I find myself becoming increasingly hawkish with respect to Ukraine

[Stinky The Clown]

I know and understand the conventional wisdom. Arm the Ukrainians but do not engage directly with Putinian troops. Wait for the Ukrainians to get the job done. Don't give them air cover because NastyVlad could become miffed at us and shoot. A No Fly zone would engage his airplanes and turn NastyVlad into MadVlad and ARMAGEDDON.

This thinking, it seems to me, is exactly what enables him. I mean, really, right now we are playing a game of attrition, waiting for his tanks to run out of gas and his troops to run out of food.

Meanwhile, the country that has BEEN OUR FRIEND is being savaged with actual atrocities and actions that are WAR CRIMES. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. GENOCIDE LIGHT.

But our strategy is to wait and see? Hope for the best?



NNNNOOOOOO



You stand up to bullies. You take your licks. You give your kicks.




Yeahyeah. Nukes.

I really don't think he will do that. He knows that if he does he will lose. The threat is a bigger deterrent to us than actually doing it. He is not stupid, even if he is crazy.

Then there is the whole NATO membership thing. Think about it. If Hungary is a member, why not Ukraine? If Montenegro is a member, why not Ukraine? There are other examples of NATO members less suited to membership than Ukraine. In my view, Ukraine is not a member solely because of Putin. Every other reason is a chickenshit excuse to give some logical reason to our - yes - cowardly exclusion of them to NATO.




So here ya go:

Make Ukraine a NATO member right now.

Issue an ultimatum to Putin.

Be ready to engage in an all out way. OVERWHELMING military might. His military is weak right now. They will fold.




No, I am just an old man with no particular knowledge of what is going on or what the various think tanks think. I simply can not stand by while a nation is being eradicated one citizen at a time.


I am increasingly immune to taunts about suiting up myself and my sons and going off to fight. Have fun with your taunts. They are as meaningful as a fart in a wind storm. I am looking to TALK about this. If you disagree, make a case or ignore this thread. If you agree, rec this thread and speak up.





I simply can't stand what we are NOT doing as a country and as a massive military alliance while another country who has been ON OUR SIDE is being wiped out and its fabric turned to rubble and dust.



As was said on another occasion as a commentator looked on helplessly as humans burned to death before his eyes:

OH THE HUMANITY

[SoonerPride]

1. The NATO charter specifically says Ukraine can't join "right now."

Because they are in the middle of armed conflict.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Like I said in the OP - chickenshit.

If NATO wants it done, done it shall be.

Alternatively, declare them a NATO partner - or whatever the term is - that was already given to them and on that basis, engage.

There are ways.

[SoonerPride]

3. Also NATO membership has to be universal and approved by every member country.

There are lot of issues with granting Ukraine NATO membership. As outlined here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/us/politics/nato-ukraine.html

NATO Won’t Let Ukraine Join Soon. Here’s Why.

Ukraine has pressed for membership to defend against Russia. But President Biden and European leaders are not ready for that step.

WASHINGTON — As the Russian military decimates cities across Ukraine, kills thousands of civilians and displaces millions, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine has acknowledged that his country will not be joining NATO anytime soon.

In his first speech to Congress, on Wednesday, Mr. Zelensky said the world needed “new institutions, new alliances” and called for “a union of responsible countries that have the strength and consciousness to stop conflicts immediately.”

Even in January, a month before President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia began his full-scale invasion, tense talks among the United States, Russia and European members of NATO made one thing clear: While the Biden administration insists it will not allow Moscow to quash Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO, it has no immediate plans to help bring the former Soviet republic into the alliance. Mr. Putin’s insistence that he needed to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO appeared to be a pretext for war, a stated rationale without substance.

If Ukraine were a NATO member, the alliance would be obligated to defend it against Russia and other adversaries. U.S. officials say they will not appease Mr. Putin by undermining a policy enshrined in NATO’s original 1949 treaty that grants any European nation the right to ask to join.

“Together, the United States and our NATO allies made clear we will not slam the door shut on NATO’s open door policy — a policy that has always been central to the NATO alliance,” Wendy R. Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, said on Jan. 12.

But France and Germany have in the past opposed Ukraine’s inclusion, and other European members are wary — a deal breaker for an alliance that grants membership only by unanimous consent. American and Russian leaders know this. As Russian troops continued to amass on Ukraine’s eastern border in January, current and former American and European officials said Mr. Putin was raising the NATO issue to lay the rhetorical groundwork for an invasion, even if it had little basis in reality.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia, suggested that Mr. Putin was trying to distract from more urgent matters. “Everybody’s talking about NATO expansion,” Mr. McFaul said on a podcast by the Center for a New American Security that was released on Jan. 11. “Suddenly, we’re debating this issue that wasn’t even an issue. That’s a great advantage to him.”

Like European leaders, President Biden remains uninterested in Ukrainian membership in NATO. Here are four reasons.

more at the link

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I would like to have someone inside NATO lobbying for their inclusion now.

Like maybe even US!

edit to add: And who knows? Maybe we are.

[LiberalLovinLug]

72. "There are lot of issues with granting Ukraine NATO membership. As outlined here:"

I can't get behind the paywall, but if you have posted the pertinent passages that you say outline the "issues" that are preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, I don't see them.

Just that France and Germany "have in the past opposed Ukraine's inclusion, and other European members are wary".

Why? No reason given.

Now I think its only prudent to have to have an applying country go through a rigorous process of making sure it is a proper democracy etc... and there are other agreements of being a connected but not a full fledged member. As well, I think Ukraine should first be allowed into the European Union. See how that goes first.

But I do not see any reasons outlined as to why they have been shut out of NATO, other than not wanting to p off Putin.

[SoonerPride]

78. The four reasons outlined by NYT

1.

Biden has grown skeptical of expanding U.S. military commitments.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Biden successfully urged NATO to accept Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as member states in the late 1990s. The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, Mr. Biden said that turning the former Cold War adversaries into allies would mark the “beginning of another 50 years of peace” for Europe. He added that the move would right a “historical injustice” perpetrated by Stalin.

2.

Biden wants Ukraine to improve its political and legal systems.

To meet one of the three main criteria for entry into NATO, a European nation must demonstrate a commitment to democracy, individual liberty and support for the rule of law. While Ukrainian leaders say they have met that threshold, some American and European officials argue otherwise.

In a 2020 analysis, Transparency International, an anticorruption watchdog, ranked Ukraine 117th out of 180 countries on its corruption index, lower than any NATO nation.

3.

NATO wants to avoid greater Russian hostility.

After annexing Crimea, Mr. Putin invaded eastern Ukraine and gave military aid to a separatist insurgency there. He did something similar in Georgia in 2008. The message has been clear: If these two nations join NATO, the United States and European countries will have to grapple directly with ongoing Russian-fueled conflicts.

4.

Ukrainian leaders have waffled on NATO membership.

Ukrainian leaders have not always pushed hard to join NATO, and that has shaped the American approach.

Former President Viktor Yushchenko wanted entry into the alliance, but Ukrainians became more reluctant after Russia invaded Georgia. His successor, Viktor Yanukovych, dropped any drive for membership and promoted closer ties with Russia, even agreeing to allow Moscow to continue leasing a Black Sea naval port in Crimea.

During the Obama administration, American officials encouraged Ukraine to sign a formal association agreement with the European Union rather than try to join NATO. Mr. Putin pressured Mr. Yanukovych to reject the agreement, which led to the Euromaidan protests starting in 2013 that eventually ousted Mr. Yanukovych.

[LiberalLovinLug]

92. Thanks for the posting

I agree that simply fast tracking their NATO membership would be a little rushed. There is still a lot of corruption from what I've read, in Ukrainian politics. But that the association member status in NATO would be a good start. As well membership in the EU first.

But I still agree with the OP in spirit. Whether Ukraine is officially a member of NATO or not. Fighter planes should not be withheld for instance. Just because Putin says he will regard that as a NATO contribution. What is he going to do? attack Poland? And invite a NATO attack?

Personally I am thinking why not just start a new, even if temporay, alliance of some NATO countries that want to join, plus non NATO countries who want to help Ukraine, come together as the "Ukraine Defence Alliance" or something. NATO is a defensive organization, not an offensive one. And even then, only defensive for NATO member countries. So create a more offensive mandated alliance, outside of NATO. How can Putin complain about that?

Also it would help to stem the inevitable Russian propaganda to Russian people if NATO actually attacked Russian forces, and galvanize pro Putin sentiment. Because this would be basically the world coming together against his invasion. No doubt he's still blame NATO but he'd have less of a leg to stand on.

[WarGamer]

73. Grab your helmet and rifle... suit up, PFC Stinky.

[Stinky The Clown]

77. Thanks for contributing nothing to this thread.

But what a zippy, clever retort. Bet you're proud of it.

From the OP:

I am increasingly immune to taunts about suiting up myself and my sons and going off to fight. Have fun with your taunts. They are as meaningful as a fart in a wind storm. I am looking to TALK about this. If you disagree, make a case or ignore this thread. If you agree, rec this thread and speak up.


::::pffft:::

[WarGamer]

79. My "thoughtful" response is below.

I was just kidding, btw...

[ruet]

54. Weird,...

I don't recall Kosovo being a NATO member back in 1995.

[SoonerPride]

55. The opposing army wasn't Russia.

As you may or may not recall.

[ruet]

61. Not Germane to the Points That You Brought Up.

So NATO can only engage in a "humanitarian intervention" if it isn't against Russia? Got it. Is there a list of these stipulations somewhere?

[SoonerPride]

63. Yes. It is called a NATO vote.

And is entirely germane as to why NATO will not intercede in Ukraine.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-nato-reject-intervening-in-ukraine-11646428978

If they hold another vote and that changes then I will let you know.

[world wide wally]

4. I am right there with you.

In the words of Led Zeppelin's bass player, John Paul Jones, "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead. "
I am sick of the bully shoving people around.

[EX500rider]

69. lol, actually said by Admiral David Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay ..

[Gore1FL]

5. It's never good to change the dynamics when things are going in your favor.

Putin and the Russians are grinding themselves into the ground. A NATO response is going to help Putin politically. The best we can and should do is continue to support Ukraine with arms and aid to keep the hemorrhaging going.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I honestly understand what you said and why.

I just find I can no longer tell that to the Ukrainians losing the families and friends.

[Gore1FL]

19. I submit that escalation will lead to more Ukrainians losing their family and friends. nt

[Mariana]

58. I agree with you that is the most likely outcome.

And it wouldn't be just the Ukrainians, either.

[dchill]

56. THIS is why I agree with you completely.

[bluewater]

11. "when things are going in your favor" Whose favor? The US's or Ukraines?

The goals and best interests of both countries, while aligned, are not identical.

Nor are the risks and losses....

This is exactly why President Zelensky's repeated desperate pleas for NATO to impose a no-fly zone are rejected.

And, honestly, many people here in the US do not quite comprehend the scope and brutality of the Russian invasion and the damage it is doing to the Ukrainian people and nation.

[Gore1FL]

17. The West's favor in general, but Ukraine's too.

Upping the number of weapons being used on their soil isn't going to help anyone. Escalation isn't going to make the conflict end sooner or with a lower body count.

[bluewater]

26. "Upping the number of weapons being used on their soil isn't going to help anyone."

Really now?

More and better weapons would not help the Ukrainian's defeat and repel the Russian invasion more rapidly and with less innocent civilians being killed?

I must say, in all politeness, that seems illogical.

And I must add, President Zelensky of Ukraine adamantly disagrees with the position you just stated.

He's there on the ground, he has reports from his military, he sees the suffering first hand, so I would think he has a better understanding of the situation than either you or I.

[Gore1FL]

27. We aren't talking about giving the Ukrainians more weapons. We are talking about NATO escalation.

It's clear that escalating the violence is going to escalate the death and maiming. President Zelensky is more than welcome to take an opposing position to me.

[bluewater]

29. "President Zelensky is more than welcome to take an opposing position to me."

I am sure President Zelensky of Ukraine will be glad to hear that he has that option.



Hey, I Have to wipe up some coffee I just spilled all over my keyboard. lol

Thanks for the discussion.

[Gore1FL]

31. Glad you see how silly your remark was. nt

[bluewater]

34. "President Zelensky is more than welcome to take an opposing position to me." You said THAT

not me.




Seriously, you WERE joking right?



I would find it hard to believe that anyone would be that dismissive of President Zelensky's approach to defending his country from the brutal Russian invasion.

Especially anyone posting from the comforts of home and thousands of miles away from the actual carnage.

Enjoy your day.

[Gore1FL]

36. No, I am not joking. We are literally able to have different opinions.

I know he wants a no fly zone. I agree with Biden. Biden is also able to have a different opinion than either me or Zelesnky.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

[bluewater]

40. "No, I am not joking" Well, it sure sounded like a joke...

When you said:

"President Zelensky is more than welcome to take an opposing position to me."




As for President Biden disagreeing with President Zelensky, as I said, I realize that the best interests of the US and Ukraine, while aligned, are not identical.

Neither are the economic losses and human suffering.

If some one said "Well President Biden disagrees with President Zelensky on this issue" that would not have come across as a joke in any way, but rather as a serious discussion.

To use your words, "I hope that clarifies things for you" too.

[Gore1FL]

42. I really shouldn't have to explain obvious things to you.

You seem to seek me out for trolling as of late by purposefully misinterpreting my statements. I don't come to DU to engage in idiotic discussions with users who are proactively obtuse only to achieve a reaction.

As you are clearly this sort of user, I welcome you to my very short block list. I hope that you evolve into a better DUer, but I won't see it.

[bluewater]

43. Ad Hominem attack duly noted.

That's always the last resort of a losing argument.




Enjoy your day.

[Calculating]

57. The Russians are grinding themselves into the ground while destroying the people of Ukraine

Yeah Russia might "lose and go home", but that will be after all the cities and infrastructure in Ukraine have been reduced to rubble. We're basically sacrificing the Ukrainian people to screw Russia over, when the world could do more.

[Gore1FL]

59. Doing more could very well have the effect of increasing the rubble and giving Putin a PR victory.

I find that gamble worrisome.

[onecaliberal]

70. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

I can’t hear anyone talk about never again. Who would have thought the world would watch another Hitler and talk about how afraid they are of stopping him.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

6. Every "ceasefire agreement" from pootin demands 2 things.

That Ukraine surrender and that they never join NATO.

Because pooty poot is scared shitless of NATO.

[jcgoldie]

8. I agree in spirit but

The world sees Putin as an unprovoked aggressor and he also seems to be losing. As much as I share your sympathy for Ukraine if NATO comes in now and crushes Russia, it will fuel Putin's narrative of being the aggrieved party even though it would be inaccurate.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Thanks! That is absolutely a valid and compelling argument.

I find myself moved by it, even as I am sympathetic to it.

I think the arc of Putinism would outweigh any sympathy he might get.

He has a history of doing what he is doing now. No thinking person would see him as the victim. Just the loser.

[MoonlitKnight]

47. This is the most valid argument against direct involvement

It would feed his narrative and strengthen him domestically.

Then we face a whole host of issues with some of our NATO allies. Germany and Hungary to name just two who are not on board.

So far this counters the very strong arguments for direct involvement based upon moral obligation to protect innocent civilians and to stand up for freedom and democracy. Not to mention that appeasement and incrementalism is far more dangerous and escalatory in the long term.

[marie999]

12. If NATO sends in troops, I believe that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons which are legal.

He may anyway if he thinks he is losing. The only upgrade from those is strategic nuclear weapons.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. I actually do NOT think the nukes will come out.

Yes, there is risk for everyone, but I think the greatest risk is to him and his country (and therefore his hold on money and power).

[MoonlitKnight]

49. Agree

1. It contaminates a huge food source.
2. Putin’s behavior is that of self preservation not a suicidal maniac.

[Hekate]

13. My rationale for us getting involved is this: Putin will not stop unless US and NATO make him stop

Appeasement has not worked and will not work. Putin is trying to create WWIII every day already.

[Gore1FL]

21. I don't see as proving Ukraine with weapons, supplies, intelligence, etc. as appeasing Putin.

Escalation isn't going to be an excuse he uses to stop his aggression.

[Hekate]

38. Putin took Crimea without consequence. Now he demands that NATO not admit Ukraine...

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2022, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

… which is not his call to make. He’s demanding more of Ukraine’s land. Some non-Ukranians are calling for “negotiations” when he is already known to “negotiate” in bad faith. It goes on.

I am pleased at the amount of assistance Ukraine is receiving, but their country is still being turned into a rubble-strewn graveyard every day.

[bluewater]

44. Well said.

[ForgedCrank]

14. It's not our

war, and I most certainly don't want my children sent over there in the name of whatever injustices are going on.
I am of the opinion that we take a no bullshit approach with Russia and never balk. We draw lines where appropriate, and never EVER waiver. That is the only thing they will respect. But, jumping into this now is a day too late. We aren't the police, nor should we be.
I know this position will miff a lot of people here, but that's how I feel about it.
Few things if any are worse than war, especially the innocent casualties it produces. I don't want any of those casualties to ultimately include Americans, and I most certainly don't want to fund a proxy war either.
How many times to we have to arm the enemy of our enemy who then turns into our own enemy before we learn to knock off that crap?
Hell, Iranians are still flying our fighter jets around to this day. Not a real brilliant move if you ask me.
We need to send humanitarian aid and stay the hell out of that mess.

[Calculating]

66. When they came for me there was nobody left to fight them

Where did that saying come from

[ForgedCrank]

68. I don't think we

are at that point in our own country and I find it irrelevant.
We can help by sending humanitarian aid and staying OUT of foreign wars.

[onecaliberal]

75. You better hope no one ever comes for yours, and if they do

I hope they don’t have your attitude that genocide is fine so long as it’s not here.

[ForgedCrank]

81. If "they"

"come for mine", then that is a different thing and I am willing to fight for it.
What I am not willing to do is send your kids to a foreign land to get killed, a courtesy I would expect for myself as well.
It's not our war.

[Calculating]

91. So you're ok with genocide as long as it's not here?

Not our war right?

[marie999]

97. Why aren't we doing more in Syria by attacking the Russian there?

How many troops do we have in Yemen and Somalia? Why aren't we protecting the Kurds from Turkey? What about West Africa?Oh, that's right, they are not White.

[ForgedCrank]

100. Did you

hear me say that somewhere?
I must have been so drunk that I don't remember it, so please show me where I said genocide was ok in any form.

[onecaliberal]

93. My kid is already protecting YOU and our country in a foreign land. Thanks.

THATS WHY WE ARE SAFE HERE. I’m sure glad everyone doesn’t think like this. The nazis would have been successful and we’d all be speaking German.

[ForgedCrank]

101. Do you have a corner

on that market?
Because MY kids are already protecting YOU and our country.
And I need to say that the Russians haven't yet bombed Pearl Harbor or a half dozen of our allies. When they do, I'll be ready to change my view on this particular war regarding our involvement.

[Calculating]

103. So you would have let Hitler take over Europe

And Japan Asia, as long as they left us alone?

[onecaliberal]

105. YES THEY WOULD.

[onecaliberal]

104. Uh huh.. enjoy the dust bin.

With the other people who don’t mind genocide as long as it’s not them.

[ForgedCrank]

107. What is it

with you insisting I believe things that I don't? Is this a game, or are you seriously accusing me of supporting genocide? Can you hear yourself and what you are saying?
I haven't insulted you once, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you returned the favor, especially by not putting words in my mouth.

[dwayneb]

127. Understand your logic but history teaches us differently

We tried to stay out of "foreign wars" when Hitler in WW2 began to expand the Third Reich. By the time we finally realized that this despot was indeed "coming for ours" it was almost too late.

I think Putin is more dangerous that Hitler ever was. He is willing and ready to use weapons of mass destruction and he will not hesitate to attack a region like the Baltics in order to rebuild the glory of the former Soviet Union.

We should also never forget that Putin is attacking us today - right in our homes. Through the ongoing propaganda machine designed to destroy the USA from within - and if that succeeds, he may be able to take us down without firing a shot.

Yes it is a painful price to pay to send our troops into war in Europe but at the end of the day, delay and hesitation may cost us dearly.

[ForgedCrank]

99. It's amusing to me

that I say words and sometimes people hear things I never said one single word of.

[Wednesdays]

106. It's a favorite pastime here.

[Volaris]

15. '-Make Ukraine a NATO member, right now.'

I'll do you one better: offer them Statehood in the Union.
IF they say yes, tell putin hes got 10 days to remove all his forces from AMERICAN TERRITORY.

Fuck his bluff...he will WISH they were ONLY a NATO Ally...

[marie999]

96. Ukraine will not become a NATO country because there are NATO countries that won't vote them in.

[Polybius]

16. So risk nuclear war because you don't "think" that Vlad will do it?

Yeah, no thanks.

[Bettie]

23. So, if he attacks a NATO nation...

should everyone back down and accept it because it might risk nuclear war?

At that point, why not just cede the world to him out of fear that he might use nuclear weapons?

When should the world say "enough".

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. Precisely

Either NATO fights Putin now, in Ukraine, on their terms, or they will have to fight him soon, on his terms, in the country of his choosing (likely the Baltic states).

There is no option not to fight Putin, only when/where.

[Polybius]

110. The OP didn't say that

The OP is talking about us entering now, not if Russia attacks a NATO member.

[WA-03 Democrat]

30. What is stopping Vlad from doing anything if he has nukes is also the question

The pattern has repeated:
Georgia
Crimea
Ukraine

So Poland, Finland, Alaska all go to Vlad the Great too?

It's the mob with nukes. The US has been at war with Russia since 2015. We need to fight to win.

[Polybius]

111. The line will be a NATO member, or us

Doubtful he does any of that.

[Fiendish Thingy]

37. So, let Vlad take over any country he wants because you *think* he *might* use nukes?

That faulty logic works both way.

[Polybius]

112. Yes

As long as it's not a NATO member. Biden agrees.

[Fiendish Thingy]

122. A piece of paper with "Article Five" written on it will not restore NATO's courage

If they are too fearful of Putin’s nukes to defend Ukraine from genocide, they won’t have the courage to protect the Baltics.

NATO will crumble once Putin moves on the Baltics, especially if Trump is reinstalled.

[Calculating]

82. Just give him the win then

Because he has the formula now. Invade any country weaker than you and threaten nukes if the world intervenes.

[Polybius]

113. We should have taken them out in 1949 when they tested their first nuke

I blame Truman.

[womanofthehills]

118. Also, Putin just showed everyone that he has hyper sonic weapons

The weapons are faster than the speed of sound. Our anti-missile systems can’t detect them. I think I read they can go almost 700 miles in 5 minutes. Everything I’ve read says our hypersonic weapons are still in development- but who really knows. He’s crazy - it’s crazy to push him.

[taxi]

18. Fleeting thoughts don't count.

Making a few accurate predictions is one way to end up on an opposite side. Thinking that we showed restraint, they weakened, and now it's time to finish things is how it works. Restraint is still good. War bad.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Agree.

[Bettie]

22. I feel the same way

and though I understand the arguments, the empathy for the people caught up in this overwhelms the rest of it.

The other thing is the "nukes" argument falls flat. It smacks of appeasement prior to WWII...we all know how that went.

Plus, if he manages to take Ukraine, well, he will still have nukes and is likely to turn his attention to another nation, then another, eventually he'll get to a NATO member and he'll still have those nukes.

NATO membership would be good for Ukraine and NATO. They have oil and natural gas that need development and could dramatically reduce their reliance on Russian resources.

It seems as if there is no good answer to any of this and it is endlessly frustrating.

[BradAllison]

24. There was no such thing as nuclear weapons prior to WWII

The ball game changed after that.

[moondust]

25. Vladimir the Hun seems unpredictable.

Some say unhinged. Makes sense to try to limit the carnage knowing that it could suddenly become much worse with a wrong move.

[WA-03 Democrat]

28. If Kuwait got help

I do not see why Ukraine cannot get help from a united coalition of countries. Ukraine is a democracy, has oil, metals, wheat, etc.

No differences that I can see.

[former9thward]

41. Th UN Security Council authorized the action against Iraq.

UN SC Resolution 678. They have not authorized any action in Ukraine.

[WA-03 Democrat]

53. Because the UN thinks the USSR is still a thing

Putin is a pariah clearly and they have (or had) the economic output of Italy.

[SunSeeker]

67. Correct. Russia should not even be on the Security Council.

To be on the Security Council, a country must meet certain requirements and make certain commitments. Only the USSR did that. When the USSR fell apart, the UN inexplicably let Russia, which is not the same country as USSR any more than Ukraine is, take USSR's seat without making them establish they meet the requirements. That was a completely lawless move by the UN. And now Russia is vetoing everything that comes up on the Security Council regarding Ukraine. It is total bullshit. The UN is gutless and worthless. It needs major reform.

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. "Th UN Security Council authorized the action against Iraq."

Nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

Political leaders of the US and UK, which led the arguments leading to the invasion, have claimed that the war was legal;[3] however, legal experts, including John Chilcot, who, acting as chairman for the British public inquiry into Iraq, also known as the Iraq Inquiry, led an investigation with hearings from 24 November 2009 to 2 February 2011, concluded that the process of identifying the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq was unsatisfactory and that the actions of the US and the UK have undermined the authority of the United Nations

.........

The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.[63][64] A "war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force". We note with "deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression"

[former9thward]

108. You are posting about the wrong Iraq war.

Please read the other posts and the thread when replying. They give you context. I and the other posters were posting about the first Iraq war which started in 1990 and the UN SC DID authorize. .

[LiberalLovinLug]

128. sorry.

So many wars, its hard to keep track

[Polybius]

114. Two things

1: Iraq didn't have 6,000 nukes
2: We shouldn't have helped Kuwait.

[sarisataka]

32. Quite a bit of DU has become hawkish

I ask myself why Ukraine?

While a bit larger in scale than most other wars of the last few decades, it isn't unique. Innocent people always suffer during war and Ukraine is not atypical. Many civilian populations have actually been more directly targeted.

Is it just the publicity that has turned so many opinions?

The reason we shouldn't get involved is what I have been saying long before the invasion; European wars have a habit of expanding. If NATO gets involved it is reasonable to assume Russia will target those countries. It would be foolish to assume they would limit their strikes to purely military targets.

Let's say the wishful thinking is accurate and Russia will not cross the nuclear threshold, what reason do we have to believe Russia will not resort to other WMDs? They have recent history of chemical weapons use.

They also could deliver bio weapons into NATO cities. Imagine a smallpox outbreak in London or Paris. While everyone would "know" who was responsible, proof would be difficult. Do we then use nukes first as a response to what we "know"?

[Stinky The Clown]

51. You bring up some issues few people want to put on the table in this sort of discussion

First, why Ukraine? I am not sure it is the political so much as - dare I say it - racial? Countries are war that are peopled with darker skinned citizens tend not to be supported apart from some cluck clucking and handwringing :cough: Rwanda.

We have ZERO reason to think Russia will not use any weapons at its disposal - no matter what we do. So it seems to me about time to do it it now and end his ability to do it some more. That will not be easy or gentle. What IS on our side is public sentiment, including within Russia.

None of this is easy or guaranteed. But at what point to stop worrying about consequences to the point or remaining immobilized with fear?

[Polybius]

115. It's disgusting

We risk losing the anti-war vote to Republicans. No one would have thought this was possible 20 years ago.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. I've been saying this for weeks- the current fear of Putin using nukes won't go away

If he attacks a NATO country, which is why, if the west doesn’t defend Ukraine now, Article Five will be shown to be meaningless when Putin seizes the Baltics.

If NATO is too fearful that Putin might use nukes if they defend Ukraine, they aren’t going to suddenly overcome that fear and defend Latvia.

Failure to defend Ukraine will result in the dissolution of NATO, which is Putin’s ultimate goal.

I sure hope I’m wrong, but already Hungary and Germany are balking at sustaining sanctions, especially around the banning of importation of Russian oil and gas.

[harumph]

48. If he attacks NATO, nothing is off the table.

If he uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, then I believe we will answer with
overwhelming non-nuclear force.

[Fiendish Thingy]

60. The West's actions so far show that lots of things are "off the table", even if NATO is attacked. Nt

[Ohio Joe]

39. I find myself very ethically challenged

I see no good moves and do not have the experience or expertise to figure out the least bad move. I find myself saying very little as what is speaking loudest to me is my heart and I'm not certain that is the best way to go right now.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. I am SOOOO right there with you

My hawkishness is, indeed, driven by my heart and not my head.

We both have the luxury of impotence to change the course of this conflict.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

121. "I....do not have the experience or expertise to figure out the least bad move."

That's how I feel. I lean toward a coordinated massive worldwide economic siege of Russia, heavily sanctioning countries who supply Russia, training Ukrainian military and civilians in demoralizing guerrilla warfare resistance tactics, and giving Ukraine the weaponry to efficiently employ those tactics on a scale never seen before.

I would also like to see new economic, social, and political anti-Russian alliances with Cuba and Venezuela, mostly on their sovereign terms, as a means a strengthening the bonds between North and South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

All the while encouraging Putin to get his rotten stinking fascist ass out of Ukraine, while he still has one.

[AngryOldDem]

45. I'm noticing more people are speaking out...

and expressing disgust at the West standing by and watching. Many regulars on the news shows are taking a harder line.

The question that can’t be dodged for much longer is, “When is enough enough?”

I’ve been “hard line” since this started. Putin has been able to get away with his shit for far too long, plus he’s got an audience of other dictators who’ll see this as a green light to act the same.

[Buckeyeblue]

50. Me too

We could have prevented much of the destruction in Ukraine and put some real heat on Putin with both sanctions and a strong military display.

I'm skeptical of Russia's nuclear capabilities. And I'm confident that we have a pretty good missile defense system.

And if Putin even made a move to launch, he'd be dead.

In my mind this is the reason we spend trillions of dollars creating the world's best military.

[Martin68]

62. Stinky, the same is happening to me. the nuclear bugaboo is being used to cover crimes against

humanity. It is time we stood up, whopped a little courage, and called that bluff. If it isn't a bluff, it would be better to find out no rather than later. How many have to die before we stand up to the nuclear threat?

[kiri]

64. Help Russian soldiers with supplies

Sabotage by the Resistance was only a little effective in WW2, but it did annoy the Germans and helped to win some battles.

We can help the Russians by providing fuel: If you take styrofoam and dissolve it in gasoline (or diesel), it becomes a viscous mess. Let it be a little thin and allow the Russians to find it and put in their fuel tanks. It really gums up an engine.

Providing food: Bake cookies, pirogies, meatloaf, whatever with a good measure of a laxative, like phenolphthalein (which has no taste, but in every pharmacy). Diarrhea is a very potent impediment to an invading army.
Allow boxes of quick meals to be found, all written in Russian for the troops.

Ammunition: Ukraine has ammunition factories. Make ammunition for Russian guns to help them during this resupply drought. Make every 4th cartridge with baking powder instead of a primer; every other cartridge with a bullet slightly too big, so it may jam in the barrel.

The trick is to get their troops to embrace "supplies" they find.

The Brits in WW2 were extremely clever and successful in fooling the Nazis.

[Justice matters.]

65. Yemen, Gaza, Kurdistan, et al.

Civilians bombed, burned, shot at.

Where is it official that the US is the world's POLICE? Tried that before, didn't work too well... To protect the "local" oligarchs (MIC, Big Oil. Wall Street, et al) fortunes.

A-bombs in Japan. Napalm in Vietnam, Laser-guided missiles in Iraq, et al (including Blackwater torturers & murderers in Baghdad).

Now President Zelensky said himself he doesn't want NATO to come drop more bombs (look above for some good reasons why...) over that clusterf*ck. And we're respecting his request.

President Biden is in charge and I am glad it's not war hawks in the GQP.

[JCMach1]

109. This is the correct answer right here... Where were the left-hawks in all the conflicts you listed ?

and many more...

I seem to recall Assad in Syria totally destroying cities with Russian cover and aid. And yes, right next to a NATO country. Where were our newly minted hawks in that situation when nukes were not even on the table?


Doesn't mean we can't do more in Ukraine, but Biden has absolutely done the right things so far and done them very well.

Soft power can and will work here in this situation.

[WarGamer]

71. For 75 years... we've avoided WW3 by NOT doing what you suggest.

How did the Russian "No-Fly-Zone" go over Baghdad in 2003?

Or the NATO "No-Fly-Zone" over Crimea in 2014?

Or the Russian thermobaric rockets in Afghanistan last year?

Oh wait... none of those things happened.

[Lonestarblue]

74. I agree with you.

None of us want war, but we also do not want to see Ukrainians murdered every day and their cities and wonderful old historic buildings reduced to rubble, all so a former KGB thug who believes himself to be the next czar can take what he wants to recreate Imperial Russia.

My thinking is that the West owes Ukraine the full help it needs to force Putin to withdraw. Without investments by the West and the substantial use of weak Western financial regulations allowing Putin and his oligarchs to launder their dirty money, Putin would not have been able to rape Russia and build his enormous wealth which he used to build his power. Leaders in the West have known for years that Putin has his political opponents murdered, that he has run one of the most corrupt governments in history, that he is brutal in his use of weapons, such as chemical warfare. The West stood by while Putin attacked Georgia, took over Chechnya, attacked Ukraine, annexed Crimea. The West stood by because of greed by those at the top of the food chain, even as Ukraine warned of Putin’s threat. We in the West helped enable Putin, but we are letting Ukrainians pay the price for our bad judgment. I see this situation as similar to Europe’s attempts to placate Hitler, whose goal was ultimate power. So, too, is Putin’s goal ultimate power and he doesn’t care how many people he kills.

My second point has to do with the agreement of protection we offered to get Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, now looking like a very bad deal for them. We could work through the United Nations to field a force just as we did in Kuwait. The UN can vote that any member, including a Security Council member, that illegally attacks another country may not vote on any resolution involving that illegal action. I’m sure that two-thirds of the members would support such a resolution. Who knows what China would do, but they might accept it because they care a bit more about trade with the US and EU.

What I’m thinking now is that Biden’s refusal to get involved has simply given Putin carte blanche to do whatever he wants in Ukraine. He has escalated to deliberate attacks on civilians. He has brought in hardened soldiers from Chechnya’s brutal dictator, whom he put in place, because they are known for their brutal tactics against civilians. He has now used hypersonic missiles that are perhaps impossible to detect and destroy. Where is our red line? Is it chemical weapons that murder hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians? Is it tactical nuclear weapons?

Putin has no way to save face for his gross miscalculation about how easy it would be to take Ukraine. He will not give up, and eventually he will cross a line that will force NATO to become involved for humanitarian reasons. Why wait for that? Putin is perhaps at his weakest right now. He is facing war protests. He is losing on the ground. He has become a pariah, and sanctions are eating into the Russian economy. Sanctions alone will not work because the Ukrainians do not have months or years for then to work. Their country is being destroyed now. Again, what are we waiting for while we watch Ukrainians die? I don’t think we need boots on the ground, but air support would be a great help.

[Tetrachloride]

76. Nato charter ? I'd charter an aircraft carrier

ok

its a stretch for a word play

[slightlv]

80. I hesitate to add my voice... I'm just a nobody.

But the pictures of women, men, and children trying to get out... many with their pets in hand... speaks to me of people just like myself. It pulls the heartstrings, which makes me hawkish and p'o'ed we've done so little to help. I know we've sent weapons and arranged for other countries to send bigger weapons, but it's obviously not enough.

We're in this situation because Trump completely ruined the U.S. reputation. He not only appeased Putin, he practically worshipped the ground the man walked on, and let him do whatever he wanted (including rat*u*king our elections).

Because he acted this way toward every dictator out there he could meet, we're gonna have trouble from a bunch of them if this war in Ukraine is not put down quickly and Putin either killed or neutralized in a rubber room. This is what I fear. If Putin is successful, it shows NATO and especially the U.S. to be weak and not capable. This will energize Xi, Un, and even Duetre... and others who are running either a complete autocracy or a "democratic autocracy".

The war pigs found a way to reduce the destruction from nuclear weapons, making them viable to use in war. Yeah.. right. They'll still despoil all the resources for miles. We HAVE to face the possible use of WMD and whip it once and for all... or give up the world and crawl back under our desk.

I'm old enough to have gone thru all the school nuke threats. And I'm also one who knew, even then, that being under a damned desk didn't mean any of us were going to survive it. I lived thru the Bay of Pigs and everybody building bomb shelters in their backyard. Whoever talked about Ukraine being a Proxy war is exactly right. Putin has made it so, even if we're not there. We're just going to have to face our fears and put him in his place as a lesson to him, and every other dictator in the world. Otherwise, what's the use of going on? The Republicans will just make THIS an autocracy as soon as they can get Biden out of office, one way or another.

I'm a veteran, btw... so I don't say these things lightly. But I detest seeing a friendly country being hung out to dry. We did nothing to stop Trump from helping Putin in Syria. We turned our back and left the Kurds out to dry... our allies in that war. Do we really want to do the same thing to Zelensky?

[Stinky The Clown]

83. Your thinking and mine are quite similar and for similar reasons.

I, too, am a veteran. Navy. Loooong time ago. When Moby Dick was still a minnow.

[bluewater]

84. Well said.

[Joinfortmill]

85. I hear you.

I'm hoping lightening or something or someone strikes Putin dead. My bad, but honestly, I don't give a damn.

[ColinC]

86. Yep

I have been supportive of this idea since day 1. Standing by makes it worse and makes us more vulnerable to Russian aggression.

[Roc2020]

88. NATO is already in the War

How can the Ukrainians be getting anti tank, drones, ground to air missiles, guns bullets etc etc from NATO countries but NATO is not in because they have no 'boots on the ground'? that's nonsense. Only question left is when is Putin going to shoot at NATO or when does NATO shoot at Russian troops or military equipment. To me it's only a matter of time.

[bluewater]

89. Excellent point

[Roc2020]

90. I wish it wasn't

but it is what it is.

[LiberalLovinLug]

95. and Putin is already fighting WW3 in his mind

Its kind of naive to keep saying you don't want to start WW3 when the other side already has.


I think you have to take the nuclear, or chemical weapons threat off the table, when making a decision on involvement which I know some here cannot. But the world just cannot be forced into appeasement when faced with such brutal aggression and mass murder because of Russia's WMDs. Otherwise we may as well just give him all the territory he dreams about getting back. And maybe throw in Belgium and Austria as bonuses so he won't bother Europe again for awhile.

So...looking past that...I still have not heard anyone tell me just what would be involved in this "escalation" by Putin that everyone fears? He is crazy but he's not stupid. He's not going to voluntarily start a war with NATO. How will he escalate anything? other than using nuclear, chemical weapons? Again, we cannot be cowed by threats of mutual destruction.

If a No Fly Zone was enacted, but Russia was given 24 hours or even longer, to comply, why could Putin be able to blame anyone else for a loss of a life of a Russian pilot after that? How could he justify "escalating" the war, even if he could with his troops stalled even now?

The West simply cannot allow this to stand. And we cannot even allow it to get to the point that Kiev is taken, Zelensky is arrested or worse, the cities are flattened, thousands more dead and THEN with Putin back in control of Ukraine, at least militarily, in a position of greater strength, make demands of Ukraine to align back with Russia again and install a puppet. It would be much harder then to defeat him and his influence on Ukraine.

[bluewater]

98. Very well stated insights

Thank you.

[Justice matters.]

116. A puppet? Better stay in a bunker in Kiev...

never take a walk outside...

Who would want that... job??

Last I heard, Ukraine fighters are wining, Russian cannon-fodder army are roaming hungry and demoralized more every day.

[Irish_Dem]

94. Ukraine is fighting for all democracies.

And it fights alone.

This is a disgrace and we will regret it in the future.

[AntiFascist]

102. I agree with your post, except...

European nations will be the ones most vulnerable to Russia's use of limited tactical nukes, therefore, I feel they should be the ones making this decision, with our full support to back them up of course.

For the US to take full control of the situation would be playing into Putin's narrative and possibly stir up additional support for him.

[A Clearing]

117. It's tiresome seeing all of the keyboard strategists willing to risk the lives of millions.

This is why grown-ups are in charge.

[Stinky The Clown]

119. What WOULD be a suitable topic to discuss on a discussion board?

And thanks for kicking my thread, pallie.



Up there in the OP was a suggestion to ignore this thread. But you chose to comment. That means it was important to you. So here you are, posting.

EXCEPT . . . .

You said NOTHING except to snark.

I will use that as a measure of what you care about.

Have a swell day. See ya around campus.

[A Clearing]

123. I'll kick it again to point out that

I just said the obvious, which is that engaging directly with Russia is an invitation to nuclear conflict. Putin has all but said as much. Not thinking he’ll go through with it is not a rational basis on which to gamble the future of humanity. Again, serious people, i.e. grown-ups, are less cavalier in their recommendations.

[dwayneb]

125. Dead on this is why we have discussion boards

I have been kicking around the planet long enough to know one thing.

Leaders and experts and elected representatives in many cases don't always have the perspective, intelligence and knowledge to make the best decisions.

Well informed citizens have a civic duty to understand and debate every aspect of current events.

[Strelnikov_]

120. Risk the lives of billions, as in nearly all of the human race n/t

[dwayneb]

124. We sat back many times and watched it happen

Syria, Chechnya, Crimea. Hitler's occupation of most of Europe.

We sat back and waited, because it was happening "over there" and surely what was happening "over there" would never affect us here in the good old USA.

What we SHOULD do and and what we WILL do are entirely different things. I see no path forward for NATO to engage Russia until Putin attacks a NATO country.

Concerningly, I don't see any effort to bolster NATO defense in the Baltics.

Here's a discussion about NATO exposure in the Baltics. (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania).
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/02/nato-baltic-states-sea-russia-military-defense/

Are we preparing to sacrifice the Baltics to Putin?

[Raine]

126. Agree nt