re: #171 Targetpractice

And really, wouldn’t our (as in the Western world) getting involved in the fighting in Ukraine with the implication that we’re ready to use nuclear force if Russia does not back down also be a bluff? Or are we really prepared to nuke Russian cities just to avoid the embarrassment of Ukraine being defeated?

You’d have to clearly state that a NATO operation to liberate Ukraine has limited objectives. First, clear the skies of Russian fighter jets and neutralize Russian anti-aircraft defense and offensive missile systems. Then, after having established air supremacy, use that, in close coordination with Ukrainian ground forces, to drive occupying forces out of the country. NATO forces will make no attempt to penetrate Russia’s internationally recognized borders, with the exception of neutralizing Russia’s ability to target Ukrainian population centers. Once Russia is back beyond their frontiers (and I’ll cut ‘em a little slack because I’m not an asshole or anything, those “frontiers” will include the Crimean Peninsula - Putin seems especially freaked out about that - and use that as the starting point for negotiating a political settlement), then hostilities will cease.

And before this starts, tell the Russians in no uncertain terms that any use of WMD’s (nuclear, chemical, biological) against Ukrainian targets will be regarded as an attack on NATO itself and we will respond accordingly.

And what I’ve just written there is nothing all that radical - indeed, I’d bet $5 that my proposal is virtually identical to what’s probably already been written up in the Pentagon.

Of course, would the rest of NATO go along with that? I can well imagine German Chancellor Scholz fainting away at the presentation and Hungary’s Orban - Putin’s cabana boy in Budapest - would probably shit himself. Don’t really know about what Macron would say, to be honest. In short, getting NATO onboard with such an operation would prove to be the most difficult matter.