Will the world, United Nations, Nato, allow Putin to kill, starve, Millions of Ukrainians?

[fightforfreedom]

That's where this is heading, people in the large cities are going to run out of food, water, etc. I have no doubt the people of Ukraine will fight to the very end, however the loss of life will be horrific.

At some point a hard line has to be drawn. Yes, Nato must do everything they can not to get directly involved in a war with Russia. Does that include letting millions of Ukrainians die.

If Putin does not back down there are no good answers. Only bad ones.

[Irish_Dem]

1. I do think Putin will starve out Ukraine.

That is his next step after ground and air power level the country.

He will probably prevent humanitarian aid by saying this is an act of war and they will be nuked.

I also think he is capable of using low yield nuclear weapons.

I do not think Putin will back down, in fact he may double and triple down.

The wild card is that I do not know if by some chance Biden's overt and covert activity may check Putin's quest for total power.

[JohnSJ]

2. I do not think it is in the interest of Ukraine to announce any arms shipments or planes,

To them

Food and medical supplies fit in the same category since Russia has continually broken cease fires

If there comes a time where it is decided to provide air support to Ukraine, that also should not be announced to the public

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. The world can't stand idly by much longer.

Even if sanctions work quickly enough, the next foreign-owned GQP president will just lift whatever sanctions are put on Russia, same as the last one did.

[malaise]

7. What did they do re the US and Iraq?

Seriously!

[FoxNewsSucks]

9. Nothing. And that was shameful also.

[NQAS]

4. I think the answer is yes

On the plus side, much of the world has united and imposing sanctions on Russia, Putin, Russian oligarchs, etc. This is good.

Neighboring countries in the US and probably others are contributing weapons, and this is good.

Humanitarian organizations are raising money and, to the extent possible are converting that to humanitarian aid in Ukraine and in the surrounding countries with the million plus refugees. Again, this is good.

However, it won’t be enough.Without an attack on a NATO member, NATO is not going to attack Russia. And the threat of nuclear war is going to prompt the US and other countries to think long and hard about direct military action against Russia.

And then there are the political implications of Biden taking military action. It would have to be a truly bipartisan commitment, and that’s highly unlikely.

So, unless Biden were to accept the risk of a nuclear response, and if he were prepared to commit without bipartisan commitment, the answer to your question is yes, even with the best of intentions, we will allow Putin to kill, starve, and otherwise destroy Ukraine.

I wonder if this kind of scenario was addressed when NATO was being formed, where Russia would attack a non-NATO ally. Probably not, since, with a few exceptions, there were few such allies at the time, and it was probably deemed unlikely that the Soviet Union would attack Finland or Switzerland. The rest of Eastern Europe was under Soviet control.

It is heartbreaking and infuriating, especially when you consider that Ukraine is almost certainly not Russia’s final target.

TPTD and probably working every scenario you can imagine, and probably some you can’t imagine. But what I’d like to see, subject to approval by the Ukrainian government, is a massive allied air assault on Russian targets in Ukraine. And, having made my pronouncement I’m going to go do the laundry.

Right after I finished writing what I did above, and before I got around to the laundry, I saw the op-ed piece in the New York Times today by Boris Johnson. He pretty much says all of the above with the exception of actual military action. Provide arms, provide humanitarian aid wag our finger at Russia to make sure they never do it again, etc. etc. All very reasonable. But not enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/opinion/boris-johnson-russia-putin-ukraine-war.html

[gulliver]

5. The human cost of the solution always has to be balanced against that of the problem

It's unclear what you mean by drawing a hard line. But if it means NATO engaging in warfare against Putin, then you have to balance the potential humanitarian catastrophe of that vs. the catastrophe you propose hypothetically. Should we "allow Putin to kill, starve Millions of Ukrainians?" The answer is, of course, yes if the alternative is an action that would kill or starve Tens of Millions (or even billions in the case of nuclear war). The least harm solution has to be chosen. It's immoral to make other choices.

[Bayard]

6. The Russian army may starve first

We continue to see stories of hungry soldiers, no supplies.

[uponit7771]

8. This👆🏿some of the reports are too good to be true if they weren't videoed by Ukrainians...

... we'd be calling it fake news.

The amount of ass whoopin the northern RA forces are taking is epic

RA can't even hold cities in the south

UA force losses reported more by UA than RA ...

Crazy