Most Americans Don't Want War With Russia. Where Are Progressives?

Nobody WANTS war. It's red herring argument imo. It's like saying you are against "life' because a woman has a right to choose what happens to a clump of cells. That's a horseshit virtue signaling position and we all know it. War happens sometimes. This time it seems to me, it's worth it. If we aren't going to use the military, why are we paying fo it? We know what a military is for. It's all volunteer on top of it.
We all better be real mindful of our obligations to others bc we may need somebody's help real soon too. We have every day of our lives to deal w the MIC, but even when there's no war, we don't. We may need to be rescued ourselves. Soon.
The reality is putin has been waging a silent war on us for the last 5 years. He installed trmp just like he's been warned not to do in Ukraine. When do we intend to deal with that reality? When they steal the next election and our military is turned on us?
We have been called on to help other nations in Europe that we PROMISED by treaty we would. That's called being reliable. Keeping promises, being trustworthy, even when it's hard. Europe and Asia already don't trust us as business partners after trmp, and are making deals w other countries. How far are we going to let that go?
NO I don't want war. I don't want cancer either. Sometimes shit happens and you deal with it. Life isn't pretty. This isn't Iraq as far as what's up. This is filling a promise w made in my humble opinion. Anti war is a a set-up to be over run by the likes of russia and others. i respect what I've been given as a citizen of this nation. I want to give this nation to the next generation as good as, or better than how we got it. That includes our reputation and standing in the world. Not just as a trading partner for the 1% to thrive on. We all live here too and have a duty to those that have come before, and will come later...hopefully. It's worth fighting for.
That's my 2 cents I guess.

Few want war.

But, if Putin decides to invade Ukraine, well, there will have to be consequences.

Putin to take Ukraine and simply say "OK, that's fine, but don't do it again..." and then, he'll move on another former Soviet state and we'll have to say "OK, this one, but not one more!" wash, rinse, repeat?

At some point, someone has to say NO.

thanks!

And NATO is not mobilizing. In particular, Turkey, with the second largest army in NATO, is not mobilizing. Activity is largely the US, UK, the Baltic states, and Poland. NATO currently has 30 members, and some decisions, such as admitting new members, require unanimity.

You started by talking about obligations; but NATO is about obligations to defend member countries, not to support whatever one or more members decide to do in non-member countries. That's why NATO is not involved in Korea, and NATO countries were not obliged to join the USA in Iraq.

Some NATO members are not going to send military help to Ukraine (eg Germany); some will send help, but not combat troops (eg USA or UK). I'm unaware of any that have declared they'll send combat troops.

So, no, I don't know what your point is about how to react to Russia, when you think saying "we are with NATO" is enough. It seems like an unwillingness to talk the problem through.

because its comes across as you not understanding what NATO is, but you thinking it obliges the USA to go to war over a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since you've been told it doesn't, then clearly your position is now unexplained. No-one knows what you think apart from you.

and only isn't due to the West appeasing Putin.

…is not going to be worth jack shit. Trump did us profound damage in that regard, starting with pulling us out of treaties and agreements negotiated and signed by past administrations, especially Obama’s. Lest we forget, it was Trump who ended the war in Afghanistan in such a half-assed manner, leaving it for Biden to deal with.

NATO is absolutely foundational, and if I understand correctly, its provisions have only been called on once: to help America after 9-11.

The point of the Ukraine problem — well there’s several, but let me start with Uncle Sam’s word of honor: after the breakup of the USSR, Ukraine was left with incredible amounts of nuclear weaponry put there by Russia and pointed towards Europe. We said: you get rid of all this (or permit it to be gotten rid of) and don’t you worry, WE will take care of YOU.

And now look at us. Just look at us.

Other than that — well, our NATO partners are staring down the jaws of the Russian Bear as it decides who to eat next. Russia is doing to the EU what it has been doing to America — trying to break it up by any means necessary.

And thanks to Trump, all of America’s isolationist tendencies have kicked in again: same as prior to WWI and WWII.

No, I do not “like” war — what sane person does? But we have been attacked repeatedly and have been nearly overthrown from within with Russia’s enthusiastic help.

Literally everyone else in NATO is closer to Russia's sphere of influence and therefore in more danger than we are, yet none of them are making commitments to send troops to Ukraine, and most aren't making commitments to send weapons and other gear. As far as I know, not all are even onboard with the idea of sanctions. If they're not alarmed at "staring down the jaws of the Russian Bear," why should we be alarmed on their behalf?

As far as I'm aware, there's no treaty or agreement between the US and Ukraine, at least not in the terms you're describing. If Russia does indeed invade Ukraine, we're not compelled to act by anything other than our own geopolitical interest, since Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Is that to say we should sit on our hands and do nothing? No, of course not. But neither is it to say we should declare war on Russia in that event. The cold truth is that if we were to do that, there's a very good chance of things spinning out of control and ending up as more than a regional conflict. I see where you're coming from regarding standing up to Russia, but that's not a line the US wants to cross without allies at its back, and right now, those allies just aren't here for it.

The only way they would be is if Russia were to attack a NATO state, and I don't think Putin is that stupid.

He wants to break both entities apart. Well, Brexit worked.

To supplement my memory, here are some resources on the Trilateral Agreement. They are kind of randomly-selected opening paragraphs from a rich first page on a google search.


https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory. Steven Pifer recounts the history of this unique negotiation and describes the key lessons learned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine
Prior to 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and had Soviet nuclear weapons in its territory.

On December 1, 1991, Ukraine, the second most powerful republic in the Soviet Union (USSR), voted overwhelmingly for independence, which ended any realistic chance of the Soviet Union staying together even on a limited scale.[1] More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for Ukraine's declaration of independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk as the first president of the country. At the meetings in Brest, Belarus on December 8, and in Alma Ata on December 21, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production.[2] 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory.[3] Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States.[4] In 1994 Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).[5][6]

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-got-a-signed-commitment-in-1994-to-ensure-its-security-but-can-the-us-and-allies-stop-putins-aggression-now-173481
Ukraine got a signed commitment in 1994 to ensure its security – but can the US and allies stop Putin’s aggression now?
January 21, 2022 9.27am EST

Your links are referring to the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances from December 1994, I believe. Here's what assurances were provided:



The security assurance was to "seek immediate Security Council action," which is a joke since Russia has a permanent seat and can unilaterally veto anything proposed by the Security Council. Russia was in breach of the agreement in 2014, and nothing happened. It's an agreement without an enforcement mechanism.

It clearly doesn't say that the US, NATO, or anyone else agreed to respond to a breach with military force or a declaration of war. I also note that you didn't bother to respond to any of my other points.

PS: I'm not sure why you felt the need to include the snarky "rich first page on a Google search" remark. I stated "as far as I'm aware" and I was at work at the time and didn't have time to put together a post with annotated sources. Furthermore, nothing in my reply to you was snarky. In any case, in future responses to your posts, I shall endeavor to set aside the time to do so.

… about. As I never hesitate to say, Europe wasn’t my area of study when I was a History undergrad, and then I switched to Literature for grad school, and long after to Mythological Studies.

But some events are really vivid. After a childhood in terror of a nuclear holocaust; after watching the TV news about the Berlin Wall going up when I was 13, in the presence of a family friend who lived a lot of European history herself — it was breathtaking to watch the Wall come down and the Soviet Union break apart as an adult. I can’t remember if I cried, but it was that monumental.

My husband remembers the agreement with the Ukrainians the same as I do, the one I mentioned in simple form at first. I only looked up the rest to make sure I was right. We have an obligation, we really do. And what I said about Uncle Sam’s word being degraded these days — yes, I believe that.

And no obligation.

So why do anything? We don't have a treaty to protect them.

and stop Russian expansionism. They cannot be allowed to invade an sovereign country. The annexation of Crimea was bad enough and should've been dealt with more harshly.

NATO is already helping Ukraine, who wants to be in NATO, and only isn't due to West appeasing Putin, instead of standing up to him like we should.

Bill Clinton and NATO was correct in the 90s to deal with the genocide in Bosnia, and iirc had to go around Russia to do so.

Our nation building days are over.

Russian expansionism/Putinism far more resembles the rise of Nazism in Europe in the early 20th century, and the West's turning a blind eye to it until was too late.

Putin is an existential threat to the West - not just Ukraine.

Putin wants to prevent its joining.

Comparing this situation to our "Middle East adventures" is a false equivalence. The whole Iraq invasion was premised on bullshit, and anyone who was paying attention knew that. We were the invaders, and progressives were right to protest our invasion. Meanwhile, the entire world is watching Putin line up his army on the border with Ukraine. Our current president is actually trying to stop a war from happening there. Not sure why progressives need to protest anything here...

I believe a review of our foreign policy, and glance at our military spending, from 1945 to the present would support my statement.

War is the long con, a racket, and US taxpayers are the mark while the golden light of freedom and unfettered Capitalism is the unattainable hare on the stick.

Installing Trump, interfering with our elections.
Bribing senators.
Constant propaganda and talking points which favor Putin.
Creating chaos and division in the US.

The question is are we going to fight back.

Putin is playing chicken.

He wants more then the Ukraine.

He wants the former Soviet Union back.

People back before WW2 appeased Hitler.

How did that work out.

It's just called Ukraine.

Ukraine.

I still hate Putin's guts.

with, especially people on here who are not, shall we say, big progressive fans.

...to use against Putin. And the balls to do it.

Putin's personal finances are vulnerable.
All the talk on these posts about "appeasement" ignores the cold realities of war halfway around the world.
I would remind all the enthusiasts that we haven't won a war since 1945.... but spent uncounted $Trillions trying to do so. Are we gonna try it yet again?

Biden actually made Putin squeal...

"An ex-spy to the core of his icy blue eyes, if you stuck a needle in his thigh down to the bone, it is assumed Vladimir Putin would not so much as blink. Yet he cut loose with an uncharacteristic squeal last week when President Biden said he was prepared to go after Putin’s personal assets should Russia invade Ukraine.
By the end of the day, Putin was back under control, the stony poker player showing no trace of emotion. But American diplomats certainly noticed the “tell.”
Putin’s spokesman was quick to say that such a move would be highly “destructive” to U.S.-Russian relations, and Americans with such designs were wasting their time because Putin doesn’t have any overseas assets."
No overseas assets? Bullshit, Vlad. Biden doesn't need to bomb you, all he needs is to make your Swiss/Bahamas/Bahrainian assets vanish.
This isn't trump you are dealing with....no pee tapes of Biden.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-made-putin-wince-hopefully-120128314.html

President Biden has the experience to know what to do.

Putin does not have his boy in the White House.

It’s not like people are enlisting in the army or a Free Ukraine brigrade. The point is getting the Russians to not invade without having to give up the security of Europe and the US. Russia is the aggressor.

I wrote to these cousins when we were kids.

They were trapped behind the Iron Curtain.

Personal.

Worried.

They grew up behind the Iron Curtain.

They will fight.

I often wondered what it would be like to grow up like they did.

I am thankful my branch of the family left.

But I think Americans have to be cautious in their use of the word "aggressor". Our record is not exactly one of non-intervention in the affairs of smaller countries around us... and across the world.

Can we agree that Russia is the one who is destabilizing the area and leave it at that?

The question is in whose interest is it to gin up the possibility: The GOP's.

War is great for ratings. And for the companies that own the media.
Media has always muddied the diplomatic waters for War, whether it was to serve their sources that would make money or ain political power off war, or serve their publishing empires by winning the "scoop" game.
Plus, they can use their fake outrage to make Biden look bad again.

Currently, Russia is playing a game, and using the Media to influence it's opponents moves. Putin wants a buffer between his empire and the West, but he really isn't in as strong a position as he has to pretend to be, and he's wagering on public opinion engineering to gain an advantage, both in Ukraine and with the justifiably anti-war movement.

He wants the West to make the first mistake.
On edit - what does the Ukrainian policy makers and intelligence want? Follow their lead, not the breathless singing of media outlets...

Haele

Sanctions aren't war.

keep our nose out of this!

NOBODY.

Sheesh.

Russia is the one threatening to attack its neighbor.

Our support of that neighbor will be ancillary, not primary (i.e. boots on Ukrainian ground.)

The Ukrainians fully understand this and aren’t asking for our boots on the ground.

They do want our help in other ways, and they should get our help in other ways.

Stop turning Putin into the victim, for fuck’s sake.

Are you saying sanctions are a bad idea?

It's like having a polll asking people whether babies should be forced to work 50 hours a week without a lunch break

a rally in I believe Kyiv thanking all the countries that are
sending ancillary aid. Lot of homemade posters with pasted cut outs of, or colored in flags of all those countries.
(getting teary eyed again)

Another was about citizens in the nearest north east city of Ukraine (the one probably first attacked if the next invasion starts) being trained by their armed forces to fight.

On NPR tonight Mary Louise Kelly has traveled up into the area observing, and interviewing people. She was in a area where right across a short bridge I think where one side was now Russian controlled, and the other where she was still free Ukraine.

A destabilized, weakened country is so much easier to invade, conquer, and occupy than a stable nation.

It's just how he rolls.

Trump was elected due to a major Russian campaign of disinformation, which helped him win a close election over Hillary, which then allowed him to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices which now cements the court's rightward tilt for a generation.

Russian hackers hack companies and gov't agencies all over the world on a daily basis. Russian troll farms work to control narratives online.

IOW, Putin has already committed serious acts of aggression against the West, yet has suffered few consequences and feels emboldened as a result.