RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
RMF5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
Again, if you think Putin is just like Hitler...and are willing to fight a war over ethnic Russian lands (eastern Ukraine/Crimea) ... I understand that position but just don't agree.
Putin is not motivated by the same things Hitler was.
If Putin invades an actual NATO state (Poland, Romania, Latvia, etc) then we are treaty bound to defend them.
If Putin invades Ukraine, Belarus, or Kazakhstan...we are under no treaty oath to protect them.
I would add that China falls under the same category. If they invade Japan, S. Korea, or Philippines its on...if they invade Mongolia, Vietnam, or Laos...to bad.
We have a treaty with Ukraine the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. They gave up their nukes for our assurances of security from Russia. Ukraine would have been the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world if left as it was. The US played a role in getting them to give them up. The only reason military justification was used instead of obligation was fear the Senate would not ratify. We courted Ukraine for 75 years, talked them into giving up the nukes and then let happen exactly what they feared. We have an obligation to help keep Russia out. If Russia invades, we have justification if not obligation.
The Budapest memorandum is not a treaty ratified by Congress. But an "understanding/agreement" later added to a existing treaty. That treaty being the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" or NFT.
And the United States already claimed that the Budapest Memorandum was not legally binding as regards Belarus.
The United States also promised not to expand NATO "one inch to the east".
Both sides have already violated the spirit and written text of the memorandum.
We also declared it is justification if we choose to help Ukraine. Give both sides, not just what makes your case. It is not an obligation, but it can be justification. Our choice to how we use it.
Ukraine is an ethnically, religiously, and politically divided country with a short history as a nation. It was leaning toward an economic alliance with Russia until the US supported the overthrow of its government in 2014. It has frequently been a path for invasion of Russia because of its flat terrain and lack of a natural boundary. It is, however, divided by the Dnieper River, which separates the European/Catholic west from the more Russian/Orthodox east.
This was the stage onto which Joe Biden entered in 2021. His first move was to kneecap our energy production and deprive us of any leverage with regard to Russia. Putin has no fear of sanctions when only a few months ago we were begging him to increase oil production. Next there was the fiasco in Afghanistan. Finally, Biden foolishly renewed our pledge to bring Ukraine into NATO, a wholly unnecessary move which would open the door to a US military presence on Russia's vulnerable border.
There is no reason we should spend American blood to clean up Biden's mess. And there is little chance of supporting a successful insurgency, given that Putin is unlikely to invade western Ukraine and the east tends to sympathize with Russia. There wouldn't be much of a rebellion to support.
The time to show strength has passed. A military commitment now is a doomed mission that would only advertise our weakness at best, and lead to a major conflict at worst.