[CodeGlitch]

Here's my prediction:

Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.

As it stands the West can do nothing.

In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).

It seems to be that there's no way out for the Ukrainians :(

[tablespoon]

> Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.

I doubt Ukraine will surrender as long as it can supply its forces with food, drinking water, and ammo.

> As it stands the West can do nothing.

The West can do a lot of things that it chooses not to do out of fear. IMHO one of the biggest mistakes it has made has been to be very, very clear about what it won't do, while letting the Russians be very, very unclear about what it won't do. The result has been the Russian leadership is not afraid, and has taken advantage of the freedom that affords to bomb the shit out of Ukraine.

If NATO had massed soldiers in Poland in January and been deliberately ambiguous about its intentions, it's quite possible that Russia might not have invaded Ukraine at all (and then mocked the NATO by saying "LOL guys, we were really just doing exercises").

[nxm]

Please elaborate on what else the West can do? No fly-zone is a non-starter

[khazhoux]

I agree. I fear Ukraine will “win” when Russia retreats from the scorched, destroyed-to-rubble ruins of their nation.

[pvaldes]

Getting rid of the Russian interference forever would be still pay back. We must remember that Germany was fully destroyed to rubble also and now is the largest economy in the EU.

Under the correct environment things can recover surprisingly fast.

[WJW]

The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians. The Ukraine is so large that to keep it occupied would take hundreds of thousands of troops and Russia cannot afford to keep up such mobilisation for long. They have a few months at most and properly beating an insurgency takes years if not decades.

I don't really buy the Chernobyl argument either. If the NATO starts shooting the Russians already have nuclear weapons to act directly. No need to crack open an old nuclear plant and hope the wind doesn't change.

[pessimizer]

> The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians.

This would be a great tactic to reduce Ukraine to a pile of smoking rubble over a couple of decades of war. I'm not sure that's a great outcome for Ukrainians.

[paxys]

Nuclear fallout in Ukraine is going to affect Russia more than it affects "the west". It makes zero strategic sense to start bombing nuclear plants.

[sillysaurusx]

Russia can't do that. They have no way of moving supplies from Russia into Ukraine. That means Russia's operational capabilities are limited to five days, at which point their troops are stranded.

[Trasmatta]

> In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).

Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

[CRConrad]

> Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.

OTOH, starting a nuclear WW3 would also make zero strategic sense, and still the West is worried about him doing that. So maybe worrying about this is also valid.