To hedge against risks of a near-term invasion, the @ZelenskyyUa govt could prepare rapidly to relocate essential functions to western #Ukraine. If #Russia eases pressure, Ukraine might use the lull to make #defense and #preparedness investments.https://t.co/YHlU1M0EFh

— William Courtney (@courtneywmh) January 29, 2022

Quote:

---

To hedge against risks, the government could prepare rapidly to relocate essential functions to western Ukraine. It might create capacity for priority evacuation of children and pregnant women from vulnerable cities, as did Great Britain on the eve of World War II. It is not too soon to prepare and to act. The Russian, U.S. and other embassies are evacuating diplomats and families.

A walk through the streets of major cities may show life as usual, but many Ukrainians are preparing for the worst. Some are training in volunteer territorial defense battalions. Recent attention to civil defense is unprecedented. Decrepit Soviet-era civil defense bunkers are being inspected. Brochures show citizens how to act in various contingencies.

Ukraine could gain time to implement protective measures by relying on determined defenses. They could impede mechanized attacks on poor roads in frozen temperatures and limited winter daylight. Urban resisters could delay invaders and multiply their casualties.

---

Russia and Ukraine together export about 29% of the world’s wheat, and a big chunk of Ukrainian cultivation takes place in the regions that are most exposed to invasion https://t.co/CjbBtUlOAX

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) January 29, 2022

How We Could Replace Russian Oil and Gas Exports? https://t.co/78I6pg3g0Q pic.twitter.com/U4I2ZCRo2Y

— nextbigfuture (@nextbigfuture) January 29, 2022

I don't think Putin invades Ukraine with conventional forces to force regime change and install a pliant puppet. I think we will see an intensification of the civil war in the Russian-majority provinces of eastern Ukraine (thanks to insertion of large numbers of plain-clothes Russian special forces) followed by a declaration of independence by the contested provinces

Putin will recognize the breakway provinces, and threaten Ukraine not to intervene with conventional forces. When Ukraine responds to reclaim those provinces, as they must, Russia will come to their defense.

Or somesuch. Russia will use asymmetrical warfare to get what it really wants....a land bridge to Crimea....and avoid the kind of conventional invasion scenario being floated in the media. That will make it very difficult for the international community to mount a diplomatic response, and virtually impossible for NATO to employ an robust conventional response.

Our goal is to make Ukraine either succeed as is or become an ungovernable albatross to hang around the neck of the Russian bear

jupiter said:

---

Russia and Ukraine together export about 29% of the world’s wheat, and a big chunk of Ukrainian cultivation takes place in the regions that are most exposed to invasion https://t.co/CjbBtUlOAX

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) January 29, 2022

---

No strategic value...

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty ratified by Congress. But an "understanding/agreement" later added to a existing treaty. That treaty being the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" or NFT.

And the United States already claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding as regards Belarus.

The United States also promised not to expand NATO "one inch to the east".

Both sides have already violated the spirit and written text of the memorandum.

---

We also declared it is justification if we choose to help Ukraine. Give both sides, not just what makes your case. It is not an obligation, but it can be justification. Our choice to how we use it.

RMF5630 said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Russia and Ukraine together export about 29% of the world’s wheat, and a big chunk of Ukrainian cultivation takes place in the regions that are most exposed to invasion https://t.co/CjbBtUlOAX

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) January 29, 2022

---

No strategic value...

---

You should read the article, not just the teaser snippet.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon 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.

---

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.

---

Hostile intentions lead to hostilities. We don't have clean hands here. Ukraine has zero importance to America or the American people. We're exerting our influence here for military purposes.

---

To invade Russia? What hostile military intention do we have? I'll grant that putting up a shield from a violent aggressor who will continue to violently conquer peaceful neighbors has some military aspect. But it's not the least bit hostile.

---

You're smarter than this. This is about a pipeline and continued encroachment by the West into Ukraine. A nation with little to no economic value that suffers from the same challenges politically as Russia, in fact more so.

---

Actually, Ukraine has strategic and economic value. Ukraine could be the breadbasket of Europe. If left to its own choices you could grow enough food to feed Europe. Agriculture is value. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value.

Actually, Maybe you should go there and put your efforts into helping the poor Russians being encroached by the West. It sure must be tough having to endure the horror of living in such a war-mongering country in Atlanta...

---

Why? I have you, Mr. Pollyanna democracy spreader to protect me. Sending someone else's kids to fight a paper Tiger so we can add another member to a defense treaty against an enemy we have surrounded, out gunned, and out financed. Or haven't you learned the war over someone else's energy isn't really worth it?

---

Hey, I am just being empathetic. I feel for you, having to endure the misery of US Foreign Policy. Just making a suggestion to make you happier. After all, isn't that what it is all about?

We have a 100% volunteer military, no conscripts. Tell your kids not to join if you are so concerned. That is the job. We are already involved in these "paper tiger" actions. Talk to someone on a destroyer doing a freedom of navigation mission, forces on the Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Air Force pilots in Alaska, Coast Guard doing DEA work or 2 ID on the DMZ doing night patrols how nice and benevolent the world is and the US is making this stuff happen. There is plenty of danger out there and always has been. The rotation has moved away from Eastern Europe in recent years, well it is back. Because if Ukraine falls, what is next? How safe do you think the US will be pulling back to just protecting our borders?

Let's look at that:

South China Sea - Give it to them. After all you don't want to go to war over an Atoll.
DMZ - Pull out, we shouldn't be there. A unified North Korea? So be it. Asian problem.
Japan - Same, leave. Not our problem. Let Japan deal with China.
Bahrain - No way, we should fight over oil. Let the Saudis deal with Iran
Africa - Who needs it. We don't care if ships can navigate, someone's kid is being sent in harm's way. Stop sending ships around Africa. Those heartless Merchant Marine Companies. Don't let them do Business.
NATO - If we don't have an obligation we can get out of than do it???? Who needs Europe, their problem.

So, where is the danger to some kid worth it?

---

well said

This is all about energy. Germany has sold it's soul for the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. Germany is very dependent on Russia's LNG (50%). That pipeline would bypass Ukraine , hence robbing them of fees which that have been dependent. Germany is between a rock and a hard place relative to that. I say, cancel that pipeline and tell Putin to go eff himself. Gotta get Germany on board which will be difficult . We have tons of Nat Gas that can be turned into LNG, but we do not have a good way to get it to Germany/Europe. Putin uses energy as a weapon and that cannot be allowed going forward. Why in the hell do we import 30% of oil from Russia? I thought Trumps told me we were every independent . Well, just another lie that most folks in the US have no idea about. Our Russian imports will only increase as ole Joe and his bunch have made E&P costly here in the US. That's why I love ole Joe, being in the business. The dems always try to run us out of business, hence, it's the best of times for us in the patch. US energy (price) is alway better under dems due to unintended consequences .

J.R. said:

---

This is all about energy. Germany has sold it's soul for the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. Germany is very dependent on Russia's LNG (50%). That pipeline would bypass Ukraine , hence robbing them of fees which that have been dependent. Germany is between a rock and a hard place relative to that. I say, cancel that pipeline and tell Putin to go eff himself. Gotta get Germany on board which will be difficult . We have tons of Nat Gas that can be turned into LNG, but we do not have a good way to get it to Germany/Europe. Putin uses energy as a weapon and that cannot be allowed going forward. Why in the hell do we import 30% of oil from Russia? I thought Trumps told me we were every independent . Well, just another lie that most folks in the US have no idea about. Our Russian imports will only increase as ole Joe and his bunch have made E&P costly here in the US. That's why I love ole Joe, being in the business. The dems always try to run us out of business, hence, it's the best of times for us in the patch. US energy (price) is alway better under dems due to unintended consequences .

---

Have you been to the pumps or paid heating lately? So good having Dem in to keep energy prices down. Thank God for Carter, Obama too! They mastered energy costs

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon 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.

---

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.

---

Hostile intentions lead to hostilities. We don't have clean hands here. Ukraine has zero importance to America or the American people. We're exerting our influence here for military purposes.

---

To invade Russia? What hostile military intention do we have? I'll grant that putting up a shield from a violent aggressor who will continue to violently conquer peaceful neighbors has some military aspect. But it's not the least bit hostile.

---

You're smarter than this. This is about a pipeline and continued encroachment by the West into Ukraine. A nation with little to no economic value that suffers from the same challenges politically as Russia, in fact more so.

---

Actually, Ukraine has strategic and economic value. Ukraine could be the breadbasket of Europe. If left to its own choices you could grow enough food to feed Europe. Agriculture is value. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value.

Actually, Maybe you should go there and put your efforts into helping the poor Russians being encroached by the West. It sure must be tough having to endure the horror of living in such a war-mongering country in Atlanta...

---

Why? I have you, Mr. Pollyanna democracy spreader to protect me. Sending someone else's kids to fight a paper Tiger so we can add another member to a defense treaty against an enemy we have surrounded, out gunned, and out financed. Or haven't you learned the war over someone else's energy isn't really worth it?

---

Hey, I am just being empathetic. I feel for you, having to endure the misery of US Foreign Policy. Just making a suggestion to make you happier. After all, isn't that what it is all about?

We have a 100% volunteer military, no conscripts. Tell your kids not to join if you are so concerned. That is the job. We are already involved in these "paper tiger" actions. Talk to someone on a destroyer doing a freedom of navigation mission, forces on the Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Air Force pilots in Alaska, Coast Guard doing DEA work or 2 ID on the DMZ doing night patrols how nice and benevolent the world is and the US is making this stuff happen. There is plenty of danger out there and always has been. The rotation has moved away from Eastern Europe in recent years, well it is back. Because if Ukraine falls, what is next? How safe do you think the US will be pulling back to just protecting our borders?

Let's look at that:

South China Sea - Give it to them. After all you don't want to go to war over an Atoll.
DMZ - Pull out, we shouldn't be there. A unified North Korea? So be it. Asian problem.
Japan - Same, leave. Not our problem. Let Japan deal with China.
Bahrain - No way, we should fight over oil. Let the Saudis deal with Iran
Africa - Who needs it. We don't care if ships can navigate, someone's kid is being sent in harm's way. Stop sending ships around Africa. Those heartless Merchant Marine Companies. Don't let them do Business.
NATO - If we don't have an obligation we can get out of than do it???? Who needs Europe, their problem.

So, where is the danger to some kid worth it?

---

I have some familiarity with those. It is because I care deeply about this country that I caution against misguided efforts like Ukraine. I haven't discussed anything about withdrawals or pull backs anywhere else. What you seem to not grasp is that we aren't really in Ukraine, or tied to them with a treaty, or have expanded our military presence there. You are seeking expanded involvement because what? You want to look tough to Russia? Derail a pipeline? Have some strange affinity to the Ukrainian people? Want to drive Russia further toward Chinese alliances? Just think of the future pressure that creates in many of the other places you mentioned.

---

No one said go into Ukraine with US ground troops. I said, take part in what NATO does. NATO has various assets brought forward, the US has to take part. Which to Biden's credit, we are. What you seem to be skirting is how do you let Russia dictate policy on a country struggling to move west? Everyone already turned the other way when they took Crimea. Now, here we are again with new requests.

I do not have a special affinity for Ukrainians. I do have one for those that have been given better lives because of the US military. I was in Kuwait City where you couldn't take three steps without someone hugging us thanking us for giving them their lives back. I know and work with Koreans that love the US because of what South Korea has become with US partnership. I do know Ukrainians working in the US, even helped one get a work visa, that is thankful the US has done what it has.

So, yeah. Why you look at the risk of someone that serves. My Mom & Dad look at it like you do. My Uncle who flow P3s and served in Viet Nam (he knows Viet Namese who thank the US for trying) and I look at the good that has come from that and what it means from first hand sources. We all have opinions from our experiences.

---

This seems a little different than what you were suggesting earlier in this thread. I asked you if you would put US troops in Ukraine, and you said yes as long as NATO does.

Let me ask you this: let's say Russia invaded. Would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia?

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty ratified by Congress. But an "understanding/agreement" later added to a existing treaty. That treaty being the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" or NFT.

And the United States already claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding as regards Belarus.

The United States also promised not to expand NATO "one inch to the east".

Both sides have already violated the spirit and written text of the memorandum.

---

We also declared it is justification if we choose to help Ukraine. Give both sides, not just what makes your case. It is not an obligation, but it can be justification. Our choice to how we use it.

---

Ukraine is an ethnically, religiously, and politically divided country with a short history as a nation. It was leaning toward an economic alliance with Russia until the US supported the overthrow of its government in 2014. It has frequently been a path for invasion of Russia because of its flat terrain and lack of a natural boundary. It is, however, divided by the Dnieper River, which separates the European/Catholic west from the more Russian/Orthodox east.

This was the stage onto which Joe Biden entered in 2021. His first move was to kneecap our energy production and deprive us of any leverage with regard to Russia. Putin has no fear of sanctions when only a few months ago we were begging him to increase oil production. Next there was the fiasco in Afghanistan. Finally, Biden foolishly renewed our pledge to bring Ukraine into NATO, a wholly unnecessary move which would open the door to a US military presence on Russia's vulnerable border.

There is no reason we should spend American blood to clean up Biden's mess. And there is little chance of supporting a successful insurgency, given that Putin is unlikely to invade western Ukraine and the east tends to sympathize with Russia. There wouldn't be much of a rebellion to support.

The time to show strength has passed. A military commitment now is a doomed mission that would only advertise our weakness at best, and lead to a major conflict at worst.

You mean Ukraine isn't one of them big pieces of machinery you often see when a skyscraper is under construction?

Hey, if we engage in military combat with Russia over Ukraine is this the start of WWIII the leftists promised us that Trump would get us into?

RMF5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

This is all about energy. Germany has sold it's soul for the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. Germany is very dependent on Russia's LNG (50%). That pipeline would bypass Ukraine , hence robbing them of fees which that have been dependent. Germany is between a rock and a hard place relative to that. I say, cancel that pipeline and tell Putin to go eff himself. Gotta get Germany on board which will be difficult . We have tons of Nat Gas that can be turned into LNG, but we do not have a good way to get it to Germany/Europe. Putin uses energy as a weapon and that cannot be allowed going forward. Why in the hell do we import 30% of oil from Russia? I thought Trumps told me we were every independent . Well, just another lie that most folks in the US have no idea about. Our Russian imports will only increase as ole Joe and his bunch have made E&P costly here in the US. That's why I love ole Joe, being in the business. The dems always try to run us out of business, hence, it's the best of times for us in the patch. US energy (price) is alway better under dems due to unintended consequences .

---

Have you been to the pumps or paid heating lately? So good having Dem in to keep energy prices down. Thank God for Carter, Obama too! They mastered energy costs

---

Obviously I do both daily. My point is from the point of view of an oil and gas producer , which I am. So, I kinda understand all this. Yes, thanks to Carter, Barry, and now Biden. Business is always better under the dems cuz they have no clue what is happening.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon 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.

---

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.

---

Hostile intentions lead to hostilities. We don't have clean hands here. Ukraine has zero importance to America or the American people. We're exerting our influence here for military purposes.

---

To invade Russia? What hostile military intention do we have? I'll grant that putting up a shield from a violent aggressor who will continue to violently conquer peaceful neighbors has some military aspect. But it's not the least bit hostile.

---

You're smarter than this. This is about a pipeline and continued encroachment by the West into Ukraine. A nation with little to no economic value that suffers from the same challenges politically as Russia, in fact more so.

---

Actually, Ukraine has strategic and economic value. Ukraine could be the breadbasket of Europe. If left to its own choices you could grow enough food to feed Europe. Agriculture is value. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value.

Actually, Maybe you should go there and put your efforts into helping the poor Russians being encroached by the West. It sure must be tough having to endure the horror of living in such a war-mongering country in Atlanta...

---

Why? I have you, Mr. Pollyanna democracy spreader to protect me. Sending someone else's kids to fight a paper Tiger so we can add another member to a defense treaty against an enemy we have surrounded, out gunned, and out financed. Or haven't you learned the war over someone else's energy isn't really worth it?

---

Hey, I am just being empathetic. I feel for you, having to endure the misery of US Foreign Policy. Just making a suggestion to make you happier. After all, isn't that what it is all about?

We have a 100% volunteer military, no conscripts. Tell your kids not to join if you are so concerned. That is the job. We are already involved in these "paper tiger" actions. Talk to someone on a destroyer doing a freedom of navigation mission, forces on the Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Air Force pilots in Alaska, Coast Guard doing DEA work or 2 ID on the DMZ doing night patrols how nice and benevolent the world is and the US is making this stuff happen. There is plenty of danger out there and always has been. The rotation has moved away from Eastern Europe in recent years, well it is back. Because if Ukraine falls, what is next? How safe do you think the US will be pulling back to just protecting our borders?

Let's look at that:

South China Sea - Give it to them. After all you don't want to go to war over an Atoll.
DMZ - Pull out, we shouldn't be there. A unified North Korea? So be it. Asian problem.
Japan - Same, leave. Not our problem. Let Japan deal with China.
Bahrain - No way, we should fight over oil. Let the Saudis deal with Iran
Africa - Who needs it. We don't care if ships can navigate, someone's kid is being sent in harm's way. Stop sending ships around Africa. Those heartless Merchant Marine Companies. Don't let them do Business.
NATO - If we don't have an obligation we can get out of than do it???? Who needs Europe, their problem.

So, where is the danger to some kid worth it?

---

I have some familiarity with those. It is because I care deeply about this country that I caution against misguided efforts like Ukraine. I haven't discussed anything about withdrawals or pull backs anywhere else. What you seem to not grasp is that we aren't really in Ukraine, or tied to them with a treaty, or have expanded our military presence there. You are seeking expanded involvement because what? You want to look tough to Russia? Derail a pipeline? Have some strange affinity to the Ukrainian people? Want to drive Russia further toward Chinese alliances? Just think of the future pressure that creates in many of the other places you mentioned.

---

No one said go into Ukraine with US ground troops. I said, take part in what NATO does. NATO has various assets brought forward, the US has to take part. Which to Biden's credit, we are. What you seem to be skirting is how do you let Russia dictate policy on a country struggling to move west? Everyone already turned the other way when they took Crimea. Now, here we are again with new requests.

I do not have a special affinity for Ukrainians. I do have one for those that have been given better lives because of the US military. I was in Kuwait City where you couldn't take three steps without someone hugging us thanking us for giving them their lives back. I know and work with Koreans that love the US because of what South Korea has become with US partnership. I do know Ukrainians working in the US, even helped one get a work visa, that is thankful the US has done what it has.

So, yeah. Why you look at the risk of someone that serves. My Mom & Dad look at it like you do. My Uncle who flow P3s and served in Viet Nam (he knows Viet Namese who thank the US for trying) and I look at the good that has come from that and what it means from first hand sources. We all have opinions from our experiences.

---

This seems a little different than what you were suggesting earlier in this thread. I asked you if you would put US troops in Ukraine, and you said yes as long as NATO does.

Let me ask you this: let's say Russia invaded. Would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia?

---

If NATO goes, we go. NATO is not going into a ground war with Russia without the US. Everything of substance in the NATO response coordinates and relies on US inclusion. So, if NATO goes we go.

You do know that SACEUR is a US General and is in command if NATO forces, right? Sort of hard to pull US out of command and control and take on Russia in a ground war. At least if you are sane. NATO forces are very good, but you can't train for Fulda Gap and say just take out the US!

Bipartisan legislation aimed at striking the Russian economy if President Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine is nearing completion in the U.S. Senate https://t.co/HlVQpivVGa

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 30, 2022

NATO respects decisions by sovereign, independent nations who may or may not apply for NATO membership… If Sweden & Finland decide to apply, it’s a political decision. NATO would make a decision on their applications quickly, says @jensstoltenberg @NATO pic.twitter.com/sAe1MO4b7J

— Barry Pavel (@BarryPavel) January 28, 2022

jupiter said:

---

Bipartisan legislation aimed at striking the Russian economy if President Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine is nearing completion in the U.S. Senate https://t.co/HlVQpivVGa

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 30, 2022

NATO respects decisions by sovereign, independent nations who may or may not apply for NATO membership… If Sweden & Finland decide to apply, it’s a political decision. NATO would make a decision on their applications quickly, says @jensstoltenberg @NATO pic.twitter.com/sAe1MO4b7J

— Barry Pavel (@BarryPavel) January 28, 2022

---

This may backfire on Putin. If Sweden and especially Finland apply and get accepted, Ukraine becomes the least of their problems.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon 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.

---

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.

---

Hostile intentions lead to hostilities. We don't have clean hands here. Ukraine has zero importance to America or the American people. We're exerting our influence here for military purposes.

---

To invade Russia? What hostile military intention do we have? I'll grant that putting up a shield from a violent aggressor who will continue to violently conquer peaceful neighbors has some military aspect. But it's not the least bit hostile.

---

You're smarter than this. This is about a pipeline and continued encroachment by the West into Ukraine. A nation with little to no economic value that suffers from the same challenges politically as Russia, in fact more so.

---

Actually, Ukraine has strategic and economic value. Ukraine could be the breadbasket of Europe. If left to its own choices you could grow enough food to feed Europe. Agriculture is value. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value.

Actually, Maybe you should go there and put your efforts into helping the poor Russians being encroached by the West. It sure must be tough having to endure the horror of living in such a war-mongering country in Atlanta...

---

Why? I have you, Mr. Pollyanna democracy spreader to protect me. Sending someone else's kids to fight a paper Tiger so we can add another member to a defense treaty against an enemy we have surrounded, out gunned, and out financed. Or haven't you learned the war over someone else's energy isn't really worth it?

---

Hey, I am just being empathetic. I feel for you, having to endure the misery of US Foreign Policy. Just making a suggestion to make you happier. After all, isn't that what it is all about?

We have a 100% volunteer military, no conscripts. Tell your kids not to join if you are so concerned. That is the job. We are already involved in these "paper tiger" actions. Talk to someone on a destroyer doing a freedom of navigation mission, forces on the Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Air Force pilots in Alaska, Coast Guard doing DEA work or 2 ID on the DMZ doing night patrols how nice and benevolent the world is and the US is making this stuff happen. There is plenty of danger out there and always has been. The rotation has moved away from Eastern Europe in recent years, well it is back. Because if Ukraine falls, what is next? How safe do you think the US will be pulling back to just protecting our borders?

Let's look at that:

South China Sea - Give it to them. After all you don't want to go to war over an Atoll.
DMZ - Pull out, we shouldn't be there. A unified North Korea? So be it. Asian problem.
Japan - Same, leave. Not our problem. Let Japan deal with China.
Bahrain - No way, we should fight over oil. Let the Saudis deal with Iran
Africa - Who needs it. We don't care if ships can navigate, someone's kid is being sent in harm's way. Stop sending ships around Africa. Those heartless Merchant Marine Companies. Don't let them do Business.
NATO - If we don't have an obligation we can get out of than do it???? Who needs Europe, their problem.

So, where is the danger to some kid worth it?

---

I have some familiarity with those. It is because I care deeply about this country that I caution against misguided efforts like Ukraine. I haven't discussed anything about withdrawals or pull backs anywhere else. What you seem to not grasp is that we aren't really in Ukraine, or tied to them with a treaty, or have expanded our military presence there. You are seeking expanded involvement because what? You want to look tough to Russia? Derail a pipeline? Have some strange affinity to the Ukrainian people? Want to drive Russia further toward Chinese alliances? Just think of the future pressure that creates in many of the other places you mentioned.

---

No one said go into Ukraine with US ground troops. I said, take part in what NATO does. NATO has various assets brought forward, the US has to take part. Which to Biden's credit, we are. What you seem to be skirting is how do you let Russia dictate policy on a country struggling to move west? Everyone already turned the other way when they took Crimea. Now, here we are again with new requests.

I do not have a special affinity for Ukrainians. I do have one for those that have been given better lives because of the US military. I was in Kuwait City where you couldn't take three steps without someone hugging us thanking us for giving them their lives back. I know and work with Koreans that love the US because of what South Korea has become with US partnership. I do know Ukrainians working in the US, even helped one get a work visa, that is thankful the US has done what it has.

So, yeah. Why you look at the risk of someone that serves. My Mom & Dad look at it like you do. My Uncle who flow P3s and served in Viet Nam (he knows Viet Namese who thank the US for trying) and I look at the good that has come from that and what it means from first hand sources. We all have opinions from our experiences.

---

This seems a little different than what you were suggesting earlier in this thread. I asked you if you would put US troops in Ukraine, and you said yes as long as NATO does.

Let me ask you this: let's say Russia invaded. Would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia?

---

If NATO goes, we go. NATO is not going into a ground war with Russia without the US. Everything of substance in the NATO response coordinates and relies on US inclusion. So, if NATO goes we go.

You do know that SACEUR is a US General and is in command if NATO forces, right? Sort of hard to pull US out of command and control and take on Russia in a ground war. At least if you are sane. NATO forces are very good, but you can't train for Fulda Gap and say just take out the US!

---

So, would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia? Yes or no?

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon 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.

---

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.

---

Hostile intentions lead to hostilities. We don't have clean hands here. Ukraine has zero importance to America or the American people. We're exerting our influence here for military purposes.

---

To invade Russia? What hostile military intention do we have? I'll grant that putting up a shield from a violent aggressor who will continue to violently conquer peaceful neighbors has some military aspect. But it's not the least bit hostile.

---

You're smarter than this. This is about a pipeline and continued encroachment by the West into Ukraine. A nation with little to no economic value that suffers from the same challenges politically as Russia, in fact more so.

---

Actually, Ukraine has strategic and economic value. Ukraine could be the breadbasket of Europe. If left to its own choices you could grow enough food to feed Europe. Agriculture is value. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it has no value.

Actually, Maybe you should go there and put your efforts into helping the poor Russians being encroached by the West. It sure must be tough having to endure the horror of living in such a war-mongering country in Atlanta...

---

Why? I have you, Mr. Pollyanna democracy spreader to protect me. Sending someone else's kids to fight a paper Tiger so we can add another member to a defense treaty against an enemy we have surrounded, out gunned, and out financed. Or haven't you learned the war over someone else's energy isn't really worth it?

---

Hey, I am just being empathetic. I feel for you, having to endure the misery of US Foreign Policy. Just making a suggestion to make you happier. After all, isn't that what it is all about?

We have a 100% volunteer military, no conscripts. Tell your kids not to join if you are so concerned. That is the job. We are already involved in these "paper tiger" actions. Talk to someone on a destroyer doing a freedom of navigation mission, forces on the Horn of Africa anti-piracy, Air Force pilots in Alaska, Coast Guard doing DEA work or 2 ID on the DMZ doing night patrols how nice and benevolent the world is and the US is making this stuff happen. There is plenty of danger out there and always has been. The rotation has moved away from Eastern Europe in recent years, well it is back. Because if Ukraine falls, what is next? How safe do you think the US will be pulling back to just protecting our borders?

Let's look at that:

South China Sea - Give it to them. After all you don't want to go to war over an Atoll.
DMZ - Pull out, we shouldn't be there. A unified North Korea? So be it. Asian problem.
Japan - Same, leave. Not our problem. Let Japan deal with China.
Bahrain - No way, we should fight over oil. Let the Saudis deal with Iran
Africa - Who needs it. We don't care if ships can navigate, someone's kid is being sent in harm's way. Stop sending ships around Africa. Those heartless Merchant Marine Companies. Don't let them do Business.
NATO - If we don't have an obligation we can get out of than do it???? Who needs Europe, their problem.

So, where is the danger to some kid worth it?

---

I have some familiarity with those. It is because I care deeply about this country that I caution against misguided efforts like Ukraine. I haven't discussed anything about withdrawals or pull backs anywhere else. What you seem to not grasp is that we aren't really in Ukraine, or tied to them with a treaty, or have expanded our military presence there. You are seeking expanded involvement because what? You want to look tough to Russia? Derail a pipeline? Have some strange affinity to the Ukrainian people? Want to drive Russia further toward Chinese alliances? Just think of the future pressure that creates in many of the other places you mentioned.

---

No one said go into Ukraine with US ground troops. I said, take part in what NATO does. NATO has various assets brought forward, the US has to take part. Which to Biden's credit, we are. What you seem to be skirting is how do you let Russia dictate policy on a country struggling to move west? Everyone already turned the other way when they took Crimea. Now, here we are again with new requests.

I do not have a special affinity for Ukrainians. I do have one for those that have been given better lives because of the US military. I was in Kuwait City where you couldn't take three steps without someone hugging us thanking us for giving them their lives back. I know and work with Koreans that love the US because of what South Korea has become with US partnership. I do know Ukrainians working in the US, even helped one get a work visa, that is thankful the US has done what it has.

So, yeah. Why you look at the risk of someone that serves. My Mom & Dad look at it like you do. My Uncle who flow P3s and served in Viet Nam (he knows Viet Namese who thank the US for trying) and I look at the good that has come from that and what it means from first hand sources. We all have opinions from our experiences.

---

This seems a little different than what you were suggesting earlier in this thread. I asked you if you would put US troops in Ukraine, and you said yes as long as NATO does.

Let me ask you this: let's say Russia invaded. Would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia?

---

If NATO goes, we go. NATO is not going into a ground war with Russia without the US. Everything of substance in the NATO response coordinates and relies on US inclusion. So, if NATO goes we go.

You do know that SACEUR is a US General and is in command if NATO forces, right? Sort of hard to pull US out of command and control and take on Russia in a ground war. At least if you are sane. NATO forces are very good, but you can't train for Fulda Gap and say just take out the US!

---

So, would you be in favor of a NATO ground war against Russia in Ukraine, using US troops? Is Ukraine's sovereignty worth a war with Russia? Yes or no?

---

Yes, as part of NATO. That is and was the point of NATO. If that battle is not fought there, it will be fought in Europe. If you want out of NATO and our other Alliances than say that. Is war with China worth it for Korea? For Japan? For Taiwan? Was our sovereignty worth it for France to help?

If NATO goes to war over Ukraine, US has to be there or get out of NATO. You cannot be the "leader" of the free world and back out or pick and choose your battles. If NATO mobilizes and the US says "NO", we are done in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa is not far behind. You want isolationist? You keep saying what if we have to fight Russia? Well, what if Europe does and the US stays on the sideline?

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

You keep going to one specific scenario, like I am being set up. Is Tucker Carlson and the GOP police waiting to pounce??? If we can't get them to leave and NATO goes in, the US has to be part or leave NATO, period. You don't seem to get it. I disagree with your assessment.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

You keep going to one specific scenario, like I am being set up. Is Tucker Carlson and the GOP police waiting to pounce??? If we can't get them to leave and NATO goes in, the US has to be part or leave NATO, period. You don't seem to get it. I disagree with your assessment.

---

The reason I keep going to this one specific question is because it has been the subject of our discussion from the get go, and you have had great difficulty answering it. You've tried to keep your position pretty vague, and have forced me to ask the question multiple times to get an answer. In fact, you still haven't really definitively said yes or no, but I will take your answer as a yes - if Russia invades - you're cool with spilling US blood to defend Ukraine and risking a nuclear war.

Believe me, I get your position, and those who think like you. Your views would fit in well with the neocons of the 80's and 90's, such as the Donald Rumsfelds and Dick Cheneys. You believe we have an obligation to defend Ukraine because - although it's a corrupt country with divided loyalties - it has expressed a desire to be Democratic, and we just can't let a country that used to be a part of the USSR fall into Russian hands again.

We agree that we would like Ukraine to remain free, and are also in agreement that non-military options should be used if Russian invades. Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane.

From @WSJopinion: "We will never surrender," says a Kyiv architect at a training session. "Putin should be afraid of us," writes @JillianKayM https://t.co/Yl3ieSoQEr

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 31, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

You have been civil and your arguments are on point. I'll give you my answer.
In 1914 an archduke was assassinated. Because of interlocking treaty obligations WW1 started and millions of people died. The map of the middle East was rearranged and we are still dealing with the consequences of that. I see NATO as that interlocking treaty with asymmetrical obligations. We send money and men and the rest of NATO sends encouragement.

You equate the potential loss of Ukraine with Hitler invading Czechoslavakia when you call it appeasement. I don't see it that way. I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

---

Exactly

Unfortunately there are politicians and media types who would gladly do so .

Yet when the body bags came rolling in they would all exhibit a massive case of collective amnesia .

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

---

Exactly

Unfortunately there are politicians and media types who would gladly do so .

Yet when the body bags came rolling in they would all exhibit a massive case of collective amnesia .

---

Where have all the flowers gone

Oso: "You equate the potential loss of Ukraine with Hitler invading Czechoslavakia when you call it appeasement. I don't see it that way. "

I think we all understand and - to some degree - agree that no decision here will be satisfactory. Give in to Putin and risk a new Cold War, making a mockery of 50+ years of diplomacy and military planning, or get into a war we cannot hope to logistically support for more than a month, spilling American blood for no better purpose than to signal we are tough guys.

I think the 'Nuclear War' allusions are out of line, as are claims that not sending in troops amounts to 'appeasement'.

Personally, I think it's absurd to imagine sending in U.S. troops will do anything but put those troops in serious danger. But there are other military options to consider, and I hope that someone is making Biden aware of those options.

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

---

Exactly

Unfortunately there are politicians and media types who would gladly do so .

Yet when the body bags came rolling in they would all exhibit a massive case of collective amnesia .

---

That is you opinion and I respect it. However I disagree, the US cannot sit out on both Ukraine and Taiwan letting others take the risk and have any credibility in the world. I have a draft age son and daughter, that is the price of living in a Country and taking advantages of the benefits it gives you. Out foreign policy of the last 100 years is part of the equation, can't cherry pick.

Do i want it to happen of course not. But I understand why it may. Sorry on different sides of this one.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

You keep going to one specific scenario, like I am being set up. Is Tucker Carlson and the GOP police waiting to pounce??? If we can't get them to leave and NATO goes in, the US has to be part or leave NATO, period. You don't seem to get it. I disagree with your assessment.

---

The reason I keep going to this one specific question is because it has been the subject of our discussion from the get go, and you have had great difficulty answering it. You've tried to keep your position pretty vague, and have forced me to ask the question multiple times to get an answer. In fact, you still haven't really definitively said yes or no, but I will take your answer as a yes - if Russia invades - you're cool with spilling US blood to defend Ukraine and risking a nuclear war.

Believe me, I get your position, and those who think like you. Your views would fit in well with the neocons of the 80's and 90's, such as the Donald Rumsfelds and Dick Cheneys. You believe we have an obligation to defend Ukraine because - although it's a corrupt country with divided loyalties - it has expressed a desire to be Democratic, and we just can't let a country that used to be a part of the USSR fall into Russian hands again.

We agree that we would like Ukraine to remain free, and are also in agreement that non-military options should be used if Russian invades. Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane.

---

why is "nuclear war" a definitive in your position? no one has mentioned "yes, let's nuke 'em!!!" so why did you state it the way you did?

and frankly, he clearly answered your question 5 times or more. You just have to be this oh so clever poster.

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

---

Exactly

Unfortunately there are politicians and media types who would gladly do so .

Yet when the body bags came rolling in they would all exhibit a massive case of collective amnesia .

---

what if we tell everyone Russia is becoming Muslim? and they want to ban Christianity in Ukraine? what then?

bularry said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I understand your point about the U.S. having to go in if NATO does. But my question was different. My question was whether you would be in favor of NATO engaging in a ground war with Russia? Or would you prefer NATO not participate in a ground war?

---

Naturally, I would prefer that NATO not get into a ground war with Russia. It is a catastrophic scenario. Anybody that has been in war or seen the ramifications of war does not want that to happen. Even the Gulf War, which is considered a pretty one sided affair, left memories of the oil fires destroying the environment and Kuwait City looted. That was nothing compared to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.

Unfortunately, NATO is not the organization dictating the path. Putin and Russia are. People are saying that Ukraine is not worth fighting for because it is a former Soviet state with corruption. Yet, they changed their Constitution and are trying to move West. If the US and NATO abandon Ukraine when Russia throws a tantrum, what current or former state will listen and attempt a move to Democracy, Capitalism and a chance for citizens to make a life? If you were Tibet, Mongolia, Africa, Phillipines or any of the "Stans" would you risk a move after this? We have a credibility issue after Crimea!

So, no I do not want a war over Ukraine, but the results of what will happen with both Russia and China if Ukraine's future has to be approved by Russia is worse.

---

So, if I understand your correctly, if Russia invades Ukraine, you would be favor of NATO (and US troops) engaging Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine?

---

I would favor doing whatever it takes to get them out. There are sanctions, air power, sea power, embargoes, diplomatic and military options. It would probably be a combination of all. But, they cannot be allowed to stay or take control of Ukraine, Baltics and Taiwan will be next.

---

I would not send your son there to die on that land for this cause. Same goes for Taiwan.

---

Exactly

Unfortunately there are politicians and media types who would gladly do so .

Yet when the body bags came rolling in they would all exhibit a massive case of collective amnesia .

---

and they want to ban Christianity ? what then?

---

That sounds like someone else we know (a little closer to home).