Ok. Are we done with the hard line that it has to be NATO land b4 we can engage?

[boston bean]

Can we do what is right? It’s coming for us no matter which way we turn.

[doc03]

1. Biden said numerous time no troops to Ukraine. What if another NATO country

would go in would we have to enter then?

[former9thward]

5. No.

We have taken on military action in many countries since the formation of NATO and there has been no unified NATO response. Other NATO countries have done the same and we have not acted (UK war with Argentina).

[Progressive2020]

2. World War Three

If we go into Ukraine, we will be at war with Russia, a nuclear power. It would be World War. If Putin stops with Ukraine, World War might be averted. If he eventually goes after Poland or some other NATO country after Ukraine, then we will be at war. If Putin is crazy enough to attack a NATO country, he is probably crazy enough to use nukes. It would be MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction- an old Cold War term. So maybe we can avert World War.

[boston bean]

3. We are already there. People are in denial.

[Treefrog]

15. Nope.

I dislike me these doom posts.

I trust President Biden.

[Progressive2020]

21. Agreed

Biden is an expert on Foreign Policy and has all of the Military experts around him. I trust him to do the right thing.

[PortTack]

33. +10,000

[Disaffected]

42. We are nowhere near there.

Recent reports suggest Russia has deployed almost all their available forces now in Ukraine so the chances of expanding the conflict to other nearby states, and especially NATO members, seems v unlikely.

Now, one may well say that NATO is obliged to enter now to help reduce or stop the killing and destruction happening now but, IMO that runs a severe risk of the Russians going with tactical nukes and who knows what that might escalate to? It would run a distinct risk of strategic use of nuclear weapons and that could well mean the destruction of civilization.

We have to be realistic about this no matter how much it hurts to stand by.....

[CrackityJones75]

50. No. We aren't.

[RussBLib]

6. that is just an assumption

it's almost becoming knee-jerk.

If we shoot down a Russian plane, it's WW3.
If NATO goes in, it's WW3.
For all we know, strangling Russia economically could start WW3.

No one can predict the future. Predicting what Putin will do is a cottage industry.

Do the right thing and let the chips fall. Cowering in front of Putin seems no answer at all. We have much-vaunted Special Ops. Seems we could insert a few Special Ops teams and have them cause some serious havoc among the Russians.

It's very hard watching this gradual destruction of Ukraine and knowing that thousands are fleeing for their lives.

[Progressive2020]

14. Strategy

It is not cowardice, it is strategy. We will not go into Ukraine unless Putin invades Poland or some adjacent NATO country. It is not complicated. Who knows what Putin will do? No one. But we know what we will do- support Ukraine with money, weapons, fuel, and food. But we will not send US forces as that would definitely start a war with Russia. The lines are pretty clear.

[PortTack]

34. Nailed it!

[lagomorph777]

69. "Cowering in front of Putin seems no answer at all."

+1000

Putin knows he's dead in 20 minutes if he lets a nuke fly. He's too selfish to be suicidal. All these new DUers coming in to persuade us that he's about to launch nukes, well, seems very peculiar to me...

[Caliman73]

76. I am not a new DUer.

While I do not think that Putin wants a nuclear confrontation, or that he is insane, as others have posted. I am also not of the opinion that Putin is "too selfish to be suicidal". Putin seeks power. He wants to be powerful. If the threat exists, that would eliminate his power, and he saw his dreams of empire crumbling, we really don't know what he is capable of.

Fiona Hill, who made her career studying Putin and Russia, seems to think that he would use nuclear weapons. So do other experts.

Not wanting to escalate and provoke a nuclear conflict is not "cowering".

[AngryOldDem]

9. I'm tired of this argument.

“Maybe we can avert World War.” By trying to reason with a psychopath and deprive rich Russians of their toys? It’s clear Putin will not stop until he is made to stop.

As boston bean said, we’re already in WWIII.

Ukraine was promised when it broke away and gave up its nukes that it would be protected. What happened to that?

[uponit7771]

48. +1, protected didn't mean give weapons. Now Taiwan has to be concerned that protection means ...

.... you're on your own with our guns and missiles at your side

On the other hand we've nuked their economy with slow blast bombs that will make Putrid think like it would've been better to actually use nukes

This whole thing ends when Russian forces don't get paid any money

[Javaman]

77. Ukraine didn't have nukes. they were always russian property protected by russia.

this has been a major falsehood that's been perpetuated by the rumor mill.

at the fall of the soviet union all nukes were removed by old soviet forces. Ukraine had nothing to give up.

this is the equivalent of US having nukes in say, Poland. they are not Poland's property. they would always be ours.

so the argument that Ukraine gave them up really has zero meaning at all.

[Happy Hoosier]

10. So to be clear...

No matter the atrocities, no matter the human tragedy in Ukraine, you oppose intervention under any circumstances.

[Progressive2020]

18. Intervention

We will supply money, weapons, fuel and food. We will absorb and protect Ukraine refugees. But we will not send US military forces into Ukraine. If we do, it is World War. We are not yet in a World War, but we are on the edge. If Putin stops in Ukraine, it might be averted. If he goes into a NATO country after Ukraine, then we will act. Right now we are on a razor's edge. It is not a good situation, but we must be very careful that it does not expand and become even worse.

[Happy Hoosier]

19. Then it is to our eternal shame. NT

[Progressive2020]

25. Maybe

But a worse shame would be a Nuclear War that might have been averted.

[Happy Hoosier]

32. I don't relish the thought of nuclear war.

But neither am I willing to sacrifice Ukraine to Putin out of fear of it. If we allow ourselves to be so easily cowed, we are truly shamed.

We guaranteed Ukraine borders and independence in 1994. Was that just bullshit?

[Progressive2020]

35. Fair Enough

I respect your position. If Ukraine were in NATO we would already be in it. We will see what develops. I trust Biden and his team.

[Happy Hoosier]

36. I wish the President success! NT

[PortTack]

39. Read about Churchill and FDR and their conversations in 1941 pre Pearl Harbor

President Biden is in the exact same spot. It’s not the threats Putin is making that keeps him from acting.

He’s trying to keep a bad situation from becoming much much worse

[Happy Hoosier]

43. I get that... but...

If Ukraine is lost to Putin it will be seen as a massive failure, despite Biden’s heroic and successful efforts to unite the west.

[PortTack]

45. JMHO...I don't think we or the EU will let Ukraine fall to Russia. It may be a long slog but in

End. The Russians will fail

[Happy Hoosier]

60. I really hope you're right. NT

[uponit7771]

49. The world has literally sent the Russian economy into NKorea land has that no intervention? When the

.... Russia forces don't get paid this thing ends

[David__77]

23. That's so basic.

I’m really glad that Biden acts on that basis.

[Calculating]

29. He's a bully who's bluffing

It's time to stop being afraid of him and call his damn bluff already. He knows full well that if he uses nukes everyone dies, is Ukraine really worth that to him? Tell him to go back in his corner and establish a no fly zone.

At what point should the world get involved? What if he starts wholesale massacring people by the millions?

[lagomorph777]

68. Welcome to DU. Nice try with the nuclear threat.

NATO exists for this one sole purpose. It's time for NATO to do its job.

[PufPuf23]

4. Wes Clark seems to agree.

Thank you for the thoughtful posts.

[boston bean]

11. Thank you for acknowledging me.

Really!

[Hav]

13. I liked Wesley Clark in 2004

but I recently read that one of the reasons for his early retirement was that he demanded actions that were seen as too confrontational towards Russia during the Kosovo conflict. It caused a British Nato Commander to defy his orders by saying that he won't start WW3 for Clark.

Even if Clark may be right that only a more active role can save Ukraine and he might have had a good point back then, these kind of stories make me think twice when he seems to have views with comparable consequences now.

[Treefrog]

17. Yes.

I’ve read that too.

[sop]

7. Send in a large NATO peacekeeping force...you know, to deal with Putin's "peacekeepers."

[boston bean]

8. There is an idea.

[doc03]

12. That is what the UN has done in the past why do we even deal with the UN? It is

useless if Russia has the veto power.

[vercetti2021]

16. Something needs to happen right fucking now

If a reactor explodes. Its nuclear warfare. End of story. This has gotta fucking stop now.

[Treefrog]

20. Do you think Biden isn't on top of this?

[vercetti2021]

22. It doesn't need to be all on Joe

He isn't the supreme leader of the world. The other world leaders also need to get involved in this

[boston bean]

26. He needs the American people behind him.

Lots of people here are just completely anti war no matter what. I get it. But it is not realistic.

[Calculating]

30. Exactly

You can't be antiwar when a madman is going on a rampage. You gotta stand up to said madman or it just gets worse like it did with Hitler.

[Treefrog]

31. Lots of people here are against nuclear destruction

of the world. Period.

[boston bean]

37. Well, I guess I fear living in autocracy more and a slow march to annihilation.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

53. Lots of us anti war members here are combat vets,

we've seen war up close and personal and want to never see it again.

Unless you've "been there, done that", then you have no idea of what war is really like, so, IMO, the one not being realistic here is you.

I trust Pres. Biden, our Military leaders and the rest of the world leaders, they're doing every thing they can to avert a nuclear strike while at the same time, strangling Russia's economy.

Yes, I understand the sentiment of wanting to go strike the Russians in Ukraine, even if I oppose it, and tragically, untold numbers of Ukrainians will be injured and killed, but think about the consequences of all out war between Russia and the US/NATO and times the number of dead and wounded by magnitudes, a world destroyed.

I want to avoid that if there's any chance of ending this by strangling the shit out of the Russian economy.

[boston bean]

56. I respect it. I get it, as I stated. I to hate war. But we have a situation similar to hitler.

I am drawing a line with mass genocide and threats to Western Europe.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

58. Respectfully,

I'm drawing a line at mass human extinction and a world destroyed.

Please, give the sanctions the time needed to destroy the Russian economy, that in itself will bring down Putin, either his Military will remove him or the Oligarchs will.

Note, there's a huge difference between Hitler and Putin, Hitler didn't have nukes whereas Putin does.

[boston bean]

59. I am not convinced we would have a nuclear holocaust.

He threatens. You think china would stand for that? I doubt it.

We can’t huddle in a corner because he has nukes. Otherwise we lose our freedoms and our democracy. I fear an autocracy more. We almost had a bloodless one beginning in 2016.

I am not ok with that prospect.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

61. I respect and understand your position,

even though I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

[boston bean]

62. Same here. Right back at you. It is a terrible conundrum.

I guess in life I have always seen a bottom line. The bottom line here is clear to me. We will be drawn in in some way.

People being ok if nato lands are attacked aren’t afraid of what might happen when we act.

I think better to act prior to that.

Although there is a slim chance he will stop at Ukraine, with a complete annihilation of the country.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. Look at it this way,

if he sets foot on any NATO member country, I would 100% support combat ops against Russia, and make no mistake, NATO would destroy the Russian military in a conventional war, and I've got to believe that the Russian military leaders know this and also know that nobody wins a nuke war and would likely remove him upon his order to release the nukes.

Here's something else to ponder, the nuclear missiles are controlled by the Strategic Rocket Forces, but the warheads are controlled by a special unit of the FSB, and from what I understand, not everyone in the FSB are on board with this illegal invasion.

[doc03]

24. What happens if they blow up that nuclear plant, that would be the equivalent

of dropping a dirty bomb. Chernobyl is a 25KM no mans zone, what would that be the entire country?

[H2O Man]

27. One thing I keep

in mind is that Putin will not back down. Like a trapped rat, he will always increase the violence. There is no reason to believe he will stop with Ukraine. A strong case can be made for confronting that reality now. I'm able to apprecoate the opposite view, and am probably 50-50 now.

I have heard, as others here no doubt have, that volunteers gtom other lands are going to help the people of Ukraine. I hope that this is accurate.

[boston bean]

28. I also teter. But I am like 70% confront sooner rather than later.

[NoMoreRepugs]

38. Wondering how many of the "can we do what's right posters"

saw action in an armed conflict. Just curious.

USMC 1971-1977.

[PortTack]

40. Thank you!

[boston bean]

41. Have I had to have seen action to understand what is happening?

[NoMoreRepugs]

44. First, wasn't singling you out. Second - what intense

armed conflict for a sustained period of time gives most is a far different viewpoint going forward about committing others to engage in hostilities. Just an opinion. I truly feel for those people - all of them - both sides.

Hoping against hope that sanctions and reason can somehow resolve this without a massive commitment of men and arms.

Time will tell.

[AngryOldDem]

46. Straw man.

[Skittles]

47. I am curious how many served, period

I am suspecting.....not very many

[dwayneb]

52. Agreed - and thanks for your service

I've never been in the military, but I have a pretty thorough knowledge of WW1 and WW2 beyond just the dates and the statistics. Every thinking person should go through those histories to really comprehend what it means to wage a war at that level. I don't think any of us can truly wrap our minds around the enormity of those conflicts.

It's easy to say things like "NATO must go into Ukraine now", but starting WW3 with NATO and US in direct conflict with Russia, will have consequences that will go far beyond anything we can imagine today. The devastation of Ukraine's infrastructure and enslavement of their population will be a small bump on the road in comparison to where that conflict would lead. It absolutely could lead to nuclear war at some level.

As others have said, I do trust Biden's approach, and I trust the DOD to have a plan. In fact I trust the DOD more than I do any politician here in the USA. We are now committing more troops to the neighboring NATO countries, have not heard about naval deployments but have to believe that is happening too.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

54. I did.

2 tours in Vietnam and Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

USMC 1964-1999.
Semper Fi.

[NoMoreRepugs]

55. Have followed your posts. You know what I'm talking about.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

57. I absolutely do.

[Strelnikov_]

51. It really appears that Threads needs to be broadcast again

Even a limited nuclear exchange, 3/4ths of the US population will die from starvation.

Putin is done. His military is a shell. Time is on Ukraine's side. Some day they will be back, unless there is a nuclear exchange, then no one will be back.

[msfiddlestix]

64. Putin doesn't seem like he's done by any stretch, military a shell?

Maybe that's true but in comparison military strength to Ukraine's is it really?

Seems he's got enough military strength to accomplish his goals with Ukraine, judging from what I've seen so far.

[Strelnikov_]

75. Russia's land forces are much weaker than analysts thought, it appears.

They are not a threat to NATO. They are a threat to Ukraine, as you reference.

My point, do we risk nuclear war and the end of everything for one nation?

I say no, when we can wait it out and help the Ukrainian's rebuild in five to ten years, once Putin is gone and the oligarchs want access to foreign money laundering again. We also help Russia rebuild, not make the same mistakes we made in the 90's.


Just for reference, a study conducted three or so years ago conclude that a limited exchange of 20 nukes between India and Pakistan would result in 20% (or 25%, I forget now) of the world's population starving just due to lowered agricultural production in the US midwest due to global cooling from the smoke caused by burning cities.

Now, I will let the reader figure out what the food situation in this country would be if just a few key points are lost, Houston (petrochemicals), New Orleans (petrochemicals, transshipment), and few key 'ball bearing' (WWII reference) sites, such as the LOOP, Colonial Pipeline terminal, and a few other critical energy infrastructure locations.

My bet, half of the US dead from starvation. The rest, wishing they were dead.

[MineralMan]

65. I am going to defer to President Biden.

He is getting advice on this from people who are experts experienced in dealing with warfare and Russia. He is also a person who considers more than just an emotional response to things like countries attacking and being attacked.

I have opinions about this Ukraine conflict, which I do share, but I do not have the same level of information or experience that President Biden has. I will rely on him to make the best possible decision when all things are considered. And all things must be considered.

I, too, want us to do what is right. However, I am not as certain as you appear to be about exactly what is right.

[boston bean]

66. I am not certain. The OP was a question.

[MineralMan]

67. And my reply was an opinion.

[boston bean]

70. And mine was a correction to that opinion.

[Happy Hoosier]

71. I am not 100% certain I know what's right, but...

... I am 100% certain that the line must be drawn at Ukraine. I do not get that sense from the President so far, and that is disappointing to me.

[MineralMan]

72. I have no idea what President Biden is thinking.

I have never even met the man. I also don't know what Putin's mindset is. I don't know enough to be either disappointed or encouraged. The decision is not mine, so I must trust the leadership we have in place. Imagine the weight of this decision on the President's mind.

Thank goodness neither I nor you will be making any of the required decisions.

[Happy Hoosier]

73. That's fair.

And he is a skilled. I hope that that there is a ton happening behind the the scenes. If there is, I will be the first to sing his praises.

But right now I have friends in Kyiv and Kharkiv begging for help, and the best I tell them is that people in Moscow will feel the economic pinch soon. Pretty cold comfort.

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

74. EU and NATO have repeated many times, we will only directly defend NATO land, full stop