This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. Other than being a key contributor to the Biden Crime Family, not sure why the wokeys have become neo-cons ... I think they're too stupid to realize Ukraine is a very conservative, Christian Orthodox nation. Other than death and taxes, one thing is certain is the general ignorance and stupidity of Democrats.

---

The left and neocons love them some war.

---

And a lot of Trumpists too, going by this thread.

---

You really need to get some professional help, Sam.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Ukraine is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. Other than being a key contributor to the Biden Crime Family, not sure why the wokeys have become neo-cons ... I think they're too stupid to realize Ukraine is a very conservative, Christian Orthodox nation. Other than death and taxes, one thing is certain is the general ignorance and stupidity of Democrats.

---

The left and neocons love them some war.

---

And a lot of Trumpists too, going by this thread.

---

You really need to get some professional help, Sam.

---

Seems a bit obsessed with Trump. Trump is mo different than any other lobbyist. He screams to get his way. Just like Obama and Clinton, different style but just the same. Political cog. Really shouldn't take so seriously. Your City Councilman has more direct impact on your life than the President.

And, another ones gone
Another ones gone
Another one bites the dust

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-enlistment-officer-found-dead-latest-string-mysterious-deaths-2022-10?amp

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

it seems to me the increasing pressure of the war is creating more pressure inside of Russian politics. Putin's internal friends and allies are dropping like flies and falling out windows. I wonder if anyone high enough in the military command would be willing to fire off a nuke for a party that is struggling to survive due to internal conflict.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

I know several women that could plink your earhole from 700 yards. One of my Aunts drilled an aoudad from 1200 from one mountaintop to another.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

Shooting an AT4 at a drone in a major city puts innocent lives in danger and is impossible to actually strike a drone.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

Shooting an AT4 at a drone in a major city puts innocent lives in danger and is impossible to actually strike a drone.

---

Depends upon the drone. Drones are shot down all the time. Just ask the Iranians.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

Shooting an AT4 at a drone in a major city puts innocent lives in danger and is impossible to actually strike a drone.

---

It's a plan case. She has a BB gun in her pocket...

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

it seems to me the increasing pressure of the war is creating more pressure inside of Russian politics. Putin's internal friends and allies are dropping like flies and falling out windows. I wonder if anyone high enough in the military command would be willing to fire off a nuke for a party that is struggling to survive due to internal conflict.

---

I am not sure the correct assumption is that post-Putin would be less aggressive. If anything, Putin probably is getting pressure for not going in stronger. If Putin goes it is not guaranteed his successor would be irenic - potentially even more aggressive toward the war.

Iraq was a non-nuclear, stone-age army. While the Russians look conventionally weak, is Ukraine really worth risking nuclear conflict vs. trying to find an off-ramp? Seems like this is a pretty important issue and our President is watching Matlock re-runs in Delaware. I am not sure there is not a more pressing issue that getting both sides to the peace table, but we seem to be more focused on ice cream and January 6 theater.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

it seems to me the increasing pressure of the war is creating more pressure inside of Russian politics. Putin's internal friends and allies are dropping like flies and falling out windows. I wonder if anyone high enough in the military command would be willing to fire off a nuke for a party that is struggling to survive due to internal conflict.

---

I am not sure the correct assumption is that post-Putin would be less aggressive. If anything, Putin probably is getting pressure for not going in stronger. If Putin goes it is not guaranteed his successor would be irenic - potentially even more aggressive toward the war.

Iraq was a non-nuclear, stone-age army. While the Russians look conventionally weak, is Ukraine really worth risking nuclear conflict vs. trying to find an off-ramp? Seems like this is a pretty important issue and our President is watching Matlock re-runs in Delaware. I am not sure there is not a more pressing issue that getting both sides to the peace table, but we seem to be more focused on ice cream and January 6 theater.

---

So, where is the off ramp?

Russia leaves Ukraine? Putin will never do it.

Ukraine accepts giving Crimea and the South? Ukraine will never do it.

The off ramp can't have Russia gaining through aggression. To make it more difficult, Russia has caused billions of dollars of damage to Ukraine. Even if the leave, Ukraine is not whole.

Is the off ramp arming Ukraine with Nukes?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

Shooting an AT4 at a drone in a major city puts innocent lives in danger and is impossible to actually strike a drone.

---

It's all merely propaganda palp .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to be killed, wounded and their lives horribly disrupted due to …..

A. Putin'a fear of NATO encirclement / regime change

B . Biden's horrible miscalculation of Putin's intensions . Even with the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian - Russia border .





Now the only successful end game imaginable for Ukraine involves Putin's demise .


And Putin is fully aware of it . Which makes him only more paranoid…..more dangerous.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is total bs. The left has totally bought into war propaganda.

My friend from Kyiv (born in Donetsk), a speech therapist. On her way to take down drones. pic.twitter.com/QduYxANbT8

— Regina Bauer 🇪🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦🇫🇮 🇸🇪 ✙ (@petite_michelle) October 17, 2022

---

After watching most women drive cars around cities can you imagine them shooting off shoulder fired missiles?

And just randomly trying to hit drones flying through the air? lol

---

Shooting an AT4 at a drone in a major city puts innocent lives in danger and is impossible to actually strike a drone.

---

It's all merely propaganda palp .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to be killed, wounded and their lives horribly disrupted due to …..

A. Putin'a fear of NATO encirclement / regime change

B . Biden's horrible miscalculation of Putin's intensions . Even with the placement of 200,000 Russian troops along the Ukrainian - Russia border .





Now the only successful end game imaginable for Ukraine involves Putin's demise .


And Putin is fully aware of it . Which makes him only more paranoid…..more dangerous.

---

1A. Putin's desire to control the Black Sea and pipeline routes to Europe.

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

it seems to me the increasing pressure of the war is creating more pressure inside of Russian politics. Putin's internal friends and allies are dropping like flies and falling out windows. I wonder if anyone high enough in the military command would be willing to fire off a nuke for a party that is struggling to survive due to internal conflict.

---

I am not sure the correct assumption is that post-Putin would be less aggressive. If anything, Putin probably is getting pressure for not going in stronger. If Putin goes it is not guaranteed his successor would be irenic - potentially even more aggressive toward the war.

Iraq was a non-nuclear, stone-age army. While the Russians look conventionally weak, is Ukraine really worth risking nuclear conflict vs. trying to find an off-ramp? Seems like this is a pretty important issue and our President is watching Matlock re-runs in Delaware. I am not sure there is not a more pressing issue that getting both sides to the peace table, but we seem to be more focused on ice cream and January 6 theater.

---

So, where is the off ramp?

Russia leaves Ukraine? Putin will never do it.

Ukraine accepts giving Crimea and the South? Ukraine will never do it.

The off ramp can't have Russia gaining through aggression. To make it more difficult, Russia has caused billions of dollars of damage to Ukraine. Even if the leave, Ukraine is not whole.

Is the off ramp arming Ukraine with Nukes?

---

Some sort of negotiated settlement. Russian already took Crimea, let them keep it.

Russia took parts of the Donbas(?) - let them hold a legitimate plebiscite.

Ukraine is not whole. It may not be fair, but war rarely is.

The problem started back during Obama when Ukraine was "encouraged" to give up its nukes, the Eastern European defense was stopped, and Ukraine arms were stopped. For those that question who is Russia's puppets just look at the facts.

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

it seems to me the increasing pressure of the war is creating more pressure inside of Russian politics. Putin's internal friends and allies are dropping like flies and falling out windows. I wonder if anyone high enough in the military command would be willing to fire off a nuke for a party that is struggling to survive due to internal conflict.

---

I am not sure the correct assumption is that post-Putin would be less aggressive. If anything, Putin probably is getting pressure for not going in stronger. If Putin goes it is not guaranteed his successor would be irenic - potentially even more aggressive toward the war.

Iraq was a non-nuclear, stone-age army. While the Russians look conventionally weak, is Ukraine really worth risking nuclear conflict vs. trying to find an off-ramp? Seems like this is a pretty important issue and our President is watching Matlock re-runs in Delaware. I am not sure there is not a more pressing issue that getting both sides to the peace table, but we seem to be more focused on ice cream and January 6 theater.

---

So, where is the off ramp?

Russia leaves Ukraine? Putin will never do it.

Ukraine accepts giving Crimea and the South? Ukraine will never do it.

The off ramp can't have Russia gaining through aggression. To make it more difficult, Russia has caused billions of dollars of damage to Ukraine. Even if the leave, Ukraine is not whole.

Is the off ramp arming Ukraine with Nukes?

---

Some sort of negotiated settlement. Russian already took Crimea, let them keep it.

Russia took parts of the Donbas(?) - let them hold a legitimate plebiscite.

Ukraine is not whole. It may not be fair, but war rarely is.

The problem started back during Obama when Ukraine was "encouraged" to give up its nukes, the Eastern European defense was stopped, and Ukraine arms were stopped. For those that question who is Russia's puppets just look at the facts.

---

What you describe, just sets off a pattern of similar actions around the globe. China, Iran, North Korea. Go in and take, then threaten WMD, it doesn't have to be Nuke.

Rather than your solution which basically is buy off Putin. I say arm the Ukraines further, give them the capability to hit Moscow...

HuMcK said:

---

Ukraine gave up their former Soviet nuclear weapons in the mid 90's, in exchange for a promise from Russia to respect their territorial integrity, which of course they broke in 2014 and now again in 2022. Given that they've now broken their word on Ukraine twice, what kind of promise or agreement do you think they will abide by now, and why should literally anyone trust them if they even made an agreement?

Russia will use any settlement as a ploy to regroup and re-arm, recent history has shown that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, their domestic propaganda has made it explicitly clear that they view the conflict as being wider than just against Ukraine, they are (in their minds) attacking the very idea of a US led global order. You will pretend they didn't for political reasons, but hey have been attacking out political system directly for a while now by supporting destabilizing figures, as they have pretty overtly done in Italy/France/Germany/UK (i.e. the core of NATO).

Enough is enough, if Ukraine wants to kill Russian invaders, we should do our best to make them as effective at that as possible, and now when they have the momentum is not the time to negotiate or piss our pants about saving face for Russia.

---

Problem with that promise is it was informal and not ratified by the US senate, thus the US has no treaty obligation. Kind of similar to how we promised Russia not to expand NATO one inch to the east. "Just trust us" isn't good enough. Yes Clinton signed it and gave his word, but the American populace through the proxy of congress did not.

Guaranteed we wouldn't do **** if Ukraine wasn't pro-NATO and wasn't our lapdog.

How realistic is that agreement really? DO we protect them for 30 years, 200 years, forever? What if the US wasn't powerful enough to defend Ukraine, what happens then?

If you're pro unlimited defense and spending on Ukraine, realize it further devalues the dollar, further indebts future generations and at minimum you need to do something policy wise at home to offset the potential trillions of US taxpayer dollars this turns into.

Per usual, taxpayers are getting screwed and you pro war neoliberals don't care.

HuMcK said:

---

Ukraine gave up their former Soviet nuclear weapons in the mid 90's, in exchange for a promise from Russia to respect their territorial integrity, which of course they broke in 2014 and now again in 2022. Given that they've now broken their word on Ukraine twice, what kind of promise or agreement do you think they will abide by now, and why should literally anyone trust them if they even made an agreement?

Russia will use any settlement as a ploy to regroup and re-arm, recent history has shown that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, their domestic propaganda has made it explicitly clear that they view the conflict as being wider than just against Ukraine, they are (in their minds) attacking the very idea of a US led global order. You will pretend they didn't for political reasons, but hey have been attacking out political system directly for a while now by supporting destabilizing figures, as they have pretty overtly done in Italy/France/Germany/UK (i.e. the core of NATO).

Enough is enough, if Ukraine wants to kill Russian invaders, we should do our best to make them as effective at that as possible, and now when they have the momentum is not the time to negotiate or piss our pants about saving face for Russia.

---

I agree. Only way to get Russia to stop bombing Kiev, is hit Moscow. It is the only thing Putin understands or respects.

From what I can see, the only President he will respect, is one that can throw him around the mat. He only respects those that can beat him.

HuMcK said:

---

Ukraine gave up their former Soviet nuclear weapons in the mid 90's, in exchange for a promise from Russia to respect their territorial integrity, which of course they broke in 2014 and now again in 2022. Given that they've now broken their word on Ukraine twice, what kind of promise or agreement do you think they will abide by now, and why should literally anyone trust them if they even made an agreement?

Russia will use any settlement as a ploy to regroup and re-arm, recent history has shown that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, their domestic propaganda has made it explicitly clear that they view the conflict as being wider than just against Ukraine, they are (in their minds) attacking the very idea of a US led global order. You will pretend they didn't for political reasons, but hey have been attacking out political system directly for a while now by supporting destabilizing figures, as they have pretty overtly done in Italy/France/Germany/UK (i.e. the core of NATO).

Enough is enough, if Ukraine wants to kill Russian invaders, we should do our best to make them as effective at that as possible, and now when they have the momentum is not the time to negotiate or piss our pants about saving face for Russia.

---

That's a perfectly reasonable position. We'll have to agree to disagree that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war. If anything, this conflict has show us that Russia is not a threat militarily. I am not ready to launch World War III over Crimea and a few neo-Nazis. In a perfect world no countries invaded another, but where is the line drawn? At one time it was at NATO.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Ukraine gave up their former Soviet nuclear weapons in the mid 90's, in exchange for a promise from Russia to respect their territorial integrity, which of course they broke in 2014 and now again in 2022. Given that they've now broken their word on Ukraine twice, what kind of promise or agreement do you think they will abide by now, and why should literally anyone trust them if they even made an agreement?

Russia will use any settlement as a ploy to regroup and re-arm, recent history has shown that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, their domestic propaganda has made it explicitly clear that they view the conflict as being wider than just against Ukraine, they are (in their minds) attacking the very idea of a US led global order. You will pretend they didn't for political reasons, but hey have been attacking out political system directly for a while now by supporting destabilizing figures, as they have pretty overtly done in Italy/France/Germany/UK (i.e. the core of NATO).

Enough is enough, if Ukraine wants to kill Russian invaders, we should do our best to make them as effective at that as possible, and now when they have the momentum is not the time to negotiate or piss our pants about saving face for Russia.

---

That's a perfectly reasonable position. We'll have to agree to disagree that Ukraine is worth starting a nuclear war. If anything, this conflict has show us that Russia is not a threat militarily. I am not ready to launch World War III over Crimea and a few neo-Nazis. In a perfect world no countries invaded another, but where is the line drawn? At one time it was at NATO.

---

So when Ukraine wanted to enter NATO, NATO says no after the Baltics are admitted. But. we'll be there. Then when they ask for our help, it is another no.

If there is a line, it should be up to a nation whether they want to be in line with NATO or Russia. As it stands, Ukraine gets left out in the cold. There is nothing they can do under your scenario. That does not create a larger sphere of influence.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

---

No, but Kuwait, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are strategic. So, yes there are those that we get involved in at different levels. You do not turn your back on Ukraine, too strategic a location to ignore. Why do you think we let Turkey in NATO? Because they align on all our believes????

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

---

No, but Kuwait, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are strategic. So, yes there are those that we get involved in at different levels. You do not turn your back on Ukraine, too strategic a location to ignore. Why do you think we let Turkey in NATO? Because they align on all our believes????

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

---

No, but Kuwait, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are strategic. So, yes there are those that we get involved in at different levels. You do not turn your back on Ukraine, too strategic a location to ignore. Why do you think we let Turkey in NATO? Because they align on all our believes????

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

---

Putin does not have the Donbas. We have the Donbas. His name is Sam.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

---

No, but Kuwait, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are strategic. So, yes there are those that we get involved in at different levels. You do not turn your back on Ukraine, too strategic a location to ignore. Why do you think we let Turkey in NATO? Because they align on all our believes????

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. Or, he may launch Nukes????

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Are we really ready to risk nuclear war to defend a non-treated, corrupt country?
https://warontherocks.com/2022/10/the-end-of-the-world-is-nigh/

In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make in part because if I'm right, I'm unlikely to be around take credit for it.

President Joe Biden has named this danger, to great criticism, apparently because he believes that acknowledging the danger increases the chances of avoiding such a terrible outcome. Indeed, much can change the current trajectory, but doing so will require purposeful action by both sides specifically intended to avoid direct confrontation. At the moment, neither side seems willing or politically able to take such steps. On the contrary, in Russia nuclear threats are a prominent part of the Russian war strategy. In the United States, commentators condemn those who even name this danger, fearing that doing so will weaken Western resolve. Any mention of such considerations on Twitter, where it is always 1938, inevitably provokes accusations of appeasement and references to Neville Chamberlain.

---

This is a serious issue where we would benefit from having serious people in the White House. Instead we have basically turned over foreign policy to keyboard warriors in their moms' basements.

---

I heard a great discussion on this with a Brit.

His view, yes. We do want to defend and take the risk over Ukraine.

His view was we did it with Kuwait, a non-treatied, corrupt allie. The world showed resolve and was successful creating a more open Middle East, see Abraham accords.

Putin is a despot that is using force against a country struggling to move from Totalitarianisms to Democracy. Flawed, but trying to integrate with Europe and a free society/economy rather than with Russia and China. To let those that want to use force succeed, is simply wrong. Sometimes, that is enough... (He was old enough to remember the Blitz. So, he empathized with Kiev.) Putin is simply evil and can't be allowed to be successful.

I agree with him and agree that it needs to be a Kuwait-like effort. Coalition, not just the US. Last UN vote only 5 countries supported Russia. There is a coalition already.

I know it is not a position that some will agree with on here. But, I do not see how you let this continue. At a minimum, give Ukraine the long range missiles and drones to fight back.

---

One question: why now?

---

Because Russia invaded. It should have happened in 2014, but Obama send blankets and 6 billion to Iran...

---

There have been close to a hundred invasions in the postwar period. Do we get involved every time?

---

No, but Kuwait, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are strategic. So, yes there are those that we get involved in at different levels. You do not turn your back on Ukraine, too strategic a location to ignore. Why do you think we let Turkey in NATO? Because they align on all our believes????

---

What strategic interest is served by refusing a peace deal unless Putin gives up Crimea and the Donbas?

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? Why do you think it is such a minor thing for Ukraine to give him a port City on the Black Sea?

You downplay everything Ukraine must give up to keep Vlad happy. Or, he may launch Nukes????

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. It amazes me that you are so upset over a demonstration, yet a madman forcibly moves West and invades a sovereign nation and it is a non-event. More concerned we don't upset Putin. At least be consistent in your principals, if violence is not OK here, it is not OK in attacking sovereign nations.

---

You're losing focus. I thought we agreed that defending sovereignty in each and every case is not necessarily our policy.

So in your opinion it is worth a nuclear war to prevent Russia from having a port on the Black Sea?

---

There is a difference between somewhere we have not been involved. We have been involved in Ukraine since the break up of the Soviet Union. We are a signatory of the Memorandum where we played a role in them giving up Nukes to Russia in exchange for sovereignty. We have been coaching them for 25 years on how to be acceptable to NATO, as they have made it clear they want to be with the West (consistent with US policy since 1949).

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. Yes, this and Taiwan are different. We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. You don't abandon allies. Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... But, this goes back to principals. We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

Just to be clear, the cost of these wars are going to make our country financially default and its going to get ugly. If this goes on for a few years, we will spend over a trillion. We're also going to get involved in more "nation building" in the decades to come because the iron triangle of congress and the MIC want their money.

That is the price we will pay. Whose ass do we hold accountable for that?

I feel like ya'll are telling us to empty our pockets while you're not upset at the people who SHOULD have prevented this situation from being possible to begin with.

Doc Holliday said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

Ukraine gave up their former Soviet nuclear weapons in the mid 90's, in exchange for a promise from Russia to respect their territorial integrity, which of course they broke in 2014 and now again in 2022. Given that they've now broken their word on Ukraine twice, what kind of promise or agreement do you think they will abide by now, and why should literally anyone trust them if they even made an agreement?

Russia will use any settlement as a ploy to regroup and re-arm, recent history has shown that they cannot be trusted. Moreover, their domestic propaganda has made it explicitly clear that they view the conflict as being wider than just against Ukraine, they are (in their minds) attacking the very idea of a US led global order. You will pretend they didn't for political reasons, but hey have been attacking out political system directly for a while now by supporting destabilizing figures, as they have pretty overtly done in Italy/France/Germany/UK (i.e. the core of NATO).

Enough is enough, if Ukraine wants to kill Russian invaders, we should do our best to make them as effective at that as possible, and now when they have the momentum is not the time to negotiate or piss our pants about saving face for Russia.

---

Per usual, taxpayers are getting screwed and you pro war neoliberals don't care.

---

The pro war crowd will only care when the body bags begin rolling in and their taxes skyrocket .

Till then it's little more than a video game .