Never again say "never again."

[TomSlick]

The Russians have long since destroyed any possible legitimate military target in Ukrainian cities. At this point, the Russians are shelling cities that have been reduced to rubble. The only reason to bounce rubble is to kill civilians. Any suggestion that the Russian shelling is merely indiscriminate and not intentionally targeting civilians is now untenable. The Russian target is not the Ukrainian army, it is the civilian population.

This conclusion leads to a question: Is there a line short of the border of a NATO country which the Russians may not cross in their war crimes or NATO will respond with force? Is Russia free to use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine? Can Russian use tactical weapons or enhanced radiation (neutron) bombs in Ukraine without a response from NATO? Is Russia free to depopulate Ukraine by any means?

Is there anything short of crossing a NATO border that will result in a NATO military response? If not, the world should never again say "never again."

[Tickle]

1. Amen 🙏 nt

[I_UndergroundPanther]

2. I agree

I wish there was a line. Russia needs to be bombed back to the stone age.

[TomSlick]

4. I do not advocate widespread bombing of Russia.

IF there is a line, the appropriate response for crossing that line is to strike Russian forces in Ukraine, and Russian artillery and missile batteries that fire on Ukraine wherever they are located.

Added on edit: Russian navy vessels shelling or firing missiles into Ukraine would also be legitimate targets.

[SoonerPride]

13. And if this triggers nuclear war?

Is that a rubicon you are willing to cross?

Be careful opening Pandora’s Box. You might be able to get the the box closed again.

[Happy Hoosier]

42. He is asking where the line is.

It’s a fair question. Is there a point at which the carnage is too much? I think there is. Do you? Would you be willing, for example, to do nothing if Russia lined up civilians and machine gunned them down?

[SoonerPride]

44. Sadly yes. We have no treaty agreement with Ukraine.

Bomb NATO or invade a NATO country and all bets are off.

NATO is the line.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

31. I'm just pissed off at putrid.

Howabout aim for the kremlin?

Anyway I am disgusted by tyrants too many of them fucking up so many people's lives.

[Hoyt]

3. Feel sure if chemical/biological/radiation is used, there will be military consequences.

[TomSlick]

5. Perhaps. If that was a red line, I would have excepted it to be announced.

Maybe such a red line has been communicated to Putin through diplomatic channels.

[Hoyt]

7. This is not like drawing a line in the sand on a cowboy show, at last not in public.

[TomSlick]

10. Understood.

This is the real world and not a movie. In the real world, a genocide is occurring in plain view.

I am skeptical there is any line short of a NATO border than Putin can cross that would result in a response other than a diplomatic condemnation "in the strongest possible terms" and more economic sanctions (although the available list is growing short). Irrespective of what Putin has been told through diplomatic channels, he can safely assume that NATO will abide any atrocity inside the borders of Ukraine to avoid WWIII.

[Hoyt]

11. Unfortunately, we may have to find out.

[bobacatt]

23. It was done in Syria without consequences.

One problem in Syria was the uncertainty over what the chemical was and who released it (there were multiple possible factions) - and in fact, was there even a chemical attack or was it faked by partisans to draw US involvement?

Lining up a bunch of bodies, taking photos and claiming “They all frothed at the mouth and choked and died - I saw it!” is something any propagandist can do. The Russians could do it as easily as the Ukrainians.

In the midst of war, it’s so hard to know what the heck is really going on.

[Hoyt]

24. True, but we sadly were not as concerned about Syria or our own invasion of Iraq.

[bobacatt]

25. Syria was also more complicated

Because there were far more than two factions. And most of them were morally repugnant.

[uponit7771]

35. +1,

[David__77]

6. I think Biden has demonstrated great courage in non-engagement.

…

[Irish_Dem]

8. It appears "never again" is a phrase headed for retirement.

We are the most powerful country in the world with the #1 military force.

But all we can do is stand by while innocents are slaughtered in front of our eyes.

Any country can now threaten nuclear war and the US is brought to a standstill.

So the phrase you cite is no longer true. It is mostly wishful thinking, not reality in the nuclear age.

Yes it is very sad and very frustrating to realize this.

[BigmanPigman]

9. "Very frustrating" is an understatement.

What will it take for NATO to act at this point? How many dead children? How is this allowed to continue in 2022?

[TomSlick]

14. "Never again" is headed for retirement only if we chose to allow it to do so.

The concept of MAD was not that nuclear powers could not engage each other in a hot war. The MAD concept was that any use of nuclear weapons upon another nuclear power was suicidal. Putin may have only a tentative connection with reality but he is not prepared to condemn his children and grandchildren - or at least himself.

Putin can continue in his genocide by rattling the nuclear saber only to the extent we are frightened into inaction at the sound.

[Calculating]

18. Exactly

Call his damn bluff or he wins.

[Irish_Dem]

39. There is a new reality, the rules of engagement have changed dramatically.

"Never again" is no longer a functional truism.

Whether we like it or not.

I like to think our cries of outrage are being heard to some extent, hence the harsh world rebuke of Putin.

But it does not stop the carnage.

Putin most likely believes himself immune from a nuclear strike. He and his family are in secure deep underground bunkers. There is a good missile defense system over Moscow. Putin could care less how many Russians are killed.

Putin placed his troops under high nuclear alert. This probably means nuclear submarines are off the east coast of the US and near the English channel with missiles pointed at the US and European capitals. This could explain why the West is so afraid and refuses to take action.

All of the post WWII bravado and promises to the world are apparently now defunct. We have entered a new phase of reality, the battle lines are being drawn with new rules of engagement.

The Western democracies are greatly weakened after decades of anti-democratic propaganda, and the bribing of corrupt politicians.

China will take measures to protect its financial system from the West, and then proceed with Taiwan, knowing that the threat of nuclear retaliation allows them to do whatever they want.

China and Russia are hell bent upon become the sole 21st century superpowers and are showing us they will use any means possible to do so.

The sooner we wrap our heads around this fact, the better off we will be. And yes it is a very bitter pill to swallow.

[SoonerPride]

12. So what exactly would you have the US and NATO do?

Precisely.

Not vague protestations to “do more.”

Tell me precisely what should be done?

Mass ground force to repel Russia from Ukraine?
Nuclear annihilation of all of Russia?

Tell me exactly what you want done that is not currently being done.

[TomSlick]

15. Since you asked,

(1) Give the Russians an ultimatum to stop shelling and missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian population centers OR we will neutralize any ground based or naval artillery or missile forces, wherever located, that fire on Ukrainian civilians.

(2) If the Russians ignore the ultimatum, follow through on the threat.

If Russia wants to fight a war against the Ukrainian Army, go for it. However, it should be stopped from intentionally targeting civilians.

[SoonerPride]

16. And if this triggers nuclear war you are willing to take that chance?

[Calculating]

19. He's not gonna end the world over Ukraine

Jesus, you guys with that attitude are literally letting a bully win. When he finishes killing millions and crushes Ukraine into dust then he'll start invading more countries and say he'll nuke us if we stop him. You need to stand up to bullies, appeasing them always makes things worse.

[bobacatt]

32. I think Putin is not willing to lose gracefully.

I would like to believe that a western alliance could enter the war and defend Ukraine and there would be no nukes and no spillover: that Russia wouldn’t bomb Warsaw, Juneau, Berlin in response, leading the western countries to bomb Moscow and St Petersburg.

But it is likely that this is exactly what would happen. If any country’s military enters Ukraine and targets the Russian army, then that country is at war with Russia, and Russia is fully justified in striking back however it wants.

The other problem is: once Western armies do get the Russian army on the ropes in Ukraine, Putin doesn’t seem the type to surrender and accept ruin and humiliation (and maybe prosecution for war crimes followed by conviction and hanging). There’s no telling what he would do to avoid that end.

[uponit7771]

36. +1, Putrid is an asshole he's not completely suicidal and neither are the people around him

[AngryOldDem]

43. Exactly.

Anyone who thinks he’s going to stop with Ukraine is delusional. He’s getting mighty damn close now with Lviv and the targets near there.

It’s like, how far do you let a cancer spread before you do something about it? Because that is exactly what Putin is. No option is truly palatable, but doing nothing until it’s too late is worse.

[TomSlick]

20. Are you willing to let Putin run amok at the fear of a nuclear war?

Is there nothing to which Putin can stoop that makes the threat of nuclear war unavailing?

Putin is not so mad as to start a nuclear war over Ukraine. If he is, the Russian military is not.

[SoonerPride]

45. If he invades or bombs a NATO country then we are at war.

Until then we are not militarily engaged.

[TomSlick]

46. That's my question.

If there any Russian atrocity within Ukraine that will not be tolerated? Will the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons within Ukraine result in military intervention? How about rape in the streets? Execution of Ukrainian leadership? Anything?

[SoonerPride]

47. Russia can do anything in Ukraine

And the US will not intercede.

[TomSlick]

48. There was a suggestion by the SecDef this weekend

that the use of chemical weapons would be some sort of red line. He was - appropriately - vague about the response if that line was crossed.

[James48]

17. We need to be talking with our members of Congress

As ultimately they are who has to declare war, if it is for anything other than a clear Article 5 violation.

Even then, we’ll need to have a Congressional authorization of some kind. What mission? What force? Now is the time to start discussions.

[TomSlick]

21. I agree.

The US should not engage in military action against Russia without Congressional authorization. I suspect the grant of such authorization would be enough to deter further targeting of civilians by Russia.

[relayerbob]

22. You packing your bags for Eastern Europe?

Or are you going to send other people's kids off to die as millions are incinerated?

Easy to sit there and make these bold pronouncements, when you have not the first single clue about what is really going on behind the scenes.

[bobacatt]

26. This isn't the Holocaust.

War is awful and innocents are being murdered by the thousand in Ukraine. But:

This is a grave misuse of the words “Never again.” “Never again” is the cry of the victims of the Holocaust - who had no army and were just civilians arrested, tortured and murdered - six million of them, in a targeted attempt to wipe an entire ancient people from the face of the earth.

I gotta point out that there has been war all over the world since WW2. In some of those wars, the US did a lot of the killing. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US started the most recent warring.

“Never again” doesn’t apply to wars. It’s about genocide. (And it’s annoying that the death of five thousand people is often called “genocide” these days, when obviously this is nothing compared to the real genocides of history.)

In Syria’s civil war alone, the death toll has been about five hundred thousand. ( It still isn’t a genocide.). At no time did the American public or NATO, the US, western leaders, etc, cry “Never again!” and express the moral obligation to somehow stop that war and save those lives. Not that anyone could have, of course. But it wasn’t like we tore our hair out and agonized.

[AdamGG]

29. The Holocaust was actually 12 or 13 million killed in the camps

6 million was just the Jews.

[bobacatt]

30. I think the Jews were the people who coined "Never again."

They were the main target from the beginning - of hateful rhetoric, then discriminatory laws and humiliations, then mass murder. They were the scapegoat that Hitler rallied his people against.

Which does not discount the mass murder of Roma and dissidents and many other groups.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

33. Ukraininans

Have been victims of genocide before they call that the holodor.

[bobacatt]

34. Yes, I learned that just recently

2-3 million people starved, and I never knew of it.

No wonder they want to join NATO.

[uponit7771]

37. True, not holocaust but text book definition of genocide (link) since Putrid is by pattern and

... maybe unwritten police trying to kill millions of Ukrainians.

Shit, he's not even trying to hide the fact that he's going after killing citizens by the millions

https://www.google.com/search?q=genocide&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS942US942&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
"a campaign of genocide"

[AdamGG]

27. Russia has nuclear deterrence

A shooting war between NATO and Russia, especially when Putin starts losing, could too easily evolve into nuclear war. Without their nukes, we probably would have already bombed their sitting duck military convoys.

I think it's a little like Hitler in that Putin is more bold because we didn't respond when he invaded Georgia in 2008, we didn't respond when he invaded Crimea in 2014, we didn't respond when he turned Syria into rubble, we didn't respond when he turned Chechnya into rubble.

[L. Coyote]

28. NATO is a defensive alliance, so the question is moot.

Ask instead Who wants to get into this war? and Under what authority? I don't have that authority, you don't, Joe Biden doesn't either.

The world did say never again when we created the UN. I'm looking to the Russian people as the best and quickest way to end this obvious madness by removing the madman from their helm.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I'll probably get flamed for this, but

I think it was a big mistake for Biden to categorically rule out direct military involvement in Ukraine.

Even if that was his actual position, he should have still left some room for uncertainty in Putin's mind.

I feel that his making that statement gave Putin the sense that he could get away with absolutely anything, up to and including genocide, with the guarantee that we wouldn't intervene.

At this point I'm not sure I can even call what's happening a war. It's more like a sustained and continuous terrorist attack.

At this point we should be putting other possibilities on the table, like saying that any government or military official who travels to the West may be subject to arrest for crimes against humanity, and that might also apply to anyone known to have served in the military during this time period.

We need to start getting creative because I think that he might get to the point of actual genocide, or chemical/biological/tactical nukes.

If we've ruled out direct engagement, then we need to be thinking of some truly draconian policies beyond conventional sanctions.

Anyway, that's JMHO.

[bobacatt]

40. This is a good point

After all, this isn’t the first time US and Russia have been on opposite sides of a recent war. In Syria, Russia backs Assad whereas the US backs some rebel militias that the Russians happily bombed to bits..

(I do think that in that case, US and Russia communicated to deliberately avoid killing each other. So it was a different situation. But it does show that the two countries can oppose each other without WWIii breaking out - and that both countries’ leaders are interested in preventing WWIII).

So it would not have been completely crazy for the US to act like it might back Ukraine in a limited way - say with bombing sorties to take out long range artillery.

I also keep thinking: isn’t it possible for a western Air Force to carry out bombing of the Russian artillery but then deny it? Claim Ukrainian pilots did it with borrowed planes? Putin could shake his fist - but would he really attack the suspect country (a bad move that would widen the war and put his army even more in danger)? Wouldn't it be better from his perspective to just hush it up and come to the negotiating table and sign a treaty to save face?

[dwayneb]

41. We allowed all of the above in Syria, remember?

We sat back and watched it happen in Syria. Civilian population and infrastructure targeted using sarin gas, the playbook in Ukraine isn't much different. Sure we chased ISIS around in Iraq and claimed "victory" but in reality we didn't do a damned thing to stop Putin's barbaric assault in Syria.

Based on previous experience, it seems unlikely that we will do anything to stop the wholesale destruction of Ukraine and its population.

In our defense - not convinced that we are ready for WW3 in any case. We need to spend the next year restarting our manufacturing, updating our weapons inventory and deploying troops to the region. Maybe then we will be ready to confront Putin in the Balkans.