Its time. NATO NOW

[Stinky The Clown]

Ukraine needs to be a member and they have absolutely earned it.

Whether Pain stays or goes is immaterial. There is likely a new crazy person right behind him. Take the Russian bullshit off the table now.

[Tomconroy]

1. NATO needs to join Ukraine.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I can get behind that!h

[PortTack]

3. Agree..and I would imagine many members would agree, but the vote has to be unanimous

So probably won’t happen.

It really would be the easiest and quickest way to end the war, end Poopin maybe too. And further guarantee Ukraine and all of Europe true peace without the threat of further russian aggression

[Irish_Dem]

4. Europe and NATO need to wake the hell up and fast.

Putin is involving Europe now in the war. He hopes to terrorize them into lifting sanctions, and forcing Zelensky to surrender.

Destroying the Nord Stream pipelines, moving heavy duty RU military aircraft with mission profiles to deliver nuke bombs right next to Finland.

What has to happen for Europe to pay attention?

[Pachamama]

29. +100000

Completely agree

[EndlessWire]

40. At the Security Council today

Russia tried to imply that the US blew up their pipeline. Our UN Ambassador, after Russia demanded that we make a comment, categorically denied that we had anything to do with it. Russia has started some kind of criminal investigation on the flimsiest of evidence.

All the nations said that it was an unacceptable thing that happened. I think that RUSSIA did it. They have a history of doing stuff to themselves to fake provocation. Didn't they fire on Belarus way back in the beginning?

They weren't using that pipeline, were they? Someone said that the leak was residual stuff, anyway. I think they are posturing for effect.

[Irish_Dem]

97. Yes it all points to Russia. Motive, means, opportunity.

Yes a Putin stunt to bully Europe into lifting sanctions and forcing Zelensky into surrender.

[OAITW r.2.0]

5. Time to send a wake-up call to the Russian - non-Putin - Government.

Get rid of your problem.

And Ukraine should get the support of the entire free world to enter NATO. They've been paying their dues for a few years now.

[maxsolomon]

15. L'etat, c'est moi.

there is no non-Putin Russian Govt.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

6. Uh....no.

The rules for joining NATO preclude new members from admission if they are involved in wars or territorial disputes, have "breakaway republic" etc. All this is for good reason.

Article 5 would come into effect and we'd be involved in WWIII. That's not something to wish for.

We and our allies have other ways to help Ukraine defeat Putin. We are witnessing the fruit of those efforts and we need to keep the vital aid coming.

But joining NATO is a non-starter.

[Zeitghost]

7. Absolutely correct

It's truly baffling that so many here want to jump head long into WWIII and think putting Putin up against the wall won't lead to nuclear war.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. I want to see Putin defeated as much as anyone here...

we also don't want to set off a nuclear conflagration.

Joe Biden, his team, and our NATO allies understand the importance of doing this right.

Putin's forces are going down to defeat. Now is NOT the time to talk about Ukraine joining NATO.

[Zeitghost]

13. Biden has played this perfectly

Providing intelligence and hardware but keeping us from direct involvement is a very smart play.

[yaesu]

36. History has taught US that that strategy only lasts so long

Lend Lease during WWII did help but eventually, like WWII, we had to kick fascist ass ourselves. Putin & Nazi russia have gone beyond the point of no return & eventually we will have to confront them militarily.

[Gaugamela]

21. +1

[EndlessWire]

41. Maybe we're tired of being threatened

with WW3. It does get on your nerves.

[Zeitghost]

66. I guess I don't see how starting WWIII

Is the answer to that frustration...

[Crunchy Frog]

79. Well guess what? Putin is now saying that he'll go nuclear

if Ukraine "attacks Russian territory" by which he means Ukrainian territory that he claims is now "Russian". So if we assist them in taking back their own occupied territories we're allegedly "starting WWIII".

The truth is that if he's going to start a nuclear war over Ukraine, then there's going to be a nuclear war. And if we sacrifice Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war, there will just be one further down the line over something else.

Frankly I think we should have called his bluff a long time ago.

[Calculating]

92. Exactly

We can't just let him have whatever he wants because we're afraid of his nukes. We have them too, and cannot let some psycho bully the whole world. Ultimately nukes need to have a deterrent or defensive effect. If they become an offensive weapon used to threaten other countries then we have serious problems.

[TheBeam19]

17. Precisely.

[Takket]

30. yeah.... as much as i want ukraine to whoop Russia's ass.......

it is no way worth it to me as an American to risk nuclear holocaust in the name of saving Ukraine.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

32. Fortunately we have a path for Ukraine to defeat Putin w/o maximizing the risk of a nuclear

conflict.

Putin is doing down to defeat and our support for Ukraine is unwavering.

Win-win.

[Warpy]

62. Putin is spoiling for a European centered world war

and the longer we can delay giving him one, the longer he has to self destruct, and he will. I imagine even now the generals whe were promoted because he still needs a few who know what they're doing are all looking at the casualty figures (the real ones) and realizing that NATO hasn't sent an air force or a fleet, not to mention ground troops or long range weapons and saying to each other that this simply can't be allowed to go on much longer. They also know if an upstart like Ukraine with moderate help in weaponry can cut the renowned Russian military to ribbons, facing NATO with all the new stuff is unthinkable, it's suicide.

Ukraine had only 8 years to build a modern military. NATO has been at it for nearly 80 years. The generals know that, too.

Putin seems lost in fantasy land. So does that old troll, Dugin.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

64. Yep. I read it the same way.

[Crunchy Frog]

78. That NATO rule is the main incentive that Russia has

for creating "territorial disputes" and "breakaway republics" in neighboring countries. They know that it keeps those countries perpetually ineligible for NATO membership.

NATO needs to be upgraded or replaced.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

80. In part, that's true. Putin understands "the rule" and he has exploited it to create

"breakaway republics" for his own geopolitical advantage. Not just in Ukraine.

That said, any alliance that demands mutual aid in an Article 5-like fashion risks involving the US and our allies in a WWIII situation, so caution on this front is prudent.

Without mutual aid and "an attack on one is an attack on all" requirement, a defensive alliance doesn't mean much. So there are inherent problems when one considers extending any allience that would include countries who have active military conflicts and/or territorial disputes.

It isn't a simple problem with simple solutions.

[Celerity]

82. on this subject we agree, you have been correct in your replies in this thread

[Celerity]

83. +1

[Celerity]

84. +1

[roamer65]

8. Ukraine is effectively NATO now.

We are pushing a shit ton of weaponry in there and there is more to come.

Membership will happen in its due time.

[TheProle]

12. No, weapons are not American blood

[doc03]

10. You do realize Russia has far more nukes than we do? nt

[thucythucy]

16. If the Russian nuclear arsenal has been subject to the same

crackerjack quality control as the rest of their military, it's questionable as to how many of those weapons are functional, and if functional whether they can be delivered.

Not that I'd want to test that theory, but I've read that upkeep on a nuclear arsenal is expensive and requires top flight technicians.

Given how much of Russia's military budget has been siphoned off to pay for oligarch mansions, drugs and hookers, I don't suppose its budget for all things nuclear is any exception.

Again--not that I want to test that theory in real life.

[speak easy]

22. FAR more nukes !?

Russia 5977, deployed 1588
U.S. 5428, deployed 1644

https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2020/10

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. We have been quietly upgrading our missiles too.

[doc03]

26. I have seen much higher numbers than that. Russia also covers a lot more

territory 1588 of their nukes would destroy a much larger area of the US than 1644 of ours would of Russia.
Either one could destroy much of the earth, just one mistake or miscalculation and we all lose. It doesn't really
matter if either one has ten times more than the other, we are all dead or wish we were.

[former9thward]

35. Yes far more practical nukes.

Russia has about 2000 tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. has only about 150.

Because low-yield nuclear weapons’ explosive force is not much greater than that of increasingly powerful conventional weapons, the U.S. military has reduced its reliance on them. Most of its remaining stockpile, about 150 B61 gravity bombs, is deployed in Europe. The U.K. and France have completely eliminated their tactical stockpiles. Pakistan, China, India, Israel and North Korea all have several types of tactical nuclear weaponry.

Russia has retained more tactical nuclear weapons, estimated to be around 2,000, and relied more heavily on them in its nuclear strategy than the U.S. has, mostly due to Russia’s less advanced conventional weaponry and capabilities.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3765/what-are-tactical-nuclear-weapons/#:~:text=Both%20the%20U.S.%20and%20Russia,further%20nuclear%20arms%20control%20efforts.

[speak easy]

44. but Russian tactical nukes have been in storage since the end of the USSR,

and there is no (known) evidence that they being getting ready for redeployment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct33ph

[doc03]

101. You want to take that gamble? What about their hyper-sonic missiles? nt

[Warpy]

91. One thing I've read recently is that only 30-40% of them are operational

because Russia has skipped the maintenance on those, also.

In sheer numbers, NATO has slightly more than Russia, but the numbers are so close that the sides are evenly matched.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60564123

If Russia had managed to keep Putin retired after his second term, maybe this shit would be reduced by now. Unfortunately, it's still overkill and bad news for all of us.

[BlueTsunami2018]

11. Eventually, but not now.

That would mean our troops have to go fight there. I’m not interested in another war, neither are most sane people.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

14. They are getting massive support--as they should.

But that is different that an admission of Ukraine that would trigger Article 5, which would--by treaty--put the US and our other NATO partners directly in a hot war with Moscow.

We all all better off by maintaining what's working.

[EndlessWire]

43. I know it's a club with bylaws and all

but there is absolutely no reason that they couldn't make them a junior member or something, with restrictions. Special consideration. Russia is posturing for a bigger war, which will threaten the EU, anyway.

You know, Russia killed 25-30 civilians on a road, for just nothing. And they are going to force Ukraine to slaughter their called up "soldiers." Why is all this going on? Can't even kick these bastards out of the UN, a largely toothless civilian enterprise.

This is all on Russia. Russian citizens, take care of your problem!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

70. Yes, there is a reason. NATO doesn't extend membership to states that are at war

in order to keep NATO out of a certain WWIII.

The Ukrainians with their brains and their bravery are being very well-supplied with the weapons and financial & intelligence help they need to free their own territory w/o NATO troops involved.

It is essential that we keep up our support. With it, Putin will be defeated.

[Crunchy Frog]

86. And what if they aren't able to defeat Putin in a few months

when they get flooded with a million or more conscripts?

They're already being terror bombed every day, having their infrastructure and economy gradually destroyed,their soldiers being slaughtered, and people in the occupied territories being subject to mass rapes, imprisonment, torture, killings, and deportations. In the meantime Americans (no doubt with the help of Russian propaganda) are being encouraged to blame our domestic problems on "all that money we're sending to Ukraine".

There's no guarantee that Putin is actually going to lose this.

It's sort of an interesting real life trolley problem.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

87. The Ukrainians have decimated Putin's "best" forces already.

The Russian's don't have the weapons or equipment to outfit ill-trained replacement forces.

Their munitions are dwindling. Their military leadership is incompetent. And the people are restive.

To say that Russian conscripts have no will-to-fight is a supreme understatement.

In contrast, the Ukrainian moral is very high, their leadership, training, and intelligence gathering is excellent, and their military position improves daily.

Putin is going to lose. There is no plausible case to be made for the contrary.

So long as we, our NATO allies, and free-world nations beyond NATO continue to support Ukraine, then Russia, which has no real allies, will be defeated.

[Crunchy Frog]

89. I know all that. I've been completely obsessed for the past 7 months,

and I have some background in Russian studies. And I very much hope that you're right. I just think there are some elements of unpredictability.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

90. There are elements of unpredictability.

We could see a sudden regime change in Russia. And it it not inconceivable that Putin could resort to the use of nuclear weapons in the face of defeat. This later concern is why it is best to let UKR forces do the fighting, rather than engaging with NATO forces.

But as far as Russia's conventional forces, they are largely spent. An "army" of ill-trained conscripts who are forced to fight against their will and who lack basic supplies, even tents and sleeping bags--much less weapons--is not going to turn the tide against a well-trained and battle-seasoned group like the UKR forces, especially with the latter being constantly being resupplied with precisely the weapons they need to defeat Putin's forces.

In no conceivable scenario does Putin have the means to win a conventional war in Ukraine.

[Calculating]

93. The biggest risk is the November midterm

If a bunch of isolationist "america first" types get elected and pull our support things could go south.

[colorado_ufo]

18. The time for this was before the Russian invasion.

Putin would have turned around his troops and left. But now they are involved in a conflict that probably precludes entry even if NATO wanted them to join.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

19. The existence of "breakaway republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk has precluded

the entry of Ukraine into NATO since 2014.

[EndlessWire]

45. Fake crap! n/t

[Just A Box Of Rain]

50. LOL. Read the NATO charter.

[EndlessWire]

53. I know what Article 5 says. n/t

[Just A Box Of Rain]

55. And have you read the qualifications for admission?

[Evolve Dammit]

20. Past time. Do it.

[Xolodno]

23. Not happening.

Poland, Baltics and a few others may be willing to risk WW3 as well as some here on DU. But France, Italy, Germany, Spain, etc. may beg to differ. They know the devastation of a world war...twice. And even if Russia's nuclear arsenal is only at 20% operational, its more than enough to cause several millions of casualties and economically put us in the dark ages. Add to that, who really wants to find out if their arsenal is far more than 20% operational?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member during war and Article 5 starts being considered, I'll buy all the loose gems and silver bullion I can and flee as far south in Mexico as I can. There is no winner in a nuclear exchange.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. How many dead Ukranian children can you tolerate

How many Ukranian grandmothers? How many elderly?

[Xolodno]

33. Zero

How many dead Russians can I tolerate? Zero

How many dead Iraqi's can I tolerate? Zero

How many dead Syrians can I tolerate? Zero

How many dead Yemeni can I tolerate? Zero

How many dead school children can I tolerate due to a mass shooter? Zero

But I can't change any of that. I can help where I can, but, that's it.

How many of myself dead can I tolerate? Zero

How can I tolerate my wife being dead? Zero

How many family members being dead? Zero

Call me a coward or whatever, but I'm not risking my ass because you want to invoke WW3. I'll be out of here before any nuclear holocaust happens. You want war? Then you fight it.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I'll put you down as "no" vote.

Great histrionics, though.

[Xolodno]

47. This pacifist will take it as a compliment.

[Calculating]

94. Pacifism would have seen the Nazis rule the world

Sometimes we need to be brave and stand against evil.

[Xolodno]

104. Not even going to dignify that with a response.

[TomSlick]

38. And yet you will tolerate Putin's murder, rape, and seizure of a neighboring country's territory

for fear of risking your ass (your words, not mine).

The illegal annexation is a means to an end. It's only purpose is to allow Putin to justify the use of tactical nukes to the Russian people in the name of protecting Russian territory.

You need to start thinking about whether you will tolerate Putin's use of nukes in Ukraine. If you decide that you will, will you then tolerate the use of nukes in the Baltic States, Moldova, and Poland - all of which Putin wants back from the glory days of the USSR.

[Xolodno]

46. No. But wars happen because of failure.

Failure of politicians. Such as the UK and King didn't recognize they were pushing too far and created the American Revolution, King Louis not recognizing how bad his people were starving, the World War 1 Armistice which brought WW2 and a madman to lead a nation, the Iranian revolution because of imperialism, etc.

This war was a long time coming, it didn't happen overnight. Zelensky, Putin and Biden didn't fart one night and decided to have a war. It precedes them, promises unkept, treaties nullified, slow arms build up, etc. all contributed to this. And who dies? The people who are just trying to eek out a living, soldiers who just want to finish their term and move on, etc. Meanwhile politicians who are responsible have either moved on or face no consequences except in the rarest of occasions. Sorry for taking the side of a person just trying to live his life and not get caught up in politics beyond his/her control.

[EndlessWire]

57. You know what caused this effing war?

Putin's naked ambition to take the ports. Don't tell me it was because someone didn't kiss his ass. They made up what they thought sounded like a plausible excuse, and then they started the war. THEY DID IT.

The UN tried desperately to talk them out of it, tried to be diplomatic. Well, it didn't work, and it isn't working. This is on Putin.

[Xolodno]

65. Bill Clinton was on interview recently.

He stated the plan was to include Russia in NATO, yes you read that right. Yeltsin actually asked to join and Putin in his first years was amicable to it. Then the Bush years happened and Rumsfeld and Cheney had no intention of honoring that promise. Rememberr, Russia was instrumental in helping the USA after 9/11, warned about the Boston Marathon bombers, etc. But did not return the favor, so they pivoted.

After reading Putin's speech today, its obvious, he has rejected the West and Liberalism. And after seeing how an insane GOP, TFG, get elected, he has no trust in our electoral process. Putin is even on record for saying he liked Obama. But after TFG, he's lost all faith in our system and is moving squarely east. The GOP chickenhawks with their audacity, ego, etc. set the motions that couldn't be prevented. Just like they created the insurgency in Iraq. Unfortunately, Biden has to deal with the fall out. Just like Carter had to deal with the fall out of the Iranian revolution.

[TomSlick]

72. The world is truly complicated.

However, accepting international terrorism because of its complicated history is not the answer.

[Xolodno]

77. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Simple watching of Disney+ Andorn will show that.

And yes history is complicated. If we want to get technical, Crimea and a good portion of the Donbas belongs to the Tartars...but good luck on selling an Islamic nation on the European Continent, sure Turkey would be fine about it. Which reminds me, some of Armenia's historical areas are occupied by Turkey...and I won't touch the Cyprus issue.

We can't see the world through extreme black and white lenses. It's all varying shades, and meanwhile, there are various international conflicts going on...but Ukraine takes the front because...well, I think everyone can figure that out. And the longer this war goes on, more death. But there are ways to pause this.

Negotiate for a ceasefire, not a surrender, but still be in an act of war, just not killing each other. A frozen conflict. Meanwhile, Ukraine regroups with western training, changes out weapons for western versions, perhaps lease a base or two for NATO and Russia will not have the choice to attack anymore. Then be patient.

[TomSlick]

103. I've never heard Putin described as a freedom fighter.

I wonder if you would be eager to declare a cease fire and negotiate if a neighboring country had seized US territory. All of the US once belonged to indigenous peoples. That would not mean the we would tolerate another country seizing our territory.

[EndlessWire]

54. Where are you gonna go? The moon? n/t

[Xolodno]

61. Deep south in Mexico.

Trade winds from the equator blow north. Not perfect, but it will be better living where I'm at...which is near Edwards AFB, a guaranteed target.

[Calculating]

95. Eh that's the best place to be

In a real nuclear war you probably want to sit in a lawn chair at ground zero, grab a beer and watch the show. There's no running from nuclear war. Sign me up for getting immediately vaporized.

[MrsCheaplaugh]

108. Very good points

Now that the Ukrainian forces have become skilled with the weapons the West has provided, they've sent the Russians into a retreat on almost every front. They've made it unnecessary for NATO to extend its involvement.

[EndlessWire]

51. NOBODY on DU wants a nuclear war.

But, what makes you think that Putin will stop at four oblasts? He will not. Its just the old, wise comment by that guy, "They came for the...I said nothing. Then they came for the...and finally they came for me, but there was no one left to save me." That one.

[Xolodno]

59. Do they? I have to question that as of late.

Some dismiss Russia incapable of launching most of its 5000+ nukes...even if 10% fly off, that's over 500 nukes and we don't know how many warheads are attached to each one.

Some think Putin will be overthrown before that happens.

Some think we can actually win.

You like gambling?


And yes, he has to stop at the four Oblasts, Putin turns 70 shortly, his time in rule is limited. And he has to regroup and refine the military, that isn't going to happen on the turn of a dime. The big question is who takes his place? Someone practical or someone even worse than him?

[ripcord]

56. Think about the reason those countries even have a national memory

Because the U.S. with no treaty obligation decided to enter the war in Europe to save them. We were attacked in the Pacific and Germany was not a direct threat to us, the sensible thing to do would be fight our war in the Pacific and worry about Europe later. Instead of doing the sensible thing we chose to do the right thing, it lead to saving millions of lives and the formation of NATO. Too bad so many NATO nations have such short and selective memories.

[sarisataka]

58. We went to war in Europe

because Germany declared war on us. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the US entering the European war was still very much in doubt. Hitler resolved the debate for us.

[ripcord]

68. Germany may have declared was on us but they were no direct threat to us

There was no chance of Germany storming the eastern seaboard but we had been attacked in the pacific where a sensible nation would have waged their war. The only reason we made Europe the first priority was humanitarian, saving innocent lives, too bad so many NATO members are too selfish to pay it forward and would rather let innocent Ukrainians die when they have the power to step in and intervene.

[Xolodno]

71. Or maybe its a long memory?

They experienced two world wars first hand and we were always late comers. In WW2, aside from Pearl Harbor, only thing that happened was a few oil storage tanks blown up near Santa Monica, a balloon bomb in Oregon and an Island or two in Alaska invaded.

And when we entered in the war in Europe, Germany was already on its heel's, we just brought it to a quicker close.

Plus we here in the USA have a complete different mentality. When I was in Paris, I walked past a statue to Thomas Jefferson and soon after crossed a street that was named after Joseph Stalin. Then visited a museum that included many articles of Napoleon and articles of his opposing armies...which included Russia. You can't judge things on what happened in the past century when their memory spans even before this country existed.

[Mariana]

73. Oh, please, it wasn't a choice. Please stop posting falsehoods.

The US entered the war in Europe because Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

[ripcord]

74. Neither country was a threat to the U.S.

You need a history course, do you really think anyone was concerned about Germany or Italy invading the U.S.? The only nation who threatened the U.S. was Japan but we put Europe ahead of our own territories to save lives, it is the kind of thing good people do when others are being oppressed.

[Mariana]

106. The US stood by for years while the Axis overran country after country.

Yes, we provided arms and other assistance. How exactly is that different than what we're doing now for Ukraine?

[Ace Rothstein]

76. Germany was in retreat well before Normandy.

The Soviets would have eventually finished Germany off on their own, with much more bloodshed, and likely would have owned most of Europe if that was the case.

[Joinfortmill]

25. Totally agree.

[Shermann]

28. NATO's fundamental goal is to safeguard the Allies' freedom

...and security by political and military means.

This can be achieved only if said "Allies" are very carefully chosen.

Making a new ally out of a warring party will achieve the opposite of this fundamental goal.

[EndlessWire]

60. I don't believe that.

I'd be proud to have Ukraine fighting beside me.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. Yeah, we're best off sticking with really great allies like Turkey and Hungary,

and avoiding the rif raf like Ukraine.

[ripcord]

31. You can tell America's greatest generation is gone.

We are a shadow of the country we were in 1941.

[Elessar Zappa]

42. Uh huh.

Segregation, women as property, non-existent rights for lgbtg. Yeah 1941 was so great.

[Celerity]

85. +1

[Mariana]

52. I suggest you review the list of countries that were overrun by the Axis powers

before December 7, 1941, while the US stood by and watched.

How is that different, exactly?

[Celerity]

81. The WWII gen did not have to face potential nuclear war simply for deploying active combat troops

We are a shadow of the country we were in 1941.

Bollocks.

Us PoC and/or queer folk and/or women (I am all 3) are SO much better off NOW. Same for many cis straight white folk.

[48656c6c6f20]

37. BUT BUT THE NUKES! THINK OF THE NUKES!

The appeasers arrive in 3, 2, 1...

[TomSlick]

39. The appeasers are here - see above.

[sarisataka]

48. Please give your opinion

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217212215

[48656c6c6f20]

67. I like the other poll better

If grasshoppers had machine guns would birds still fuck with them?

Yes

No

It's a stupid fucking scenario.

Please give your opinion.

[sarisataka]

69. Yes- have you ever tried to shoot a bird with a machinegun?

Let alone the trigger being about as big as the grasshopper.

Predictable

[Gore1FL]

49. I submit, now is the time to hold a steady wheel.

Everything we have done since February is paying off. The Russians are losing and only have fear to work with. We can't let that work.

[orangecrush]

63. I have complete trust in my Commander in Chief

And in those he has entrusted.

Putin annexed parts of Ukraine illegally.

Ukraine is going to fight to take them back regardless.

If Putin pops a tactical nuke, then I don't see how NATO cannot act.
.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. They don't currently qualify for membership and

there are too many other members who would veto.

I personally think that NATO should be replaced by some new type of security architecture.

The system by which any single member can veto a country's entry means that rogue members like Turkey and Hungary can prevent even Sweden and Finland from joining, while countries like Ukraine are left completely out in the cold. It also incentivizes Russia to create "disputed regions" in neighboring countries to keep them perpetually disqualified.

There needs to be a new system that's inclusive and protects any country that feels that it needs protection.

That said, something needs to be done for them now that goes way beyond what we've been doing.

[Calculating]

96. What needs to be done is for Europe to step up with military aid

The cheap Russian energy isn't coming back. Time to get with the program and fully support Ukraine. It feels like our country is putting in a disproportionate amount of support compared to others

[Crunchy Frog]

99. Do you have any idea what the US military budget is

In comparison with the entire European military budget?

I don't know exactly, but I'd bet that it's greater than the whole European budget combined.

[FakeNoose]

107. Ukraine has applied to NATO for membership

Their initial application has been accepted. There are still many things that need to happen before FULL MEMBERSHIP will be granted. I'm rooting for Ukraine and I sure hope this gets on the fast track. But I also recognize the reason why they were rejected several years ago was because there were -many- security issues before President Zelensky was elected.

These things take time, and there are reasons for the requirements for NATO membership. Sometimes the USA wants to be the good guy and swoop in and take care of everything, but that's not going to happen in this case. We must allow the process to take place.

Secondly we need to deal with some of our own shit at home before we go charging out to Eastern Europe.

Just sayin'

[Initech]

98. Putin and his Nazi buddy Medvedev need the Osama bin Laden treatment now.

They need to be rolled up in a carpet and thrown off an aircraft carrier, and that's the best thing I say should happen to those evil fuckwads.

[Sympthsical]

100. I think retirees need to stop agitating for widening war

One they know they'll never put skin into.

I know cable news and the internet can get a bit stale, but there are other forms of stimulation than grabbing the popcorn and watching other people fight so we can purchase new bumper stickers.

[doc03]

102. I am 74 and retired I think anyone advocating nuclear war if fucking insane. People of my

age have kept us in a perpetual war for 75 years. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few, how did that work out?

[David__77]

109. Amen.

…

[myohmy2]

105. +1...

...bottom line, putin's not going to stop until we stop him...

...we wait, he'll gain strength and the cost will be higher...

...we can't live and prosper in a world with naked aggression and nuclear blackmail rampant...

...we defeat him in Ukraine...

...he goes tactical nuclear, we destroy his military around the world...

...he attacks a NATO country, we march to Moscow...

...then a new Potsdam...we carve up Russian resources and territory with our allies and the world...

...that's too much land and resources for only 140 million people to control anyway...

...