Question- how feasible is it to throw Russia out of the UN Security Council? If not the whole UN. But at least that or the Human Rights Council.
Wouldn't Russia have to vote Russia off of the security council? Is so, then guessing not that likely.
Not at all. They are a permanent member of the Security Council, which comes with veto power over anything before the council. There was some noise about Ukraine challenging Russia for the spot, since it was initially given to the USSR, but the fact that we have treated Russia as the successor state to the USSR in just about every way for the last 30 years undermines that hard.
That’s the wiser move. There is a very small amount of explosive material, relative to other munitions, in MANPADS. This is because it doesn’t take much of an explosion to bring down an aircraft, and you sacrifice speed and maneuverability by loading more into the warhead than necessary. So while you could convert the inoperable ones into IEDs, old artillery shells are better, and — as you point out — cannibalizing two that don’t work to make one that does is going to give you a better weapon in the end.
Stupid comment on two counts. Save political victory laps for victories. Despite stronger resistance than expected, Ukraine is losing their country, and we are doing next to nothing about it. Or more generously, we aren’t doing nearly as much as we could be.
I strongly suspect that Russia will end up losing this conflict over the long-term. Even if they "win," they are left with an ungovernable and destroyed country requiring substantial capital investment with no ability to do so. And in return, they can't import anything, as their currency is trashed, will need to provide capital investors with absurd returns to get any investment, and they will likely see a return to the bread lines.
It seems odd to have a CLEAR bad actor like this as a “permanent” member. It basically undermines the whole thing. At the very least that nonsensical veto power has to go. Maybe we need a “new” UN.
Do we adjust domestic agriculture given the prospect of a protracted conflict that will take 30% of the worlds wheat off the global market? And if so, how is that done? Is there an agency that gives guidance on such matters? Some temporary central control seems in order. Maybe a bit less corn and a bit more wheat? Good time to go Atkins / Keto.
It is kind of the whole purpose of the UN though, which is distinct from bodies that are more likely to act like NATO. The idea is that everybody is supposed to be a member regardless of how bad an actor they are. People need to think of the UN less as some sort of world government and more as a global discussion forum and attempt to increase the costs of at least some (although certainly not all) conflicts.
Ukraine and Belarus. But there isn't a scenario in which Ukraine really "wins" this exchange either. That doesn't mean that there aren't winners, one of whom is likely the US if Putin's kleptocracy crashes.
My pie in the sky is another February 1917, but this time we keep the Bolsheviks out and allow liberal western democracy to flourish. Hey - a guy can dream.
So your idea of best-case scenario is protracted insurgency, depopulation, and land destruction of Europe’s bread basket in the hope that it sufficiently destabilizes Putin, say, years from now? Do I have that right?
No, the best case scenario is that Putin realizes how badly this is backfiring. Not a likely scenario, but it is the best case. Another better case scenario is that it doesn't take years to destabilize Putin's regime. That seems relatively more likely. When your adversary is making a mistake, you probably shouldn't be stepping in to stop them. Just make it hurt as much as possible.
And how could we make it hurt more? Any military intervention allows Putin to spin this to his populace as a patriotic duty rather than an unpopular war of choice that is destroying their economy, lowering the pain to his government.
