Nor did I, though I can see how my post could be read as such, since I put the emphasis on 'right next door' right after mentioning nukes in Cuba and Turkey. My point is that we didn't engage USSR hot in VN, Afghanistan, Korea, Cuba nor anywhere else, in order to avoid going nuclear, and those places are much farther from Mosco than Ukraine, so why the hell would we go in hot now? Will feigning surprise and indignity over the audacity of launching nukes, serve to prevent a desperate Putin from going nuclear after it's already happened? TBL, is there is a reason that we have not engaged Russia hot, and that reason not only remains as compelling as ever, but in this case, since we're talking about Russia's back yard--actually adjacent to their boarder--all the more compelling. IMHO, the status quo conventional wisdom remains the rule of the day. ...and we don't really need to talk about it or make a big to-do about it. Just do what we've done for decades, and appreciate the greater peace yielded thereby. Perhaps someday, when Putin is dead and gone, and we have a ...solid leader in office in the US, we can talk about long ball. In the meantime, just arm the Ukes to the teeth, and continue to facilitate Russia bleeding out--seems to be the appropriate course of action. jmho/fwiw.
We've been seeing that shit and worse in Africa for decades. Why risk nuclear MAD for Ukraine, while we've done so little in re. civilians in Africa? How about China and No. Korea? What's so special about Ukraine, other than it's the single place with the highest probability of triggering MAD???? (...and what @ATLGATORFAN said... I salute your father).
I’m really not sure how the UN fixes the food or refugee situation. The problem, again, is the invasion, which has caused the people to flee or fight and leaves the fields unattended. The UN can’t stop the invasion. The UN can’t force the refugees to return home while the fighting continues. And the UN can’t go in and work the fields. There are only two ways I see for Ukraine to start producing food again: 1. Ukraine fully wins the war, is able to demobilize, is able to satisfactorily rebuild, and is able to provide a safe and secure environment for refugees to return. 2. Russia fully wins the war, is able quell any insurgency, is able to compel a certain number of Ukrainians to return to the fields, is able to move in Russian immigrants to work the remaining fields, and is able to convince the West to lift the sanctions so they can sell the food. Anything in between those end states results in a protracted food crisis.
I guess it's just a matter of time now....Coons Says 'Putin Will Only Stop When We Stop Him' When Pressed on US Troops
I think you’re right. I think momentum will build with our allies and both political parties for intervention until the President has no choice. In my opinion, it’s best he leads instead of getting lead.
He's the warrior & my hero I just wanted to at least shed a little light that I get sending kids off to fight and die needlessly or for less than noble ideals. This wouldn't be one of those times. But no I don't want boots on ground unless it spills over.
Thank you. To me what makes it different is that it's the highest probability of spilling into another WW3 scenario, & the threat by Putin to use nukes. China for all its rattling hasn't come close to saying it'd use nukes. North Korea isn't substantial TBH and we already have a military presence there/in the area. But Putin and Russia do absolutely have the capability to say screw it & take out the world. That level of danger doesn't affect a small region - it's global. Putin's & Russia's stated goals of wiping out Ukranians & then threatening other countries...it's a huge problem. This is a big deal because it's Russia once again trying to take over Europe. As far as Africa, they're really feeling this war right now because of the amount of wheat, etc, that they can't get. There will be a lot of starving people, & the sooner this ends the better on that front. I dont know what kinds of sanctions, etc have been done regarding African nations engaging in genocide. How do you sanction rebels doing it? I don't know.
Not really. The USSR being communist, had as an express mission and part of its composition, the goal of dominating the whole world. Since they disbanded, they've also relinquished their Leninist Commie charter (still tyrannical, autocratic and authoritarian, but no longer truly commie). Unlike so many prior campaigns in which the USSR expressly sought to expand for its express designs of world dominion, this war is being waged by Russia defensively (yes I know they are objectively the aggressor, but clearly the concern that drove them to invade, was the presence of NATO, which exists to counterbalance the USSR--IOW, as an expressly anti-Russian entity, from snuggling right up against her boarder). Put it this way--if Mexico looked like it was going commie, we'd likely invade to prevent that from happening (historically anyway; today's quasi commie sympathetic Dem party, might just roll out the *red* carpet for them, but that's kinda' how things worked throughout the cold war). China is too intertwined and enmeshed with us to dare risk our destruction. We're its golden goose. They'd no sooner seek our destruction, than a rancher would kill off all of his cattle for a single feast. NKorea doesn't pose a MAD threat, so if they went into SK, we probably wouldn't hesitate to engage them (and make VERY short order of them). So back to Russia and the Ukr--yes, as you said, Russia has the nuclear capability to send the world back to the stone age if not worse--as do we (certainly our capability is superior to there's, but there ain't no silver or gold medals for a nuclear war--its MAD, plain and simple). So we dance around one another, and don't engage directly, because the liklihood of escalation is simply too real, and the stakes too high. Russia invading the Ukr is not an existential threat to Europe, and there is simply no evidence to conclude that even delusional Putin would dare pick a fight with NATO. His fear of NATO is what's drove him to invade Ukr (before they could become a part of NATO)--so it seems highly implausible that he would seek to invade UKR for fear of having NATO boardering Russia....bc he was intent on attacking NATO. That doesn't add up or hold water.... The war should never have happened, and it could have been prevented as easily as UKR will not join NATO, Russia agrees not to invade. IMHO, it can possibly still be resolved on that basis, with some other factors and concessions tossed in for deviation and for Russia to save face (I know, sounds like a ridiculous factor, but I assure you, it's a hugely compelling factor). Jmho/fwiw.
I think the major difference between the genesis of our viewpoints is you seem to be taking Russia’s actions as a one-off situation. I see this as a much larger geopolitical play evidenced by years’ long actions and planning in Georgia, Crimea, Moldova, Chechnya, Belarus, Donbas and Luhansk amongst others. There’s a reason why Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states, Moldova, and Kazakhstan are some combination of making unprecedented alliances, speaking out against Russia, and asking for support. There’s a reason NATO has increased its numbers on Russia’s borders in the Baltic too. Ukraine presents a unique opportunity in the region to slap Russia down that won’t be present in a couple years when a repeat happens in another bordering nation.
Regarding shedding communism, Russians have once again put up Lenin statues in newly occupied areas. I think they like the richness of the West but love the control, so I see them almost going to a Chinese model of communism. But they are headed that way. Ukraine wasn't in NATO. They'd even agreed on neutrality being on the table when Russia was looking to start the invasion. It's been on the table but that's a smokescreen. What Putin did was prove why NATO is needed. If he doesn't invade Finland, Sweden right now, who are further ahead in the process than Ukraine was, then it's a smokescreen. He actually strengthened NATO/EU/Western resolve against him. They then changed the excuse that it was to denazify. There's Nazis in Russia, too. And how exactly do you denazify a Jew? As prior posts have linked they've got their agenda that includes wiping out Ukrainians. That doesn't have anything to do with NATO. So his best case scenario is there's a DMZ like line where Dombas & some others get to be "liberated" to Russia, but Ukraine will still be there, well armed, with the West helping to rebuild it. Even if they say fine no NATO, the rest of Europe/NATO will now be actively working to arm itself to the teeth, whereas the Russian economy will be dependent on China's good graces. If NATO was the issue, that first week they could've come to an agreement & pulled out. Instead it was increased attacks, atrocities, & destruction.
Perhaps not 'one off', but by the flip, not a Napoleanic or Hitleresque step towards conquering Europe, either, and I would submit, far less the latter than 'one off'. Here's my concern--Russia loses badly, leaves Ukraine devastated and decimated, the world builds Ukraine back up, and Russia is left with a power void, and an unholy economic mess. My concern, is that reminds a bit much of how Germany was left in the wake of WW I. I'm kinda' hoping to see something like a global Marshall Plan (for both countries), in the wake of this mess. Maybe we get an ally out of Russia, as with Germany and Japan post WW II, rather than our perpetual enemy, cornered, and with a vicious chip on their shoulder. (....and those nukes... I mean, I'm pretty sure the shelf life on their uranium hasn't run...). jmho/fwiw.
I agree with the Germany/post WW1 analogy. That is one of my few concerns about severe sanctions. I agree on Marshall Plan type situation for Ukraine but other than medicines & food I don't know that I'd be helping rebuild Russia's economy. It needs to hurt & hopefully once this ends & they make amends/reparations THEN lift sanctions. They still have infrastructure etc. It's not a rebuild like Ukraine.
An AVG style of volunteer flyers would interesting. Comprised of multiple nations of fighter/helo pilots.
Maybe similar to the power vacuum post WW1 in Russia. Let’s hope we don’t get a repeat of the ol Woodrow and Germany clusterbang creating another Soviet style government.
Perhaps it is a bit optimistic if not naive. We tried it with Iraq too, and it just didn't work out like with Japan and Germany. Maybe Russia is more Iraq than Jap or Germ'y....
In communicating with my friend in Odessa, he has shed some light on some of the cultural and structural challenges that would need to be addressed regarding Russia. It is not as simple as getting rid of Putin. My Ukrainian friend grew up in what was then the USSR, served in the soviet navy etc prior to the breakup of the USSR. Russian disdain for Ukraine pre-dates the current situation for certain. Russia will continue to be a menace unless these other issue are addressed. That being said, there is no way in hell that China would be ok with a fundamentally changed Russia (i.e. a European style republic with an open market; for many of the same reasons Putin is not ok Ukraine being a European style republic). A vicious cycle between Russia and the west: Russia acts aggressively, the west arms up and responds, Russia says " I told you that you were after us!". Rinse and repeat. It is deeply ingrained in the Russian psyche that others are out to get them and mean them harm. An old axiom that dates back to Imperial Russia is "if the empire does not expand, it rots". None of this justifies any of their actions, it just highlights how complex and difficult it would be to effect meaningful change.
