Where is the red line in Ukraine?

[ColinC]

At what point should NATO directly engage Russia in Ukraine?

13 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	When Russia murders Ukrainians en masse (now)
	9 (69%)
	When Russia rounds up civilians and deports them forcefully into camps (also now)
	0 (0%)
	When Russia uses chemical weapons on Ukrainians
	0 (0%)
	When Russia uses nuclear weapons on Ukrainians
	2 (15%)
	When Russia overthrows the Ukrainian governornment and executes all Ukrainians
	0 (0%)
	When Russia uses Ukraine as a staging grounds for nuclear weapons and threatens NATO countries to leave NATO or he will attack them.
	0 (0%)
	When Russia repeats their actions in Ukraine in one more non NATO country
	0 (0%)
	When Russia repeats their actions In Ukraine in several non NATO countries
	0 (0%)
	None/ Never
	0 (0%)
	Only after Russia has murdered thousands to millions more people and invades a NATO country.
	2 (15%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[ColinC]

3. That isn't up to us

Our actions are not the things escalating anything. Yet, people keep dying and Pudding keeps doing crazier and more reckless things. He will use nuclear weapons whether we do anything or not if he thinks he could win.

[SoonerPride]

4. Putin will not use nuclear weapons

Because he has been told that NATO will nuke Russia back to the stone age.

[ColinC]

8. He will do what he wants.

There is serious considerations for small nukes in Ukraine.

And the less NATO responds to these atrocities the less credible they are about anything else. They have told Putin a lot of things, yet failed to follow through with most of them.

[SoonerPride]

53. I assume those underneath him are

He can order a nuclear strike and see if his generals are suicidal

[Bettie]

63. I would not be suprised, given the corruption in Russia

if a good portion of their nuclear weapons don't work due to a lack of maintenance. It's expensive and it seems that stealing the money is more important to the people in charge of the military than actually buying the stuff they are supposed to.

[Buckeyeblue]

67. I agree with you

I saw on another thread that the nuclear capabilities have been maintained. And maybe they have. It just shows how fucked up Russia's priorities have been, to put the doomsday option ahead of making sure you could feed your army.

But back to the point I wouldn't be surprised if they have silos full of duds.

[ColinC]

58. he hasn't invaded a NATO country and he only invaded Ukraine after NATO gave him the green light by

removing fleets from the black sea, and all personnel out of Ukraine. He also stopped the invasion of Georgia when the prospect of war with NATO was directly in the way of it.

[ColinC]

86. If he is rational, direct intervention would work

Because he would not want to die. If he was irrational, direct intervention would likely be the last resort to his doing something completely and utterly more insane such as attacking NATO (something he continues to threaten).

If we intervene now we would be risking nuclear war betting he is rational enough to avoid it. If we wait, we would be waiting until we have no other choice to likely escalate to nuclear war if he is so irrational that he will commit suicide by invading a NATO country.

Intervention seems like the better idea in both regards. But no, there is no reason to assume he is irrational regardless of how psychopathically opportunistic he clearly has been.

His actions reflect his actions from the past. He might feel more emboldened to do the things he has been trying to do for years, but he isn't less rational IMHO.

[Bettie]

31. So, if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

the West should just shrug and wave a finger saying "don't let it happen again!".

Then, when he uses them on a NATO country, say "Last warning!"

And when he does it again, emboldened by having no consequences for the rest, give him one more warning....

[Bettie]

61. OK, noted.

No nation should ever defend another, because there is no nation on Earth that is 100% without flaw.

ETA: And there were several times in the fairly recent past when the US should have received consequences for their actions.

[krawhitham]

41. I get that argument, I really do, but are we really going to let him kill 40 million people

What if he does not stop with just Ukraine, do we let him have Sweden, Poland, Finland, or all of Europe. How much death is enough?

For 70+ years NATO has been saying NEVER AGAIN, was that just BS?

[Bettie]

51. Apparently, it's a nice phrase

with no real meaning behind it.

Maybe they will do something at some point.

[Lancero]

59. Germany more so than any country in NATO holding things up.

Ironic that the nation which precipitated that phrase is now the one holding up efforts to prevent another genocide.

And thats even before considering just what the largest value trade good Germany got from the USSR was... OIL! Same thing that's leading them to stymie further attempts at sanctions now.

History might not totally repeat itself, but damn does it sure have some eerie parallels.

[Emile]

5. What is the reason for this poll?

[maxsolomon]

20. To bait and troll DU members who want a measured response

in confronting a Nuclear power run by a megalomaniacal despot.

[Emile]

21. Or could it be to diminish President Biden's exceptional leadership? Not sure,

that's why I asked.

[krawhitham]

42. Polls make everything better

No wait, that's Bluetooth. Sorry

[marie999]

6. NATO should already have sent troops into Ukraine.

[SoonerPride]

7. Why?

Do you think American soldiers should die for Ukraine?

(The US is a NATO member after all)

[krawhitham]

44. So you're good with genocide?

[SoonerPride]

46. You didn't answer my question

The US had donated the equivalent of half their annual military budget in munitions.

That’s not being ok with genocide.

If you think US men and women should die for Ukraine please explain why

[Emile]

9. So do you think President Biden is not doing enough?

[marie999]

10. I am saying NATO is not doing enough. Not one country.

[Emile]

11. You do know we are a big part of NATO?

[marie999]

13. That's right, we are part of NATO.

For President Bident to send troops into Ukraine without the blessing of NATO would be wrong. There is a big difference between the US sending troops to Iraq and sending troops to Ukraine. We aren't going head to head with Russian troops in Iraq, but we would be going head to head with Russian troops in Ukraine.

[Emile]

16. Do you think if President Biden wanted to send troops into Ukraine NATO would

fully support him?

[marie999]

17. Absolutely not.

[Emile]

19. You forget the NATO support after 9/11?

[marie999]

27. We didn't want to attack Russia.

[Emile]

34. No, but NATO fully supported our President into a war

with a country that didn't attack us on 9/11.

[marie999]

35. Again, because they would not be fighting Russian troops.

They didn't have to worry about it turning into a major war.

[Emile]

40. They followed an American President into an unnecessary war. If President Biden

chose to fight Russians in Ukraine, NATO would no doubt follow his leadership. Thank god President Biden is doing this right by fighting the war without losing American lives. Is this thread an indirect way of criticising our President?

[Lancero]

43. Except NATO wasn't involved in the Iraq War. It was a ad-hoc coalition, under the UN.

NATO's involvement in Iraq started after the formation of a interim government, to help train their new security forces.

The UN and NATO are entirely separate entities.

[Emile]

78. NATO has a whole were divided, but a sizable sum of the countries in NATO

followed George W. Bush into an unprecedented coalition against international terrorism!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. That's your opinion, not shared by many others here.

I trust Pres. Biden and the other NATO leaders responding correctly at this time to this illegal Russian invasion and will respond accordingly to future events.

[Polybius]

24. Good thing you're not in charge

Because we'd all be dead.

[Calculating]

33. Putin isn't using nukes over Ukraine

If we started invading Russia in the name of regime change he'd let them fly of course.

[Polybius]

38. Exactly

Which is why we must not invade.

[MineralMan]

14. The Red Line US the Border of Any NATO Country.

It might also be the use of any nuclear arms by Russia.

Until then, we are supplying Ukraine with the weapons it needs to defend itself, which it is doing quite well, actually, while exposing the incompetence of the Russian military for all to see.

Unfortunately, that defense is costing Ukraine thousands upon thousands of its citizen's lives. NATO is not, however, going to risk a nuclear war over that. Nor should it, in my opinion.

[marie999]

15. Are you saying we will risk a nuclear war if Russia attacks Estonia?

[MineralMan]

18. Yes. Which is why Russia will not attack Estonia.

Ukraine is not a NATO member state. If it were, Putin would not have attacked it, either.

That is why NATO exists. It is a boundary that cannot be crossed without enormous risk.

Do I think that is the best possible situation? Not necessarily, but it is the situation that exists. I cannot change that.

You and I share something in common. I was also a Russian linguist in the USAFSS. I was stationed in Turkey, on the Black Sea coast in 1967-8.

[marie999]

22. If Russia wins in Ukraine of course it will attack Estonia.

If I was Putin and still had an army, I would attack Estonia. Why not, NATO has stood by and watched an ally get decimated. My troops are torturing and raping women and children, I am stealing women and children, I am tying men up and then shooting them. I am doing anything I want to the people but NATO is so afraid I will use nuclear weapons that I will think NATO doesn't care about 43.1 million people I definitely won't care about 1.3 million people. I mean why take the chance of nuclear war just to save a million people?

[Kaleva]

25. So you're saying that Biden is a coward and will do nothing if a NATO nation is attacked.

[marie999]

32. Why do you keep bringing up President Biden?

I never called him a coward. My post # 22 explains why I think Putin will invade Estonia that is if he still has an army left.

[Kaleva]

47. Biden is essentially the leader of NATO

Your previous comment:

"If I was Putin and still had an army, I would attack Estonia. Why not, NATO has stood by and watched an ally get decimated. My troops are torturing and raping women and children, I am stealing women and children, I am tying men up and then shooting them. I am doing anything I want to the people but NATO is so afraid I will use nuclear weapons that I will think NATO doesn't care about 43.1 million people I definitely won't care about 1.3 million people."

Saying NATO will do nothing is the same as saying Biden will do nothing.

[marie999]

50. All NATO decisions are consensus decisions.

[Kaleva]

66. Nothing gets done unless Biden approves it.

[marie999]

68. Read up on consensus decisions.

I am sure you can find some things on the internet on how NATO makes its decisions.

[Kaleva]

71. The only way consensus can be achieved is if Biden approves of the action proposed.

No action will be taken if Biden disapproves.

The US is the only member of NATO that has the power to go it alone against Russia.

[marie999]

74. President Biden cannot tell NATO what to do.

You need to learn how NATO makes its decisions. This is the last time I will answer your posts on this one thing.

[Polybius]

26. NATO stood and watched for good reasons

No members were attacked. Zero change Putin attacks Estonia unprovoked, because it would be suicide and he knows it.

[marie999]

30. See my post #22.

[Polybius]

37. I did, and it's wrong

I don't agree with your fortune telling.

[Lancero]

39. Wonder if they realized that you did, in fact, reply to post #22?

[krawhitham]

45. NATO refused letting Ukraine into NATO because they knew Russia this was coming, don't forget that

Plus one of the main reason for the refusal was NATO claiming the Ukrainian armed forces were not strong enough

[marie999]

72. I wrote that if Putin still had a military, he would invade Estonia.

Ukraine has 43 million people and Estonia has 1.3 million people. Estonia has 6,700 soldiers.

[Polybius]

23. Why to people always forget the "Never/None" option when creating polls?

An alternate option would be "If they attack the US."

[sarisataka]

28. The red line in Ukraine

Is the border with Poland/ Slovakia/ Hungary/ Romania

[Kaleva]

29. I think Biden and the other leaders of NATO nations will decide what the Red Line is.

[brooklynite]

48. Where is yours?

What action would cause you to enlist?

[ColinC]

49. Been there, done that.

I began my enlistment process as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb. 2014. Was hoping of course that the US did more directly at the time and since. The Ukraine situation was the primary reason I signed up for an eight year contract with the Army.

[Kaleva]

64. Watched a vid about a 73 y/o Vietnam vet over in the UKR undergoing training.

[ColinC]

81. Very good! That is inspiring.

There are many reasons why fighting for a foreign country's military is not moral or practical for me, regardless of how much I may believe in the righteousness of their cause.

[Kaleva]

87. If I was single and not disabled, I'd consider going myself.

My wife is also disabled and I'm her primary care taker and my own disability would make me a liability for others.

[JI7]

73. You can go fight in Ukraine right now. They accept foreign fighters

especially if they have training already.

[ColinC]

75. Illegal

I fight for America. Not for any other country. If my country isn't involved, neither am I.

[ColinC]

77. Curiosity

[Emile]

79. What does that mean?

[ColinC]

80. ...

I wanna know where people's limits are. Most people do not want any direct conflict with Russia for very good and obvious reasons, but I am curious as to what point that could change -or has changed.

[Emile]

82. What is your limits? Do you think President Biden is not doing enough?

[ColinC]

83. I think no president has done what I would do. (Probably good I'm not president)

As I said, I began enlisting in the US Army as soon as Ukraine invaded in 2014 February. I was hoping we would get involved. Unfortunately we didn't. I think Biden should do more, just as I thought Obama should have done more. Although I understand why they didn't.

Nuclear annihilation is a very good reason to tread very carefully, and that is what he is doing. Although just like the rest of us, he also has a line which is increasingly being clear.

I will say that Biden was in a far more difficult position thoroughly because of Trump. Trump emboldened Putin and I really don't think he would have invaded if not for Trump.

[Emile]

84. Thanks for your honest reply! I fully support President Biden leadership during

this war! So far, I think he is doing all the right things and will continue to do so.

[ColinC]

85. Welcome!

I have been happy to see his increasing support for Ukraine with more and bigger weapons and don't expect him to back down to psycho bully Putin's demented and delusional threats.