NATO must go to war against Putin now, with the US and Biden...
Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2022, 07:02 PM - Edit history (2)
or they will surely have to go to war with Putin later, likely without the US if Trump is reinstalled as president.
Rather than hesitating out of fear that Putin will use nukes, NATO must vigorously defend Ukraine, in Ukraine, and force the question to Putins inner circle: am I willing to sacrifice my life and the lives of my loved ones for Vladimir Putin?
Its an awful dilemma, and a risky bet, wagering that the Moscow elite will remove Putin rather than risk Armageddon, but if the west doesnt take the bet now, they will be forced to take it later, on Putins terms.
NATO could enter Ukraine on Humanitarian terms, or because the risk to the nuclear power plants endangers all of Europe. Even if Putin launched a single strategic nuclear strike at Ukraine, the tide would turn against him quickly both in Russia and around the world.
The Window of opportunity is narrowing; the sanctions are gradually taking effect (SWIFT ban didnt fully kick in until today), but Putins shifting tactics of scorched earth could mean that Kyiv, and the Zelenskyy government, dont have much time left.
Clarifying note: I am not proposing NATO join the war to defend Ukraine immediately, today. I am suggesting that the window to do so is narrowing rapidly with Putins shift in tactics from seizing control of the country to reducing it to rubble. While it would be nice to wait and let the sanctions have their impact, Im not sure sanctions will trigger an overthrow of Putin (the only way this war ends) before Ukraine is completely destroyed by missiles and bombs.
A much more articulate, detailed argument for this position can be found here:
What is the source of his or her expertise? Why did you post it here? Do you know more about the author? If so, please share.
ETA: Molly McKew. I don't find much background on her, really, nor any information on the value of her writings.
And ETA: Here's a link to something about her. Apparently, she has also taught at Georgetown as a lowly adjunct professor. The article at the link questions her expertise and background:
Designed website. So is it a contest? Are we to pick the least shitty website and that's the winner?
I just get tired of people posting stuff from blogs, without any information about the person who wrote whatever they shared.
So, I go and look. Often the source is just a self-described "expert." Random information has random validity.
Thing is they don't have to actually go to war with Russia. They only have to enter the country Berlin airlift style and Russia will leave with their tail between their legs. But they are too scared of doing even that.
and what would that have to do with Ukraine?
The flights into Berlin in that era were unopposed. Do you expect the same thing from Russia in Ukraine?
They already agreed to humanitarian corridors. The only thing is they don't follow through with them. If the US used these corridors, Russia will be forced to honor them.
To install Russian loyalists into the country out numbering the number of Ukrainian citizens, call for a national referendum on whether the country should return to Russia or stay independent.
Its the same thing they did in Crimea.
We cant let it come to this!!
Ukraine is in a deeply critical humanitarian situation. They need those supplies. Russia's strategy has been to cutoff any resources from key cities. This is unacceptable. Not only that, but if Russia's strategy depends on starving cities, humanitarian aid become critical to Ukraine s winning the war. You don't need to blow things up for this to happen, it just has to happen. Like yesterday.
Putin is an old Soviet cold warrior. We knew what would push the Soviets over the edge and we should know what would push Putin.
Unfortunately we are stuck just like we were in 1956, 1968 and 1980.
The current fear is, if NATO entered Ukraine to aid their defense, Putin would respond with nukes.
If he did (and the evidence is far from certain- he might give the order to launch nukes, but with the current chain of command for launching nukes in Russia, its far from certain his order would be followed), then Russia will have made an aggressive nuclear first strike, the first such strike in history (assuming NATO didnt attack Russian soil and only defended Ukrainian territory), and every Russian would then have to live in fear of what NATO would do next.
If that assumption is accepted, and NATO doesnt defend Ukraine, then NATO will eventually be faced with the decision of whether to defend a NATO country, say Latvia or Estonia, against a Russian invasion, when it will, not might, happen in the future.
Except that a future Russian invasion of NATO would likely mean a larger Russia/reconstituted USSR, with more nukes spread around a larger area. It could also mean NATO would no longer have the US, and its nukes, as a member.
Its a can that cant be kicked down the road- either NATO fights Putin now, or they will have to fight him, on NATO turf, soon.
Play out other than the one you describe including the Vladimir Putin going out of business sale. I am not supportive of getting into a direct shooting war with the Russians at this point.
Putin wont stop with Ukraine.
There is no evidence that he would want to invite that conflict after seeing the west's unity already. There is nothing he could muster to attack them with at this time. His resources are already over-committed to Ukraine to the point that he is counting on Belarus and Syrian fighters to be the game changer.
The scenario makes no sense.
We then have a possible direct confrontation with US / NATO and Russian forces, whether opinion piece writers think so or not. That changes the rules for everyone and would actually give Putin cover to start messing with NATO countries. Once that happens we are required to step in further and then all it takes is for the losing side to use 1 tactical nuke. That then legitimizes their usage and it becomes a case of retaliation in kind. Any other expectation is basically hoping that a lit match thrown into a pool of gasoline will somehow not ignite it.
Maybe you or the author are unfamiliar with the cold war but nothing ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, just the likelihood of it becoming a hot war. We both still have the power to wipe each other out 5 times over and the protocol for using nukes is still basically the same as it always was. We are all playing with fire if we start deluding ourselves into thinking that everything has changed.
Biden has stated that American forces involved in Ukraine basically amounts to WWIII and he is 100% correct.
There is no escaping a war with Putin. It can be now, defending Ukraine, on NATOs terms, or a little while from now, on Putins terms, after the Ukrainian genocide is complete and Putin has reconstituted the USSR and expanded his nuclear arsenal.
I dont think the NATO allies have the stamina to sustain sanctions much beyond the summer, and I think Putin knows that.
Hes nothing if not a patient man.
NOTE: For all the arguments and debates Ive engaged in at DU, this one I would be happy, no, ecstatic, to be wrong about.
You cant just throw words at him
Bullies understand one thing hitting back
"The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in, American pilots and American crews, just understand. Don't kid yourself, no matter what you all say, that's called World War Three, okay?"
Biden's advisors haven't told him that yet. I think the President of the United States should know when World War 3 has begun.
I am not advocating for USA involvement alone I am advocating NATO to get involved.
Another of the we aint doin nuthin group.
Where do you think the Javelins and other lethal military aid has come from?
Russian losses are substantial. They are being hit a lot harder than they ever expected.
They are on day 16 of a 2-day invasion and have met zero of their objectives. They lost a stealth naval vessel. Anywhere from 3000-14000 soldiers are wounded or missing, depending on who you ask. The Ukrainians have managed to steal, destroy, or otherwise disable swaths of frontline Russian military equipment.
Meanwhile the Russian economy is in a shambles and crashing further each day. Even erstwhile partners are shying away. Protests fill the streets. Military leaders are dying, being fired, or being arrested. Putin is going out of his mind.
Time is on Ukraine's side. Time is against Russia.
Why change that dynamic? It gives Putin something to rally his people around.
I'm sticking with the Napoleon quote from my post above.
The bully in this scenario is pretty badly bloodied and is ostracized economically and diplomatically. Any direct action NATO would take pre-article-5 confirms Putin's propaganda about NATO. There is no reason to change the dynamic. Russia is losing. Ukraine is winning.
Ukraine is looking for volunteers to help them defend against the Russians, why don't you just skip on down to the nearest Ukrainian Embassy and volunteer as you seem so eager to get into a hot war?
If I was younger I would have already been there.
In Ukraine or here. I agree w/ Col Vindman..there are ways we can help n we need to do it now bc sooner or later, well be in it deeper than now.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." -Napoleon
Their conventional forces, as it turns out, are even more of a shell than anyone imagined. With nukes off the table, the EU, without US help, could knock Russia back on their heels in short order.
The bigger threat to democracy in the United States is internal. We should attack there, first.
Further, Russia is at their most dangerous, right now. They know they are weak, now. Combine Russian paranoia of being invaded (WW II PTSD), and the fog of war, the west must tread carefully.
But, no, I am no longer buying that Russia is some budding Nazi Germany in the making meme.
More like Mussolini's Italy, and they are in the process of losing a good part of their army near where the Italian's did in WW II, forcing Mussolini's removal from office.
If he did, things would have turned out differently, even with a failing army.
forward. The purpose of my post was to dispute the rhetoric of the poster who said that "he bet" that Russians wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Betting with the future of the species is silly even with odds stacked high in our favor. We can't bet, we need to know. That is why we need patience with our Commander In Chief. President Biden's job is to make sure, not to bet. Thank Dog he is not Trump.
It is not enough that Russia loses in Ukraine, they need to lose without dragging the rest of the world down with them. That is why things aren't happening as fast as some of us would like them to. If it goes badly wrong, there will be no do-overs.
Ukraine is suffering, and it breaks my heart, but so far, both they and world are winning, lets keep it that way.
One - The immediate. The west led by the Biden administration is doing an admirable job so far walking that tightrope, IMHO.
Two - The future. Regardless of the comments from the peanut gallery, the historical analogy is more Mussolini's Italy than Nazi Germany. Russia's equivalent of the facist council will be kicking Putin aside at some point. The veil will be pulled off for the Russian people, there will be a period similar to the 90's.
The risk comes when a militaristic Republican attains the Presidency (Cotton, DeSantis, MTG, Boebert) and decides to reboot the Bush administration's plans to pressure Russia to gain access to its resources. That's when the Russian paranoia of being invaded could lead to the unthinkable happening in the fog of war.
So, I will drop a bombshell I have been thinking about. Once the fall comes, we need to help Russia rebuild, not make the mistakes made in the 90's, and as a carrot offer NATO membership to Russia if they reform their ways (stipulations). This will go a long way to address Russian paranoia, and thwart a future MTG administration.
If you are wrong? If so, have they agreed with you?
I'll support whatever Biden decides. Even if it means war but I'm not going to jump the gun and say the lives of everyone I know are worth risking.
Odds are in your favor on the first pull but one still has to consider the risk. Considering the potential catastrophic results if there is a bullet in the chamber.
With nukes, there is no do over if one figures wrong.
We can only accept what Biden decides and I'm fine with that
While I acknowledge the risk that Putin could respond with nukes if NATO forces entered Ukraine (announcing their role as strictly defensive), I reject that it is a foregone conclusion. The same question youre asking me must be forced upon Putins inner circle- are they willing to sacrifice their families?
What I do assert as certain is, if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine NOW, he will continue to seek to expand his empire, including into NATO.
I dont expect NATO and the other nations will be able to sustain the sanctions past this summer. As winter approaches, with both energy and wheat shortages, I think the sanctions will crumble. Putin doesnt give a fuck about the hardships the Russian people will go through. Hes reshuffling his inner circle of military and intelligence toadies as we speak, because he knows as the sanctions take hold, the greater chance someone will try to depose him.
Strategically, if Ukraine falls (or is bombed into complete rubble from border to border), then Putin will likely redirect his efforts to the 2024 election. If Trump is successfully reinstalled, you can bet the first order of business will be withdrawal from NATO.
And then, Putin takes the Baltic states, maybe Poland. France and the UK would be the only remaining nuclear powers in NATO, with less than a tenth of Russias warheads between them. Do you think France and the UK will engage in a nuclear war with Russia without the US?
Like I said, NATO will be at war with Putin, the only choice is will it be on NATOs terms, or Putins?
But the risk is there and has to be taken into account
Have you told loved ones that they are worth sacrificing? That the risk of losing them is justified?
It we are out of NATO it will be weakened perhaps to the point it may cease to exist.
Is that necessarily a bad thing if we're not part of a nuke war?
until our next presidential election, and secondly, forecasts Trump as the future elected president.
Umm I call it a fictional scenario on both counts.
Who wrote this drivel?
Now imagine it looks like this
Because if your imagined scenario doesn't go exactly as you picture it. Only it won't be just your neighborhood but hundreds of cities. Princeton did a study that estimated the escalation after one nuclear weapon being used would be 34 million dead and 57 million injured in a matter of a few hours.
Remember not much more than two years ago when we were questioning what would our military do if a madman ordered a nuclear launch? How much faith do you have in the Russian military, who are already in a tough war. And their madman who has had over twenty years to loyal people in key positions.
There are a lot of assumptions simply presented as facts. Sanctions haven't even been completely implemented and the effects are already large.
Decisions to go to war need to be made rationally and with facts. Emotion is a poor reason to commit troops.
In 1995 in central Europe, Bosnian Serbs had begun wiping out the largely Muslim population in their own country. That July, violence reached a climax when Bosnian Serb soldiers overran the city of Srebrenica and murdered more than 8,000 defenseless men and boys. "That was a real shock for everyone," says Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General. "And for that to happen in Europe, many decades after World War II, was something that nobody could sit back and swallow." In response, President Clinton initiated Operation Deliberate Force, a massive NATO military response. "He didn't blink," National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke said. "We knew that day that we had a commander-in-chief who was rational and comfortable with the use of force." As relevant today concerning Ukraine as then concerning Bosnia.
Not our fight, let them clean up their own backyard
The BEF (standing army) consisted of two divisions at the time of the Chech crises. The British people wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe. Chamberlain's intent was to buy Britain time to rearm.
In March 1938 Austria became a part of Germany in the Anschluss. Though the beleaguered Austrians requested help from Britain, none was forthcoming. Britain did send Berlin a strong note of protest. In addressing the Cabinet shortly after German forces crossed the border, Chamberlain placed blame on both Germany and Austria. Chamberlain noted,
It is perfectly evident now that force is the only argument Germany understands and that "collective security" cannot offer any prospect of preventing such events until it can show a visible force of overwhelming strength backed by the determination to use it. ... Heaven knows I don't want to get back to alliances but if Germany continues to behave as she has done lately she may drive us to it.
On 14 March, the day after the Anschluss, Chamberlain addressed the House of Commons and strongly condemned the methods used by the Germans in the takeover of Austria. Chamberlain's address met with the approval of the House.
Chamberlain arrives in Munich, September 1938
With Austria absorbed by Germany, attention turned to Hitler's obvious next target, the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. With three million ethnic Germans, the Sudetenland represented the largest German population outside the "Reich" and Hitler began to call for the union of the region with Germany. Britain had no military obligations toward Czechoslovakia, but France and Czechoslovakia had a mutual assistance pact and both the French and Czechoslovaks also had an alliance with the Soviet Union. After the fall of Austria, the Cabinet's Foreign Policy Committee considered seeking a "grand alliance" to thwart Germany or, alternatively, an assurance to France of assistance if the French went to war. Instead, the committee chose to advocate that Czechoslovakia be urged to make the best terms it could with Germany. The full Cabinet agreed with the committee's recommendation, influenced by a report from the chiefs of staff stating that there was little that Britain could do to help the Czechs in the event of a German invasion. Chamberlain reported to an amenable House that he was unwilling to limit his government's discretion by giving commitments.
Britain and Italy signed an agreement on 16 April 1938. In exchange for de jure recognition of Italy's Ethiopian conquest, Italy agreed to withdraw some Italian "volunteers" from the Nationalist (pro-Franco) side of the Spanish Civil War. By this point, the Nationalists strongly had the upper hand in that conflict, and they completed their victory the following year. Later that month, the new French prime minister, Édouard Daladier, came to London for talks with Chamberlain, and agreed to follow the British position on Czechoslovakia.
In May, Czech border guards shot two Sudeten German farmers who were trying to cross the border from Germany into Czechoslovakia without stopping for border controls. This incident caused unrest among the Sudeten Germans, and Germany was then said to be moving troops to the border. In response to the report, Prague moved troops to the German border. Halifax sent a note to Germany warning that if France intervened in the crisis on Czechoslovakia's behalf, Britain might support France. Tensions appeared to calm, and Chamberlain and Halifax were applauded for their "masterly" handling of the crisis. Though it was not known at the time, it later became clear that Germany had had no plans for a May invasion of Czechoslovakia. Nonetheless, the Chamberlain government received strong and almost unanimous support from the British press.
Negotiations between the Czech government and the Sudeten Germans dragged on through mid-1938. They achieved little result; Sudeten leader Konrad Henlein was under private instructions from Hitler not to reach an agreement. On 3 August, Walter Runciman (by now Lord Runciman) travelled to Prague as a mediator sent by the British government. Over the next two weeks, Runciman met separately with Henlein, Czechoslovak President Edvard Bene, and other leaders, but made no progress. On 30 August. Chamberlain met his Cabinet and Ambassador Henderson and secured their backingwith only First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper dissenting against Chamberlain's policy to pressure Czechoslovakia into making concessions, on the ground that Britain was then in no position to back up any threat to go to war.
Chamberlain realised that Hitler would likely signal his intentions in his 12 September speech at the annual Nuremberg Rally, and so he discussed with his advisors how to respond if war seemed likely. In consultation with his close advisor Sir Horace Wilson, Chamberlain set out "Plan Z". If war seemed inevitable, Chamberlain would fly to Germany to negotiate directly with Hitler.
if Putin did not have it within his power to unleash a global thermonuclear war, to which we would be forced to respond in kind, which would extinguish any meaningful amount of human life on this planet within 10 years, via an inevitable nuclear winter and mass starvation.
Hitler did not possess any atomic bombs, nobody did at the time. Thus the comparisons to today's situation compared to 1938 are without any merit whatsoever.
If there were no nuclear arms in the world, I would be with you-- and would support US and NATO military action in Ukraine... but that is not the world we live in, so such comparisons are pointless.
I think President Joe Biden has responded EXACTLY RIGHT in this situation, and is doing everything I would have him do, if I were in his place. This is the "measured, calm leadership" that I voted for.
... and the supposition that Trump will inevitably re-occupy the White House after the 2024 election, shows an anxiousness to vote against "the home team", does it not ??
Even if Trump DOES manage to STEAL the White House again, he cannot 'unilaterally' withdraw the United States from the NATO alliance, rendering the entire premise of this article into senseless war-mongering drivel. The vast majority of the American people would not support withdrawal from NATO, if he attempted to accomplish it...
As others have said, if you feel so passionate about the cause, GO THERE and fight yourself! Since you have said you are "too old", then give money to them! Maybe you can take out a "reverse mortgage" and give even more money!
Just don't advocate jumping into World War III before it is absolutely necessary-- and just now, it is not.
If Britain had lost to Germany in 1938, it wouldn't have improved the situation in Europe, not one little tiny bit. Similarly, nukes flying would not improve the situation in Ukraine.
Are you seriously equating the world-wide consequences Russia is enduring as a result of their failed invasion of Ukraine to Neville Chamberlain allowing Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland?
How is being awarded the Sudetenland like having your economy shutdown while your enemy provided with advanced weapons, intelligence, diplomatic support, and humanitarian aid?
I hear that the Embassy of Ukrainian is looking for volunteers. I'm sure that there number is in the DC telephone directory. Perhaps you should consider giving them a call?
This link provides address, phone number, fax, e-mail, and link to their website.
I am trusting President Biden and his team to handle the situation without things expanding any further than they are presently unlike some naysayers and Monday Morning Quarterbacks who seem to know everything.
It's pissing me off to no end how little trust so many of the Democrats on this site have in President Biden. He and his staff know 1000 times more about the situation than we do, and he's making decisions based upon that information. I trust his judgement to do what's best for our country and its people.
I am seriously considering dragging out some old Chickenhawk memes I have floating around in the depths of my hard drive. Seems like they would be appropriate in some of these threads.
and I would drag out those memes because I would sure like to see them posted in response to some of these comments.
After all... hand grenades don't always detonate.
Last edited Fri Mar 11, 2022, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
who shilled for Bush and his illegal Iraq war
Her Foreign Agents Registration Act records
The hawks of war have come out to play
Theyre so excited about the prospect of a war.
She often doesn't disclose her lobbyist ties and claims titles she is not qualified to claim.
Adjunct Professors Qualifications Questioned by Colleagues
Greg Afinogenov, an assistant professor of Imperial Russian History at Georgetown, criticized the universitys hiring of McKew. In a series of tweets, Afinogenov wrote that McKews history as a foreign lobbyist posed several conflicts of interest to her role as a professor. A student who takes her class will not know which of her ideas are truth, which are credible suppositions, and which are complete fabrications, Afinogenov wrote in a Jan. 10 tweet. McKew has written articles for several publications, including Politico and The Washington Post, and has also served as a commentator for TV and radio shows such as Frontline.
McKews writings are not academic in nature and do not qualify her as a scholar or an expert, Afinogenov wrote in an email to The Hoya. McKew is an example of exactly the kind of journalist whose articles should be corrected by scholars: the claims she makes are outlandish, escalationist, and rooted in a history of working for foreign governments with an interest in influencing public debate in the United States, @Afinogenov wrote.
evidence of her unprofessionalism and basic error-making
McKew proclaimed that the Kremlin can nuke their own people per their official encoded doctrine.
Aric Toler, a lead researcher at Bellingcat and the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, tracked down where McKew found it. A looney Russian history buff wrote it for an alternative Russian paper.
In September 2017, Politico published McKews article about The Gerasimov Doctrine. She alleges this is a new Russian hybrid warfare model coined by Russian General Valery Gerasimov; it ran in a Russian military periodical in February of 2013.
The Gerasimov Doctrine has technically been debunked by one of the most respected Russian experts and the man who coined the term The Gerasimov Doctrine Mark Galeotti. This is what Galeotti wrote on July 6, 2014:
Additionally, Roger McDermott, an expert on Russian military and security issues addressed the insignificance of the Gerasimov Doctrine in a paper last year.
Im Sorry for Creating the Gerasimov Doctrine
I was the first to write about Russias infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.
By Mark Galeotti
She (McKew) is an idiot... a warmongering RW'er of the first degree.
because it feeds into certain segments of the armchair general crowd as they go all hawk-hawk.
The type who have been pushing to 'cruise missile Moscow' and other assorted dangerous AF bollocks.
I asked about the author early in the thread, and looked around a little. What I saw confirmed my skepticism about her. What you have presented is far more comprehensive and bolsters my feeling that she is full of crap.
Hell, Germany alone could probably take them, seeing how poorly they're doing in Ukraine. Their equipment is falling apart and their logistics are shit.
There is literally no risk of Putin threatening war outside of Ukraine for years, if not decades to come. The loss of both economic and military power in the past two weeks will take Putin the rest of his life to rebuild, if ever.
This is an entirely unserious discussion. People rolling up their sleeves and saying "Let's fight Russia" simply don't know what they're talking about
There is a space between Putin "rolling over" Ukraine, and WWIII. Right now we are not at either extreme.
a confrontation with Russia would, automatically, lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Actually, I take that back. The nuke thing is more disingenuous.
Whether that is nuclear or not is anyone's guess. I don't like the odds, especially when it is avoidable.
He's handling the situation about as well as anyone could.
All the generals, all the intelligence sheets, and all the political leaders of NATO are in lockstep agreement that you don't send troops into directly fight the Russians. I'll stick with the experts instead of the kneejerk emotionalism of someone who never fought anything bigger than a Risk board
They're destroying his military far beyond what anyone expected.
Even if Russia manages to take major cities, they'll be in a constant state of guerilla warfare as long as they stay. The Ukrainian people won't give up. And the Russian economy will be under siege at home as long as they stay in Ukraine, because the sanctions aren't going away anytime soon.
Russia is either stuck in Ukraine, bleeding bodies and rubles, or they pull out, too damaged to mount a new invasion anywhere for years. And a pullout would likely mean the end of Putin's career.
in this thread.
Nuclear war is the end of everything. What is it that people don't get?
They are not a conventional threat. Time will heal Ukraine, if the world is not blown up.
Considering how badly their conventional forces are, how good is their command and control for their nuclear forces? The west has to tread very lightly.
....and head for Ukraine if you feel so passionate about it. Easy to be gung ho when you are only risking the lives of other people. It's another matter to risk your own.
We are doing exactly what we should be doing. Providing Ukraine with weapons that are making the Russian invasion costly in man power and equipment. Meanwhile the sanctions are destroying Russia's economy. A Russian ruble is already so worthless that a 1000 of them would barely buy you a happy meal at McDonald's. And it's only going to get worse from here on. They may well take control of Ukraine but it's going to be a constant mess for them to hold it. A slow bleed insurgency that is going to make their time in Afghanistan seem like a church picnic.
Moving troops into Ukraine justifies everything Putin is doing. Moving troops into Ukraine who would give Putin the political leverage he needs in Russia to launch tactical battlefield nukes.
It would make a terrible situation a thousand times worse
If NATO doesnt intervene, Ukraine will be reduced to rubble, and the genocide will continue. When youve given up on seizing territory and controlling the Ukrainian government, genocide is so much easier when you can launch air strikes and missiles from within your own borders. You dont even have to aim.
Without NATO intervention,The genocide and destruction of Ukraine can likely be completed before the summer.
Do we only stop genocide by non-nuclear powers? Because that seems to be the new paradigm
Please don't water down that word.
Anyway, if it's genocide you're worried about, you might start with not being blasé about waltzing into a nuclear war.
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Whats happening in Ukraine is genocide.
Its better than being a genocide denialist.
who think this is a good idea can send their own sons and daughters into war.
I prefer mine on US soil, not getting shot at or bombed.
and I prefer that my neighborhood be turned into toast as I am not that far from a defense plant producing F-15s and F-18s.
and Russia will just give up.
The only difference is will the risk be taken before Ukraine is destroyed completely, or after?
Putin will force that choice on NATO, or whats left of NATO, if he isnt stopped with Ukraine.
Shall we wait until Putin can double his warheads, and Trump withdraws the US from NATO?
Its an awful situation, and its a choice that cannot be avoided, only delayed, and only for a little while. Americans and Europeans arent likely to support sanctions for more than a few months, especially once the Republicans politicize high gas prices and wheat shortages.
So, with Ukraine in ruins, and sanctions crumbling by the fall (Id love to be wrong on that, but millions of Americans throw tantrums over masks, why would they support endless sanctions?), the only variable is if there is the will to depose Putin within his inner circle.
Its a gamble that cant be avoided, but the terms and timing can be determined by NATO, at least for a little while.
If a nuclear power is dissuaded from intervening to stop genocide because the country committing the genocide might possibly respond with nuclear weapons, then the charade of nuclear deterrence by the NATO powers will be undeniable.
My bet is on the Ukrainian people, that they will be able to weaken Russia's military so much that they will not be able to threaten any NATO country for years. They seem to be "kicking ass" so far.
I think President Biden is handling this situation EXACTLY RIGHT. I could not ask for more. I wanted a president who would not start a war over Twitter, and that is what we have. Furthermore, his leadership has strengthened the NATO alliance far beyond any expectations.
This whole theory seems dependent upon the supposition that Trump will be re-installed into the White House in '24. Why are we so anxious to bet against the home team ?? The most recent 2024 poll I read today, showed that even independents who disapprove of both Biden and Trump, would support Biden by a large margin in any 24 rematch. Also a vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, support sanctions even if gas prices will be higher.
Yes, it is deplorable what is happening in Ukraine, but we are helping them with money and arms, and they are buying us time. They are not a member of NATO. The line has been clearly drawn. If we have to risk nuclear war to defend NATO countries later, so be it... but I don't want this country to jump into a shooting war with Russia before that point.
Even if Trump were re-installed in the White House in '24 (and it may be a good bet that he may be in prison or still battling too many criminal charges to mount an effective challenge for the White House), he cannot UNILATERALLY withdraw the United States from NATO....
Putin will continue his genocide in Ukraine unless NATO stops him. If they dont, then NATO, or whats left of it, will be faced with escalation once Putin invades a NATO country (probably the Baltic states or Poland) in the not-too-distant future, by which time he may have expanded his empire and warheads.
Do you think France and the UK (the only nuclear powers in NATO) will go to war with Putin once Trump withdraws the US from NATO?
With the GOP politicizing high gas prices, Sanctions arent likely to last beyond the summer (Id love to be wrong); Putin is counting on it.
Escalation is not a yes or no question; its not even a now or later question; its a now, or in just a little while from now, question. Again, Id love to be wrong. Ukraine doesnt have the luxury of NATO waiting for the full impact of sanctions to be felt.
He's losing politically, diplomatically, economically, and militarily. Why change the dynamic that makes that possible by fulfilling the prophecies of his propaganda?
Putins priority has appeared to have shifted to death and destruction, rather than seizing territory.
Thats his new exit ramp- kill millions, sow destruction everywhere, dont worry about installing a puppet. Complete the Ukrainian genocide, declare the country de-Nazified, and bring the troops home to ticker tape parades. Keep the Donbas region. All by summertime.
Lather, rinse, repeat in the Baltics once Trump47 withdraws the US from NATO.
Time is on the side of Ukraine. Time is not on the side of Russia. Speeding things up helps Russia. We need patience.
We absolutely don't need to base foreign policy on soothsaying regarding Donald Trump--especially when said divination requires multiple events to occur, the first of which, is more than two years in the future.
Have a little trust in U.S. foreign policy and not be so quick to fill body bags.
While we dither about options, Putins carpet bombing is filling body bags at an increasing rate over the past few days.
I dont think US foreign policy should be that we only intervene militarily in genocides committed by non-nuclear powers.
Again, Im not advocating immediate military intervention, but the Ukrainian death rate is accelerating significantly with the shift of Putins strategy from dominance to destruction.
We are delivering weapons, intelligence, diplomatic support, and a lot of other supplies as well as aiding with logistics from other nations providing support.
At the same time, we have slammed them with extreme sanctions that have crippled the Russian economy.
Putin is losing. He is not going to win this. The only chance he has is if we change the game. Also, this isn't a genocide. It diminishes actual genocides to call it that. There have been a lot of war crimes on the part of the Russians, but no genocide.
He doesn't have the forces to take Ukraine quickly, much less hold Ukraine down. The whole while his ability to make war diminishes rapidly as the days pass.
At this point, he'd be lucky to fund, supply, and otherwise organize a bus of seventh graders with a bag of rocks to threaten NATO.
And more interested in leveling it.
you know, adults that are not willing to blow up the world when there are other alternatives, alternatives that are being utilized as we speak.
I totally reject your war mongering.
a direct conflict with Russia.
That despite the potential of your family suffering great harm because of the course of action you decided upon, it was a risk worth taking?
Or are you going to keep them in the dark and just hope that nuclear war doesn't happen because of your action?
We are at war with Russia as we speak. It is a war that is using economics instead of bombs, saving the lives of all parties involved. Lets give it a chance before we go burning off our collectives noses to spite our faces.
We always have the option of opening a shooting war with Russia we don't have to be in a hurry. I am sorry that Ukrainians are having to bear the invasion by their bigger neighbor. I hate to see their suffering, the deaths and the destruction, but we do not alleviate their suffering by multiplying their pain by a million times to achieve some perverse type of justice.
Biden has all of the information available at his fingertips, he has the most informed advisors, and the best intelligence. Let's not try to outguess his actions. Let Biden run our war, support him and be damn glad that he is in office and not the former fool.
Russia is barely winning in Ukraine. They probably wont be able to occupy it for more than a couple years. It looks like most of their army is just horrid T-72 variants, Soviet-era APCs, and 18-year-old conscripts with no training. If they attacked a NATO country, their forces wouldnt even make it over the border for a day before being vaporized.
Were imploding their economy as we speak. They cant get parts to main their military equipment. Its questionable if theyll even capture the entire country of Ukraine at this point.
He will sow death and destruction until the wests will to sustain sanctions dissolves, probably late summer, but almost certainly before the midterms (cant have those high gas prices used against the Dems in November, amirite?)
Any end to this conflict that results in Putin remaining in power is a win for Putin, and he will continue to wreak havoc in Europe as long as he remains in power.
You have a great heart...and I know that is why like all of us we want to stop the deaths in Ukraine. I see the horrors come out of Ukraine and I want to help desperately as well...fucking Putin. We now know he is telling his soldiers to kill civilians, particularly women and children. But going into an all-out war with Russia is madness and would lead to nuclear war. We spent decades fighting a cold war in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust...and that is what will happen if we go all out against Russia.
Thus we must use every tool we can to stop Putin while preserving civilization. I trust Joe Biden to do this and we must remain calm and see it through. I can't help believe that perhaps God or some higher being has placed Joe Biden here for a reason. He has decades of experience with the cold war and with Russia. He is the right man for the job. I don't know how it ends, but I hope to God it doesn't end with a nuclear cloud somewhere.
Perhaps I wasnt clear in my OP, but Im not advocating for all out war against Russia, in Russia, only that NATO move in to Ukraine and fight against Russians there in order to stop the genocide now in progress. Im advocating for NATO forces to enter Ukraine and engage in only defensive operations, similar to the UN peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia (well, the parts that were actually peacekeeping).
Im well aware of the risk that Putin could launch a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine or even on a NATO nation. He is using the threat of MAD to keep NATO out of the fight. If he succeeds, then The de facto NATO policy becomes any nuclear power May commit genocide against a non-nuclear power unimpeded.
IMO, The civilized world must take the risk that Putins order to launch WWIII would not be followed. Even If he launches a single tactical nuke, just think about the worlds reaction. I dont know if his inner circle would allow him to order a second strike, knowing that, since NATO has very few short range tactical nukes compared to Russia, and the likely NATO response would be to level Moscow. Putin needs to be the one sweating out the possibility of WWIII, not NATO.
NATO forces could easily defeat the Russians in Ukraine with conventional warfare, then the question will be forced upon Putin and his inner circle- do we accept defeat in Ukraine, and let Russia survive , or do we destroy the world?
Up until about 48 hours ago, I was satisfied with the approach the NATO allies were taking and patient to wait for sanctions to have their effect. Then, Putins objective appeared to change. Instead of conquering and occupying Ukraine, his primary goal now seems to sow as much death and destruction, knowing he could never occupy and control such a courageous nation. Instead, he now intends to kill as many as possible, declare victory, and await his next opportunity.
I strongly urge you to read the essay at the link in my OP. In addition to supporting my position about NATO, it also makes the case that, if The Ukraine war ends with Putin still in power, he will continue his quest to reconstitute the USSR, expand his nuclear arsenal, and eventually attack NATO, likely starting with the Baltic states.
It really isnt a question of whether to fight Putin or not; its a question of whether to fight him now in Ukraine, on NATOs terms, or a little while from now, after the Ukraine genocide is complete, somewhere else, on Putins terms.
NOTE: if Russia could be expelled from the UN, or at least removed from the security council (there is a theory that they have no right to their seat, since the charter states the USSR, not Russia, has a permanent seat), then you can substitute UN peacekeepers for NATO forces in my OP and this post.
Thats exactly what Putin wants - to draw the rest of the world into World War III. Isolating Russia from the world will work
hes definitely not going to win on the battlefield in Ukraine.
My recommendation is to call that slimy fuck into a room and give him an ultimatum: You have one week to get your asses out of the Ukraine. You have two weeks to agree to war reparations. If this isnt done, were sending you Donald Trump and his whole family, and were not taking them back.
Which of course is what Putin is doing on a daily basis so long as Russia is in the Ukraine.