Former Russian foreign minister reveals precisely when Putin may pull trigger on nuclear weapons | Fox News Here ya go. Exactly what i surmised, but from a far more reliable source.
It’s literally in every conversation or idea when contemplating what the West can do about the situation in Ukraine. We’ve fallen for his bluffing on using nukes if we were to militarily intervene in any way in Ukraine’s borders. We’ve handcuffed ourselves with self-imposed limitations of financial weaponization and as arms dealers. It wouldn't take much in the way of air strikes to strongly tilt the war in Ukraine’s army’s favor. And yet here we are, standing around acting via proxy when there is a much more effective and life-saving alternative. I also think that military intervention, even if only via air and possibly sea, serves a secondary objective as a warning to China about its intentions/actions with respect to Taiwan.
So ever present, but lying there in the background (other than Putin, spewing crap). Which makes it the its same as it's ever been, from Korea in the 50s, through Cuba in the 60s,, Viet Nam in the 70s, Afghanistan in the 80s... IOW, SOSDD, only now we wanna go hot, in Russia's front door step...and somehow claim we're not to blame, if things literally go nuclear? Cuba involved nukes in striking distance of DC, bc we put nukes in Turkey, which is striking distance of Moscow. Ukraine is a helluvs a lot closer to Moscow than Turkey. Right. Next. Door. If ever there was a battle front to respect the MAD detente with, and keep engagement cool, it would be Ukraine. TBL, if Afghanistan could hold off the mighty Soviet Union at its peak with arms, Ukraine can surely hold off Putin's rust bucket antiquated vestige of the USSRs war machine, with global support and crippling sanctions. We do need to up our game in terms of arming the Ukes, but hell no going hot on Russia's door step. What comes from that, would be on us. Jmho/fwiw.
i applaud your service and value your opinion. I’m about as pro military person as you’ll find. I’ve also watched and seen our people get killed for chemical weapons that didn’t exist and watched us fight a war for 20 years that should have lasted 3 weeks. Up until 2 months ago Ukraine was considered one of the most corrupt places on earth. Offers little to no strategic value to US interests, so no I’m still in no go camp of send us personnel off to die. I am wholly on board with arming them with sophisticated weapon systems and feeding them non stop intel of troop movements, as well as providing real time tactical and strategic advice….all Of which we are doing. Just seen these things mission creep into something other than it is today. And Ukraine is ripe for mission creep. An no not worried about nuclear either. That’s not my deterrent edit- and yes I agree we would have a lot of volunteer pilots, ground forces etc. we have the greatest fighting force on earth but our leadership has a greater responsibility than ‘ send them because they will’. Is this truly in American best interest? Are there other ways to accomplish without direct kinetic ops with Russian forces ?
Russians running INTO the building that was hit, then the building gets hit again with them in it. *facepalm*
My theory is that Russia has antiquated weapons that are nearly obsolete on the battlefield. Their mig jets can be taken out by anti aircraft batteries. Armed drones can deliver payloads accurately and by a kid with and Xbox controller in a bunker miles away. These old tanks can be taken out by rockets. Infantry can be taken out by tractors. I remember reading in the gulf War we put tractor attachments on our tanks and buried the Iraqi army as we took Bagdad in weeks after our long buildup.
Cnn live "France supports banning imports of Russian oil, says French Economy Minister From CNN's Simon Bouvier and Chris Liakos France supports extending sanctions to ban imports of Russian oi, French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said Tuesday. "When you see what is going on in the Donbas, it is more necessary than ever to stop importing Russian oil," Le Maire told radio station Europe 1. Le Maire went on to say that it was oil, not gas, that has been "the first source of currency for Putin’s regime for several years," and therefore "stopping Russian oil imports means hurting the financing of the war in Ukraine for those who are in power in Russia." France was attempting to persuade European partners to stop imports of Russian oil, Le Maire added, alleging that some countries were "hesitant" to do so."
Cnn live "Statue of Lenin returns to Henichesk, a Russian-occupied town near Crimea From CNN's Paul P. Murphy A statue of former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin has been erected in Russian-occupied Henichesk, Ukraine, photos posted Monday to social media show, nearly seven years after one was removed as part of "decommunization" efforts. The town of Henichesk sits on the Sea of Azov in Kherson province, just north of the border with Russian-annexed Crimea. Three photos, posted on Facebook, show the new Lenin statue in front of the regional council building. A Russian flag is seen on the roof of the building. CNN has geolocated and verified the authenticity of the photos."
Fair enough. I see our cold strategic interest in three elements: 1. We must squash the very idea of war or viable threat of war as a method to resolve territorial disputes. Now most people would have told you six months ago that those days were long over, at least for major powers. I would have been one of them. Russia has given new life to the practice. If we allow them any form of strategic victory here, then others will start playing that game of “That used to be mine, and I want it back.” Such a world would present us with two unpalatable options: massive buildup or strategic retreat; we would either have to return to 1980s military spending levels to help contain the trend or essentially redraw the lines of of our interest and look the other way as former friends are gobbled up. 2. The refugee crisis. We intervened in the former Yugoslavia over a refugee crisis that put significant population pressure on our allies. This one is shaping up to be far worse by anyone’s measurement. 3. The food crisis. You know as well as I that Ukraine makes a significant portion of the world’s food. I’m not a farmer, but I do know we have entered the planting season. The men are all fighting, and the non-combatants are fleeing. No one is working the fields, and I mean the fields that haven’t been destroyed by the war. This fall there is going to be a significant gap in the availability of food the world has become accustomed to. That situation will grow progressively worse as the war drags on. Now I am with you that if Ukraine can fully win the war on its own by us just playing quartermaster and not risking American lives or escalating the war, then let’s do that. I must say, though, I have growing doubts that will be possible.
All fair points, and I appreciate your comments. If you have been active for 23+ years we would likely have a lot in common and agree on most. I believe I have just grown sour to the US sending people and resources to die for what in retrospect turned out to be a disaster. While I voted for bush and was all for a Sadam Regime change I think most can look back and say that was a historically horrible decision. 20 years in Afghanistan was equally as disastrous. As far as refugees and food, isn’t that exactly what the UN is for ? Paint all the trucks and APCs bright white with a giant UN logo and send in the Pakistani army …have at it. Most borders are pretty much settled…this conflict is a mess. Smarter people than me can give both sides and off ramp that doesn’t involve us fighting in yet another county 1000s of miles away with no US interests. All of this is JMHO, but as 50+ I am weary of war for wars sake. Russians come over to Canada and that’s a different story. Russians barely able to control 100 sq miles open territory in dombas? Not worth my people dying
Now that you mention the UN, question based off some comments I read. So the League of Nations came about as a result of WW1 (if I recall). WW2 saw the League of Nations disappear & replaced by the UN. The UN has quite frankly shown to be useless for the most part. Zelensky rightfully pointed out their ineffectiveness and asked what the point was of even having the UNSC. So...does this tip the scale in replacing the UN with something else? NATO has peacekeepers, WHO & the World Bank are global entities. And the UN isn't doing anything and frankly Russia could care less. Just curious if the UN has neared "failed experiment" status.
Hold up, no one mentioned moving nukes into Ukraine. There’s no tactical or strategic reason for doing so.
As to some comments about useless wars, etc...my dad is a Nam vet. An Agent Orange Nam vet. A lot of my issues are "unofficially" related to his Agent Orange exposure. Decorated then forgotten. Years of PTSD. Had knee replacements & they found tiny shards of shrapnel in the bones. Even found a miniscule sliver in his sternum when they did his open heart. So I get it. I do. But when even he says he wishes he was in better health to get over there & fight, I listen. I don't know what it's like. He does. 1968-1972. And this isn't some war for oil or private vendettas. We are seeing live time, via media, social media, satellites, etc that civilians are being massacred with the stated goal to wipe the entire country off the map if they don't bow down. Yes it's far away & why should we care. Because even if compromise is reached, Putin won't stop until he's dead. He wants an empire & Europe is in his way. And with more chatter online about Russia doing exercises near Japan, or how people want Russia to "take back" Alaska, it's not out of left field to say he needs to be stopped now before it spills over. Yes it's outlandish Saber rattling but I think he's nuts enough to try it. My hope is that we're training Ukranian pilots and facilitating planes, long-range weapons, etc. Everything but nukes. And we need to be ramping up our own manufacturing. If we're not sending troops at least get them Everything they need.
I don’t think anyone is entertaining “regime change”. That’s not the desired outcome, the opposite in fact. Military actions contemplated would be like NATO’s air support in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, and NATO’s air support in Yugoslavia is 1999. Ukraine already has the numbers on the ground to hold their territory if provided adequate air support.
