Ukraine urges NATO to be ready with sanctions in case of Russian invasion

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Reuters

By Sabine Siebold and Humeyra Pamuk

RIGA, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Ukraine urged NATO on Wednesday to prepare economic sanctions on Russia to deter a possible invasion by tens of thousands of Russian troops concentrated within reach of its border.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said he would make the request to NATO foreign ministers meeting for the second day in Latvia to discuss how to respond to the Russian build-up and avert potentially the most dangerous crisis in relations with Moscow since the Cold War.

"We will call on the allies to join Ukraine in putting together a deterrence package," Kuleba told reporters as he arrived for the talks in Riga.

This should include preparing economic sanctions against Russia, in case it "decides to chose the worst-case scenario", Kuleba said, adding that NATO should also boost military and defence cooperation with Ukraine.


Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/prepare-sanctions-russia-ramp-up-military-cooperation-ukraine-tells-nato-2021-12-01/

[AllaN01Bear]

3. id love to follow the russian money to support all this .

[AllaN01Bear]

2. this guy always wanted to recreate the old earth ussr.

ww 3 anyone? trumps budy at it again.

[bluestarone]

4. I'm fully with the Ukraine wanting sanctions here. BUT

DO NOT do sanctions that cannot be backed up! Plus be ready for ASSHOLE China to get involved too.

[Sapient Donkey]

6. Is there any reason why you think China would get involved in this?

Seems in their interest to just let Russia and the west squabble on their own so they can quietly continue on their path to 2049 with less resistance from a preoccupied US.

[TheRealNorth]

7. They might take advantage of any conflict...

To take Taiwan.

[bluestarone]

15. I get the feeling they are teaming up

Just a feeling!

[Sapient Donkey]

16. Oh no doubt about that.

I'm just thinking that China would have more of an interest allowing that Russia and the west to go at it. I suppose they could always provide material support, but it seems very unlikely Chinese troops would be in eastern Europe helping occupy a conquered Ukraine. Such a distraction would give them more leeway to do whatever they wish to do in the south china sea, Taiwan, etc...

[GB_RN]

5. Russia Has About 100k Troops On The Ukraine Border...

That's the equivalent of two of our army's "field armies": Approximately 50k+ troops per army, as currently organized. The last time we actually utilized a field army was during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

People usually associate our field armies with WW II as large scale, ground combat isn't really a thing anymore - but they were much larger then. Patton's 3rd Army (which is now US Army Central) had over 200k men by December of 1943, prior to the invasion of Normandy (and before he actually took command).

[TheRealNorth]

8. 100k doesn't seem like enough

We had 400k for GW2 as I recall.

[GB_RN]

9. I Don't Know What We Had For Gulf War 2, Honestly...

Last edited Wed Dec 1, 2021, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd have to look it up. Not even sure how many field armies we had for Gulf War 1, but we had at least 1 that I know of, so that was 50k troops, minimum, for the US at the time.

Putin could probably steamroll the current Ukrainian military with that 100k, and he probably has more that he can quickly maneuver into place, if he wanted. Whereas we on the other hand, have next to nothing nearby. The closest stuff we've got is in Germany (maybe a few troops in Poland?), and it would take some effort to get them restaged into a non-combat area of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the pro-Putin, GOPQ-balls would have shitfits if Biden did make a move to counter any Russian aggression.🙄

I hate these treasonous sonsabitches.

[EX500rider]

11. Ninety-one divisions were formed by the U.S. Army in WWII, a division contained about 15,000 troops.

[Torchlight]

14. That was a doctrinal issue.

There was really no practical constraint on the force levels of the US army in WW2 (relative to the other great powers), but Marshall instituted the 99-Division Policy, which capped the number of divisions in favor of keeping those divisions to their full readiness.

Other nations did the quite opposite and kept hundreds of divisions, depleted or not in the field. Contrasting the two policies is almost a six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other approach.

[EX500rider]

12. "Putin could probably steamroll the current Ukrainian military with that 100k"

Currently the Russian Army has about 20 combat brigades that are combat ready, plus a smaller number that are not. The current concentration of brigades on the Ukrainian border is the majority of such brigades the Russians possess. The Ukrainian ground forces have 170,000 active-duty troops versus 350,000 for Russia (and over 500,000 in the U.S.). Since 2014 Ukraine has reorganized and upgraded its ground forces and currently has as many combat ready brigades as Russia. Ukraine also has more reserve troops, who are better trained and dedicated than their Russian equivalents. In other words, Ukraine is not exactly helpless against a Russian invasion but most of the fighting would take place in Ukraine and civilian casualties would mostly be Ukrainian, as would the property damage. If the Russians did not sense a quick victory, they would probably propose peace and Ukraine would accept. As much as Ukrainians would like to humiliate their ancient Russian oppressors militarily, practical considerations take precedence

https://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/20210401.aspx

[Sapient Donkey]

13. I would think even if they had good early successes with some blitzkrieg type action

and they manage to topple the Ukrainian government, they would still have to occupy the country long enough for a puppet Ukrainian government to get up enough strength/power/support to do it on their own. That doesn't seem like an easy task based on the impression I've got from the Ukrainians I've seen discuss this.

[Mysterian]

10. Have the nukes ready too.

Is NATO just going to allow the crazed dictator of Russia to conquer Ukraine?

[Sapient Donkey]

17. No one nuked the US because of our equally unjust invasion of Iraq

I'm not sure nuclear weapons are the answer here. I wonder if a full fledged invasion of Ukraine by Russia would be the self-inflicted wound that kills the Putin regime. How many resources would a war and occupation drain from the already struggling Russian economy? Not to mention the the massive amounts of sanctions that would be put on Russia for it.

[former9thward]

19. Would you like to see a nuclear war over Ukraine?

Involving the deaths of scores of millions of people? Maybe the people of the U.S. should be allowed to vote on that...

[Mysterian]

21. Obviously, if Russia is committed to a militaristic path and invades Ukraine,

NATO needs to have the full inventory of conventional and nuclear weapons ready to stop Russian aggression.

Reference: Munich 1938.

[bluestarone]

22. I AGREE!

[former9thward]

23. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

[Mysterian]

24. No shit

Does that mean Russian aggression and conquest should be ignored?

[Happy Hoosier]

25. I don't want to risk nuclear war, but...

I want an unrestrained Russia under Putin even less. Simply put, Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire. If he is allowed to take Ukraine, then that will just be the first domino to fall. Our failure to precent Russia from seizing Crimea led to this.

[former9thward]

26. Let's have the American people vote on this.

Before we incinerate the U.S. for a country which is not a member of NATO or the EU.

[Happy Hoosier]

27. In the 1930's most Americans...

Opposed confronting Nazi Germany. Sometimes populat opinion isn’t the correct course of action. And frankly, I doubt Putin would risk global destruction for Ukraine. He is is a calculating ambitious man. He has proven that Russia can ride out sanctions, and is probably willing to withstand more if he can expand his empire. But if it’s made clear he will face more serious consequences, I think it’s unlikely he would risk nuclear confrontation. Why would he? He has almost nothing to gain. But sanctions? Piece of cake.

[Ford_Prefect]

18. Closing diplomatic doors and locking up Russian finances would be the most effective choices.

The problem is you would have to do it proactively. Waiting until the shelling starts is too late. It was in Kosovo.

The problem with that is the Russians could turn off the gas and oil pipelines to Europe. So it escalates rather quickly with no obvious advantage over Russia which can be maintained.

As we have seen in Korea a substantial number of troops in place has a deterrent effect but only when overwhelming air power backs it up.

Putin has been setting this up since 2000 in much the same way China keeps slowly and increasingly encircling Taiwan.

[roamer65]

20. We won't do much other than sanctions.