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 .

---

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

---

You ok ?

Canada2017 said:

---

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 .

---

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

---

You ok ?

---

He's fine, as long as you don't tell any Wizard of Oz jokes. Someone from Kansas dropped a house on his mom a long time ago ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I agree, and Biden is in charge

bularry said:

---

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.

---

Please read closer. I never said nuclear war was a definite. I said it is a risk if we decide to go to war with Russia. And indeed it is. Any reasonable person should realize when two superpowers with nuclear capabilities go to war, nuclear war is a definite risk.

As for my question, he didn't give a clear answer at all. He answered questions I didn't ask, in what appears to have been an attempt to avoid giving a definitive answer.

As a Biden shill and lib, you cool with war with Russia? Make them pay for meddling in the 2016 election?

Mothra said:

---

bularry said:

---

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.

---

Please read closer. I never said nuclear war was a definite. I said it is a risk if we decide to go to war with Russia. And indeed it is. Any reasonable person should realize when two superpowers with nuclear capabilities go to war, nuclear war is a definite risk.

As for my question, he didn't give a clear answer at all. He answered questions I didn't ask, in what appears to have been an attempt to avoid giving a definitive answer.

As a Biden shill and lib, I take it you're cool with war with Russia? Make them pay for meddling in the 2016 election?

---

You're a Biden shill and a lib?

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bularry said:

---

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.

---

Please read closer. I never said nuclear war was a definite. I said it is a risk if we decide to go to war with Russia. And indeed it is. Any reasonable person should realize when two superpowers with nuclear capabilities go to war, nuclear war is a definite risk.

As for my question, he didn't give a clear answer at all. He answered questions I didn't ask, in what appears to have been an attempt to avoid giving a definitive answer.

As a Biden shill and lib, I take it you're cool with war with Russia? Make them pay for meddling in the 2016 election?

---

You're a Biden shill and a lib?

---

Of course! You upset little guy?

Mothra said:

---

bularry said:

---

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.

---

Please read closer. I never said nuclear war was a definite. I said it is a risk if we decide to go to war with Russia. And indeed it is. Any reasonable person should realize when two superpowers with nuclear capabilities go to war, nuclear war is a definite risk.

As for my question, he didn't give a clear answer at all. He answered questions I didn't ask, in what appears to have been an attempt to avoid giving a definitive answer.

As a Biden shill and lib, you cool with war with Russia? Make them pay for meddling in the 2016 election?

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bularry said:

---

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.

---

Please read closer. I never said nuclear war was a definite. I said it is a risk if we decide to go to war with Russia. And indeed it is. Any reasonable person should realize when two superpowers with nuclear capabilities go to war, nuclear war is a definite risk.

As for my question, he didn't give a clear answer at all. He answered questions I didn't ask, in what appears to have been an attempt to avoid giving a definitive answer.

As a Biden shill and lib, I take it you're cool with war with Russia? Make them pay for meddling in the 2016 election?

---

You're a Biden shill and a lib?

---

Of course! You upset little guy?

---

Interesting.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

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.

---

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.

---

Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to incorporate the Sudetenlands is a seamless a parallel to what Putin is trying to do in Ukraine. Google up irredentism..... we have a layer cake of it going on in the Russo-Ukraine crisis

Now, reasonable people can disagree on how to stop Putin, but your position is quite a bit less than Chamberlain-esque. You're not making the case for appeasement. You're making the case we have no interests at all in what happens If we let Putin have part of Ukraine too easily, he could decide to take all of it. And if our response to that is weak enough, how could we step up and convey resolve to defend the Baltic states? The current situation is about as analogous to the pre-WWII era as such things get.

We redeployed assets to the Baltic states and Poland. (My daughter led the effort on Poland.) Status quo is Belarus and Ukraine are the shatter zones between Russia and Nato, who only touch on Latvia and Estonia. Letting Ukraine fall to Russia dramatically broadens the front where Nato and Russian troops stare at each other across barbed wire. THAT heightens the risk of war, as well.

We can't play emu here. Every choice is risky. And at some point, Putin will have to get a bloody nose. Where exactly do you propose to deliver it? History strongly suggests earlier is preferable to later.

whiterock 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.

---

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.

---

Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to incorporate the Sudetenlands is a seamless a parallel to what Putin is trying to do in Ukraine. Google up irredentism..... we have a layer cake of it going on in the Russo-Ukraine crisis

Now, reasonable people can disagree on how to stop Putin, but your position is quite a bit less than Chamberlain-esque. You're not making the case for appeasement. You're making the case we have no interests at all in what happens If we let Putin have part of Ukraine too easily, he could decide to take all of it. And if our response to that is weak enough, how could we step up and convey resolve to defend the Baltic states? The current situation is about as analogous to the pre-WWII era as such things get.

We redeployed assets to the Baltic states and Poland. (My daughter led the effort on Poland.) Status quo is Belarus and Ukraine are the shatter zones between Russia and Nato, who only touch on Latvia and Estonia. Letting Ukraine fall to Russia dramatically broadens the front where Nato and Russian troops stare at each other across barbed wire. THAT heightens the risk of war, as well.

We can't play emu here. Every choice is risky. And at some point, Putin will have to get a bloody nose. Where exactly do you propose to deliver it? History strongly suggests earlier is preferable to later.

---

Great post! You get it. Putin has to get a bloody nose for using intimidation and force. He cannot continue to disregard the will of sovereign nations because he doesn't like it. Godspeed to your daughter. Glad to see the younger generation is holding the line. There are alot of people suffering in Ukraine since 2014. Appeasement, which is what Crime is, or ignoring never solves a thing.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

whiterock 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.

---

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.

---

Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to incorporate the Sudetenlands is a seamless a parallel to what Putin is trying to do in Ukraine. Google up irredentism..... we have a layer cake of it going on in the Russo-Ukraine crisis

Now, reasonable people can disagree on how to stop Putin, but your position is quite a bit less than Chamberlain-esque. You're not making the case for appeasement. You're making the case we have no interests at all in what happens If we let Putin have part of Ukraine too easily, he could decide to take all of it. And if our response to that is weak enough, how could we step up and convey resolve to defend the Baltic states? The current situation is about as analogous to the pre-WWII era as such things get.

We redeployed assets to the Baltic states and Poland. (My daughter led the effort on Poland.) Status quo is Belarus and Ukraine are the shatter zones between Russia and Nato, who only touch on Latvia and Estonia. Letting Ukraine fall to Russia dramatically broadens the front where Nato and Russian troops stare at each other across barbed wire. THAT heightens the risk of war, as well.

We can't play emu here. Every choice is risky. And at some point, Putin will have to get a bloody nose. Where exactly do you propose to deliver it? History strongly suggests earlier is preferable to later.

---

We are typically in agreement but I think you've misconstrued his post. While you may believe what Putin is attempting is a seamless parallel to what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia, it is Chamberlains response that constituted appeasement. Unlike Chamberlain's response, I don't think anyone here is suggesting let Putin do what he wants in Ukraine. Instead posters are merely saying let's not put US troops in harms way in Ukraine.

Just a reminder that we didn't get involved militarily with Hitler in a manner some of you are suggesting we do in Ukraine until after he had defeated France. And even that wasn't a catalyst to our involvement. Let's please deal in current realities instead of drawing disjointed historical parallels. We aren't Great Britain, France, or Germany.

Mothra 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?

---

With all due respect, this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting don't support allies with military assets. The question in this thread is should we commit US troops to a ground war with Russia in Ukraine. That's is a very different scenario than the examples you describe above.

---

No, it is not. You are pulling out one specific scenario and asking if I would approve of doing it.

I said if NATO, an alliance we lead, were to engage Russia the US I would approve of US troops.

You come back with saying nobody suggests not supporting our alliances. Yes, you are suggesting exactly that. The two are connected. THE only way US troops not take part if NATO engage is if NATO asks us. Then we oblige to not escalate. But, it is all done within the alliance. The US honors its alliances.

I also believe you are playing lawyer weasel-words with the Budapest Agreement. It technically doesn't obligate us to help Ukraine militarily, but it does justify us helping if we want to help. The gave up their Nukes for sovereignty, Now that sovereignty is threatened and the lawyer weasel-words come out. And you wonder why North Korea and Iran are hesitant to give up nukes? What is going down in Ukraine has direct ramifications with those two nations. Protect Ukraine, the west has credibility. Give in to Russia like we did on Crimea they won't listen to a word. It is all connected.

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra 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?

---

With all due respect, this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting don't support allies with military assets. The question in this thread is should we commit US troops to a ground war with Russia in Ukraine. That's is a very different scenario than the examples you describe above.

---

No, it is not. You are pulling out one specific scenario and asking if I would approve of doing it.

I said if NATO, an alliance we lead, were to engage Russia the US I would approve of US troops.

You come back with saying nobody suggests not supporting our alliances. Yes, you are suggesting exactly that. The two are connected. THE only way US troops not take part if NATO engage is if NATO asks us. Then we oblige to not escalate. But, it is all done within the alliance. The US honors its alliances.

I also believe you are playing lawyer weasel-words with the Budapest Agreement. It technically doesn't obligate us to help Ukraine militarily, but it does justify us helping if we want to help. The gave up their Nukes for sovereignty, Now that sovereignty is threatened and the lawyer weasel-words come out. And you wonder why North Korea and Iran are hesitant to give up nukes? What is going down in Ukraine has direct ramifications with those two nations. Protect Ukraine, the west has credibility. Give in to Russia like we did on Crimea they won't listen to a word. It is all connected.

---

No, it is not all connected. Not every alliance, foreign policy, strategy, diplomacy, or negotiation is hinging on Ukraine.

Let's talk NATO. Is this the same NATO that had our back in Iraq? Wait, nevermind. The same NATO helping us with our Taiwan issues? Nope. The same one helping us deal with North Korea and assisting the defense of the South? Negative. The same one supporting our efforts (past/present) in Syria? MIA. The same one helping us deal with Boko Haram and AQIM in Africa? What about Yemen? Somalia? Hello, are you there? Or are our dedicated military allies still selling nuclear parts and technology to Iran and won't go parallel with us on sanctions? I see you Germany and France.

Or is this the same (non U.S.) NATO that stepped up militarily to utterly screw up Libya? Or was heavily involved in our latest blunder called Afghanistan?

With friends like these, let's go ahead and strap up the boots and fire up the jets because Europe needs some clean up work done, and our neocon brethren love them some cold war like conflict. Ukraine uber alles!

ATL Bear said:

---

Let's talk NATO. Is this the same NATO that had our back in Iraq? Wait, nevermind. The same NATO helping us with our Taiwan issues? Nope. The same one helping us deal with North Korea and assisting the defense of the South? Negative. The same one supporting our efforts (past/present) in Syria? MIA. The same one helping us deal with Boko Haram and AQIM in Africa? What about Yemen? Somalia? Hello, are you there? Or are our dedicated military allies still selling nuclear parts and technology to Iran and won't go parallel with us on sanctions? I see you Germany and France.

Or is this the same (non U.S.) NATO that stepped up militarily to utterly screw up Libya? Or was heavily involved in our latest blunder called Afghanistan?

With friends like these, let's go ahead and strap up the boots and fire up the jets because Europe needs some clean up work done, and our neocon brethren love them some cold war like conflict. Ukraine uber alles!

---

Most NATO countries do not even meet their obligations under the treaty. This is another area where Trump was correct in calling out Germany and others for wanting the benefits without investing. I am admittedly exhausted playing the world's policeman. Let Europe deal with Putin.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

I'm connecting them and you aren't obtuse at all.
If we intervene with armed forces you can't tell me where it ends. An assassinated arch duke causes a war that kills millions of people? Who predicted that?

Tell me where it ends and guarantee no nukes, including tactical nukes. Guarantee me there will be no cyber attacks on our homeland that takes out a portion of our electrical grid.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra 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?

---

With all due respect, this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting don't support allies with military assets. The question in this thread is should we commit US troops to a ground war with Russia in Ukraine. That's is a very different scenario than the examples you describe above.

---

No, it is not. You are pulling out one specific scenario and asking if I would approve of doing it.

I said if NATO, an alliance we lead, were to engage Russia the US I would approve of US troops.

You come back with saying nobody suggests not supporting our alliances. Yes, you are suggesting exactly that. The two are connected. THE only way US troops not take part if NATO engage is if NATO asks us. Then we oblige to not escalate. But, it is all done within the alliance. The US honors its alliances.

I also believe you are playing lawyer weasel-words with the Budapest Agreement. It technically doesn't obligate us to help Ukraine militarily, but it does justify us helping if we want to help. The gave up their Nukes for sovereignty, Now that sovereignty is threatened and the lawyer weasel-words come out. And you wonder why North Korea and Iran are hesitant to give up nukes? What is going down in Ukraine has direct ramifications with those two nations. Protect Ukraine, the west has credibility. Give in to Russia like we did on Crimea they won't listen to a word. It is all connected.

---

I think you're misunderstanding my question. Perhaps I have not been clear enough. Again, I am not asking you whether you would support the use of US troops in a ground war with Russia IF NATO decides to intervene. Instead, I wanted to know whether you believe intervening and engaging in a ground war is the right NATO decision if Russia invades Ukraine. I thought you answered that affirmatively, but correct me if I am wrong.

As you've pointed out, whether NATO decides to intervene will completely depend on what the US wants to do. It will not make any decision without US backing.

As for the Budapest Agreement, we both know that it provides no obligation whatsoever to defend Ukraine. To the extent you are trying to interpret it as such, I would submit it is you using weasel words by trying to insert something into the agreement that is simply not there.

Again, one can support Ukraine without committing ground troops and engaging in a ground war with Russia. It's not the binary choice you seem to want to make it.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

Yes, getting into a war with Russia most certainly risks nuclear war. Will it happen? I hope not, but neither of us knows.

I don't believe the risk is worth it. I think reasonable people would agree,

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

Yes, getting into a war with Russia most certainly risks nuclear war. Will it happen? I hope not, but neither of us knows.

I don't believe the risk is worth it. I think reasonable people would agree,

---

The old "line of sight is reciprocal" caution is worth heeding. Putin is reasonable, too, and will not carelessly risk nuclear war over Ukraine, either.

We can be somewhat more robust in our response than the doves here are willing to admit.

https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/the-west-not-russia-faces-a-ukrainian-quagmire/

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra 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?

---

With all due respect, this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting don't support allies with military assets. The question in this thread is should we commit US troops to a ground war with Russia in Ukraine. That's is a very different scenario than the examples you describe above.

---

No, it is not. You are pulling out one specific scenario and asking if I would approve of doing it.

I said if NATO, an alliance we lead, were to engage Russia the US I would approve of US troops.

You come back with saying nobody suggests not supporting our alliances. Yes, you are suggesting exactly that. The two are connected. THE only way US troops not take part if NATO engage is if NATO asks us. Then we oblige to not escalate. But, it is all done within the alliance. The US honors its alliances.

I also believe you are playing lawyer weasel-words with the Budapest Agreement. It technically doesn't obligate us to help Ukraine militarily, but it does justify us helping if we want to help. The gave up their Nukes for sovereignty, Now that sovereignty is threatened and the lawyer weasel-words come out. And you wonder why North Korea and Iran are hesitant to give up nukes? What is going down in Ukraine has direct ramifications with those two nations. Protect Ukraine, the west has credibility. Give in to Russia like we did on Crimea they won't listen to a word. It is all connected.

---

No, it is not all connected. Not every alliance, foreign policy, strategy, diplomacy, or negotiation is hinging on Ukraine.

---

You think Taiwan, China, North Korea, or Iran aren't watching? It is all connected. The US cannot try to enter into Nuclear agreements with Iran and North Korea without Ukraine being in the forefront. We asked Ukraine to give over the nuclear weapons in exchange for sovereignty. This is a quote from the Agreement:

"2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations"

You can say we are not obligated or whatever. But there are other commitments in the agreement. It does not matter what other Countries do, the US was central to this. Now, who cares? If you were North Korea or Iran would you give up nuclear weapons?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

I'm connecting them and you aren't obtuse at all.
If we intervene with armed forces you can't tell me where it ends. An assassinated arch duke causes a war that kills millions of people? Who predicted that?

Tell me where it ends and guarantee no nukes, including tactical nukes. Guarantee me there will be no cyber attacks on our homeland that takes out a portion of our electrical grid.

---

Where in life is anything guaranteed? THE BEST guarantee is the US military and nuclear triad. Using your logic, China and Russia can just take whatever they want.

BREAKING: Ukraine will establish a trilateral security pact with Poland and Britain

— Samuel Ramani (@SamRamani2) February 1, 2022

Until we are ready to protect our own boarders, I give not a **** about another country's boarders.

ATL Bear said:

---

Just a reminder that we didn't get involved militarily with Hitler in a manner some of you are suggesting we do in Ukraine until after he had defeated France. And even that wasn't a catalyst to our involvement. Let's please deal in current realities instead of drawing disjointed historical parallels. We aren't Great Britain, France, or Germany.

---

The point of learning from the past is to endeavor not to repeat it. Nature (and Power) abhors a vacuum. When the US retrenches, other nations with aspirations for more power ascend. They fill that void. There must always be a hegemon and it can either be the US or it can be some other country with a significantly more nefarious set of long term goals.

The domino theory wasn't incorrect. We were right to fight that cold war and prevent the left from taking over more and more of the world. Modern Russia is built on the rubble of the USSR and has learned from it's own failure in the cold war and the success of the CCP, that power requires the employment of purely pragmatic capitalism (for as long as it's needed). Like drug dealers, Russia (with gas and now escalating threats of war) and China (with debt trap diplomacy) are leveraging their power to take over the vacuum we are leaving.

There is a cost to letting that void be filled with China and Russia. Neither you or I know what precisely it will be, but we do know it will not be a benevolent, free market, human rights respecting super state. It will be a super state, however. And that super state will continue to employ it's same tactics as today, only on a broader and much more destructive scale. Our economic interests abroad will undoubtedly suffer. Our ability to travel and live and work and communicate abroad will undoubtedly suffer. Freedom, world wide, will suffer.

As terrible as it is, we are the world's police for as long as we want to live in a relatively sane world.

🤔 How did I know?

Because 🇺🇸 doesn't have the military determination to win a combat stand-off, nor the political professionals needed to win in the arena of diplomacy.

Excellence is not taught in DC cocktail parties and its not instructed on Jeff Epstein's 🏝

— Adam Townsend (@adamscrabble) January 30, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

I'm connecting them and you aren't obtuse at all.
If we intervene with armed forces you can't tell me where it ends. An assassinated arch duke causes a war that kills millions of people? Who predicted that?

Tell me where it ends and guarantee no nukes, including tactical nukes. Guarantee me there will be no cyber attacks on our homeland that takes out a portion of our electrical grid.

---

Where in life is anything guaranteed? THE BEST guarantee is the US military and nuclear triad. Using your logic, China and Russia can just take whatever they want.

---

Not so. I think most folks on the other side of you on this thread don't want to go table stacks for Ukraine (and I won't for Taiwan). That doesn't mean we wouldn't risk civilization for some place, just not Ukraine.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra 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?

---

With all due respect, this is a straw man. Nobody is suggesting don't support allies with military assets. The question in this thread is should we commit US troops to a ground war with Russia in Ukraine. That's is a very different scenario than the examples you describe above.

---

No, it is not. You are pulling out one specific scenario and asking if I would approve of doing it.

I said if NATO, an alliance we lead, were to engage Russia the US I would approve of US troops.

You come back with saying nobody suggests not supporting our alliances. Yes, you are suggesting exactly that. The two are connected. THE only way US troops not take part if NATO engage is if NATO asks us. Then we oblige to not escalate. But, it is all done within the alliance. The US honors its alliances.

I also believe you are playing lawyer weasel-words with the Budapest Agreement. It technically doesn't obligate us to help Ukraine militarily, but it does justify us helping if we want to help. The gave up their Nukes for sovereignty, Now that sovereignty is threatened and the lawyer weasel-words come out. And you wonder why North Korea and Iran are hesitant to give up nukes? What is going down in Ukraine has direct ramifications with those two nations. Protect Ukraine, the west has credibility. Give in to Russia like we did on Crimea they won't listen to a word. It is all connected.

---

No, it is not all connected. Not every alliance, foreign policy, strategy, diplomacy, or negotiation is hinging on Ukraine.

---

You think Taiwan, China, North Korea, or Iran aren't watching? It is all connected. The US cannot try to enter into Nuclear agreements with Iran and North Korea without Ukraine being in the forefront. We asked Ukraine to give over the nuclear weapons in exchange for sovereignty. This is a quote from the Agreement:

"2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations"

You can say we are not obligated or whatever. But there are other commitments in the agreement. It does not matter what other Countries do, the US was central to this. Now, who cares? If you were North Korea or Iran would you give up nuclear weapons?

---

The reasons Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons, as well as the circumstances under which they would give their programs up, are completely different and unrelated to anything that happens in Ukraine.

The UN is free to partake of any action they can try to and enforce this decree. We have no mutual defense or other obligation to Ukraine. Why are you trying to obligate us where we have no obligations?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

I am not sure anyone is saying we are going to have a nuclear war. I think posters are saying a confrontation with Russia in Ukraine risks it, which it most certainly does.

Quite frankly, I am not too keen on a war with Russia, as I don't want to find out.

---

The risk of Nuclear War over Ukraine is practically non-existent. Invade Russia itself, yes risk goes up. But nobody is saying invade Russia.

You want a risk of nuclear war? Weaken the triad until either Russia or China believes a nuclear war is winnable. Disarm the US, you raise the risk of nuclear war. Only thing keeping the peace is knowledge US will step in. Take that away, you create a much more dangerous world. Keep up the Jane Fonda moments, you will talk Russia right into invading, just like 2014.

---

Like I said, I'd prefer not to engage in a ground war with Russia - something we have avoided since the nuclear age - to find out whether you are right and Putin will behave reasonably. Because if you're wrong…

Your second paragraph is yet another straw man. Never suggested any of that. I've simply said that engaging in a ground war with Russia in Ukraine is insane. And it is, unequivocally.

---

Here is your quote:

"Where we disagree is that a Russian invasion is worth Americans dying and nuclear war. I think that's insane."

Sure sounds like you are connecting the two. But, I may just be a bit obtuse.

---

I'm connecting them and you aren't obtuse at all.
If we intervene with armed forces you can't tell me where it ends. An assassinated arch duke causes a war that kills millions of people? Who predicted that?

Tell me where it ends and guarantee no nukes, including tactical nukes. Guarantee me there will be no cyber attacks on our homeland that takes out a portion of our electrical grid.

---

Where in life is anything guaranteed? THE BEST guarantee is the US military and nuclear triad. Using your logic, China and Russia can just take whatever they want.

---

Not so. I think most folks on the other side of you on this thread don't want to go table stacks for Ukraine (and I won't for Taiwan). That doesn't mean we wouldn't risk civilization for some place, just not Ukraine.

---

You just listed the two most threatened places on the planet. So, I am guessing, Canada and Australia are your line, until they come up on the chopping block? Than all of a sudden they are not worth it. Taiwan should definitely be protected, they were out allies in WW2 and fought the Communist. They have stood in the face of threats for decades. If Taiwan does not deserve our support to stay free, what is the point?

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Just a reminder that we didn't get involved militarily with Hitler in a manner some of you are suggesting we do in Ukraine until after he had defeated France. And even that wasn't a catalyst to our involvement. Let's please deal in current realities instead of drawing disjointed historical parallels. We aren't Great Britain, France, or Germany.

---

The point of learning from the past is to endeavor not to repeat it. Nature (and Power) abhors a vacuum. When the US retrenches, other nations with aspirations for more power ascend. They fill that void. There must always be a hegemon and it can either be the US or it can be some other country with a significantly more nefarious set of long term goals.

The domino theory wasn't incorrect. We were right to fight that cold war and prevent the left from taking over more and more of the world. Modern Russia is built on the rubble of the USSR and has learned from it's own failure in the cold war and the success of the CCP, that power requires the employment of purely pragmatic capitalism (for as long as it's needed). Like drug dealers, Russia (with gas and now escalating threats of war) and China (with debt trap diplomacy) are leveraging their power to take over the vacuum we are leaving.

There is a cost to letting that void be filled with China and Russia. Neither you or I know what precisely it will be, but we do know it will not be a benevolent, free market, human rights respecting super state. It will be a super state, however. And that super state will continue to employ it's same tactics as today, only on a broader and much more destructive scale. Our economic interests abroad will undoubtedly suffer. Our ability to travel and live and work and communicate abroad will undoubtedly suffer. Freedom, world wide, will suffer.

As terrible as it is, we are the world's police for as long as we want to live in a relatively sane world.

---

I'd rather tame a tameable enemy than create more unneccesary ones. That's what we've missed with Russia. Tired beefs and energy politics have distracted us from an opportunity to embolden the world against the real sleeping giant. Ukraine is an extension of tired beefs. People still fighting a cold fight already won. Wanting to stick missiles closer where we already have enough in proximity, and torpedo a pipeline that's just waiting for the bureaucratic go to flip on the switch. Talk of free markets and capitalism? Why are we mingling with this one? Germany certainly doesn't want us to.

We need more partners capable of filling voids, not creating more competition in them.

As far as WWII, there is no parallel here. We still chase Russian jets out of Baltic air space when required. This is trying to create a new unnecessary fight, and distraction from the bigger issues.