Honest question: are we making a mistake by not getting involved militarily to help stop the Russian invasion.

[Noodlegawd]

Open for discussion. This is really an honest question. I'm not criticizing anyone for decisions they've made, as I realize this is very complicated and the potential consequences are massive. So please save your arrows for my other comments.

I understand the obvious reasons for not doing it, but my honest question is whether that will actually get us anything in the long run. For instance, is Putin any more likely to use nukes now if we establish a no-fly zone and or use our air power to help stop his advances, than he is in 6 months when his economy is totally cratered from sanctions and he is surrounded by domestic opposition. Or are we just buying time, simply because "nukes in 6 months" is better than "nukes next week?"

And if he ultimately succeeds in Ukraine despite early setbacks, will he not just be emboldened to go further? And what does our inaction say to China, who knows we probably cannot afford to impose the same kind of sanctions against them?

Or, to view it very cynically, is the potentially inevitable fall of Ukraine an acceptable loss that allows Putin to save face, while the unexpected cost of "victory" will be enough to dissuade him from further "adventures" (and perhaps discourage China from making the same mistake with Taiwan).

Thoughts?

 

[mrjurrs]

Open for discussion. This is really an honest question. I'm not criticizing anyone for decisions they've made, as I realize this is very complicated and the potential consequences are massive. So please save your arrows for my other comments.

I understand the obvious reasons for not doing it, but my honest question is whether that will actually get us anything in the long run. For instance, is Putin any more likely to use nukes now if we establish a no-fly zone and or use our air power to help stop his advances, than he is in 6 months when his economy is totally cratered from sanctions and he is surrounded by domestic opposition. Or are we just buying time, simply because "nukes in 6 months" is better than "nukes next week?"

And if he ultimately succeeds in Ukraine despite early setbacks, will he not just be emboldened to go further? And what does our inaction say to China, who knows we probably cannot afford to impose the same kind of sanctions against them?

Or, to view it very cynically, is the potentially inevitable fall of Ukraine an acceptable loss that allows Putin to save face, while the unexpected cost of "victory" will be enough to dissuade him from further "adventures" (and perhaps discourage China from making the same mistake with Taiwan).

Thoughts?

Anything that delays a potential use of nuclear weapons works for me.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Yeah sure, why not start WW3. Despite what MSM would have the sheeples believe, Putin still has a large support base and the support of the majority of the population, and Russian state media will likely push his narrative. The fact is that this could just reinforce many Russians' beliefs that these sanctions are just another example of Western aggression.
What do you mean by being emboldened further? He's not gonna invade a NATO state.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Anything that delays a potential use of nuclear weapons works for me.

True, but I guess the question is whether it makes it less likely in the long run, or if it just invites more opportunities for situations to arise where there's a chance it will happen.

 

[Noodlegawd]

What do you mean by being emboldened further? He's not gonna invade a NATO state.

How do you know that? How do you know he won't invade another country that is NOT a NATO state, using the same phony justification he used for Ukraine?

 

[ChickenTendies]

How do you know that? How do you know he won't invade another country that is NOT a NATO state, using the same phony justification he used for Ukraine?

The reason Putin invaded Ukraine was because he felt threatened by the prospect of Ukraine gaining NATO membership. There is no benefit for the stability of his rule and Russia as a whole to just randomly invade a non-NATO state like Finland with no plans to join NATO.

 

[Jkca1]

No. We are not and should not become the world police.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The reason Putin invaded Ukraine was because he felt threatened by the prospect of Ukraine gaining NATO membership. There is no benefit for the stability of his rule and Russia as a whole to just randomly invade a non-NATO state like Finland with no plans to join NATO.

That was the excuse he gave, and a lousy one at that given the fact that NATO has not threatened Russia in any way, at least not in decades. We all know that it wasn't the "reason," and there are plenty of other former Soviet republics for him to reclaim.

 

[Lutherf]

While we don't, at least at this point, need to directly engage Russia in Ukraine we damned sure need to actively participate in the defense of Ukraine.

The US, at a minimum, should partner with other independent nations, NATO partners or not, to secure, repair and maintain airfields in Ukraine as well as air corridors for supply and evacuation of Ukrainians. That would be the baseline for humanitarian assistance.

At a higher level we need to block Russian traffic at the Aegean entrance to the Dardanelles and the Gulf of Finland. I'm not talking about stopping just Russian military traffic but ALL Russian traffic through those areas. If Putin wants to trade with the world he and they can do so through corridors on the Pacific. Putin's actions prove him to be a threat to Europe and any access he has to Europe should be made as difficult as possible.

 

[Chomsky]

Open for discussion. This is really an honest question. I'm not criticizing anyone for decisions they've made, as I realize this is very complicated and the potential consequences are massive. So please save your arrows for my other comments.

I understand the obvious reasons for not doing it, but my honest question is whether that will actually get us anything in the long run. For instance, is Putin any more likely to use nukes now if we establish a no-fly zone and or use our air power to help stop his advances, than he is in 6 months when his economy is totally cratered from sanctions and he is surrounded by domestic opposition. Or are we just buying time, simply because "nukes in 6 months" is better than "nukes next week?"

And if he ultimately succeeds in Ukraine despite early setbacks, will he not just be emboldened to go further? And what does our inaction say to China, who knows we probably cannot afford to impose the same kind of sanctions against them?

Or, to view it very cynically, is the potentially inevitable fall of Ukraine an acceptable loss that allows Putin to save face, while the unexpected cost of "victory" will be enough to dissuade him from further "adventures" (and perhaps discourage China from making the same mistake with Taiwan).

Thoughts?

I don't think we are making a mistake here, as I believe we are doing enough behind the scenes that it is likely Putin either gets repelled, or he ends-up withdrawing a'la Afghanistan.

But only 'history' will tell us for sure!

 

[Phys251]

Open for discussion. This is really an honest question. I'm not criticizing anyone for decisions they've made, as I realize this is very complicated and the potential consequences are massive. So please save your arrows for my other comments.

I understand the obvious reasons for not doing it, but my honest question is whether that will actually get us anything in the long run. For instance, is Putin any more likely to use nukes now if we establish a no-fly zone and or use our air power to help stop his advances, than he is in 6 months when his economy is totally cratered from sanctions and he is surrounded by domestic opposition. Or are we just buying time, simply because "nukes in 6 months" is better than "nukes next week?"

And if he ultimately succeeds in Ukraine despite early setbacks, will he not just be emboldened to go further? And what does our inaction say to China, who knows we probably cannot afford to impose the same kind of sanctions against them?

Or, to view it very cynically, is the potentially inevitable fall of Ukraine an acceptable loss that allows Putin to save face, while the unexpected cost of "victory" will be enough to dissuade him from further "adventures" (and perhaps discourage China from making the same mistake with Taiwan).

Thoughts?

If we thought life was disrupted by higher gas prices, wait until we see the disruption caused by nuclear warfare. No thanks.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If we thought life was disrupted by higher gas prices, wait until we see the disruption caused by nuclear warfare. No thanks.

Thanks for your response, but as I indicated in the OP, it just begs the question. We'll see, I guess.

 

[Phys251]

Thanks for your response, but as I indicated in the OP, it just begs the question. We'll see, I guess.

You'll find no love for Vladimir Putin from me. But just because I hate him doesn't mean I feel it's wise to go to war with him.

 

[StillBallin75]

As of right now, I'm completely content with letting the Russians **** themselves over without us doing anything to escalate it other than sending them more Javelins and Stingers, and letting volunteers go and fight.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

There is no benefit for the stability of his rule and Russia as a whole to just randomly invade a non-NATO state like Finland with no plans to join NATO.

Because of Russia's actions, Finland and Sweden now are both considering joining NATO.

 

[WIGDViking]

I think we should go in and drive the Russians out of Ukrainian with or without NATO…

Ukrainian is and alie being attacked by a hostile forieng government that we could easily turn back and dieter them from trying again….

 

[NatMorton]

At some point we need to learn our lesson: we are not the free world's mercenaries. If Russia were, say, attacking Canada then that's a different story as it would be on our geographic doorstep (and besides, Canadians are rather cute in their way and thus worth defending).

If other countries are to come to the Ukraine's aid militarily, they need to be those from Europe. That's their part of the globe, and thus it's theirs to defend, not ours.

 

[Antiwar]

Maybe someyear Earth will house beings that will have a nonviolent international justice system.

 

[NatMorton]

Maybe someyear Earth will house beings that will have a nonviolent international justice system.

Sorry to say, I think your pipe will run out of crack first.

 

[Antiwar]

Sorry to say, I think your pipe will run out of crack first.

I bet Nat(uralLight)Morton thinks he lives in the real world; has a lock on reality; knows 'Thee Truth'; and like that.

 

[NatMorton]

I bet Nat(uralLight)Morton thinks he lives in the real world; has a lock on reality; knows 'Thee Truth'; and like that.

Oh, relax a bit and don't be pissy.

 

[Antiwar]

Oh, relax a bit and don't be pissy.

I'm relaxed and my rubber band is wound tight. Stay gold ironic, Pony Boy.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Open for discussion. This is really an honest question. I'm not criticizing anyone for decisions they've made, as I realize this is very complicated and the potential consequences are massive. So please save your arrows for my other comments.

I understand the obvious reasons for not doing it, but my honest question is whether that will actually get us anything in the long run. For instance, is Putin any more likely to use nukes now if we establish a no-fly zone and or use our air power to help stop his advances, than he is in 6 months when his economy is totally cratered from sanctions and he is surrounded by domestic opposition. Or are we just buying time, simply because "nukes in 6 months" is better than "nukes next week?"

And if he ultimately succeeds in Ukraine despite early setbacks, will he not just be emboldened to go further? And what does our inaction say to China, who knows we probably cannot afford to impose the same kind of sanctions against them?

Or, to view it very cynically, is the potentially inevitable fall of Ukraine an acceptable loss that allows Putin to save face, while the unexpected cost of "victory" will be enough to dissuade him from further "adventures" (and perhaps discourage China from making the same mistake with Taiwan).

Thoughts?

No, don't want to get involved militarily. The sanctions and cooperation of companies and most of the world (china dicks as usual) has been good nad is really hitting Russia hard. I guess problem is, what is Putin's option? He will stay the course to save embarrassment. Hopefully the russian people can oust him. Maybe there is a point need to get involved. The idea that anybody would be stupid enough to launch a nuke that would effectively end the world is madness to me, but then again, humans are a shitty species and we came so very close in the past.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

There is no benefit for the stability of his rule and Russia as a whole to just randomly invade a non-NATO state like Finland with no plans to join NATO.

His actions have encouraged Sweden and Finland to strongly consider joining.. so if anything, he's not having the desired effect.

I guess problem is, what is Putin's option? He will stay the course to save embarrassment.

Conquering Ukraine is one thing, holding it will be another.

effectively end the world

Life will recover - without most of us but the planet has been through mass extinctions before.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No, don't want to get involved militarily. The sanctions and cooperation of companies and most of the world (china dicks as usual) has been good nad is really hitting Russia hard. I guess problem is, what is Putin's option? He will stay the course to save embarrassment. Hopefully the russian people can oust him. Maybe there is a point need to get involved. The idea that anybody would be stupid enough to launch a nuke that would effectively end the world is madness to me, but then again, humans are a shitty species and we came so very close in the past.

I see your point, but if we really think it's 0% likely that he'll launch nukes, why are we tiptoeing around him? We can damage our own economy with sanctions, or we could fly a few thousand sorties over Ukraine to stop his advance in its tracks. Or perhaps we wouldn't need to involve our own air power and there's an in-between option, but it seems that we're even afraid to deliver leftover Polish fighter planes to Ukraine ourselves and want Poland to do it (if we're afraid to do it, imagine how the Poles must feel about it).

I do think the response about letting European countries do it, if anyone is to do it, make sense though. But I guess that just makes my original question broader. Rather than "we" in my OP meaning "the US," just think of it meaning pretty much everybody other than Russia. I for one think it's France's turn.