Is there any point at which the US or Nato should intervene in Ukraine?

[iemanja]

Russia has said it plans to "exterminate" the population of Ukraine since they can't be "reeducated." I've been against US intervention in Ukraine, but I'm starting to rethink that. What Russia is doing is abhorrent. Should we stand by and watch that happen? I realize the US is doing a great deal to support the Ukraine war effort, absent committing troops. Is there any point at which you think that should change to the point that the US and/or NATO does commit troops? If so, when?

[Akoto]

1. Yes, we're there now. When we had proof of dead in the streets as they left Kyiv.

Half dug mass graves. Shelled hospitals (which they are still doing as I write this). Entire cities literally destroyed. We have proof of it all. We can't just let that go to pass.

The former top oligarch, who lost his company and spent ten years in prison for saying he might challenge Putin for the presidency, says that he only listens when his force is met with force. He says that's what you have to do, or he doesn't care, that his mind is still in the time of the Russian mafia and he himself is a thug who will only take pause when directly confronted.

[lagomorph777]

2. We are intervening. We are providing weapons and we should provide bigger ones.

Ukraine has 150% of the troops they need. What they need more of is weapons: antimissile systems, jets, cruise missiles. They can't go on the offensive in a big way without them.

[Ray Bruns]

4. Agreed. So far we have given the Ukrainians defensive weapons.

What they need now are offensive weapons. Tanks, artillery, jets.

[lagomorph777]

12. Artillery, jets, cruise missiles, and antimissile systems.

Tanks - well, they are capturing a ton of tanks - they have more than they started with! But hey, a few more never hurts.

[AntiFascist]

15. More cruise missiles?

Ukrainians need to target the railway going through Russia that is being used to reposition troops and equipment retreating through Belarus to then re-enter and attack Eastern Ukraine.

[BigmanPigman]

3. About 2-3 weeks ago was a good time to intervene.

They should do it NOW, why wait?

Putin is saber rattling and it isn't working as well as it did a month ago. Military officials have been saying this recently.

[sprinkleeninow]

8. still under discussion 🤔

Slava Ukraini! Slava Na Viki!
☮🕊🌻💙🇺🇦💛🌻🕊☮

[C_U_L8R]

5. After todays liefest in the Security Council

It might not be a bad idea to return a certain ambassador strapped to an ICBM. Strangelove might even approve.

[lagomorph777]

14. Some members of Congress/Senate might want to join him.

I'm picturing a Cruz missile.

[C_U_L8R]

26. Gotta gaetz one of those.

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2022, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[lagomorph777]

28. Put it in your Josh Hauler.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I think for me the line has already been crossed.

I think we're already headed for direct confrontation no matter what. I'd hate to see us stand back and watch another holocaust unfold first.

[iemanja]

7. Yes, I've arrived to that point.

Though I'm not the one who has to go fight, but it's definitely more worthy than the other wars the US has been in lately.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. It wouldn't even need to be boots on the ground.

Maybe some air power and some convoys to ensure distribution of aid and evacuation of civilians.

We should never have made statements ruling out direct involvement. We should always have left it as a possibility in Putin's head.

[doc03]

31. I agree never say what you are not going to do. nt

[iemanja]

41. In retrospect, I agree with that

Putin has taken it as carte blanche to do whatever he wants.

[sprinkleeninow]

23. I've gotten to this point.

I understand the past measured responses.

I detest bloodshed and killing.

But, the line in the sand has been crossed.

Good God. Never in all my born days could I have imagined any of this and especially my stance now having professed and confessed the Eastern Orthodox Christian Faith as mine.

Lord, have mercy!

[taxi]

9. There is.

Just like with cards, play the right one at the right time.

[qazplm135]

10. doesnt matter

All Putin has to do is say nukes and too many in the west will simply refuse because they think they will go down as the people who started nuclear Armageddon.

Putin knows what he is doing by threatening nukes.

[iemanja]

13. He can do the same in Poland

The US has already announced they will enter the war if a NATO country is attacked.
Putin would certainly use the same threats in that case. Their rhetoric suggests they don't plan on stopping with Ukraine.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. He'll probably wait to attack Poland until after he's reinstalled Trump.

[AntiFascist]

22. Poland has already wanted to launch a peacekeeping mission into Ukraine...

but I feel they are being held back by the rest of NATO, particularly Turkey that has been hosting negotiations.

[Mariana]

53. A peacekeeping mission?

What peace would they be keeping there?

[AntiFascist]

82. It would assist with humanitarian efforts...

https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/tentative-first-look-options-peace-operations-ukraine

Prior to this week’s NATO summit in Brussels, Poland stirred up discussions of sending an international peacekeeping force to Ukraine. The concept, which Polish officials have emphasised is at a “preliminary” stage, is to deploy a force that could assist with humanitarian operations and would be robust enough to defend itself in combat.

[Ace Rothstein]

44. The rhetoric suggests they don't plan to stop with Ukraine but results will prove otherwise.

The invasion for Ukraine isn't going well at all for Russia. Invading a NATO state would go even worse for them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

100. +100.

NATO would crush the Russian military.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

11. They need to start receiving and training on

The ground-based systems for taking out high altitude planes, missiles and cruise missiles.

All the (r)ussian built armor and artillery the West and former Warsaw Pact nations possess. Maybe start training Ukrainian crews on older M1-Abrams tanks.

Ammunition. More stingers, NLAWS and Javelins.

Access to real-time battlefield intelligence.

Pootler is setting up a battle theater in the East that will be like the Eastern Front in WW ll. Huge amounts of armor, rapid, sweeping encirclements. Short-range Javelins won’t be enough.

[lagomorph777]

17. I don't know whether they have time/resources to learn new NATO stuff,

but definitely we need to step it up with bigger stuff - probably Soviet-era jets, antimissile systems, artillery, etc.

Mainly, I'd start with Zelenskyy's shopping list.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. I wish we would have had the foresight to begin training them last year.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

27. Me too.

We should have squadrons of NATO-trained Ukrainians in M-1s headed to Donbas.

[WarGamer]

45. Tanks are the new horse and buggy... death traps.

You don't think the Russians have man portable AT systems?

Hell, the Iraqis were knocking out M1's with RPG's...

[Doodley]

16. Increase the risk of WW3? No.

[lagomorph777]

21. There's a reflexive assumption that Putin will send nukes if we...

...take some unspecified further action.

I think the risk really goes the other way.

Show the asshole we're serious; he's less likely to take any foolish chances.

Or, we can just let him bully the world forever.

[Doodley]

78. You seem to assume he is rational. When we have nukes in the hands of leaders who could

actually destroy the world on a whim, it is only a matter of time until that happens. We could be nearly at that point, or that point may be some time in the distant future. We have no way of knowing, but the risk is real.

[AntiFascist]

25. then risk a repeat of WW2, when too many felt that diplomacy was the solution n/t

[Doodley]

79. I'm not seeing much diplomacy. Talking about regime change isn't the way to reach a diplomatic

solution.

[Calculating]

46. So basically there's no line he can't cross in Ukraine

That would lead you to think more action might be required?

[Doodley]

80. There's such a double standard of all the past atrocities, genocides, and mass starvation, where

we did f-k all.

[iemanja]

86. So that means we should turn our back on this genocide too?

We did nothing in the past, so the way forward is to keep doing nothing. That is essentially what you are arguing. It's a weak position.

[Doodley]

87. We aren't doing nothing. You seem to dismiss all that the Biden administration has done.

[iemanja]

89. I'm not dismissing it

I'm asking whether it's enough. Your claim is that we should do nothing because we haven't stopped genocide in the past. That was your argument, not mine. Read the OP. I clearly said the US is doing a lot.

[Doodley]

94. Where did I say we should do nothing?

[Doodley]

95. Where did I say we should do nothing?

[iemanja]

103. You said we'd done nothing in the past

which implied to me that you wanted to do nothing now.

[Doodley]

106. No.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. This is way above tbe Cuban missile crisis that seem to...

we largely lucked out of. Had a lot to do with Soviet fear of self destruction. Khruschev was definitely not a good guy, but he was one of the few who thrived under Stalin, so he was definitely one of the smart guys. Nikita vs JFK is someting I have to look at some more. Neither wanted the planet to end up as an ash heap.

But way above my pay grade to tell anyone what to do at this point when we seem to be dealing with a maniac who truly does not care.

[Doodley]

81. Thank you for the most important point on this thread. We are dealing with a maniac who can

push the button on a whim. There are no second chances when it comes to starting WW3. That will be the final war. You don't provoke a crazy guy who is holding a gun to somebody's head. We are talking about the end of human existence. The fact that we are still here is down to luck, and luck alone. Our luck could run out tomorrow if we aren't careful.

[BannonsLiver]

29. Hard to believe people are still having this conversation.

[iemanja]

34. How do you mean?

[BannonsLiver]

97. Because it's been asked and answered ad nauseam.

[iemanja]

104. Circumstances have changed

as has the POV of DUers, which you can tell by reading the responses to this thread.

[doc03]

30. Those MIGs should have been sent in weeks ago. They are

talking about sending Soviet era tanks, give them Abrams tanks. Give them whatever it takes to take out those 20 something Russian ships in the Black Sea.

[WarGamer]

43. So you send the Ukrainians ASM's and let's say they take down the Black Sea fleet...

Then maybe in retaliation the Russians launch a hypersonic ASM, the Zircon missile at a US Aircraft Carrier.

Maybe it's the USS Harry S Truman with 5000 American crew members.

The Zircon is almost undetectable and can't be intercepted with anything in a Carrier group. It travels a few meters above the waves at Mach 10.

So the US would have been responsible for killing their Black Sea fleet and the response would be the Truman.

Now explain to me how that's worth it.

Tell the parents and spouses and children.

[Calculating]

47. We are dealing with actual monsters here

They basically want to "remove" the population of Ukraine by any means necessary. With that said their leadership isn't stupid. Why would they start a direct war with the USA over us giving Ukraine weapons? There's a simple solution for Russia here. It involves abandoning their barbaric invasion of Ukraine. If not we should give Ukraine all kinds of deadly goodies to kill as many Russians as possible.

[doc03]

51. What are we to do let Putin take over the world one bite at time a time. We have showed him over and

over we will back down. Why stop? Let's just run up a white flag!

[snort]

32. NO!

You want Nuclear War with Russia? That will be the outcome if we become involved in a ground war.

[marie999]

35. No, if Ukraine falls Putin will then attack one of the Baltic countries.

He will know that NATO is nothing but a paper tiger. Really, Russian soldiers are raping children and NATO has meetings.

[maxsolomon]

36. That is not a foregone conclusion.

All 3 of those nations: Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, are in NATO. Attacking them is a bright red line. It is clearly different than attacking a non-NATO nation, and Putin knows it.

He isn't suicidal.

[doc03]

54. He crossed that Red Line before nt

[maxsolomon]

57. Location and date, please.

Putin has not invaded a NATO country to my knowledge.

[doc03]

58. Syria, it is not a NATO country but the Red Line was drawn. Then TFG

pulled us out and left our allies the Kurds to be murdered.

[maxsolomon]

61. Syria is not a NATO country.

Putin was invited in by Assad.

The US was involved to combat ISIL. Until we weren't.

It is not equivalent.

He will not invade any of the Baltic nations. Georgia is a more logical target after Ukraine, but he may not want it. It is not Novorossiya.

[doc03]

84. But the Red Line was drawn at chemical weapons. The US got involved to combat ISIS

until we weren't, so we abandoned our allies, and thousands were slaughtered. Putin was invited in by Assad.
Putin has claimed he was invited into Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians from persecution by the Jewish Nazi
Zelensky. Hitler was invited in to Austria and Poland too..

[WarGamer]

38. Disagree

This war has made it LESS likely that he will attack NATO... for a loooong time.

[48656c6c6f20]

39. So today is Tuesday

And I recall Pootin saying that if it's a Tuesday, or not a Tuesday he will use nukes. So you're right. Tomorrow is Wednesday and I'm afraid he's going to threaten nukes again. Maybe just better to get rid of the calendar? I'm trying the stick my fingers in my ears and going lalalalalala so I don't see or hear the nukes coming.

[ripcord]

92. There is no guarantee of that Mr. Chamberlain

The U.S. sat by before and watching atrocities unfold, they got worse because the U.S. and Europe waited to do anything. Nuclear weapon fear is going to see us watching atrocities unfold under Russia while we clutch our pearls and repeat our mistakes.

[Wicked Blue]

33. The US needs to deploy its most relevant weapon

Drop Trump on the Kremlin

[WarGamer]

37. We're already doing a lot.

And NO, nothing that risks nuclear war.

Some won't like this... but not ONE American life for this war.

The Ukrainians are willing to fight and die... give them the tools.

[madville]

40. Agree

Can honestly say I’m surprised how many are advocating for what would assuredly start WWIII. I believe there is a saner, mostly silent majority that just doesn’t feel like arguing with the vocal pro-war folks.

[WarGamer]

42. +1000 so true...

[iemanja]

70. War is happening

pretending you are anti-war simply because you oppose US involvement does not make sense. One is pro-war either way, either for Russia's war by allowing him to massacre Ukraine or one is for defending the Ukraine. There is no option where peace prevails.
The rhetoric about being anti-war doesn't hold water. War exists with or without US involvement.

[iemanja]

90. No, my point is there is no anti-war position

War exists. Period. Being anti-war isn't an option. The rhetoric is bizarre. It suggests there is no war absent the US, which is ludicrous. This isn't the case of a US invasion, like Iraq or Vietnam. There is a raging war, and there is no anti-war position to take.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

91. I can see your point, but I disagree with it,

I'm staunchly against war for obvious reasons, unless our homeland or a NATO country is attacked, at that point, then all bets are off.

I fully trust Pres. Biden and his advisors, they know alot more than you or I do and have their reasons for not committing troops into Ukraine, I think that what we, as in the US and NATO, are doing is the right way to go, I would like to see offensive weapons systems given to Ukraine, which I think isn't very far off.

[iemanja]

93. I hope you're right about the offensive weapons systems

The argument against them isn't clear to me.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

96. I hope so too,

for the sake of the entire world human race.

My gut feeling is that we're not far off from that, although the Ukrainians are acquiring Russian offensive systems left behind by the retreating Russians, like their latest tanks, SAM's, etc.

We kinda are providing offensive systems now, Javelins are defensive and offensive systems, along with Stingers, Star Streak Sams, and the Switchblade kamikaze drones that can take out Russian tanks.

And, just to clarify, if just one Russian missile, bomb, or bullet lands on NATO territory, or if the Russian's deploy and use any NBC's in Ukraine, I would wholeheartedly support the US/NATO alliance destruction of the Russian military inside Ukraine.

[Calculating]

48. They need better tools then

Anti ship and cruise missiles, fighters, drones, etc. All the best and most deadly things our MIC has to offer. It needs to be a virtual death sentence for Russians to stay in Ukraine.

[Justice matters.]

49. Agreed. I make nightmares...

A disaster a million times worst than 911

[iemanja]

52. Why is one American life

worth more than millions of Ukrainians?

[WarGamer]

60. Just an honest question... 2 questions actually.

1) Were you this adamant in asking for US military action while thousands were slaughtered in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia or the Congo?

2) If not... why?

[iemanja]

62. Because I wasn't informed to the same extent about those events

They weren't on the front page of every newspaper in America.
And Syria was a byproduct of the massive fuck up in Iraq, which I protested.

But you are the one who emphasized "not one American life." Why won't you answer my question?

[WarGamer]

65. It's quite a long answer and I'm cooking right now.

I would feel like I'm cheating you if I give a brief answer.

But I'll give you the Readers Digest version.

There really is no global community of man. We're tribal creatures, we always have been... from the steppes to the caves to the pyramids to the sky scrapers we are and always have been tribal creatures.

We can't be the global police force. There are wars that kill thousands in near constant status...

It's simply wrong. Morally wrong, financially wrong and practically wrong. We can't be the world's peacekeeper.

If you can't put your finger on WHY we should die for Ukraine but ignore Yemen and Aleppo... there's something else going on. And I don't mean specifically YOU...

Mankind IS war. We're still the primitive creatures that wore bear skins and threw spears. On an evolutionary scale, we were clubbing neighbors and stealing their women and children like 5 minutes ago... ah heck, what am I talking about? We still are!!!!

[iemanja]

68. The reason Ukraine and not Yemen

is that Ukraine is in Europe and Yemen in Africa, and Ukraine therefore gets far more attention in the media. We therefore know far more about Ukraine. We see the dead bodies on the newspapers (and TVs if you watch it), whereas we have never seen that for Yemen. So why should we care about something we are informed about? Because it is moral to do so. It is not moral to ignore genocide, whether in Europe or Africa.

Entering the Ukraine would be a far better use of our military that any of the other wars and invasions since WWII.

Not entering in Ukraine may just be putting off the inevitable because Putin will not stop there. Or would you violate Article 5 and allow Putin to conquer much of Europe?

[WarGamer]

71. I 100% empathize with you.

But let me just share a personal anecdote.

When my wife and I are driving, she gets upset when she sees a squirrel, rabbit, crow or Raccoon hit by a car.

She asks why I don't get upset like her. "Are you cold blooded?"

My response is "The opposite actually. If I were to expand my conscious realization that in every moment of the day, there are animals being killed by the millions whether by cars, predators or man, I'd be unable to function."

Re: entering Ukraine. Have you noticed that since WW2 the superpowers have never DIRECTLY fought each other? There's been a reason for that, an unspoken rule that the superpowers may engage in wars of choice without direct action from the other superpower.

How would you feel if Russia had sent armies into Iraq in 2003 to fight the USA?

And lastly, Ukraine has shown that the Russian military is a paper tiger at best and severely decimated their military might. There is NO WAY Russia looks to cross NATO borders. Russia would get SMOKED.

[iemanja]

72. Russia sent armies into Syria

My view on Iraq is that the US had no business there in the first place, so Russia's entering the war wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact on me that Ukraine does.

And yes, I noticed that the US and Russia have only entered into proxy wars, and no small number of them, since WWII.

And I might remind you that you said there was no way Russia would invade Ukraine, and you turned out to be wrong. You might be wrong about Nato countries as well. They have essentially announced their intention to invade them and exterminate the populations of Poland and the Balkans.

[WarGamer]

73. I was 100% wrong about Ukraine.

I still can't believe that Putin did something so stupid and illogical.

[EX500rider]

105. Big difference to me between a civil war and a invasion.

Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia and the Congo were all civil wars/rebellions/terrorists, there was outside interference for sure but the civil wars/strife would have gone on either way.

[Doodley]

76. You could ask why is nuclear war worth every life in Ukraine? Pointless questions.

[iemanja]

85. So we never step in to stop Russia?

and let them take over all of Europe if they want to? Is that your position? Should we hand over Alaska too? Or is risking nuclear war okay for NATO countries but not Ukraine?

Putin is a petty little man who threatens nuclear war to intimidate the West, and it's working. Who cares about genocide anyway? Give Russia their way.

[doc03]

55. We could have done that in WWII I guess nt

[Mariana]

63. That's not a great comparison.

Russia has not attacked the US, as Japan did in 1941, and Russia has not declared war on the US, as Germany did in 1941.

[iemanja]

64. Putin's territorial ambitions are much like Hitler's

And the US was roundly criticized for not entering the war before Pearl Harbor. The Brits were especially pissed off about it, and they mention it to this day.

[Mariana]

67. The Brits haven't gone to war with Russia over Ukraine.

as they did with Germany over Poland. So it's still not a great comparison.

[iemanja]

69. Wait long enough

and it will be a perfect comparison.

[Mariana]

74. Maybe so.

I suspect the NATO countries are quietly making preparations for war, just like the UK was doing in 1938.

[Doodley]

77. No, it isn't a "perfect comparison."

[TomSlick]

50. I am surprised at how many posts above are willing to condone any Russian atrocity

because of the threat that Putin will use nuclear weapons.

The question is whether the US or NATO really stands for anything. At this point, I no longer know.

[Doodley]

75. We are taking action. To potentially trigger Putin into escalating this to WMD is not

"condoning" what is happening.

[TomSlick]

98. We will fight the Russians to the last Ukrainian.

NATO is condoning Russian atrocities by failing to respond militarily. Would Putin escalate to nuclear weapons? I doubt it - he is intent on restoring the USSR - not destroying it.

Sanctions are not going to work. The Ruble is recovering and Putin's approval in Russia is rising.

NATO will not respond so long as Germany continues to import Russian gas and oil.

Maybe the US will respond when Russia invades Alaska.

[Kaleva]

83. If the West condoned such atroticitites, they wouldn't be providing billions in aid

Would you say you condone spousal abuse because you aren't out there actually intervening and making citizen's arrests?

[TomSlick]

99. Spousal abuse rarely occurs in plain sight justifying a citizen's arrest.

The Russian atrocities are occurring in plain sight. If NATO does not stop the atrocities, it is condoning them.

Not to worry, NATO will never act so long as Germany is importing Russian oil and gas.

[Kaleva]

107. Ok. Would you say you condone TFGs crimes....

because you haven't attempted to make a citizen's arrest?

[TomSlick]

108. I did not have the physical possibility to attempt a citizen's arrest.

I am not a citizen of the District of Columbia and am unfamiliar with the laws of the District. TFG had a well armed security detail that would prevent a citizen - or any group of citizens -from effecting an arrest. There is no parallel.

NATO countries have moral and treaty obligations to enforce the laws of international armed conflict. NATO will not enforce international law for the same reason that the European nations continue to pump millions of Euros into the Russian war effort, they are completely dependent upon Russian oil and gas. They are more dependent on Russian oil and gas than before the invasion of Crimea. Europe is supporting both sides of the Ukrainian war. The European members of NATO are arming Ukraine while financing Russia.

Europe condones the Russian atrocities for the sake of continuing to destroy the environment burning fossil fuels. The US condones the Russian atrocities for the sake of preserving NATO. The rapes and murders in Ukraine will continue for the sake of oil and gas.

[David__77]

56. Biden has been correct to hold a strong line against military engagement

…

[EX500rider]

59. Personally I think all the western countries..

...should say they are sending cargo ships with humanitarian supplies to Maripol (assuming we can get Turkey on board) and send warships to guard them and see if Russia really wants to start a war with 20+ countries just delivering aid, get as many countries of the world as we can on board. Take no aggressive action but get food to the starving.

[iemanja]

66. That's not a bad idea.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

101. That is an idea I could easily get behind. nt

[Chuuku Davis]

102. Russia has mined

The Mariupol port area according to sources.
Doesn't make sense if they want to capture and use it.
Which to me means they want to exterminate it.