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.

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

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.

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Yes. Having nuclear weapons changes the entire calculus. That's why Kim Jong Un stays in power and we let Pakistan harbor terrorists.

It is possible for it to not be okay to attack sovereign nations and to not risk World War III over it.

The U.S. was foolish for placating Putin and making overtures to Ukraine. Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico. It is possible to both oppose what Russia is doing and understand it.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Yes. Having nuclear weapons changes the entire calculus. That's why Kim Jong Un stays in power and we let Pakistan harbor terrorists.

It is possible for it to not be okay to attack sovereign nations and to not risk World War III over it.

The U.S. was foolish for placating Putin and making overtures to Ukraine. Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico. It is possible to both oppose what Russia is doing and understand it.

---

I miscalculated telling my neighbor the turkey fryer was fine under the patio cover. I understand why it flamed up and is now burning the back of his house. Should I do anything to help him or have I done enough?

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Yes. Having nuclear weapons changes the entire calculus. That's why Kim Jong Un stays in power and we let Pakistan harbor terrorists.

It is possible for it to not be okay to attack sovereign nations and to not risk World War III over it.

The U.S. was foolish for placating Putin and making overtures to Ukraine. Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico. It is possible to both oppose what Russia is doing and understand it.

---

I miscalculated telling my neighbor the turkey fryer was fine under the patio cover. I understand why it flamed up and is now burning the back of his house. Should I do anything to help him or have I done enough?

---

I would advise against pouring gasoline on it and your neighbor's homes as part of the "anything" you might do.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Yes. Having nuclear weapons changes the entire calculus. That's why Kim Jong Un stays in power and we let Pakistan harbor terrorists.

It is possible for it to not be okay to attack sovereign nations and to not risk World War III over it.

The U.S. was foolish for placating Putin and making overtures to Ukraine. Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico. It is possible to both oppose what Russia is doing and understand it.

---

I miscalculated telling my neighbor the turkey fryer was fine under the patio cover. I understand why it flamed up and is now burning the back of his house. Should I do anything to help him or have I done enough?

---

I would advise against pouring gasoline on it and your neighbor's homes as part of the "anything" you might do.

---

They ask me to help and I say no, just watch. Yeah, that will go over well....

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

This. For all the Socialist Democrats hatred of BOM and their TdS only 1 of the last 5 presidents haven't had Russia invade a neighbor during their tenure

I'll let ya guess which one

Blood of ukrainanians is in the hands of anyone that voted Socialist Democrat.

Elect weak leaders, you get what ya asked for

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

"a war that didn't need to happen " But it has happened. We can't go back in time so, now what?

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is in part why we didn't vote for Hillary. We knew we'd be at war with Russia. That's why they were so mad and apparently duped 40% of the country that Putin elected trump so he could not invade anything

Damn fools. Same people that believed in covid vax etc

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Yes. Having nuclear weapons changes the entire calculus. That's why Kim Jong Un stays in power and we let Pakistan harbor terrorists.

It is possible for it to not be okay to attack sovereign nations and to not risk World War III over it.

The U.S. was foolish for placating Putin and making overtures to Ukraine. Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico. It is possible to both oppose what Russia is doing and understand it.

---

I miscalculated telling my neighbor the turkey fryer was fine under the patio cover. I understand why it flamed up and is now burning the back of his house. Should I do anything to help him or have I done enough?

---

I would advise against pouring gasoline on it and your neighbor's homes as part of the "anything" you might do.

---

They ask me to help and I say no, just watch. Yeah, that will go over well....

---

Your other neighbors will be grateful you did not burn down all their homes.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

We are involved and have been since 1949. You can't set up the US as the back stop to keep Russia under control and then say we're out! Or worse, pick and choose after the balloon goes up. That is a recipe for WW3.

As for cost, I agree with Trump. NATO needs to.pay us to be there. This is not a charity.

This is happening because of weakness in the White House from 2014. Putin didn't move on Trump. For all his shortcomings, he let the military do their job. Putin knows that from Syria and Middle East. Obiden would go half ass. That is dangerous.

As for Viet Nam, read the history. That was a cluster from the French. I also push back on both Eisenhower and the Founding Fathers not helping Ikraine. This is the exact situation they would - against tyrannical, Communist govt Invading a nation that wants to go west??? You find me where Eisenhower would have said no? Eisenhower Doctrine says he would do at least what we are doing. I would throw in covert with him!

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

We are involved and have been since 1949. You can't set up the US as the back stop to keep Russia under control and then say we're out! Or worse, pick and choose after the balloon goes up. That is a recipe for WW3.

As for cost, I agree with Trump. NATO needs to.pay us to be there. This is not a charity.

This is happening because of weakness in the White House from 2014. Putin didn't move on Trump. For all his shortcomings, he let the military do their job. Putin knows that from Syria and Middle East. Obiden would go half ass. That is dangerous.

As for Viet Nam, read the history. That was a cluster from the French. I also push back on both Eisenhower and the Founding Fathers not helping Ikraine. This is the exact situation they would - against tyrannical, Communist govt Invading a nation that wants to go west??? You find me where Eisenhower would have said no? Eisenhower Doctrine says he would do at least what we are doing. I would throw in covert with him!

---

Another useless word salad from you .

The US has zero business involved in Ukrainian elections , building bio labs in Ukrainian territory, or allowing money laundering activities with Ukrainian politicians .

We have zero business pushing for still another NATO alliance member who borders Russia , resulting in the inevitable placement of still more weapons pointed directly at Russia .

The US has zero business providing billions of dollars ( it simply doesn't possess ) for weapons to a country we have NO defensive treated with .

The US has zero business blowing up vital natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries , in international waters , THAT is clearly an act of war .

This is no video game , this is clear cut manipulative insanity .


Obviously you haven't read Eisenhower's biography. There is no way in Gods Green Earth he would have stumbled into such a morass . As Supreme Commander during WW2 Eisenhower had developed several personal connections with Soviet leadership and had a healthy respect for the Red Army .Eisenhower never trusted the US defense complex or saber rattling politicians . Eisenhower never believed in anything approaching our ludicrous deficit spending and strived to produce a balanced budget.

Eisenhower would be totally aghast at what Obama and Biden have created involving Ukraine.

Period

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. This is not an internal Russian affair. It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. This isn't what you and Sam describe. Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. This is not an internal Russian affair. It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. This isn't what you and Sam describe. Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes.

---

Not nearly as simple as you make it sound. The Minsk Protocol was supposed to provide ethnic Russians with autonomy and the right to use the Russian language, among other things. Zelensky was elected with overwhelming support as a peace candidate to negotiate with Russia and put these agreements into effect.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

Militarily, NATO should have not been expanded post-Cold War. If you're Russia, it is a clear act of aggression just like if the Warsaw Pact made overtures to Canada or Mexico.

---

Exactly .

---

Just curious. Russia's moves in the Arctic or against Georgia or Ukraine are not aggressive moves? They can act with impunity and that is good. China is worse. The West moves and we are antagonizing. China moves into South America, Africa and the Pacific, that is ok?

So, what is our move with South America? If it is do nothing, none of our business. You guys are setting up a scenario where the West loses influence, China and Russia gain and there is no area to gain because even if those nations prefer the West hands off...

You guys don't see the problem????

---

Hasn't been a problem for dozens of other countries to mind their own business .

Wasn't a problem for the Founding Fathers to specifically warn against getting involved with the endless series of European wars .

The Dominoes Theory was used as an excuse to fight ( and die ) in Vietnam . Didn't pan out that way .

Meanwhile innocent Ukrainians continue to die in a war that didn't need to happen .

Billions of US taxpayers dollars continue to be spent supporting a war that didn't need to happen .

But by all means don't question US meddling.

Just keep it simple and blame everything on Putin .

So nefarious he even blew up his own North Sea pipelines rather than merely shut off the valves .

Who could possibly doubt it ?

---

We are involved and have been since 1949. You can't set up the US as the back stop to keep Russia under control and then say we're out! Or worse, pick and choose after the balloon goes up. That is a recipe for WW3.

As for cost, I agree with Trump. NATO needs to.pay us to be there. This is not a charity.

This is happening because of weakness in the White House from 2014. Putin didn't move on Trump. For all his shortcomings, he let the military do their job. Putin knows that from Syria and Middle East. Obiden would go half ass. That is dangerous.

As for Viet Nam, read the history. That was a cluster from the French. I also push back on both Eisenhower and the Founding Fathers not helping Ikraine. This is the exact situation they would - against tyrannical, Communist govt Invading a nation that wants to go west??? You find me where Eisenhower would have said no? Eisenhower Doctrine says he would do at least what we are doing. I would throw in covert with him!

---

The US has zero business involved in Ukrainian elections , building bio labs in Ukrainian territory, or allowing money laundering activities with Ukrainian politicians .

We have zero business pushing for still another NATO alliance member who borders Russia , resulting in the inevitable placement of still more weapons pointed directly at Russia .

The US has zero business providing billions of dollars ( it simply doesn't possess ) for weapons to a country we have NO defensive treated with .

The US has zero business blowing up vital natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries , in international waters , THAT is clearly an act of war .

This is no video game , this is clear cut manipulative insanity .


Obviously you haven't read Eisenhower's biography. There is no way in Gods Green Earth he would have stumbled into such a morass . As Supreme Commander during WW2 Eisenhower had developed several personal connections with Soviet leadership and had a healthy respect for the Red Army .Eisenhower never trusted the US defense complex or saber rattling politicians . Eisenhower never believed in anything approaching our ludicrous deficit spending and strived to produce a balanced budget.

Eisenhower would be totally aghast at what Obama and Biden have created involving Ukraine.

Period

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why 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. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It 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. %A0At 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. %A0We 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). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. This is not an internal Russian affair. It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. This isn't what you and Sam describe. Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes.

---

Not nearly as simple as you make it sound. The Minsk Protocol was supposed to provide ethnic Russians with autonomy and the right to use the Russian language, among other things. Zelensky was elected with overwhelming support as a peace candidate to negotiate with Russia and put these agreements into effect.

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why 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. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It 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. %A0At 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. %A0We 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). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why 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. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It 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. %A0At 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. %A0We 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). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Again, I understand the reasons why people viscerally want to intervene on behalf of Ukraine. While I do not think it is unreasonable, I disagree. But I always have leaned more isolationist than interventionist. If anything let Europe send lawyers, guns, and money. Let the Germans who laughed at Trump, who advised against getting in bed with Putin, figure it out.

If we had a mildly competent administration, we would be ramping up oil and natural gas production and supporting Europe economically and hurting Putin. Instead, while we've pretended to support Ukraine we've been Russia's biggest ally by lining its pockets with higher fossil fuel prices.

Again - will you sign your kids and grandkids up first to die for Ukraine?

Will you enjoy the global economic damage from World War III for Ukraine?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you give Putin Istanbul to keep him happy? %A0Why 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. %A0Or, he may launch Nukes???? %A0

Those areas are part of sovereign nation he took by force. %A0It 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. %A0At 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. %A0We 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). %A0

When Russia reneged in 2014, like they always do, we said not a binding memorandum sorry here are some blankets. %A0Now, in 2022 after they have worked with the US and NATO to be accepted. %A0Russia full out invades.

Sorry, Sam. %A0We owe Ukraine. We have been coaching them along since the 90's. %A0This is a different situation than Afghanistan or some Stan nation we barely work with. %A0Yes, this and Taiwan are different. %A0We have played a role in them being in the position they are, for better and worse. %A0You don't abandon allies. %A0Some people seem to be very quick condone it if the cost is too high. Running around saying non-binding, non-binding... %A0But, this goes back to principals. %A0We abandon Ukraine and Taiwan, we are a 2nd Rate power no nation will trust.

---

Yes, we have been involved in Ukraine. The more we've been involved, the worse it's become. We started by supporting the 2014 coup, which was largely rejected by the ethnic Russian population. We trained neo-nazi militias and undermined the Minsk agreements while thousands of civilians died. We strung them along with the prospect of NATO membership even though we knew it was a red line for Russia and it would never happen. As recently as this April we scuttled negotiations that could have ended the war. Almost everything we've done has prolonged and worsened the conflict.

If you really want to help Ukraine, do what we should have done a long time ago -- support a negotiated peace.

---

100%. Could not have said it better.

Ukraine is a different animal. While it is an independent state, it is different than Poland or the Baltics much less Finland. It is ethnically and historically connected to Russia. While I do not agree with Russia's actions, it there are some historical nuances there that do not exist in other situations.

As Sam noted, the U.S. catalyzed the problem by interfering in a nation that Russia rightfully believed was in its proper sphere of influence to a greater degree than the rest of the Soviet block - Ukraine has ties to Russia that are not present in Poland, Hungary, Czech, etc. Flirting with Ukraine and NATO was a blunder.

The answer is a negotiated peace. Does it means Ukraine gets the shaft - yes. That is partly its fault for playing around with the West and likely exacerbated by its infamous corruption.

Practically speaking, we know that we do not have the stomach for an uglier, protracted conflict. The inconsistencies of this Administration and its keyboard twatter warriors is infuriating. How can we logically surrender a critically strategic asset in Afghanistan to Third Century barbarians, but we want to risk World War III? Do you think any of the Starbuck's baristas and grievance studies majors driving OBiden policy via twatter are going to sign up to go die for Ukraine?

You answered your own question about Eisenhower. Yes, we did rightfully intervene when Russia got out of its lane in places like Berlin, Korea, the Middle East. But we didn't meddle with internal politics of the Soviet bloc - that is a fundamental difference and why this dangerous dalliance is terrifying. Again practically, do you want these stooges who are more interested in transing and woking the military in charge of our forces in a nuclear World War III? While Russia is mobilizing they'll be making sure we have the right mix of gays, tranies, bleks, and women, etc., in the general's ranks. You think Admiral Cross-dresser really strikes fear in the Russian military?

---

I would agree with you on all of this if it were not for one simple fact.

Ukraine was granted its independence in 1991-ish. %A0It is a sovereign nation and we & Russia were part of the negotiations. %A0This is not an internal Russian affair. %A0It stopped being that when Ukraine seeked and got independence as a sovereign nation. Not only that, one that has CLEARLY stated it does not want to be part of the Russian orbit. %A0One that is trying to take steps to be more like NATO. %A0This isn't what you and Sam describe. %A0Russia going into Ukraine is not troops going into Iowa.

So, this is not meddling and the Russian troop activities are not simply internal. %A0It is the invasion (2nd) of a sovereign nation. That changes the calculus as much as the Russian's having nukes. %A0

---

Further to that wise post.....

If we're going to look at history, we have to look at ALL of the history. Ukraine also has a shared history with the Kazakhs, the Chechens, the Lithuanians, the Poles, and the Ottomans, each of whom ruled all or part of modern Ukraine. And for that matter, Ukraine once ruled parts of what is now Russia, including Moscow proper. So we must resist cherry picking to facilitate the expediency of easy things (in this case, quitting).

Part of the liberal order is the principle of self-determination. People do get a say in social contract. They are not morally obligated to seek the nearest greatest power and swear fealty. And the Ukrainians have made an unequivocal statement that they wish to be independent, part of Europe rather than Russia. And neither international law nor the liberal order, nor any sense of common decency gives a more powerful neighbor the right to invade and subjugate at will.

All of that falls within the context of existing geopolitical realities. Ukraine is in the shatterzone between a large and mighty Europe....and a smaller, weaker, poorer Russia. The European Polity has institutions, notably EU and Nato. In such a situation, "balance" is an independent, neutral Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has already returned Belarus to Russian orbit. Russia has now invaded Ukraine to return Ukraine to Russian orbit. And Russia has plainly stated an intention to break EU and its institutions in order to forcibly return several European states to the Russian orbit.

So, with respect to all the otherwise well-reasoned efforts by learned hands here.....the war they seek to avoid has already started. Do not mistake this first battle as a limited conflict, resolution of which will end all risks of future conflicts. Quite the opposite. Russia is going to go thru Ukraine in order to break Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland out of NATO, at minimum. It is good strategy to fight to defend those states not on their soil but in Ukraine. Ukraine IS the shatterzone, after all. And as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight and die for their country (and that they are resolute in their conviction to do so cannot be questioned), we should ensure they are able to resist, and certainly do not fail for lack of ammunition.

Russia is weak. Stop them now, or they add Ukrainian resources to their larder. They'll be back in a decade much stronger than they are today.

If, if, if......we are where we are. And that is in a war that we can and should win, as long as we do not talk ourselves out of doing smart things.

---

This is self-serving, mostly false propaganda having little or nothing to do with our real aims and policies. The idea that we're defending any principle of self-determination is a sick joke.

---

Letting Russia subjugate Ukraine, that would support free determination...

We know that for some NOTHING the US does or has done is right, moral or justified. Putin is a much better role model????

---

Your first statement is an argument for permanent world wide war by the United States against any government that is preventing freedom of determination. Its the classic "world police man" stuff that has gotten us involved in conflicts that are not in the vital interest of the American people. There are oppressive governments and bad actors all over the world and there always will be.

"But she [the United States] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom." -John Quincy Adams

The second is just a straw man. No one on here has argued that Putin is anything other than a corrupt autocrat and no one has said the US does nothing right.

---