What would Putin do if...

[Tsing Tao]

If the west wanted to do something (and I am not saying it should), the best it would be able to muster is to attack Russia economically, and covertly (as much as that would be possible).

Military strength is simply out of the question.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

This is precisely correct...

No it isn't. Saddam was a dictator who mass murdered his own people, and had invaded, without any just cause, two neighbouring countries in the past. Assad was also a dictator who killed many of his own people. Ukraine government did nothing of the kind, and is up for election later in Spring. No Russians were killed in Crimea by the Ukraine government (the alleged justification for intervention). There is no comparison.

Furthermore, Russia signed a treaty saying they would honour Ukraine's sovereignty. There was no such treaty about Syria or Iraq.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

I'm having a hard time imagining NATO doing anything in the first place.
I hold NATO in higher esteem than the UN, but only by a little.

I also can't think of any time off the top of my head Putin backed down from much of anything significant. Feel free to remind me if I've just forgotten.

I agree but that was not the subject of my thread - which was rather how much Putin would be willing to risk, if faced with a significant raising of the stakes. No one has yet shown any evidence that he is willing to risk a serious conflict for a small bit of land of 4 million people, where he already has a treaty guaranteeing a naval base for decades. The fact is, he won't risk WWIII for Crimea.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Which members of "NATO" would be contributing troops for this show of force? The French? The Italians? The Germans? Seriously?

Putin can cut off gas to europe and destroy their economies. Putting carriers etc into the Black Sea woudl be madness. They would be within reach of Russian missle batteries, not to mention subs, and would be totally destroyed within the first 15 minutes of a real confrontation. What do you do then? Say "Nevermind?"

No they wouldn't, because destroying them would be an aggressive act of war and guarantee reprisal attacks on Russia itself. They cannot be attacked without devastating reprisals, unless they attack first - and by the time Russia realises they are attacking (which is not a necessity - the threat alone is enough) it will be too late. Simply placing them there would ratchet up the pressure considerably, and mean Russia would have to think very carefully about potential consequences. The problem at the moment is the lack of negative consequences for aggression.

Putin is clearly NOT thinking "I'll start WWIII for Crimea". Therefore if that is his choice, he will back down. Or, small chance, fight WWIII in which case he'll be quickly killed along with his entire government and most of his population.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

If the west wanted to do something (and I am not saying it should), the best it would be able to muster is to attack Russia economically, and covertly (as much as that would be possible).

Military strength is simply out of the question.

The thread is not about what the west wants to do. It is about what Putin would do IF the west raised the stakes. The answer is that he would probably fold, and he would certainly back down considerably from what he would do in a situation where the west meekly folds its hand.

 

[Grandluxe]

So what you're saying is that we'd risk WWIII over it, but not Putin? You don't know the Russian mindset very well, that much is painfully obvious.

The time it would take for NATO to mobilize (for a contingency they have admitted they did not plan on) would be greater than the half-life of this event. The Russians beat NATO to the punch, end of story. It's a lot easier to deter behavior than it is to reverse it once done. The Russians can sit on the black sea and then go "let's talk it over". Stall, delay...it's over.
It's ok when we do it, but we don't want others doing it.

When you say NATO...of course you mean USA......

 

[Tsing Tao]

No it isn't. Saddam was a dictator who mass murdered his own people, and had invaded, without any just cause, two neighbouring countries in the past. Assad was also a dictator who killed many of his own people. Ukraine government did nothing of the kind, and is up for election later in Spring. No Russians were killed in Crimea by the Ukraine government (the alleged justification for intervention). There is no comparison.

Furthermore, Russia signed a treaty saying they would honour Ukraine's sovereignty. There was no such treaty about Syria or Iraq.

So you're mixing the moral argument with the pretense that was used to garner support for the invasion? When Bush invaded Iraq, it wasn't because Saddam murdered his own people or encroached into Iran and Kuwait. It was based on the "They have Weapons of Mass Destruction and we have evidence of it" argument. Additionally, the "evidence" that the US provided to support the claim Assad gassed his own people was sketchy at best. The US does what it wants when it suits it, and expects everyone else to fall in line accordingly.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The fact is, he won't risk WWIII for Crimea.

Ah, it's fact, is it?

 

[Tsing Tao]

The thread is not about what the west wants to do. It is about what Putin would do IF the west raised the stakes. The answer is that he would probably fold, and he would certainly back down considerably from what he would do in a situation where the west meekly folds its hand.

So now he'd probably fold. Can you let us in on what expertise you are basing your belief on?

 

[Grandluxe]

Which members of "NATO" would be contributing troops for this show of force? The French? The Italians? The Germans? Seriously?

Putin has all the cards here, plus his poosition is not at all unreasonable. The europhiles in Ukraine overthrew a democratically elected president, withour backing. How does that square with international norms?

How many aircraft carriers are Britain or Germany contributing to this operation?