RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Putting up a shield to stop violent conquest places the aggressor in a bad position. They don't experience violence unless they initiate that violence. We aren't making any enemies by stopping Russia and China that didn't already exist. Energy is a world wide issue and will remain so unless and until we can come up with a workable recipe for cold fusion. So, even that isn't a fight we can willingly and responsibly extract ourselves from.

All our efforts should be spent in countering Russian and Chinese power plays, whether through soft power or active aggression on their part. We cannot let them grow in influence because they are very clearly not going to use that power in a way that stabilizes the world into anything but oligarchical kleptocracy or an international prison state. They are both existential threats to both the world and the USA.

What should we do? Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Turn off Nordstream 2.
2. Negotiate LNG terminals spreading across the entire European coast line.
3. Frack and Frack and Frack and replace Russian energy power with our own, bankrupting Russia.
4. Restrict imports of a wide array of goods from China. We are funding the means of our own destruction via trade with the CCP and we need to ween ourselves off of it. I'm a free trader, but the use to which our money is put by them is against our national interests.
5. Bump defense spending in the US up by 10% to start and focus on advanced weapons to remain on top of the heap.
6. Eliminate all Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) plans from the US military at all levels and remove any general officer who objects.
7. Revoke all visas for Chinese nationals in the US in technical fields and for any university study. They are using those positions to steal IP.
8. Mine/Trap the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus so that if the Russians cross, they are met with massive casualties and it will be their own fault. Offer Air support for the Ukraine only within it's own borders.
9. Do the same or similar with China as 8 above regarding Taiwan.
10. Set up pan african conferences to encourage all African nations in Debt traps to China to immediately abandon/default on that debt and kick them out of their countries. Remove that power and let the African sovereigns do it themselves.

Make the evil empires make the first aggressive move into territory they intend to steal. Until then, begin to chip away at their power. We need to be proactive, not reactive and we need to act soon.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

I actually did not play the "what if" game, you did. Every area I stated is a hot spot that the US is trying to preserve peace and freedom. Two of them we are trying to get them to sign off on nuclear agreements. So, mine is not "what if" Putin decides to go nuclear. My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

South Korea isn't Florida. What's your point?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

Do you ever draw the line?

---

Good question.

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Putting up a shield to stop violent conquest places the aggressor in a bad position. They don't experience violence unless they initiate that violence. We aren't making any enemies by stopping Russia and China that didn't already exist. Energy is a world wide issue and will remain so unless and until we can come up with a workable recipe for cold fusion. So, even that isn't a fight we can willingly and responsibly extract ourselves from.

All our efforts should be spent in countering Russian and Chinese power plays, whether through soft power or active aggression on their part. We cannot let them grow in influence because they are very clearly not going to use that power in a way that stabilizes the world into anything but oligarchical kleptocracy or an international prison state. They are both existential threats to both the world and the USA.

What should we do? Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Turn off Nordstream 2.
2. Negotiate LNG terminals spreading across the entire European coast line.
3. Frack and Frack and Frack and replace Russian energy power with our own, bankrupting Russia.
4. Restrict imports of a wide array of goods from China. We are funding the means of our own destruction via trade with the CCP and we need to ween ourselves off of it. I'm a free trader, but the use to which our money is put by them is against our national interests.
5. Bump defense spending in the US up by 10% to start and focus on advanced weapons to remain on top of the heap.
6. Eliminate all Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) plans from the US military at all levels and remove any general officer who objects.
7. Revoke all visas for Chinese nationals in the US in technical fields and for any university study. They are using those positions to steal IP.
8. Mine/Trap the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus so that if the Russians cross, they are met with massive casualties and it will be their own fault. Offer Air support for the Ukraine only within it's own borders.
9. Do the same or similar with China as 8 above regarding Taiwan.
10. Set up pan african conferences to encourage all African nations in Debt traps to China to immediately abandon/default on that debt and kick them out of their countries. Remove that power and let the African sovereigns do it themselves.

Make the evil empires make the first aggressive move into territory they intend to steal. Until then, begin to chip away at their power. We need to be proactive, not reactive and we need to act soon.

---

Some interesting suggestions in your list, but there's a larger point here. Why in the hell are we driving the two most difficult powers closer together? Our European allies are in a massive decline, well ahead of our own travails. We aren't equipped for the square off from a united China and Russia alone, and it's not about the defense budget. Whatever bluster we have going now, we definitely aren't getting into a land war in Ukraine, and neither will our NATO partners. You know this, Putin knows this, everyone knows this. The only question is how far is Russia willing to go?

So here we are. Over Ukraine. Escalating tensions for a treaty that would obligate us to more international baby sitting. Instead of utilizing this opportunity to pull Russia Westward. Working for a future that could undermine China's energy dependence further, Someone who has the proximity and disdain for the Islamic crazies. Someone who could impact Iran in a meaningful way. Despite no love loss between Russia and China, we are going to continue to force that unholy alliance to happen with this type of misguided Cold War nostalgia.

I'm not advocating handing over Ukraine. There is a bargaining angle here to change the relationship trajectory while allowing room for key outcomes, including Ukrainian independence.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

---

Is there a cause and place in the world where you won't go to war? Every foreign crisis isn't existential for the USA.

Wasn't containment of communism a form of kicking the can down the road? Instead of going to war with every communist regime in the world, we just continued them and they eventually fell from the internal rot. We didn't't go to war over eastern Europe falling under communism. We contained them and eventually E. Europe rebelled (mostly peaceful) and set themselves free. We can't right every wrong on the globe.

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

---

Is there a cause and place in the world where you won't go to war? Every foreign crisis isn't existential for the USA.

Wasn't containment of communism a form of kicking the can down the road? Instead of going to war with every communist regime in the world, we just continued them and they eventually fell from the internal rot. We didn't't go to war over eastern Europe falling under communism. We contained them and eventually E. Europe rebelled (mostly peaceful) and set themselves free. We can't right every wrong on the globe.

---

We are talking the two biggest hot spots on the planet, Ukraine and Taiwan. Nobody is saying go to war with China over an atoll in the South China Sea or Pakistan over India border disputes.

We are talking full invasion and the taking of a city in a smaller nation by a bigger nation. Can you think of anything more invasive and demonstrating might makes right? This is not the end of a lease, like Hong Kong. Russia said we want Crimea and took it, Obama let them and sent blankets.

Now, they not only want to tell NATO who can join but where to station NATO troops or we will invade and YOU are good with it. This is not just rhetoric, they have 125k soldiers on the border. So, the real question is what does a Nation have to do to be bad enough to do something? Invade Miami and then we can get tough?

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

---

Is there a cause and place in the world where you won't go to war? Every foreign crisis isn't existential for the USA.

Wasn't containment of communism a form of kicking the can down the road? Instead of going to war with every communist regime in the world, we just continued them and they eventually fell from the internal rot. We didn't't go to war over eastern Europe falling under communism. We contained them and eventually E. Europe rebelled (mostly peaceful) and set themselves free. We can't right every wrong on the globe.

---

Now, they not only want to tell NATO who can join but where to station NATO troops or we will invade and YOU are good with it. This is not just rhetoric, they have 125k soldiers on the border. So, the real question is what does a Nation have to do to be bad enough to do something? Invade Miami and then we can get tough?

---

I'm not good with it, I'm just not willing to send your sons to Ukraine or Taiwan to die.

And yes, I would send them to die defending Miami

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

With respect to no. 2, it's no longer a proxy war if Russia invades, and we put U.S. troops on the ground to try and stop them. While I agree with you it does seem unreasonable for nuclear weapons to be used in such a conflict, if the conflict goes bad for Russia, I don't want to find out what they might do in response. Destroying Kiev or another Ukraine city may not be out of the question.

As for no. 3, I agree. Quite frankly, I think this is a big bluff by Putin, designed to gain favorable terms on an agreement. That said, you take a bluff too far and you might just have to play your hand.

RMF56 said:

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

---

It remains shocking to me that you believe any of the above merits a ground war between the U.S. and Russia. Sanctions? Yes. Arm the Ukrainians? Yes. Put our boys on the ground to give their lives for a corrupt former Soviet state with divided loyalties? Vietnam all over again.

Let me guess, you also thought Vietnam was a good idea.

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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%85

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?

---

You want to play the "what if" game"? What if by accident thermonuclear war ensues our intervention in Ukraine? What if Ukraine kicked Putin's ass? What if Putin crushes Ukraine and dies 6 months later? We can come up with hundreds of permutations of foreign wars.

I won't play. I don't gamble things I'm not prepared to lose

---

My argument is that if you let Ukraine fall, it impacts our ability to negotiate with the two biggest wild card governments on the planet, this month. You abandon Taiwan, who will stand up against tyranny? These are not "what ifs".

---

Ukraine isn't worth it. Taiwan isn't Hawaii. We are not the only super power on the globe and Biden is scary.

---

What are the other superpowers that can step in and preserve Ukraine and Taiwans independence? China?

What is worth it? When do you draw the line? When it effects you?

---

When it affects us more than Ukraine
Do you ever draw the line?

---

Well at least you are not being subjective! Do you even know what allowing Putin to dictate who joins NATO and where NATO can station troops would cost the US? Do you think the next ultimatum, which is what this is, will be easier to address? Or when we finally say that is enough will be less risky? Kicking the can down the road never results in a better situation. Ukraine is THE perfect line in the sand, a line on Putins side of the fence. Putin knows that, why do you think he has 125k troops there?

---

Is there a cause and place in the world where you won't go to war? Every foreign crisis isn't existential for the USA.

Wasn't containment of communism a form of kicking the can down the road? Instead of going to war with every communist regime in the world, we just continued them and they eventually fell from the internal rot. We didn't't go to war over eastern Europe falling under communism. We contained them and eventually E. Europe rebelled (mostly peaceful) and set themselves free. We can't right every wrong on the globe.

---

We are talking the two biggest hot spots on the planet, Ukraine and Taiwan. Nobody is saying go to war with China over an atoll in the South China Sea or Pakistan over India border disputes.

We are talking full invasion and the taking of a city in a smaller nation by a bigger nation. Can you think of anything more invasive and demonstrating might makes right? This is not the end of a lease, like Hong Kong. Russia said we want Crimea and took it, Obama let them and sent blankets.

Now, they not only want to tell NATO who can join but where to station NATO troops or we will invade and YOU are good with it. This is not just rhetoric, they have 125k soldiers on the border. So, the real question is what does a Nation have to do to be bad enough to do something? Invade Miami and then we can get tough?

---

Crimeans overwhelmingly supported annexation to Russia. Who is Obama to say otherwise?

NATO was formed to defend North America and Western Europe from the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part. If Russian control of Ukraine were an existential threat to the US or any NATO member, we would have been at war the minute we signed the treaty. It wasn't then, and it isn't now.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

I agree with you. This is on Putin, period. He chose to deal with whatever concerns he has by moving 125k troops on Ukraine's border/

No one is going nuclear. Only the insane think you can win a modern nuclear war, this is not 1945 and nobody knew. Also, none of the decision makers are nuts. Maybe a little cranky after his nap, but Joe is not going nuclear. Putin certainly isn't.

I do think he wants to negotiate. I do not think this involves energy. I think it is to show NATO that the US won't help you, so better cut deals with me. This is for Putin to influence Europe and to show the world the US is a paper tiger. Ukraine is not worth sending troops. Denmark, what do they really add? Slovenia?

The Jane Fonda's need to stay out of this and let the US follow protocol and support Europe when threatened by Russia.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

The US has been pressuring Germany and Russia, including sanction threats, for several years over Nord Stream 2. It's been ready to go for 2 years now, but has been "tied up" in German regulatory approval, otherwise known as foreign (US) influence politics.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

The US has been pressuring Germany and Russia, including sanction threats, for several years over Nord Stream 2. It's been ready to go for 2 years now, but has been "tied up" in German regulatory approval, otherwise known as foreign (US) influence politics.

---

That is why I do not think this is about energy. This is about more than one industry.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

I agree with you. This is on Putin, period. He chose to deal with whatever concerns he has by moving 125k troops on Ukraine's border/

No one is going nuclear. Only the insane think you can win a modern nuclear war, this is not 1945 and nobody knew. Also, none of the decision makers are nuts. Maybe a little cranky after his nap, but Joe is not going nuclear. Putin certainly isn't.

I do think he wants to negotiate. I do not think this involves energy. I think it is to show NATO that the US won't help you, so better cut deals with me. This is for Putin to influence Europe and to show the world the US is a paper tiger. Ukraine is not worth sending troops. Denmark, what do they really add? Slovenia?

The Jane Fonda's need to stay out of this and let the US follow protocol and support Europe when threatened by Russia.

---

If that's "protocol," then what's the purpose of NATO? Why have an alliance if you're going to war on behalf of anyone and everyone, member nation or not?

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

The US has been pressuring Germany and Russia, including sanction threats, for several years over Nord Stream 2. It's been ready to go for 2 years now, but has been "tied up" in German regulatory approval, otherwise known as foreign (US) influence politics.

---

That is why I do not think this is about energy. This is about more than one industry.

---

Of course it's about energy. But we're going to wrap it in a Cold War-esque veneer. The ultimate irony is Biden dropped the sanction threats this past Summer to improve relations with……Europe.

Germany wants the pipeline. Germany, as well as others, have been against Ukraine entry to NATO before this. Interpret that as you want.

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

I agree with you. This is on Putin, period. He chose to deal with whatever concerns he has by moving 125k troops on Ukraine's border/

No one is going nuclear. Only the insane think you can win a modern nuclear war, this is not 1945 and nobody knew. Also, none of the decision makers are nuts. Maybe a little cranky after his nap, but Joe is not going nuclear. Putin certainly isn't.

I do think he wants to negotiate. I do not think this involves energy. I think it is to show NATO that the US won't help you, so better cut deals with me. This is for Putin to influence Europe and to show the world the US is a paper tiger. Ukraine is not worth sending troops. Denmark, what do they really add? Slovenia?

The Jane Fonda's need to stay out of this and let the US follow protocol and support Europe when threatened by Russia.

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

Mothra said:

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

Well, here is the language. Ukraine DID give up its nuclear weapons and the US DID sign. So, I don't know how you can say I am making this up.


Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:
[ol]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

[/ol]This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

That is the agreement. I said that it was not legally guaranteeing intervention, remember my weasel-word comment? It clearly says Ukraine will give up nukes and the others will do 1 - 6, but not legally binding. So I ask again, if you were North Korea or Iran would you deal with any of the signees if Russia continues? If Russia keeps Crimea and is allowed to threaten how much credibility does the US have left?

Russia has no bearing on our credibility. It's not a defense treaty.

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

Well, here is the language. Ukraine DID give up its nuclear weapons and the US DID sign. So, I don't know how you can say I am making this up.


Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:
[ol]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

[/ol]This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

That is the agreement. I said that it was not legally guaranteeing intervention, remember my weasel-word comment? It clearly says Ukraine will give up nukes and the others will do 1 - 6, but not legally binding. So I ask again, if you were North Korea or Iran would you deal with any of the signees if Russia continues? If Russia keeps Crimea and is allowed to threaten how much credibility does the US have left?

---

This may come as shock to you, but Iran and North Korea are cheering for Russia.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Putting up a shield to stop violent conquest places the aggressor in a bad position. They don't experience violence unless they initiate that violence. We aren't making any enemies by stopping Russia and China that didn't already exist. Energy is a world wide issue and will remain so unless and until we can come up with a workable recipe for cold fusion. So, even that isn't a fight we can willingly and responsibly extract ourselves from.

All our efforts should be spent in countering Russian and Chinese power plays, whether through soft power or active aggression on their part. We cannot let them grow in influence because they are very clearly not going to use that power in a way that stabilizes the world into anything but oligarchical kleptocracy or an international prison state. They are both existential threats to both the world and the USA.

What should we do? Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Turn off Nordstream 2.
2. Negotiate LNG terminals spreading across the entire European coast line.
3. Frack and Frack and Frack and replace Russian energy power with our own, bankrupting Russia.
4. Restrict imports of a wide array of goods from China. We are funding the means of our own destruction via trade with the CCP and we need to ween ourselves off of it. I'm a free trader, but the use to which our money is put by them is against our national interests.
5. Bump defense spending in the US up by 10% to start and focus on advanced weapons to remain on top of the heap.
6. Eliminate all Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) plans from the US military at all levels and remove any general officer who objects.
7. Revoke all visas for Chinese nationals in the US in technical fields and for any university study. They are using those positions to steal IP.
8. Mine/Trap the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus so that if the Russians cross, they are met with massive casualties and it will be their own fault. Offer Air support for the Ukraine only within it's own borders.
9. Do the same or similar with China as 8 above regarding Taiwan.
10. Set up pan african conferences to encourage all African nations in Debt traps to China to immediately abandon/default on that debt and kick them out of their countries. Remove that power and let the African sovereigns do it themselves.

Make the evil empires make the first aggressive move into territory they intend to steal. Until then, begin to chip away at their power. We need to be proactive, not reactive and we need to act soon.

---

Some interesting suggestions in your list, but there's a larger point here. Why in the hell are we driving the two most difficult powers closer together? Our European allies are in a massive decline, well ahead of our own travails. We aren't equipped for the square off from a united China and Russia alone, and it's not about the defense budget. Whatever bluster we have going now, we definitely aren't getting into a land war in Ukraine, and neither will our NATO partners. You know this, Putin knows this, everyone knows this. The only question is how far is Russia willing to go?

So here we are. Over Ukraine. Escalating tensions for a treaty that would obligate us to more international baby sitting. Instead of utilizing this opportunity to pull Russia Westward. Working for a future that could undermine China's energy dependence further, Someone who has the proximity and disdain for the Islamic crazies. Someone who could impact Iran in a meaningful way. Despite no love loss between Russia and China, we are going to continue to force that unholy alliance to happen with this type of misguided Cold War nostalgia.

I'm not advocating handing over Ukraine. There is a bargaining angle here to change the relationship trajectory while allowing room for key outcomes, including Ukrainian independence.

---

Let's agree we see things differently in a few ways. That said, what are your thoughts on my 10 ideas? Respect your opinion and interested in your thoughts on the strategy/tactics.

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Putting up a shield to stop violent conquest places the aggressor in a bad position. They don't experience violence unless they initiate that violence. We aren't making any enemies by stopping Russia and China that didn't already exist. Energy is a world wide issue and will remain so unless and until we can come up with a workable recipe for cold fusion. So, even that isn't a fight we can willingly and responsibly extract ourselves from.

All our efforts should be spent in countering Russian and Chinese power plays, whether through soft power or active aggression on their part. We cannot let them grow in influence because they are very clearly not going to use that power in a way that stabilizes the world into anything but oligarchical kleptocracy or an international prison state. They are both existential threats to both the world and the USA.

What should we do? Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Turn off Nordstream 2.
2. Negotiate LNG terminals spreading across the entire European coast line.
3. Frack and Frack and Frack and replace Russian energy power with our own, bankrupting Russia.
4. Restrict imports of a wide array of goods from China. We are funding the means of our own destruction via trade with the CCP and we need to ween ourselves off of it. I'm a free trader, but the use to which our money is put by them is against our national interests.
5. Bump defense spending in the US up by 10% to start and focus on advanced weapons to remain on top of the heap.
6. Eliminate all Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) plans from the US military at all levels and remove any general officer who objects.
7. Revoke all visas for Chinese nationals in the US in technical fields and for any university study. They are using those positions to steal IP.
8. Mine/Trap the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus so that if the Russians cross, they are met with massive casualties and it will be their own fault. Offer Air support for the Ukraine only within it's own borders.
9. Do the same or similar with China as 8 above regarding Taiwan.
10. Set up pan african conferences to encourage all African nations in Debt traps to China to immediately abandon/default on that debt and kick them out of their countries. Remove that power and let the African sovereigns do it themselves.

Make the evil empires make the first aggressive move into territory they intend to steal. Until then, begin to chip away at their power. We need to be proactive, not reactive and we need to act soon.

---

Some interesting suggestions in your list, but there's a larger point here. Why in the hell are we driving the two most difficult powers closer together? Our European allies are in a massive decline, well ahead of our own travails. We aren't equipped for the square off from a united China and Russia alone, and it's not about the defense budget. Whatever bluster we have going now, we definitely aren't getting into a land war in Ukraine, and neither will our NATO partners. You know this, Putin knows this, everyone knows this. The only question is how far is Russia willing to go?

So here we are. Over Ukraine. Escalating tensions for a treaty that would obligate us to more international baby sitting. Instead of utilizing this opportunity to pull Russia Westward. Working for a future that could undermine China's energy dependence further, Someone who has the proximity and disdain for the Islamic crazies. Someone who could impact Iran in a meaningful way. Despite no love loss between Russia and China, we are going to continue to force that unholy alliance to happen with this type of misguided Cold War nostalgia.

I'm not advocating handing over Ukraine. There is a bargaining angle here to change the relationship trajectory while allowing room for key outcomes, including Ukrainian independence.

---

Let's agree we see things differently in a few ways. That said, what are your thoughts on my 10 ideas? Respect your opinion and interested in your thoughts on the strategy/tactics.

---

Several of these I agree with. Fracking and expanding our energy resources is a no brainer. Expanding LNG terminal access in Europe Is another good idea, even if I don't think Nord Stream should be killed. Not sure if we need a 10% bump on defense spending, but there's a need to spend much smarter and kill some of the bloat and outdated initiatives. Shift those to modernize our military to the new challenges, including things like cyber warfare, both defensive and offensive. And yes, dump the woke experimentation within the military.

I loved your innovative concept of combating the debt trap strategy China employs. While I don't like the moral hazard possibilities in straight debt refusal (what happens when the next guy comes to power and gives the finger to the West's debt obligations?), the idea of a financial counter in Africa and other underdeveloped economies that China takes advantage of for resources has merit. The challenge there is China employs an IDGAF approach to their partners. For example they were giving military helicopters and hardware to Omar Al-Bashir to conduct the slaughter in Darfur to get their hands on their oil. Those are hard ones to unwind in the madness that can be Africa. But there are others that present opportunities. A sort of non-traditional economic warfare to exploit China's Achilles heel of resource scarcity. Intriguing,

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

Well, here is the language. Ukraine DID give up its nuclear weapons and the US DID sign. So, I don't know how you can say I am making this up.


Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:
[ol]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

[/ol]This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

That is the agreement. I said that it was not legally guaranteeing intervention, remember my weasel-word comment? It clearly says Ukraine will give up nukes and the others will do 1 - 6, but not legally binding. So I ask again, if you were North Korea or Iran would you deal with any of the signees if Russia continues? If Russia keeps Crimea and is allowed to threaten how much credibility does the US have left?

---

This may come as shock to you, but Iran and North Korea are cheering for Russia.

---

Exactly, precedent that might makes right? That if they threaten the US we will not stand up for our allies? No **** they are rooting for Russia, if they were rooting for the US we would have agreements and they would be allies. Think about what you said.

You think they want the US to stand tough????

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Emotions are getting heated in this thread. I think we might take a step back and see if we can agree on some basic points:

1. This crisis did not occur because of something the United States did, or that the Biden Administration did specific to Ukraine. This crisis is the result of decisions and actions taken by Russia at the direction of Putin.

2. Nuclear War is not realistically a possibility here. Neither the US nor Russia would use nuclear weapons unless they believed a nuclear attack was underway or unavoidable. The Ukraine crisis, while serious, is clearly a proxy conflict for Washington and Moscow.

3. The timing of the troop movement and the lack of an actual attack suggests Putin is seeking a negotiated settlement, one which allows Putin to increase control of the East European energy industry and reduce/eliminate confidence in the US' ability to influence the region.

What are your thoughts?

---

I agree with you. This is on Putin, period. He chose to deal with whatever concerns he has by moving 125k troops on Ukraine's border/

No one is going nuclear. Only the insane think you can win a modern nuclear war, this is not 1945 and nobody knew. Also, none of the decision makers are nuts. Maybe a little cranky after his nap, but Joe is not going nuclear. Putin certainly isn't.

I do think he wants to negotiate. I do not think this involves energy. I think it is to show NATO that the US won't help you, so better cut deals with me. This is for Putin to influence Europe and to show the world the US is a paper tiger. Ukraine is not worth sending troops. Denmark, what do they really add? Slovenia?

The Jane Fonda's need to stay out of this and let the US follow protocol and support Europe when threatened by Russia.

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

When NATO mobilizes the US has protocols and lans for positioning of troops. Ever hear of REFORGER? We practiced for 50 years before the end of the Cold War. NATO is commanded by a US General and they mobilized, you think this gets done in a night?? This has been war gamed forever.

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

Well, here is the language. Ukraine DID give up its nuclear weapons and the US DID sign. So, I don't know how you can say I am making this up.


Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:
[ol]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

[/ol]This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

That is the agreement. I said that it was not legally guaranteeing intervention, remember my weasel-word comment? It clearly says Ukraine will give up nukes and the others will do 1 - 6, but not legally binding. So I ask again, if you were North Korea or Iran would you deal with any of the signees if Russia continues? If Russia keeps Crimea and is allowed to threaten how much credibility does the US have left?

---

This may come as shock to you, but Iran and North Korea are cheering for Russia.

---

Exactly, precedent that might makes right? That if they threaten the US we will not stand up for our allies? No **** they are rooting for Russia, if they were rooting for the US we would have agreements and they would be allies. Think about what you said.

You think they want the US to stand tough????

---

Sure. They'd probably enjoy us bogged down in another costly and unnecessary war. But at least you get to puff your chest out and talk tough as we waste more American lives and treasure.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Canon said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

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.

---

Putting up a shield to stop violent conquest places the aggressor in a bad position. They don't experience violence unless they initiate that violence. We aren't making any enemies by stopping Russia and China that didn't already exist. Energy is a world wide issue and will remain so unless and until we can come up with a workable recipe for cold fusion. So, even that isn't a fight we can willingly and responsibly extract ourselves from.

All our efforts should be spent in countering Russian and Chinese power plays, whether through soft power or active aggression on their part. We cannot let them grow in influence because they are very clearly not going to use that power in a way that stabilizes the world into anything but oligarchical kleptocracy or an international prison state. They are both existential threats to both the world and the USA.

What should we do? Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Turn off Nordstream 2.
2. Negotiate LNG terminals spreading across the entire European coast line.
3. Frack and Frack and Frack and replace Russian energy power with our own, bankrupting Russia.
4. Restrict imports of a wide array of goods from China. We are funding the means of our own destruction via trade with the CCP and we need to ween ourselves off of it. I'm a free trader, but the use to which our money is put by them is against our national interests.
5. Bump defense spending in the US up by 10% to start and focus on advanced weapons to remain on top of the heap.
6. Eliminate all Diversity Inclusion and Equity (DIE) plans from the US military at all levels and remove any general officer who objects.
7. Revoke all visas for Chinese nationals in the US in technical fields and for any university study. They are using those positions to steal IP.
8. Mine/Trap the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus so that if the Russians cross, they are met with massive casualties and it will be their own fault. Offer Air support for the Ukraine only within it's own borders.
9. Do the same or similar with China as 8 above regarding Taiwan.
10. Set up pan african conferences to encourage all African nations in Debt traps to China to immediately abandon/default on that debt and kick them out of their countries. Remove that power and let the African sovereigns do it themselves.

Make the evil empires make the first aggressive move into territory they intend to steal. Until then, begin to chip away at their power. We need to be proactive, not reactive and we need to act soon.

---

Some interesting suggestions in your list, but there's a larger point here. Why in the hell are we driving the two most difficult powers closer together? Our European allies are in a massive decline, well ahead of our own travails. We aren't equipped for the square off from a united China and Russia alone, and it's not about the defense budget. Whatever bluster we have going now, we definitely aren't getting into a land war in Ukraine, and neither will our NATO partners. You know this, Putin knows this, everyone knows this. The only question is how far is Russia willing to go?

So here we are. Over Ukraine. Escalating tensions for a treaty that would obligate us to more international baby sitting. Instead of utilizing this opportunity to pull Russia Westward. Working for a future that could undermine China's energy dependence further, Someone who has the proximity and disdain for the Islamic crazies. Someone who could impact Iran in a meaningful way. Despite no love loss between Russia and China, we are going to continue to force that unholy alliance to happen with this type of misguided Cold War nostalgia.

I'm not advocating handing over Ukraine. There is a bargaining angle here to change the relationship trajectory while allowing room for key outcomes, including Ukrainian independence.

---

Let's agree we see things differently in a few ways. That said, what are your thoughts on my 10 ideas? Respect your opinion and interested in your thoughts on the strategy/tactics.

---

Several of these I agree with. Fracking and expanding our energy resources is a no brainer. Expanding LNG terminal access in Europe Is another good idea, even if I don't think Nord Stream should be killed. Not sure if we need a 10% bump on defense spending, but there's a need to spend much smarter and kill some of the bloat and outdated initiatives. Shift those to modernize our military to the new challenges, including things like cyber warfare, both defensive and offensive. And yes, dump the woke experimentation within the military.

I loved your innovative concept of combating the debt trap strategy China employs. While I don't like the moral hazard possibilities in straight debt refusal (what happens when the next guy comes to power and gives the finger to the West's debt obligations?), the idea of a financial counter in Africa and other underdeveloped economies that China takes advantage of for resources has merit. The challenge there is China employs an IDGAF approach to their partners. For example they were giving military helicopters and hardware to Omar Al-Bashir to conduct the slaughter in Darfur to get their hands on their oil. Those are hard ones to unwind in the madness that can be Africa. But there are others that present opportunities. A sort of non-traditional economic warfare to exploit China's Achilles heel of resource scarcity. Intriguing,

---

Thanks brother. These are the discussions our nation needs to be having. Strategy and tactics. Public policy is secondary in these times except to sway public opinion….imo.

"The challenge there is China"

I need to take some time to write up a short report on China's PB struggles and the three factions working to gain control

Russia is very unlikely to want a hot war with the US. Putin understands the dynamics in Economic and Geopolitical terms, and likes to keep things predictable. His possible involvement in removing Hu Jintao from power in 2013 is quietly discussed among people in the IC but has never received public scrutiny.

First, Cruz begs forgiveness for saying Jan 6 attackers were terrorists.

Now, Hawley echoes the Kremlin, questioning if Ukraine should be allowed in NATO.

Welcome to Trump’s GOP, where propaganda is policy and Senators grovel at the feet of despots.

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 3, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

There is no protocol that requires US or NATO involvement in a ground war with Russia over Ukraine, despite your attempts to read things in to the Budapest Memo that simply aren't there. Let's stop making **** up.

---

Well, here is the language. Ukraine DID give up its nuclear weapons and the US DID sign. So, I don't know how you can say I am making this up.


Budapest, 5 December 1994
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:
[ol]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

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.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

[/ol]This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

That is the agreement. I said that it was not legally guaranteeing intervention, remember my weasel-word comment? It clearly says Ukraine will give up nukes and the others will do 1 - 6, but not legally binding. So I ask again, if you were North Korea or Iran would you deal with any of the signees if Russia continues? If Russia keeps Crimea and is allowed to threaten how much credibility does the US have left?

---

This may come as shock to you, but Iran and North Korea are cheering for Russia.

---

Exactly, precedent that might makes right? That if they threaten the US we will not stand up for our allies? No **** they are rooting for Russia, if they were rooting for the US we would have agreements and they would be allies. Think about what you said.

You think they want the US to stand tough????

---

Sure. They'd probably enjoy us bogged down in another costly and unnecessary war. But at least you get to puff your chest out and talk tough as we waste more American lives and treasure.

---

This has nothing to do with chest puffing or tough talk. This is supporting a country we talked into giving up the one thing that it had to ensure Russia didn't do what it is now, its nuclear arsenal.

Now, when Russia is doing exactly what they said they would do. The US is going to cut and run? You honestly don't see an issue there? You are going to play the not legally binding card? But, hey you don't want to get bogged down, just tell the millions that listened to us that they are not worth it. I hope I never need you to watch my back.