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

[ChickenTendies]

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.

NATO has consistently tried to isolate Russia over the years by bringing eastern states into the organization and removing buffer states between Russia and the West, going right up to its border despite there being no need for NATO expansion anymore due to the collapse of the USSR. Putin does not want to annex the former satellite states, simply to prevent pro-NATO governments in those countries. The US knew this, with Sleepy Joe stating in 1997 that the likeliest trigger of war with Russia being the absorption of more countries into NATO, yet they continue towards this path of conflict with little regard of the consequences, wanting to isolate and remove any allies for Russia.

 

[Lursa]

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 Putin does manage to take Ukraine, why would we stop sanctions? As long as he decides to declare Ukraine a part of Russia, no sanctions are lifted.

Their economy cannot take that...with no end in sight. I cant predict the economic arrangements they'd work out with China but aside from that, they would just be mostly isolated from the world, again.

Many foreign businesses are pulling out...loss of $$ and jobs. Streaming services and some social media...cut off. Greatly reduced foreign trade. A miserable, angry population...so conflicts at home.

Yes, there will be "pain" elsewhere. Here, financially. In Europe, much more seriously as they work out other oil and natural gas suppliers and transport. The point is, why would Putin stop at Ukraine? He didnt stop at Crimea.

Yes, I remember Vietnam. Here, we dont go in and fight, the Ukraine falls. (Sorry Ukraine but hopefully we'll get you freed eventually). Yes, it's reminiscent of "the Domino theory." I remember. Question is...is it valid here, now? IMO it looks like it.

 

[Mach]

I don't think nukes would be involved if we established a no-fly zone in Ukraine, over Ukrainian air-space. I just don't see it. Russia would be annihilated. Even conventional war against Russia, unless we threatened their annihilation, would likely only be met with proportional force. That's just my layman's guess.

Would I risk that as president? That's where the issue comes in, both in terms of politics and in terms of whether or not its a wager one should undertake morally.

 

[TheParser]

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).

Thanks for the parenthetical comment in the parentheses.

It gave me my first chuckle of the day.

Oh, yes, some people consider their prime minister to be "cute" and wonder why a few days ago, he was acting like such a tough guy!

 

[Ginger Ale]

This is difficult. In a way, we are probably responsible for this attack on Ukraine. When there president was newly elected we were suppose to send aid, and boost him up with a visit to the U.S. to meet with us. This was knowingly for Ukraine's entry into NATO. They had to prove they were legit, and not corrupt.

Well, then Trump's phone call where he was holding aid, and asked for that "favor" to interfere in our elections against Biden. So, instead, we tried to get them involved in corrupt bullshit.

They might have been a NATO member already if it wasn't for Trump. There might have been no invasion.

 

[NatMorton]

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

You're such an outsider.

 

[Noodlegawd]

NATO has consistently tried to isolate Russia over the years by bringing eastern states into the organization and removing buffer states between Russia and the West, going right up to its border despite there being no need for NATO expansion anymore due to the collapse of the USSR. Putin does not want to annex the former satellite states, simply to prevent pro-NATO governments in those countries. The US knew this, with Sleepy Joe stating in 1997 that the likeliest trigger of war with Russia being the absorption of more countries into NATO, yet they continue towards this path of conflict with little regard of the consequences, wanting to isolate and remove any allies for Russia.

What reason does Russia have to oppose pro-NATO nations on its borders? What business is it of Russia who its neighbors want to ally with?

 

[ChickenTendies]

What reason does Russia have to oppose pro-NATO nations on its borders? What business is it of Russia who its neighbors want to ally with?

The entire purpose of NATO is to suppress and isolate the USSR and now Russia. Because Russia views it as a threat, it is really apprehensive to a clear rival striding up to their border, armed with American technology and missiles. This ofc provokes a response from Russia. Putin believes that maintaining neutral states (preferably closer to Russia) between Russia and NATO is necessary to prevent NATO expansion. Too much poking the bear by NATO and we end up with this.

 

[Serenity]

Sickening knowing that Russian aircraft deliberately targeted and bombed a children's hospital.

A war crime.

Repulsive and unforgivable.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The entire purpose of NATO is to suppress and isolate the USSR and now Russia.

Bullshit. The purpose of NATO is to defend against the obvious imperialistic drive of the USSR and now Russia (which Russia has proven multiple times in the past decade).

 

[PirateMk1]

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?

Regardless of what the movies show to use nukes requires more than one person, it requires a chain of them this applies to the Russians as well as us. That little factoid is important. We need to do a live public test of a couple of our warheads. To remind people who the only ones to use them still have them and they work fine and we will use them. The Russians are not all insane they do however require a refresher in just how big nukes are these days and why no one wins when bunches are lit off.

Side note I bet a lot of people are wishing we had the SDI system right about now. The ability to take down ICBM's in large bunches sure seems like a nice thing to have to go with our nukes. Sword and Shield. Not to mention places like Europe and India might actually fund it if they were protected by it.

As for Ukraine. We sell them all the used soviet and low end NATO equipment they want including planes. Our involvement ends there. They win or lose by themselves. As for other potential Putin targets, arm them up now to the teeth and then some.

 

[PirateMk1]

Sickening knowing that Russian aircraft deliberately targeted and bombed a children's hospital.

A war crime.

Repulsive and unforgivable.

Its called war for a reason. There are no rules.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Bullshit. The purpose of NATO is to defend against the obvious imperialistic drive of the USSR and now Russia (which Russia has proven multiple times in the past decade).

That's not true. NATO was built as a reactionary counter to the growing Soviet influence. It does this by a) reducing Russia's (and the USSR's) sphere of influence through absorption of former soviet satellite states into the NATO block, and b) funding rebels, armed militia, even terrorists, to fight against Russian interventions and perceived Russian support in a warzone, i.e. Syria. If we wanna talk about imperialistic drive, we could easily talk about what the US has been busy doing for the past century.

 

[Noodlegawd]

we could easily talk about what the US has been busy doing for the past century.

Ok, then talk about it. I can't wait to see you make even more apologies for barbaric totalitarian dictators.

 

[Serenity]

Its called war for a reason. There are no rules.

I'm sure that's what the sociopath who ordered the attack on the hospital tells themselves.

 

[PirateMk1]

I'm sure that's what the sociopath who ordered the attack on the hospital tells themselves.

War is organized destruction of property and murder. There is no honor in it. The sooner people realize this the better. Sherman said it best. "War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

 

[justoneman]

Why are there so many lefty Warhawks over this particular war?

 

[Integrityrespec]

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?

We messed around in the past year and failed to take timely actions to try to prevent what he has done. Putin is doing this because he perceived weakness in our leadership. So now how long to we allow this man to wage war on civilians, women and children. What will be left when he finishes? The people of Ukraine are begging for help, to save their country, to save their lives and our leader has said "no US troops will be used in Ukraine". It was as good as an invitation to Putin. Our military are professional soldiers and I imagine they have more than one plan of action depending on how far our politicians allow them to go. As for now we have been weak and indecisive. We have allowed Putin to do as he pleases and made the excuse that if we defied him we might make Putin think it was an escalation of force. Well, that's exactly what he needs to think. He either wants a war or he doesn't. If he does it's going to come no matter how we try to run from it. If he doesn't he'll find a way to stop and pull out before he loses everything.
We have superior air and ground forces by 4-5 to 1 over Russia with our European allies. I don't think Putin wants that war. It's put up time. How long is i going to take to do the right thing, the decent thing the humane thing.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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.

yeah, sure. Our so called experts didn't think he was going into Ukraine either. Experts meaning Biden, his state dept advisers and Austin and Milley.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Putin's not gonna invade a NATO country. That's different from invading Ukraine, a non-NATO and non-EU state. The Russian military does not have the strength to take on NATO either, so it would be suicidal. Either way Russia's a fading power.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Putin's not gonna invade a NATO country. That's different from invading Ukraine, a non-NATO and non-EU state. The Russian military does not have the strength to take on NATO either, so it would be suicidal. Either way Russia's a fading power.

In 1994 The US, UK, Russia, signed an agreement to protect and preserve Ukraine's sovereignty. The Budapest memorandum gave the assurances of the US and Uk and Russia. Two of those I thought you could trust.

 

[ChickenTendies]

In 1994 The US, UK, Russia, signed an agreement to protect and preserve Ukraine's sovereignty. The Budapest memorandum gave the assurances of the US and Uk and Russia. Two of those I thought you could trust.

Well the US promised alot of things namely no Eastern NATO expansion to Gorbachev, but protecting NATO is a matter of credibility to our allies first and foremost. Putin, despite what these "experts" say, is not senile. He made a calculated decision to invade Ukraine based on the fact that he thought Russia could weather sanctions. He committed to an engagement he could win. Fighting nuclear powers and the pre-eminent military power, the (US) is far from ideal and likely wont happen. Putin has been threatening with his nukes because that's his only deterrent, and its more of an empty bluff. The US has to join in if Putin initiates a hot war with NATO, simply because many of those NATO countries rely on the US umbrella of support. There will suddenly be more than enough war hawks in Congress to fight Russia.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Ok, then talk about it. I can't wait.

I thought you'd never ask.

US occupation of Nicaragua (1912-1933)

US coup and occupation in Haiti (1915-1934)

US coup and occuption in Dominican Republic (1903, 1904, 1916-1924)

US occupation of South Korea from provisional gov and support of dictator Syngman Rhee (1945-1948)

US backed regime change efforts in Albania (1949-1953)

Iran CIA backed coup (1953)

Guatemala CIA backed coup (1954)

US support of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, brought to power in coup (1954)

Attempts by the CIA to depose Sukarno in Phillippines (1957-59)

Congo coup (1960)

Bay of Pigs (1961)

Operation Mongoose (1961)

South Vietnam coup (1963)

Brazil coup (1964)

Ghana coup (1966)

Bolivia coup (1971)

Chile coup (1973)

Argentina coup, US endorsed and supported (1976)

Operation Condor (assassinations of opposition leaders in South America) (1976)

Salvadoran coup (1979)

US backed UNITA rebels, Angola (1980-1982)

US backed Contras rebels (1981-1987)

US support of Chad dictator (1982)

US backing of Taliban (1979-1989)

Iraq War (2003)

Syria, Timber Sycamore (2012-2017)

US support of Yemen bombing campaign (2014-present)

Freezing Afghan Bank Funds (2021-present)

Other winners:

Hawaii coup (1893)

"Banana Wars" Honduras (1903-1925)

Cuba occupation (1906-1909)


Our benevolent government...

 

[Noodlegawd]

US backing of Taliban (1979-1989)

Iraq War (2003)

Syria, Timber Sycamore (2012-2017)

US support of Yemen bombing campaign (2014-present)

Freezing Afghan Bank Funds (2021-present)

Your sympathy for Russian invaders and vile tyrants is so heartwarming.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Your sympathy for Russian invaders and vile tyrants is so heartwarming.

I have never stated that I support Russia's invasion, that's an assumption you made. On the contrary, I'm fervently anti-war. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy when you call out Russian imperialism but not the US.