ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

Bingo

Simple solution…..pledge that Ukraine will never be granted membership in NATO.

Canada2017 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

Bingo

Simple solution…..pledge that Ukraine will never be granted membership in NATO.

---

Simple answer give Putin what he wants. That has always been a sound course of action throughout history.

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's just say that Russia decided to join an alliance with Mexico, and as part of that alliance, agreed to defend Mexico against attack, and put Russian warheads in Mexico. We all know the US would come out strongly against that plan. Hell, we almost went to war over the Russians delivering arms to Cuba.

The situation here is not dissimilar.

---

The part you are leaving out is the part about the Ukrainians wanting to join the West and NATO. You seem to think the wants and needs of Ukraine is irrelevant in this. Ukraine is asking for assistance to NOT become part of Russia's sphere of influence. Same with the Baltic States, they want to be part of NATO and Europe. How can you turn away and say nah, go alone against Russia. Same with Taiwan, they want to be aligned with Japan, US, Australia and Singapore. Doesn't free will mean anything in this? Or because you think they are too small we don't help?

Talk about strange bedfellows, Conservatives and Neville Chamberlin! Czech ask for help too in 39.

---

I don't think the global economy would benefit from another conflict, especially between 2 giants.

Putin just isn't in the habit of doing stupid sht, he never has been.

---

You are mixing several different items, I don't disagree that it would not be good for the economies of the world.

You have a democratically elected Government asking for help to NOT be under Russia's influence and to help IF Russia invades. We are saying "No" because we do not want another war. Yet, it is somehow different than Czech in 39 asking Britain and France for help and Chamberlin giving whatever Germany wanted to avoid a war. You don't see a parallel?

I agree we should not be here and Putin only does what he thinks he can get away with. But, the current Administration and Merkle have set up a scenario where France, Britain, Denmark and even Spain are committed to at least trying to dissuade Putin and we are saying keep it small. If NATO lets Putin win, Xi will roll into Taiwan. But, I know we shouldn't get involved they have only been an ally since the 1940's.

---

I just don't think this is a battle worth fighting.

I don't see what's to be gained, other than job justification for the DoD.

---

Well, kiss Lithiuania, Latvia and Estonia good bye too. Taiwan will go to when Xi sees we won't do anything.

---

The Baltics might be tough chewing for Putin. Thats not to say he won't invade. No matter what Putin does re: the Baltics, Taiwan is history, and Hong Kong is the template if it's done without killing a lot of Taiwan's citizens.

drahthaar said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's just say that Russia decided to join an alliance with Mexico, and as part of that alliance, agreed to defend Mexico against attack, and put Russian warheads in Mexico. We all know the US would come out strongly against that plan. Hell, we almost went to war over the Russians delivering arms to Cuba.

The situation here is not dissimilar.

---

The part you are leaving out is the part about the Ukrainians wanting to join the West and NATO. You seem to think the wants and needs of Ukraine is irrelevant in this. Ukraine is asking for assistance to NOT become part of Russia's sphere of influence. Same with the Baltic States, they want to be part of NATO and Europe. How can you turn away and say nah, go alone against Russia. Same with Taiwan, they want to be aligned with Japan, US, Australia and Singapore. Doesn't free will mean anything in this? Or because you think they are too small we don't help?

Talk about strange bedfellows, Conservatives and Neville Chamberlin! Czech ask for help too in 39.

---

I don't think the global economy would benefit from another conflict, especially between 2 giants.

Putin just isn't in the habit of doing stupid sht, he never has been.

---

You are mixing several different items, I don't disagree that it would not be good for the economies of the world.

You have a democratically elected Government asking for help to NOT be under Russia's influence and to help IF Russia invades. We are saying "No" because we do not want another war. Yet, it is somehow different than Czech in 39 asking Britain and France for help and Chamberlin giving whatever Germany wanted to avoid a war. You don't see a parallel?

I agree we should not be here and Putin only does what he thinks he can get away with. But, the current Administration and Merkle have set up a scenario where France, Britain, Denmark and even Spain are committed to at least trying to dissuade Putin and we are saying keep it small. If NATO lets Putin win, Xi will roll into Taiwan. But, I know we shouldn't get involved they have only been an ally since the 1940's.

---

I just don't think this is a battle worth fighting.

I don't see what's to be gained, other than job justification for the DoD.

---

Well, kiss Lithiuania, Latvia and Estonia good bye too. Taiwan will go to when Xi sees we won't do anything.

---

The Baltics might be tough chewing for Putin. Thats not to say he won't invade. No matter what Putin does re: the Baltics, Taiwan is history, and Hong Kong is the template if it's done without killing a lot of Taiwan's citizens.

---

You get it.

drahthaar said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

GoldMind said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Let's just say that Russia decided to join an alliance with Mexico, and as part of that alliance, agreed to defend Mexico against attack, and put Russian warheads in Mexico. We all know the US would come out strongly against that plan. Hell, we almost went to war over the Russians delivering arms to Cuba.

The situation here is not dissimilar.

---

The part you are leaving out is the part about the Ukrainians wanting to join the West and NATO. You seem to think the wants and needs of Ukraine is irrelevant in this. Ukraine is asking for assistance to NOT become part of Russia's sphere of influence. Same with the Baltic States, they want to be part of NATO and Europe. How can you turn away and say nah, go alone against Russia. Same with Taiwan, they want to be aligned with Japan, US, Australia and Singapore. Doesn't free will mean anything in this? Or because you think they are too small we don't help?

Talk about strange bedfellows, Conservatives and Neville Chamberlin! Czech ask for help too in 39.

---

I don't think the global economy would benefit from another conflict, especially between 2 giants.

Putin just isn't in the habit of doing stupid sht, he never has been.

---

You are mixing several different items, I don't disagree that it would not be good for the economies of the world.

You have a democratically elected Government asking for help to NOT be under Russia's influence and to help IF Russia invades. We are saying "No" because we do not want another war. Yet, it is somehow different than Czech in 39 asking Britain and France for help and Chamberlin giving whatever Germany wanted to avoid a war. You don't see a parallel?

I agree we should not be here and Putin only does what he thinks he can get away with. But, the current Administration and Merkle have set up a scenario where France, Britain, Denmark and even Spain are committed to at least trying to dissuade Putin and we are saying keep it small. If NATO lets Putin win, Xi will roll into Taiwan. But, I know we shouldn't get involved they have only been an ally since the 1940's.

---

I just don't think this is a battle worth fighting.

I don't see what's to be gained, other than job justification for the DoD.

---

Well, kiss Lithiuania, Latvia and Estonia good bye too. Taiwan will go to when Xi sees we won't do anything.

---

The Baltics might be tough chewing for Putin. Thats not to say he won't invade. No matter what Putin does re: the Baltics, Taiwan is history, and Hong Kong is the template if it's done without killing a lot of Taiwan's citizens.

---

The presence of the US 7th Fleet has kept Taiwan independent for over 60 years .

If Taiwan still can't mount a effective defense after all this time it is their own bloody fault .

Baltic States deserve better than what's coming their way ….Russian occupation has been brutal in the past .


But again, without a full commitment from NATO 'allies' ( which isn't happening ) there isn't anything the US can do .

Everyone in the world saw President Biden's performance in Afghanistan. They know without question a dementia sufferer is our Commander In Chief .

The bad boys are going to take advantage.

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

“None of us was born for war. But we are all here to protect our freedom.” 🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine pic.twitter.com/cTusR0zvWQ

— Eto Buziashvili (@EtoBuziashvili) January 22, 2022

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

---

There is a divide in China that most Westerners don't know about. Perhaps the most obvious sign of it was the Jiangsu Province earthquake in 2012. Millions of rural Chinese were outraged and demanded expulsion of key officials from the Central Committee; what's notable is that not only were the protesters not punished, several junior members of the Central Committee were removed.

The reason is this: China has built its financial success, aside from stealing IP, in its coastal cities, but there is a huge divide between the coastal cities and the rural towns and villages in pretty much every aspect of life quality.

The reason Taiwan matters, is that despite the cultural conflict between Taipei and Beijing, most Chinese regard Taiwan as similar to other coastal territories, and many rural Chinese are demanding Beijing bring the rural towns up to the standards of cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai; they see the attention given to Taiwan as just more proof that Beijing only cares about the coasts. The situation is volatile for many senior-level CCP guys, with a lot of young wolves looking for their chance to move up by removing the old guys.

There are a lot of players in this, and Beijing is not about to take any risks it does not have to take. Where they sit, Taiwan is going to fall to them sooner or later and they have to believe they can bluff Biden into deserting the whole Asian coast.

They're right about that.

The wild card for Taiwan, oddly enough, is Vietnam. The Viets know their only chance to create their own future is for someone to face down China.

Vietnam.
South Korea.
Japan.

That's who is holding the Chinese back right now.

With Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand (along with Taiwan, of course) watching with great interest and maybe taking some steps themselves if they deem it prudent.

Whoever wins the White House in 2024 will see Taiwan a free state in name. But that President will need to show more guts than any we have seen in the last two decades.

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

---

Taiwan will fight, make China pay a price and lose. There is no way dog takes on a bear and wins no matter what they do to prepare. Only answer is to get another bear as friend. But if, as according to some on here, the other bear should just watch. Taiwan, Baltics, and other areas are gone if US sits on sidelines and says what's in it for me?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

---

There is a divide in China that most Westerners don't know about. Perhaps the most obvious sign of it was the Jiangsu Province earthquake in 2012. Millions of rural Chinese were outraged and demanded expulsion of key officials from the Central Committee; what's notable is that not only were the protesters not punished, several junior members of the Central Committee were removed.

The reason is this: China has built its financial success, aside from stealing IP, in its coastal cities, but there is a huge divide between the coastal cities and the rural towns and villages in pretty much every aspect of life quality.

The reason Taiwan matters, is that despite the cultural conflict between Taipei and Beijing, most Chinese regard Taiwan as similar to other coastal territories, and many rural Chinese are demanding Beijing bring the rural towns up to the standards of cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai; they see the attention given to Taiwan as just more proof that Beijing only cares about the coasts. The situation is volatile for many senior-level CCP guys, with a lot of young wolves looking for their chance to move up by removing the old guys.

There are a lot of players in this, and Beijing is not about to take any risks it does not have to take. Where they sit, Taiwan is going to fall to them sooner or later and they have to believe they can bluff Biden into deserting the whole Asian coast.

They're right about that.

The wild card for Taiwan, oddly enough, is Vietnam. The Viets know their only chance to create their own future is for someone to face down China.

Vietnam.
South Korea.
Japan.

That's who is holding the Chinese back right now.

With Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand (along with Taiwan, of course) watching with great interest and maybe taking some steps themselves if they deem it prudent.

Whoever wins the White House in 2024 will see Taiwan a free state in name. But that President will need to show more guts than any we have seen in the last two decades.

---

Agreed,

Vietnam ( rightly ) fears China more than anyone else .

Japan better accelerate their rearmament program . ( which will inevitably bring other problems down the road )

As US power is irrevocably receding in the Far East .

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.

They proved to be false .



Bottom line…..

Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.

Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .

Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.



Not remotely a close call.


The US needs to stand clear .

---

At which country would you draw the line?

---

I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.

---

In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1st

Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later.

The Soviet Union also invaded Poland from the east at the end of Sept.

They divided the country between them.

For some reason Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR even though they had also invaded Poland.

So is Russia working with Germany to conquer and divide up Ukraine between the two? If not then this is not really a 1939 analogy that works.

---

Ok, 1938. You get the point. They gave Germany the Sudetenland because of ethnic similarities. Hitler agreed not to invade other lands if they did this. Didn't work out well. That is what I am talking about, you do not see any similarities between 2022 Ukraine and 1938/39 Czech? Totally different??

You know forget it.

---

The similarities are remote at best, and you know. The U.S. is not conceding Ukraine. To the contrary, we are delivering arms to the country as we speak. We've delivered millions of dollars in arms to Ukraine. We have also assessed sanctions against Russia. And if we are to believe the old man in office, we will assess devastating sanctions against Russia, should it invade.

That is a far cry from, "Putin, you can have Ukraine."

Not being willing to shed American blood or risk nuclear war for a country that provides little strategic benefit is not appeasement.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

---

Taiwan will fight, make China pay a price and lose. There is no way dog takes on a bear and wins no matter what they do to prepare. Only answer is to get another bear as friend. But if, as according to some on here, the other bear should just watch. Taiwan, Baltics, and other areas are gone if US sits on sidelines and says what's in it for me?

---

There are like 23 million people in Taiwan and 1.4 Billion in China. If China wants Taiwan badly enough they will take it. Hell if China wants Russia enough it could take it too. It's more like a Chihuahua taking on every bear on the planet.

I dont think most people realize just peaceful the planet has been the last 10 or so years, something that history says wont last...but I would sure prefer to avoid it as long as possible. Armed conflict comes at massive costs.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.

They proved to be false .



Bottom line…..

Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.

Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .

Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.



Not remotely a close call.


The US needs to stand clear .

---

At which country would you draw the line?

---

I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.

---

In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1st

Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later.

The Soviet Union also invaded Poland from the east at the end of Sept.

They divided the country between them.

For some reason Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR even though they had also invaded Poland.

So is Russia working with Germany to conquer and divide up Ukraine between the two? If not then this is not really a 1939 analogy that works.

---

Ok, 1938. You get the point. They gave Germany the Sudetenland because of ethnic similarities. Hitler agreed not to invade other lands if they did this. Didn't work out well. That is what I am talking about, you do not see any similarities between 2022 Ukraine and 1938/39 Czech? Totally different??

You know forget it.

---

The similarities are remote at best, and you know. The U.S. is not conceding Ukraine. To the contrary, we are delivering arms to the country as we speak. We've delivered millions of dollars in arms to Ukraine. We have also assessed sanctions against Russia. And if we are to believe the old man in office, we will assess devastating sanctions against Russia, should it invade.

That is a far cry from, "Putin, you can have Ukraine."

Not being willing to shed American blood or risk nuclear war for a country that provides little strategic benefit is not appeasement.

---

Please define devastating sanctions. As in, what do we think we can do that will harm Russia that China cannot offset.

nein51 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Taiwan can defend itself, at least to the point that the CCP is not likely to mount a military invasion.

But watch China pressure the banks to go after Taiwan's businesses. That's been in the works for a long time, and if China can take over Taiwan's money, they won't need to do anything by force.

---

Possibly.

But the Taiwanese elite know what happens to them and their families if they don't fight .

I suspect they will fight .

---

Taiwan will fight, make China pay a price and lose. There is no way dog takes on a bear and wins no matter what they do to prepare. Only answer is to get another bear as friend. But if, as according to some on here, the other bear should just watch. Taiwan, Baltics, and other areas are gone if US sits on sidelines and says what's in it for me?

---

There are like 23 million people in Taiwan and 1.4 Billion in China. If China wants Taiwan badly enough they will take it. Hell if China wants Russia enough it could take it too. It's more like a Chihuahua taking on every bear on the planet.

I dont think most people realize just peaceful the planet has been the last 10 or so years, something that history says wont last...but I would sure prefer to avoid it as long as possible. Armed conflict comes at massive costs.

---

Oh yeah. Without US firepower Taiwan would have fell already. 1 carrier group is not enough. China will play long game. But, unless US is diligent, bothe Taiwan and eastern Europe will fall.

Canada2017 said:

---

A. The United States is under no obligation to go to war in defense of Ukraine.

B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.

C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.

D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.

---

Your letter "D" stands for "ding-ding-ding-ding, correct answer!"

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

A. The United States is under no obligation to go to war in defense of Ukraine.

B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.

C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.

D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.

---

Your letter "D" stands for "ding-ding-ding-ding, correct answer!"

---

What's incredible to me is the weeping and gnashing of teeth I heard from liberal friends and family when Trump got elected, about how he was going to lead us into war. The irony is Trump's presidency was the most peaceful presidency in decades, and one year into Biden's presidency we are on the precipice of war with Russia. Ironic.

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Policies that do not negatively impact the safety of the people of the United States .

Ukraine is of zero strategic importance and our people would NEVER support a war over its sovereignty.

Time to face reality…….the United States is not remotely the same country that won WW2 over 75 years ago.

Not industrially , militarily, and certainly not culturally.

We are a 'super power' in terms of nuclear weapons only . A condition which applies to several other countries .

None of whom are willing to go to war in defense of Ukraine sovereignty.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

---

Someone gets it. We gave on Crimea in 2014. Here we are again.

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

---

No, you don't get it. The difference is Ukraine asking to join the West. They changed their Constitution and put in language specifically putting them on a path for joining NATO.

You don't see a difference between a sovereign nation asking for help to stay free from Russia forcing them to stay in their control to provide Russia a border?? The only intent the US has had was to support the establishment of Democracies so people can live their lives free. You think that is hostile?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

---

Looking back on the Munich agreement with perfect 20/20 hindsight is the problem.

It was actually the correct call at the time. And part of the rational calculus of negotiation and diplomacy.

The West did not want to fight a war over ethnic German lands...they also wanted to make sure that Hitler understood that any more such moves in Europe would lead to war.

It was a rational and decent agreement.

Now Hitler of course went on to violate the agreement 1 year later by invading Poland (non-ethnic german land) thus starting WWII.

And the allies thus naturally had good reason to declare war on Germany then.

But it it was not the Munich agreement that was the problem...it was the correct call at the time...it was that Hitler went on to violate that good faith agreement.

Neo-Cons and Liberals often evoke 1938 Munich as some kind of red line....but the red line is 1939 Poland.

It would have been foolish...as well as morally wrong to fight a war in 1938 to prevent ethnic germans from joining a united Germany. It was morally right in 1939 to fight a war to prevent the destruction of Poland.

Also, regardless of what the swamp rats in D.C. want we must have international allies in a struggle against Russia (or China).

Germany (along with France) have basically said NO to any war over Ukraine.

Now if Putin is stupid enough to invade actual NATO states like Poland/Romania/or the Baltic states then that is another story.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/washingtons-german-dilemma/

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

---

No, you don't get it. The difference is Ukraine asking to join the West. They changed their Constitution and put in language specifically putting them on a path for joining NATO.

You don't see a difference between a sovereign nation asking for help to stay free from Russia forcing them to stay in their control to provide Russia a border?? The only intent the US has had was to support the establishment of Democracies so people can live their lives free. You think that is hostile?

---

Catch up on current events. Ever since 2014, Ukraine has disengaged economically from Russia so much that not only has the EU become their largest trading partner, China is on par to pass Russia as a trading partner. They even partitioned God out of Russia through the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Meanwhile we're looking to put Patriot and Tomahawk missiles in Ukraine, and backdoor Germany's pipeline deal with Russia. They'll be free from Russia with or without NATO, unless we decide to force Russia into making that decision. And Ukraine is corrupt politically and economically without the neighbor issue. That's why there's been such resistance to NATO membership in the first place. But keep grinding that democracy angle.

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

---

No, you don't get it. The difference is Ukraine asking to join the West. They changed their Constitution and put in language specifically putting them on a path for joining NATO.

You don't see a difference between a sovereign nation asking for help to stay free from Russia forcing them to stay in their control to provide Russia a border?? The only intent the US has had was to support the establishment of Democracies so people can live their lives free. You think that is hostile?

---

Catch up on current events. Ever since 2014, Ukraine has disengaged economically from Russia so much that not only has the EU become their largest trading partner, China is on par to pass Russia as a trading partner. They even partitioned God out of Russia through the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Meanwhile we're looking to put Patriot and Tomahawk missiles in Ukraine, and backdoor Germany's pipeline deal with Russia. They'll be free from Russia with or without NATO, unless we decide to force Russia into making that decision. And Ukraine is corrupt politically and economically without the neighbor issue. That's why there's been such resistance to NATO membership in the first place. But keep grinding that democracy angle.

---

Grinding the Democracy angle? In terms of former Soviet countries what other angle is there? NATO membership guarantees freedom, the current situation means being taken piece by piece. See Crimea or was that justified too?

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

---

Looking back on the Munich agreement with perfect 20/20 hindsight is the problem.

It was actually the correct call at the time. And part of the rational calculus of negotiation and diplomacy.

The West did not want to fight a war over ethnic German lands...they also wanted to make sure that Hitler understood that any more such moves in Europe would lead to war.

It was a rational and decent agreement.

Now Hitler of course went on to violate the agreement 1 year later by invading Poland (non-ethnic german land) thus starting WWII.

And the allies thus naturally had good reason to declare war on Germany then.

But it it was not the Munich agreement that was the problem...it was the correct call at the time...it was that Hitler went on to violate that good faith agreement.

Neo-Cons and Liberals often evoke 1938 Munich as some kind of red line....but the red line is 1939 Poland.

It would have been foolish...as well as morally wrong to fight a war in 1938 to prevent ethnic germans from joining a united Germany. It was morally right in 1939 to fight a war to prevent the destruction of Poland.

---

Didn't someone once say those that won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it? You don't need 20/20 hindsight, Putin took Crimea and is now threatening the remaining Ukraine state. But, it appears there are those on here that side with Russia. I guess in 1938 there were also those that sided with Germany.

Canada2017 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.

They proved to be false .



Bottom line…..

Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.

Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .

Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.



Not remotely a close call.


The US needs to stand clear .

---

At which country would you draw the line?

---

Florida

---

Florida Georgia line?

It's a truism in History that actors start wars by failing to understand the people they attack. What gets missed is how often people fail to understand the individual leaders crisis situations. If we understand the people making decisions in the Ukraine crisis, we can better see our options and best course ahead.

Before going further on that point, I must first disagree with Canada's assertion (our forum member, not the country) that the United States is no longer a Superpower. The US not only remains a Superpower, in certain contexts the US may properly be referred to as a hyperpower, a nation utterly impossible to defeat. But only in certain contexts. The obvious example is the Air and Ground campaigns in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait. Another example would be the use of the US Pacific Fleet at times to influence certain decisions. But the correct use of that power drives the effectiveness of those forces at need. We were a Superpower when we fought in Vietnam, but lost through gross mismanagement of the war. We made similar mistakes in Afghanistan, as recent history makes painfully clear.

And that brings me back to understanding the people making the decisions. It's reasonable to blame President Biden's feckless foreign policy for emboldening Putin, but we should also pay attention to Putin's timing and resources.

Why, for example, is this crisis happening at the start of the year, rather than the early Spring when Russian military would have an easier time taking over territory?

Why is Russian air power being held back?

Why is China silent on this crisis?

On the flip side, why didn't Russia make this kind of move while Trump was President? It's easy for Trump supporters to pretend that Trump intimidated Putin, but I really don't buy that. Something else was backing our position then, but not now. What was it?

One more thing. Putin disappeared for a while after the Russian response to the Chechnyan revolt blew up. Is it possible Putin is more vulnerable to Russian public opinion than we hear about from the media?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

---

Looking back on the Munich agreement with perfect 20/20 hindsight is the problem.

It was actually the correct call at the time. And part of the rational calculus of negotiation and diplomacy.

The West did not want to fight a war over ethnic German lands...they also wanted to make sure that Hitler understood that any more such moves in Europe would lead to war.

It was a rational and decent agreement.

Now Hitler of course went on to violate the agreement 1 year later by invading Poland (non-ethnic german land) thus starting WWII.

And the allies thus naturally had good reason to declare war on Germany then.

But it it was not the Munich agreement that was the problem...it was the correct call at the time...it was that Hitler went on to violate that good faith agreement.

Neo-Cons and Liberals often evoke 1938 Munich as some kind of red line....but the red line is 1939 Poland.

It would have been foolish...as well as morally wrong to fight a war in 1938 to prevent ethnic germans from joining a united Germany. It was morally right in 1939 to fight a war to prevent the destruction of Poland.

---

Didn't someone once say those that won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it? You don't need 20/20 hindsight, Putin took Crimea and is now threatening the remaining Ukraine state. But, it appears there are those on here that side with Russia. I guess in 1938 there were also those that sided with Germany.

---

Again, if you think Putin is just like Hitler...and are willing to fight a war over ethnic Russian lands (eastern Ukraine/Crimea) ... I understand that position but just don't agree.

Putin is not motivated by the same things Hitler was.

If Putin invades an actual NATO state (Poland, Romania, Latvia, etc) then we are treaty bound to defend them.

If Putin invades Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan...we are under no treaty oath to protect them.

I would add that China falls under the same category. If they invade Japan, S. Korea, or Philippines its on...if they invade Mongolia, Vietnam, or Laos...to bad.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's a truism in History that actors start wars by failing to understand the people they attack. What gets missed is how often people fail to understand the individual leaders crisis situations. If we understand the people making decisions in the Ukraine crisis, we can better see our options and best course ahead.

Before going further on that point, I must first disagree with Canada's assertion (our forum member, not the country) that the United States is no longer a Superpower. The US not only remains a Superpower, in certain contexts the US may properly be referred to as a hyperpower, a nation utterly impossible to defeat. But only in certain contexts. The obvious example is the Air and Ground campaigns in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait. Another example would be the use of the US Pacific Fleet at times to influence certain decisions. But the correct use of that power drives the effectiveness of those forces at need. We were a Superpower when we fought in Vietnam, but lost through gross mismanagement of the war. We made similar mistakes in Afghanistan, as recent history makes painfully clear.

And that brings me back to understanding the people making the decisions. It's reasonable to blame President Biden's feckless foreign policy for emboldening Putin, but we should also pay attention to Putin's timing and resources.

Why, for example, is this crisis happening at the start of the year, rather than the early Spring when Russian military would have an easier time taking over territory?

Why is Russian air power being held back?

Why is China silent on this crisis?

On the flip side, why didn't Russia make this kind of move while Trump was President? It's easy for Trump supporters to pretend that Trump intimidated Putin, but I really don't buy that. Something else was backing our position then, but not now. What was it?

One more thing. Putin disappeared for a while after the Russian response to the Chechnyan revolt blew up. Is it possible Putin is more vulnerable to Russian public opinion than we hear about from the media?

---

"On the flip side, why didn't Russia make this kind of move while Trump was President? It's easy for Trump supporters to pretend that Trump intimidated Putin, but I really don't buy that. Something else was backing our position then, but not now. What was it?"

In my opinion, oil prices were down, he had no money. In the current economy and the US and Europe's misguided leap to abandon of fossil fuels has provided cash for him to accomplish his goal: re-establishment of the Soviet borders. Putin wants the Soviet borders back, if not the Soviet political system. If Europe and the US give in on Ukraine, the Baltics are next.

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

I'm sure the good citizens of the Czech Republic and Slovakia are firmly against a NATO alliance negotiating Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Russia.

from US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
SEPTEMBER 29, 1938
September 2930, 1938: Germany, Italy, Great Britain, and France sign the Munich agreement, by which Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and defenses (the so-called Sudeten region) to Nazi Germany. German troops occupy these regions between October 1 and 10, 1938.
Hitler had threatened to unleash a European war unless the Sudetenland, a border area of Czechoslovakia containing an ethnic German majority, was surrendered to Germany. The leaders of Britain, France, and Ital y agreed to the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for a pledge of peace from Hitler. Czechoslovakia, which was not a party to the Munich negotiations, agreed under significant pressure from Britain and France.

---

Looking back on the Munich agreement with perfect 20/20 hindsight is the problem.

It was actually the correct call at the time. And part of the rational calculus of negotiation and diplomacy.

The West did not want to fight a war over ethnic German lands...they also wanted to make sure that Hitler understood that any more such moves in Europe would lead to war.

It was a rational and decent agreement.

Now Hitler of course went on to violate the agreement 1 year later by invading Poland (non-ethnic german land) thus starting WWII.

And the allies thus naturally had good reason to declare war on Germany then.

But it it was not the Munich agreement that was the problem...it was the correct call at the time...it was that Hitler went on to violate that good faith agreement.

Neo-Cons and Liberals often evoke 1938 Munich as some kind of red line....but the red line is 1939 Poland.

It would have been foolish...as well as morally wrong to fight a war in 1938 to prevent ethnic germans from joining a united Germany. It was morally right in 1939 to fight a war to prevent the destruction of Poland.

---

Didn't someone once say those that won't learn from history are doomed to repeat it? You don't need 20/20 hindsight, Putin took Crimea and is now threatening the remaining Ukraine state. But, it appears there are those on here that side with Russia. I guess in 1938 there were also those that sided with Germany.

---

Again, if you think Putin is just like Hitler...and are willing to fight a war over ethnic Russian lands (eastern Ukraine/Crimea) ... I understand that position but just don't agree.

Putin is not motivated by the same things Hitler was.

If Putin invades an actual NATO state (Poland, Romania, Latvia, etc) then we are treaty bound to defend them.

If Putin invades Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan...we are under no treaty oath to protect them.

I would add that China falls under the same category. If they invade Japan, S. Korea, or Philippines its on...if they invade Mongolia, Vietnam, or Laos...to bad.

---

We have a treaty with Ukraine the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. They gave up their nukes for our assurances of security from Russia. Ukraine would have been the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world if left as it was. The US played a role in getting them to give them up. The only reason military justification was used instead of obligation was fear the Senate would not ratify. We courted Ukraine for 75 years, talked them into giving up the nukes and then let happen exactly what they feared. We have an obligation to help keep Russia out. If Russia invades, we have justification if not obligation.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

---

Incorrect. The act of holding up a shield or building a wall is not hostile. The US doesn't take territory. Russia does. Preventing hostilities is not hostile.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .

---

It's not. The starting point is no hostilities. Out of no hostilities, Putin injected an unprovoked threat of hostilities based on his fiat demand that sovereign countries bend to his will preemptively. That violates not only Ukraine sovereignty but our own. What other forn policy shall we allow him to dictate?

---

Our only sovereign interest in Ukraine is to develop greater military pressure on Russia. We aren't without hostile intentions.

---

Exactly