thoughts are that the use of nuclear weapons or an attempt at genocide would also frighten the belligerents into a vote against Russia.

You need leadership to get an authorization or sanction to act. I think any such motion will end up being bottled-up in committee somewhere or vetoed at the Security Council.

Genocide won't be enough. Other recent genocides, Rwanda comes to mind, haven't provoked a strong response. Not seeing it here.

Nuking something probably would.

[seer]

Is there a point where intervention becomes necessary?

If I didn't think Putin would use nukes I would send in the first and second Marine divisions with air support. They would destroy the feckless Russian army in a matter of weeks... And not if Russia crossed some arbitrary red line - but yesterday...

[Sparko]

I think if chemical weapons or possible nuclear weapons are used and they threaten other countries (think fallout), that would be considered an attack on NATO and would trigger a response.

I think the worst thing about sitting on the sidelines while Ukrainians are being slaughtered is that Ukraine will never trust the west again, and why should they? We sat by and had "fundraisers" and applauded their bravery from the sidelines while they were dying by the hundreds or thousands.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I think if chemical weapons or possible nuclear weapons are used and they threaten other countries (think fallout), that would be considered an attack on NATO and would trigger a response.

I think the worst thing about sitting on the sidelines while Ukrainians are being slaughtered is that Ukraine will never trust the west again, and why should they? We sat by and had "fundraisers" and applauded their bravery from the sidelines while they were dying by the hundreds or thousands.

I agree there is a danger in doing nothing more active that we lose credibility. The longer the war goes, the more likely this happens.

[Reepicheep]

Over forty years ago, I read a fictional book about WW3, which was presented as a historical analysis written after the war had ended (an internet search reveals that the name of the book was The Third World War: August 1985, written by Sir John Hackett in 1978). Ukraine plays a major role in ending the war.

As I recall, the sequence of events was: Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack against NATO; NATO forces stage a fighting retreat, waiting for American reinforcements to arrive from North America; with the arrival of massive American reinforcements, the war turns against the Warsaw Pact; in desperation, Russia launches a single nuclear weapon which destroys Birmingham, England; NATO realizes they can't allow this attack to go unpunished, so they destroy Minsk with a single nuclear weapon; the destruction of Minsk results in a widespread revolt in the Russian satellite states; the war ends when the people of Ukraine stage a successful coup which overthrows the Russian (or, more accurately, Soviet Union) government.

As in this book, I don't think NATO could allow the Russian use of nuclear weapons to go unchallenged, but I don't necessarily believe that NATO would respond in kind to the Russian use of a nuclear weapon. I think it is more likely that NATO would initially respond with a massive attack on Russia with conventional forces, but the actual response is anyone's guess.

The Russian military leaders aren't suicidal, so my guess is that it would be the end of Putin's political career, and likely the end of his life, if he were to order a nuclear strike. It is difficult to believe that the Russian military would obey such an order.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Over forty years ago, I read a fictional book about WW3, which was presented as a historical analysis written after the war had ended (an internet search reveals that the name of the book was The Third World War: August 1985, written by Sir John Hackett in 1978). Ukraine plays a major role in ending the war.

As I recall, the sequence of events was: Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack against NATO; NATO forces stage a fighting retreat, waiting for American reinforcements to arrive from North America; with the arrival of massive American reinforcements, the war turns against the Warsaw Pact; in desperation, Russia launches a single nuclear weapon which destroys Birmingham, England; NATO realizes they can't allow this attack to go unpunished, so they destroy Minsk with a single nuclear weapon; the destruction of Minsk results in a widespread revolt in the Russian satellite states; the war ends when the people of Ukraine stage a successful coup which overthrows the Russian (or, more accurately, Soviet Union) government.

As in this book, I don't think NATO could allow the Russian use of nuclear weapons to go unchallenged, but I don't necessarily believe that NATO would respond in kind to the Russian use of a nuclear weapon. I think it is more likely that NATO would initially respond with a massive attack on Russia with conventional forces, but the actual response is anyone's guess.

The Russian military leaders aren't suicidal, so my guess is that it would be the end of Putin's political career, and likely the end of his life, if he were to order a nuclear strike. It is difficult to believe that the Russian military would obey such an order.

I remember reading The Third World War.

I hope you are right that the military (in any country) would disobey an order to actually use a nuke - especially in a first strike scenario. I'm not quite that optimistic. I do think NATO wouldn't respond with a nuke strike but a massive conventional assault.

[Mountain Man]

I think if chemical weapons or possible nuclear weapons are used and they threaten other countries (think fallout), that would be considered an attack on NATO and would trigger a response.

I think the worst thing about sitting on the sidelines while Ukrainians are being slaughtered is that Ukraine will never trust the west again, and why should they? We sat by and had "fundraisers" and applauded their bravery from the sidelines while they were dying by the hundreds or thousands.

Hundreds of thousands? Where are you getting that numbet from?

[Sparko]

Over forty years ago, I read a fictional book about WW3, which was presented as a historical analysis written after the war had ended (an internet search reveals that the name of the book was The Third World War: August 1985, written by Sir John Hackett in 1978). Ukraine plays a major role in ending the war.

As I recall, the sequence of events was: Warsaw Pact launches a surprise attack against NATO; NATO forces stage a fighting retreat, waiting for American reinforcements to arrive from North America; with the arrival of massive American reinforcements, the war turns against the Warsaw Pact; in desperation, Russia launches a single nuclear weapon which destroys Birmingham, England; NATO realizes they can't allow this attack to go unpunished, so they destroy Minsk with a single nuclear weapon; the destruction of Minsk results in a widespread revolt in the Russian satellite states; the war ends when the people of Ukraine stage a successful coup which overthrows the Russian (or, more accurately, Soviet Union) government.

As in this book, I don't think NATO could allow the Russian use of nuclear weapons to go unchallenged, but I don't necessarily believe that NATO would respond in kind to the Russian use of a nuclear weapon. I think it is more likely that NATO would initially respond with a massive attack on Russia with conventional forces, but the actual response is anyone's guess.

The Russian military leaders aren't suicidal, so my guess is that it would be the end of Putin's political career, and likely the end of his life, if he were to order a nuclear strike. It is difficult to believe that the Russian military would obey such an order.

The initial response would be for NATO to attack Russian forces in Ukraine with conventional forces, not attack Russia directly. This would drive Russia out of Ukraine. Whether Putin then responds with more nukes or takes his defeat gracefully I don't know. If he does respond with attacks on NATO countries or with more nukes, then all bets are off. If we get into an all out nuclear war between Europe, USA and Russia/China the only surviving countries might be in the southern hemisphere, like New Zealand and Australia.

[Sparko]

Hundreds of thousands? Where are you getting that numbet from?

I said hundreds OR thousands. I couldn't remember what the death tolls were reported.

[Reepicheep]

The initial response would be for NATO to attack Russian forces in Ukraine with conventional forces, not attack Russia directly. This would drive Russia out of Ukraine.

Agreed.

Whether Putin then responds with more nukes or takes his defeat gracefully I don't know. If he does respond with attacks on NATO countries or with more nukes, then all bets are off. If we get into an all out nuclear war between Europe, USA and Russia/China the only surviving countries might be in the southern hemisphere, like New Zealand and Australia.

New Zealand surviving a nuclear war is a major plot point in the science fiction novel The Chrysalids by John Wyndham.

Australia surviving a nuclear war is a major plot point in the novel On the Beach by Nevil Shute (it is more accurate to say "Australia initially surviving...", since the book ends badly for Australians).

I am forced to the conclusion that, in the 1970s and 1980s, I read a lot of post-apocalyptic literature. Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, The Last Canadian by William Heine, the list goes on...

[Mountain Man]

I said hundreds OR thousands. I couldn't remember what the death tolls were reported.

Ah, I read "or" as "of".