The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine

[AZProgressive]

President Vladimir Putin is more likely than not to invade Ukraine again in the coming weeks. As someone who helped President Barack Obama manage the U.S. and international response to Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and our effort to keep Moscow from occupying the whole country into 2015, I am distressingly convinced of it.

Why? I see the scale and type of force arrayed by the Russian military, the ultimatums issued by Putin and his officials, the warlike rhetoric that has until recently saturated Russian airwaves, and the impatience with talks expressed by his foreign minister. Add to that the likely anxiety produced in Putin by the demonstrations last week in Kazakhstan—and Moscow’s success in tamping them down.

But the basic reason I think talks with Russia will fail is that the United States and its allies have nothing they can immediately offer Moscow in exchange for a de-escalation.

The United States must do more than issue ultimatums about sanctions and economic penalties. U.S. leaders should be marshalling an international coalition of the willing, readying military forces to deter Putin and, if necessary, prepare for war.

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/01/us-must-prepare-war-against-russia-over-ukraine/360639/

[YP_Yooper]

1. Just wow, what an utterly stupid idea from the defense industry

McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the other neocon war hawks would be SO proud to start a damn war with a country with the economy of New Jersey, a military that stays in their own country (unlike the US), yet has enough nuclear weapons to literally end the world over a "country" that is mostly Russian to begin with, that's the size of California, that was politically usurped by the west during Obama and put Biden's son (of course being qualified as a full time artist) as a board member (?!?!) of an energy company aligned with the coup.

WTF

Can't make this up

[LT Barclay]

8. You said:

“ 1. Just wow, what an utterly stupid idea from the defense industry
McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the other neocon war hawks would be SO proud to start a damn war with a country with the economy of New Jersey, a military that stays in their own country (unlike the US), yet has enough nuclear weapons to literally end the world over a "country" that is mostly Russian to begin with, that's the size of California, that was politically usurped by the west during Obama and put Biden's son (of course being qualified as a full time artist) as a board member (?!?!) of an energy company aligned with the coup.

WTF

Can't make this up”

I’m just quoting you to say I agree, so my post couldn’t be removed. I’m hoping yours doesn’t.

[YP_Yooper]

9. Appreciate it

I've lost too many family and friends to these BS wars, and even those cases weren't against a country that can end the world...

[ShazamIam]

2. I only wonder if that was written by a defense contractor.

[AZProgressive]

3. Evelyn Farkas

She was in the Obama administration and she ran for Congress but lost in a primary but the only reason why I posted is because Evelyn Farkas wrote it.

[ShazamIam]

4. I looked her up, thanks though. That doesn't mean she didn't write on behalf of the Contractors.

[YP_Yooper]

5. Worse, someone who is intentionally taunting open war with the power and influence to do it

[YP_Yooper]

6. Short answer is yes

Defense One is a portfolio brand of GovExec, the market-leading information platform empowering government contractors

From Defense One's LinkedIn site.

[Ray Bruns]

7. Can anyone say Munich redux?

[BeckyDem]

10. No. It doesn't make sense, seriously.

Would any of the other rules she wants the world to back with force apply to America?

She closed her article: “We must build a new coalition of the willing to enforce the state sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter.”

The US violated that principle in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and misused the authority voted by the UN in Libya. Would she support her new coalition acting against Washington?

Russia is a malign force, but Washington cannot escape its share of responsibility after spending three decades ignoring Moscow’s security sensitivities. Ukraine is suffering as a result. However, it is not the American purpose to rescue every nation stuck in a bad geopolitical neighborhood.

Until 2014 Ukraine developed as it wished. Needed is a modus vivendi which leaves Kyiv internally free but nonaligned militarily. Ukraine might prefer the world to fight on its behalf, but Washington’s job is to defend America and its people. That is best achieved by not starting World War III over Ukraine.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/14/the-farkas-effect-when-the-blob-mobilizes-for-war/


The thing about people who worked for Obama, he did not always find their ideas valuable, he sometimes found their ideas, and rightly so, to be awful.

Power sometimes argued with Obama in front of other National Security Council officials, to the point where he could no longer conceal his frustration. “Samantha, enough, I’ve already read your book,” he once snapped.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

[YP_Yooper]

11. Thank you,

I figured this would all be removed by the moderators, and instead, found a few pretty enlightening rabbit holes to run down

I was a "student ambassador" to the USSR back just before the collapse, and spend a bit of time there. Kyiv was a beautiful place with a rich, and tragic history especially at Bykivnia. Seeing what happened with the coup was heart breaking :/

[BeckyDem]

12. Wow. That must have been amazing.

And you are most welcome.

[Tommy Carcetti]

18. What "coup"? nt

[ancianita]

16. Thanks for counter sources. Military interference in 'bad geopolitical neighborhoods' has been

the US's profitable, if not easy, argument for too long.

If Moscow has had "security sensitivities," I fail to see how any nations surrounding it are the reason.
NATO is the reason. Moscow knows what it did after WWII, and why NATO exists.

Arming Ukraine and NATO allies is one thing. Fighting alongside Ukraine is another. Russia was emboldened by the annexing of Crimea, and no matter how we now approach it, will continue chipping away at former Iron Curtain countries of the old Soviet Union. We have a lot to lose and Russia has little to lose.

Russia has more to gain by keeping us worried about a foreign drama so that we lose sight of straightening out our internal governance -- the hybrid warfare of keeping us staring at one (eg, military) hand while the other (eg, cybermilitary) is literally ransoming or stealing our data or trade secrets.

Slow roll destruction is still slow roll profit for someone -- defense industries and Big Oil are a good first guess.

[BeckyDem]

17. +1

[Tommy Carcetti]

19. "Until 2014 Ukraine developed as it wished."

Do tell.

[marie999]

13. Imagine if Latin America, except for Mexico which is neutral, is our enemy.

We are number 1 in the military with nuclear weapons and Latin America is number 2 in the military with nuclear weapons. Mexico is thinking about joining Latin America and would become our enemy. We would have an enemy along our 1900 mile border. It has attacked us numerous times. What should the U.S. do? Ukraine has a 1200 mile border with Belarus and Russia. Do you think Russia and Belarus will accept enemy troops along their border? Nato needs a treaty with Russia and Belarus that Ukraine will not become a NATO country and NATO will not have troops in Ukraine and Russia and Belarus will not attack Ukraine. That is the only thing that will stop a war. If either side breaks the treaty or there is no treaty there will be a war. Hopefully, it will only be fought in Ukraine.

[lees1975]

14. A war over Ukraine? No.

Would the United States sit still and tolerate an attempt by Russia to turn a neighboring country just a few miles off its southern coast into a military ally with nuclear weapons? Oh, yeah, that happened before. We considered it a threat and were willing to go to war unless the nukes went back.

Of course Russia would see attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO, originally an anti-Soviet alliance, as a threat. Ukraine shares a common border with Russia's most fertile agricultural areas and most populated provinces of more than 1,500 miles and it sits on top of Russia's only southern seaport. We have the ability to diffuse the situation with diplomacy, not a war. Ukraine is a political creation of post-cold war negotiations. Russians make up almost 25% of the population and many of the border provinces are predominantly Russian.

What, exactly, would be gained by going to war?

[electric_blue68]

15. No war over The Ukraine, and...

I say this as a 2nd Gen half Ukrainian American. If it happens it's going to be awful. 😔
I read a book by a historian that was a naritive she put together together by interviewing Ukrainian participants
in the '13 - '14 war.

I hope we will send what ever help we can to help save more pro West Ukrainian lives.
.The Ukraine was a country before Russia usurped it into The Soviet Union.

Puttin moved a whole lot of Russians into The Ukraine over some years in order to "claim" that Ukrainians were "pro-Russian". Pah!

[lees1975]

20. Who would be part of the coalition of the willing?

Germany's not on board, and it looks like the EU is sort of on the sidelines. The whole Crimea invasion was about economics, that's Russia's only access to warm water ports to get into the Med and Atlantic to export oil. Sanctions do have an effect on Russia, and even though we think of Putin firmly in the saddle, sanctions bring about enough hardship that they tend to dent his image.

Ukraine hasn't become part of NATO, and that is something the US and its allies can offer. See where that goes. Maybe giving the Ukrainian government a little larger share of participation in talks that involve their country might also get somewhere.