What Needs To Be Talked About - How Far Are We Willing To Go?

[Luckyone]

Most knew that Putin *would* go into Ukraine though.

Ukraine isn’t protected by NATO.

Will Putin go further than Ukraine? No, not likely.

The amount of sanctions and problems that have been imposed on him will only anger him more. He will not allow anyone to "show him off" and because of that, he has already talked about using nuclear weapons and he has already attacked a nuclear facility in Ukraine that could have brought radiation to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people had it exploded. In many ways, the U.S. and NATO have already "shown him off" and that is something he is not going to be able to "swallow".

As such, I have serious doubts that if he is able to take Ukraine (likely) that he will stop there. He is not a man that backs off anything, once he sets his mind on it. He thinks he is "king of the world and better than all combined".

 

[Glitch]

I understand. Nonetheless, that means that Putin will win as much as he wants to win, whatever that amount is. We just hope that he doesn't want more than Ukraine and that we can live with ourselves by allowing genocide to occur in this day and age.

If I were the Baltic states, I would be very nervous. If Putin is using the pretext of the Ukraine becoming a NATO member as justification for his invasion, then what must he think of the Baltic states that are already NATO members and on the border of Russia?

 

[element94]

Putin should be killed as soon as possible by the most effective means. Think General Soleimani.

 

[Mithrae]

1) go into a world war?
2) send troops to die?
3) put our country at risk of millions of deaths from a nuclear attack

Bottom line is that it seems that Putin is willing to do all of the above to accomplish his goal and the only way to stop him is willing to go as far as he is willing to go. We are stronger militarily than he is, meaning that the probabilities of stopping Putin are high if we are willing to do the same he is doing.

That's silly. "We're gonna prevent Putin from starting a world war by starting it ourselves!" Seems it'd be more sensible not to engage in a world war until it's actually unavoidable. Dubious slippery slope claims before sanctions have even been given a chance really don't qualify.

If anyone should be considering direct, defensive military engagement against Russia in coming months it's the non-nuclear countries of Europe; countries that have a legitimate reason for aiding their neighbour against another neighbour's aggression, with lesser risks of escalation.

 

[Luckyone]

That's silly. "We're gonna prevent Putin from starting a world war by starting it ourselves!" Seems it'd be more sensible not to engage in a world war until it's actually unavoidable. Dubious slippery slope claims before sanctions have even been given a chance really don't qualify.

If anyone should be considering direct, defensive military engagement against Russia in coming months it's the non-nuclear countries of Europe; countries that have a legitimate reason for aiding their neighbour against another neighbour's aggression, with lesser risks of escalation.

I never said or thought about "starting" a nuclear war. I just stated that we might be heading there because Putin may just start one himself.

 

[Mithrae]

I never said or thought about "starting" a nuclear war. I just stated that we might be heading there because Putin may just start one himself.

That's a risk... and you said that Americans should be "willing to go as far as he is willing to go." In post after post you've pushed the slippery slope that Putin won't be undermined by sanctions, Putin won't stop with Ukraine, Putin won't even care if his own and all Russians' lives are put on the line, and that if Americans don't want to go to war with him, "that means that Putin will win as much as he wants to win, whatever that amount is" (post #5). I don't think you're talking about starting a nuclear war, but what you are advocating - America engaging directly against Russian forces - inevitably will be a world war, especially if your characterization of Putin is correct.

There's a reason the USA and USSR never directly engaged each other throughout half a century of Cold War, but you're pretty explicitly advocating precisely that after less than two weeks of current Russian aggression against a non-allied country. Even if all your slippery slope claims are correct, they're still not a good reason for America to pre-emptively start it off and guarantee that it all goes downhill.

More to the point, it's entirely possible that the Russian billionaires and military/intelligence services end up deciding that the sanctions are hitting them too hard and Putin's leadership is a terminal dead end, and get rid of him themselves. Why not give the non-violent response a chance before pushing for yet more tedious American militarism?

 

[Luckyone]

That's a risk... and you said that Americans should be "willing to go as far as he is willing to go." In post after post you've pushed the slippery slope that Putin won't be undermined by sanctions, Putin won't stop with Ukraine, Putin won't even care if his own and all Russians' lives are put on the line, and that if Americans don't want to go to war with him, "that means that Putin will win as much as he wants to win, whatever that amount is" (post #5). I don't think you're talking about starting a nuclear war, but what you are advocating - America engaging directly against Russian forces - inevitably will be a world war, especially if your characterization of Putin is correct.

There's a reason the USA and USSR never directly engaged each other throughout half a century of Cold War, but you're pretty explicitly advocating precisely that after less than two weeks of current Russian aggression against a non-allied country. Even if all your slippery slope claims are correct, they're still not a good reason for America to pre-emptively start it off and guarantee that it all goes downhill.

More to the point, it's entirely possible that the Russian billionaires and military/intelligence services end up deciding that the sanctions are hitting them too hard and Putin's leadership is a terminal dead end, and get rid of him themselves. Why not give the non-violent response a chance before pushing for yet more tedious American militarism?

I stated that the only way to stop Putin is to go as far as he goes. That means "show a willingness to commit to the principle and don't put conditions". We are stronger than Putin and as far as he is wiling to go, if we meet him we we can beat him. Nonetheless, if we set a line in the sand that we are not willing to go past and he goes past that line, we all lose.

It really is that simple.

We should let Putin know that.

 

[Craig234]

We don't have nuclear war, period. The more Putin uses nuclear threats, the more we look for ways to take them out of his hands. It's a hell of a delicate policy to take power from a leader with nuclear weapons without driving them to use them.

As I've posted and gotten little response to, the lesson here is to eliminate nuclear weapons, before they are used.

 

[Mithrae]

I stated that the only way to stop Putin is to go as far as he goes. That means "show a willingness to commit to the principle and don't put conditions". We are stronger than Putin and as far as he is wiling to go, if we meet him we we can beat him. Nonetheless, if we set a line in the sand that we are not willing to go past and he goes past that line, we all lose.

It really is that simple.

We should let Putin know that.

If you're talking about "We'll use nukes on you if you use them on us" pretty sure that's always been standard US policy, mutually assured destruction. Hell, even first-strike use of nukes has never been taken off the table by the USA, and the nuclear threat against North Korea by the previous president was even more aggressive than Putin's recent sabre-rattling - "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States; they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen ... he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before." You can rest assured that there is probably no line that America won't cross in the wrong circumstances, and in most cases (eg. genocide, nuclear attacks, illegal invasions/occupation) already has done in the past, even within the past two decades. Putin knows that.

But that's not exactly a comforting thought for the rest of us.