Should NATO Go Into Ukraine?

[ttwtt78640]

What's the line where the world decides that risking a nuclear holocaust is worth it?

Exactly.

 

[gboisjo]

Yep, but what is that line worth if it allows Ukraine (or Taiwan?) to be taken by force? If (when?) Iran joins the nuclear nation‘s club then what?

No Super Power is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, we simply don't want a conventional war with Russia, We don't have the spine, back bone to help our friends in Ukraine in ways that really matter.

The same goes for Western Europe, the only way they'll get involved is if we do. Constantly hearing about sanctions is pathetic and sickening.

The shit stain is not going away on Biden, every time he turns around I see it. I'm a Viet Nam veteran so I know what war is.

 

[trixare4kids]

This article explains NATO's obligation.

How the response to Russia’s invasion would be different if Ukraine was a Nato member

The Ukrainian military has been left alone to fight Russian troops after Moscow launched a full-scale invasion yesterday morning

inews.co.uk

 

[gboisjo]

What's the line where the world decides that risking a nuclear holocaust is worth it?

No super power is going to use nuclear weapons ,,its an excuse to stand by and watch a tyrant invade a sovereign country.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No Super Power is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons, we simply don't want a conventional war with Russia, We don't have the spine, back bone to help our friends in Ukraine in ways that really matter.

The same goes for Western Europe, the only way they'll get involved is if we do. Constantly hearing about sanctions is pathetic and sickening.

The shit stain is not going away on Biden, every time he turns around I see it. I'm a Viet Nam veteran so I know what war is.

IMHO, Putin would not last a week (as the leader of Russia) if US and NATO nations refused to buy “his” oil and natural gas.

 

[Artymoon]

The trick would be to not have Russia Vito the move.

Correct. So that makes the UN basically symbolic as all of the permanent members have veto powers. Of course, if a smaller country threatens the balance the UN name will be applied like an executive producer in movie credits. The big dogs have nothing to really fear from the UN.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?

We can't.
For one thing, NATO is a treaty organization operating under a contractual agreement between (right now) thirty member nations and USA cannot just breach that contract by acting unilaterally.
NATO has steps that determine its willingness to plot a course change, and believe me, Putin knows what they are. He knows he can trash Ukraine because they are not NATO members,
although if they survive this attack and/or Putin is (a) overthrown or (b) dies, that may change.

Ukrainians overthrew their Russian overlord, and now Russia has decided to cancel that move and rejigger the will of the people and we saw echoes of that on January 6th but fortunately for us, we
escaped that by the skin of our teeth. Be assured, US fascists (esp the ones in the GOP) are watching Putin's every move as a tutorial and they will be asking for more help for THEIR next attempt.

But back to NATO...we CAN'T just flick a switch and NATO or not, we can't just turn on a dime...the ship of state is large and lumbering.
But let Putin take Ukraine and keep moving West and you may be shocked at how quickly thirty member nations plot just such a course correction.

 

[longview]

Correct. So that makes the UN basically symbolic as all of the permanent members have veto powers. Of course, if a smaller country threatens the balance the UN name will be applied like an executive producer in movie credits. The big dogs have nothing to really fear from the UN.

I think it could be argued that Russia show recuse itself from a vote about if Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal!

 

[Sweden]

At first, I was a no but I have changed my mind. I think NATO should go in, drive Russia back and get out. Russia is a serious world threat and Ukraine is unfairly bearing the brunt for all of Europe. It doesn't seem right to me to let this happen to the brave Ukrainian people but is their an appetite to defend them?

European NATO countries - UK excepted - have run down their forces to such an extent that they are unable to fight a war with Russia. It is questionable whether the US would be willing to send vast numbers of troops and equipment to Europe.

There is also considerable risk involved in attacking a nuclear power.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

IMHO, Putin would not last a week (as the leader of Russia) if US and NATO nations refused to buy “his” oil and natural gas.

I think we and the rest of NATO are pondering exactly how to do just that, it's just going to take a little time, that's all....this isn't a video game.
We have to simultaneously ramp up our own production AND increase vehicle efficiency AND reduce our dependence on oil altogether.
And that is a mighty tall order, one which was interrupted a few years back, but we're getting back on board with our efforts to do that now.

In 1973 the Saudis placed us under an embargo, and it took about a year or two for our own petro industry to respond, and when they did, the Saudis backed down
almost immediately, and suddenly the embargo was a blurry memory. If we had stuck with our goal of efficiency back then we'd be in a better position now.
Car manufacturers hated efficiency and we wound up with government mandated efficiency instead, which is efficiency in the worst way possible.
Car manufacturers should have made efficiency "FUN".
They didn't want to.
So we wound up with the worst cars imaginable.

What followed instead was "The Malaise Years" where Cadillac would sell you a car with a 500 cubic inch V8 that had 160 horsepower.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That 40 mile long caravan, does Ukraine not have an air force? missiles? A few missiles would all it would take to take out that caravan.

**** Russia, it may get to a point others get involved

Ukraine's military has way more than enough on their hands just protecting their cities right now and that includes air power I'm afraid.
But believe me, Ukraine most certainly wants to do something about that convoy and once it has enough extra resources and a long enough break,
I believe they will.

 

[Callen]

We can't.
For one thing, NATO is a treaty organization operating under a contractual agreement between (right now) thirty member nations and USA cannot just breach that contract by acting unilaterally.

I never suggested that the US act unilaterally. That would be a big mistake. I said should NATO go in, not the US. Of course, it would have to be agreed upon by the member nations.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think we and the rest of NATO are pondering exactly how to do just that, it's just going to take a little time, that's all....this isn't a video game.
We have to simultaneously ramp up our own production AND increase vehicle efficiency AND reduce our dependence on oil altogether.
And that is a mighty tall order, one which was interrupted a few years back, but we're getting back on board with our efforts to do that now.

In 1973 the Saudis placed us under an embargo, and it took about a year or two for our own petro industry to respond, and when they did, the Saudis backed down
almost immediately, and suddenly the embargo was a blurry memory. If we had stuck with our goal of efficiency back then we'd be in a better position now.
Car manufacturers hated efficiency and we wound up with government mandated efficiency instead, which is efficiency in the worst way possible.
Car manufacturers should have made efficiency "FUN".
They didn't want to.
So we wound up with the worst cars imaginable.

What followed instead was "The Malaise Years" where Cadillac would sell you a car with a 500 cubic inch V8 that had 160 horsepower.

The people in Ukraine don‘t have much time.

 

[Rogue Valley]

If Russia does indeed follow this path - then I believe you may be correct.

Thus far, they have not and I pray it does not come to this.

Then you haven't paid attention to their wars in Chechnya and Syria.

The Russians leveled Grozny in Chechnya, and leveled Alepo and Idlib in Syria.

 

[Rogue Valley]

What's the line where the world decides that risking a nuclear holocaust is worth it?

I would submit that no one knows yet.

10,000 civilian deaths? 100,000? 1,000,000?

 

[BirdinHand]

I never suggested that the US act unilaterally. That would be a big mistake. I said should NATO go in, not the US. Of course, it would have to be agreed upon by the member nations.

NATO can't just "go in" like that.

The only time NATO has officially acted was after Sept 11th when the US was attacked.

Member nations of NATO or the UN could decide to intervene - but NATO wouldn't be 'activated' to intervene because NATO is a defensive treaty alliance and no NATO country has been attacked.

 

[Lutherf]

Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO. There is absolutely zero justification for NATO sending forces into Ukraine.

If there was genocide, then it would be a different story. At this juncture, it does not appear as though Russia is committing genocide and slaughtering large numbers of civilians.

Would you support enforcing a "no fly" zone?

 

[Artymoon]

I think it could be argued that Russia show recuse itself from a vote about if Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal!

No doubt but I'm sure the UN was set up to benefit the permanent members, not necessarily everyone else. The only group they have to worry about at the moment is NATO. Unless Putin is just off his rocker, they'll only push to the edge.

 

[BirdinHand]

Would you support enforcing a "no fly" zone?

NATO?

No.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, NATO protections do not apply to them.


Eventually a NATO country or UN country? Potentially.

 

[trixare4kids]

IMHO, Putin would not last a week (as the leader of Russia) if US and NATO nations refused to buy “his” oil and natural gas.

The best way to take him down is to do the above. I doubt any of them have the resolve to impose major energy sanctions.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Why would it make sense to help Ukraine fight Russia in the air, yet not on the ground? Either way, it is helping Ukraine directly confront (invading) Russian military forces.

Ukraine has no air force to speak of. Ergo, Russia has mastery of the skies.

Air war can be devastating. The best hope is that Stingers are pouring across the Poland border.

And of course anti-tank weapons. The Javelin is great but it requires ~72 hours iof training.

There are many lightweight anti-tank missiles that are very good with no training required such as the Saab NLAW - aim, fire, and forget. Those are what Ukraine needs right now.

 

[Lutherf]

NATO?

No.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, NATO protections do not apply to them.


Eventually a NATO country or UN country? Potentially.

NATO balked on allowing Ukraine membership because they were concerned that allowing membership would provoke Russia. That no longer needs to be a concern as Russia appears to not have required that provocation to attack. It's time to DEFEND Ukraine. At present there is no need to attack Russia but defending Ukraine is ABSOLUTELY warranted.

 

[Callen]

The Javelin is great but it requires ~72 hours iof training.

The Ukranian Army is already trained on Javelins and has used them. On the to call with Trump the President of Ukraine said that they were prepared to buy "more" javelines from the US which prompted Trump's famous......"I want you to do me a favour" response. I do believe that subsequently they were allowed to buy more.

Ukrainian Troops Have Been Firing American-Made Javelin Missiles At Russian-Backed Forces

The disclosure that Ukrainian troops have been employing Javelin missiles in combat comes as fears grow that Russian could launch a new invasion.

www.thedrive.com

 

[BirdinHand]

NATO balked on allowing Ukraine membership because they were concerned that allowing membership would provoke Russia. That no longer needs to be a concern as Russia appears to not have required that provocation to attack. It's time to DEFEND Ukraine. At present there is no need to attack Russia but defending Ukraine is ABSOLUTELY warranted.

NATO can't defend someone that is not a member of NATO.

Other countries *can* defend another country if they so feel inclined.

I don't know if that is wise. I understand being very uncomfortable, saddened, and sickened by what is currently happening in Ukraine. But this is why we have individuals that specialize in foreign policy, diplomacy, and military matters. All we can do is trust that they're dealing with the situation to the best of their abilities.

 

[trixare4kids]

NATO balked on allowing Ukraine membership because they were concerned that allowing membership would provoke Russia. That no longer needs to be a concern as Russia appears to not have required that provocation to attack. It's time to DEFEND Ukraine. At present there is no need to attack Russia but defending Ukraine is ABSOLUTELY warranted.

Putin is committing war crimes, and genocide, (killing civilians indiscriminately) so, yes, time for NATO to send in military enforcements.
Instead, we have Biden wanting to send in billions of our tax dollars instead. Why no energy sanctions?