Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[Harry Bosch]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?

Yes! Silly Americans are doing the opposite. I agree. We should be sending US troops to help Russian troops kill those meanie Ukrainians. I'm sure that you're willing to buy an airline ticket to help the Russians as they pillage through the Donbass?

 

[steve_bank]

My short answer is yes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

The question was about the past, not the future. Obviously now when there is a shooting war going on, it's not possible, but NATO or US boots on the ground near the border could have acted as a deterrent.

Besides, there were already NATO personnel in Ukraine in a training role so it's not much of a stretch.

So what do you think USA could have done differently in the past 20 years to avoid the current mess?

We could have tried the German Method and made the USA dependent upon this known aggressor through failed economic diplomacy so that when this aggressor once again acts in it's wholly predictable manner, the neighborly country is scrambling to disentangle itself.


The Soviet Union may be gone but the Soviet mentality within the Russian government surely is not. To think of NATO as little more than a deterrent to Soviet aggression is short-sighted in my opinion. Missions change. Mission statements can change. When military force can be projected around the world with great speed and accuracy, an expansion of NATO to all democracies committed to peace and liberty is not unwarranted. Functioning, interoperable, well maintained militaries can be a global peacekeeping force.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?

Yes! Silly Americans are doing the opposite. I agree. We should be sending US troops to help Russian troops kill those meanie Ukrainians. I'm sure that you're willing to buy an airline ticket to help the Russians as they pillage through the Donbass?

Let's see.

A popular position in this thread: Go help the Ukranians.
My position: Stay out.
Your "interpretation" of my position: Go help the Russians.

How many times must I say that my position is "stay out" before you realize that my position is "stay out"?

I think you need my offer of an airline ticket more than anyone else in the forum. Why are you still not in Ukraine standing up for what you claim to believe in? Is it your actual position that poor people and foreigners should die for what you believe in?

 

[Patooka]

Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?

In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?

 

[Patooka]

A popular position in this thread: Go help the Ukranians.
My position: Stay out.
Your "interpretation" of my position: Go help the Russians.

Nope. Dead wrong. My position. Not only is Ukraine entitled to its sovereignty, there is no guarantee Russia will stop there. In fact, considering Putin's actions in Kazakhstan , Azerbaijan and Armenia kinda indicate he won't stop.

I don't believe you want to help the Russians. I am certain you want to do fuck all about Putin. Ever. Yes, there is a difference.

 

[Jayjay]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?

Yes! Silly Americans are doing the opposite. I agree. We should be sending US troops to help Russian troops kill those meanie Ukrainians. I'm sure that you're willing to buy an airline ticket to help the Russians as they pillage through the Donbass?

Let's see.

A popular position in this thread: Go help the Ukranians.
My position: Stay out.
Your "interpretation" of my position: Go help the Russians.

How many times must I say that my position is "stay out" before you realize that my position is "stay out"?

I think you need my offer of an airline ticket more than anyone else in the forum. Why are you still not in Ukraine standing up for what you claim to believe in? Is it your actual position that poor people and foreigners should die for what you believe in?

Sounds like the trolley problem. Do you let the trolley run over five people by doing nothing, or flip a switch to kill one person?

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?

In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?

I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

 

[Patooka]

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

Good question. Considering Ukraine is responsible for 40% of the World Food Program's wheat supply, it's going to affect you one way or the other. Stay out and you will still feel the effects.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the EU doing anything militarily as the EU was always meant to be a trade coalition with streamlined immigration practices. I do however think European nations should be providing significant aid to Ukraine as it is in their best interests. I don't see the EU itself having a standing military to have any sort of favourable outcome.

 

[zorq]

How many armed conflicts going on in the world include a nuclear power as the criminal aggressor? A nuclear power who may have the firepower to singlehandedly send the entire planet into a nuclear holocaust and a 100 years of winter?

The Mexican cartels are a threat to Mexican law enforcement and some innocent Mexican people, but mostly they are a threat to other Mexican drug cartels. As I recall, the US does send considerable aid to Mexico for the drug war. 3 billion dollars for military equipment in the past decade. Meanwhile, Russia is a MAD threat to the world.

Should we address the Mexican cartels killing eachother, and just ignore a nuclear superpower gone rogue?

 

[skepticalbip]

How many armed conflicts going on in the world include a nuclear power as the criminal aggressor? A nuclear power who may have the firepower to singlehandedly send the entire planet into a nuclear holocaust and a 100 years of winter?

That is weird "logic" there. Did you really suggest a nuclear holocaust while suggesting that the the U.S. should should poke that bear? If you are really afraid of a nuclear exchange then confrontation by another nuclear power (the U.S.) sounds like piss poor reasoning.

Maybe you should rethink and offer another reason the U.S. should get involved in the Ukraine.

The Mexican cartels are a threat to Mexican law enforcement and some innocent Mexican people, but mostly they are a threat to other Mexican drug cartels. As I recall, the US does send considerable aid to Mexico for the drug war. 3 billion dollars for military equipment in the past decade. Meanwhile, Russia is a MAD threat to the world.

Should we address the Mexican cartels killing eachother, and just ignore a nuclear superpower gone rogue?

It is a shame that the U.S. media does not inform its viewers what is happening in Mexico. There was some strife between cartels but not so much now. Generally, they cooperate... that is how the drugs and 'refugees' are able to move through several cartel's territories from southern Mexico to the U.S. border. The cartels hold some areas that the government will not enter because they are out gunned. The troops they have been sent in were quickly driven out with high losses. The cartels are not only fighting the government but are also kidnapping for ransom and killing civilian Mexicans. Also the cartels have infiltrated the U.S. and are involved in some of the gang shootings on our streets.

If you know any Mexicans that still have family in Mexico, you may want to ask them what is happening in Mexico.

 

[zorq]

How many armed conflicts going on in the world include a nuclear power as the criminal aggressor? A nuclear power who may have the firepower to singlehandedly send the entire planet into a nuclear holocaust and a 100 years of winter?

That is weird "logic" there. Did you really suggest a nuclear holocaust while suggesting that the the U.S. should should poke that bear? If you are really afraid of a nuclear exchange then confrontation by another nuclear power (the U.S.) sounds like piss poor reasoning.

Maybe you should rethink and offer another reason the U.S. should get involved in the Ukraine.

Or maybe this one is just fine.

The might of an adversary is a significant factor in the importance of addressing them. Do you feel comfortable suggesting that injustices should go unaddressed if the perpetrator is too powerful? Should we cower in the face of a hostile threat, knowing that each moment of hesitation allows it to gather strength? Or should we stand to confront it with full knowledge of it's danger and power now when our odds of a favorable resolution are greatest?

My point is that Russia is a global threat and as a party of the global community the US has as much right to feel threatened by it as by any conflict on her borders.

The Mexican cartels are a threat to Mexican law enforcement and some innocent Mexican people, but mostly they are a threat to other Mexican drug cartels. As I recall, the US does send considerable aid to Mexico for the drug war. 3 billion dollars for military equipment in the past decade. Meanwhile, Russia is a MAD threat to the world.

Should we address the Mexican cartels killing eachother, and just ignore a nuclear superpower gone rogue?

It is a shame that the U.S. media does not inform its viewers what is happening in Mexico. There was some strife between cartels but not so much now. Generally, they cooperate... that is how the drugs and 'refugees' are able to move through several cartel's territories from southern Mexico to the U.S. border. The cartels hold some areas that the government will not enter because they are out gunned. The troops they have been sent in were quickly driven out with high losses. The cartels are not only fighting the government but are also kidnapping for ransom and killing civilian Mexicans. Also the cartels have infiltrated the U.S. and are involved in some of the gang shootings on our streets.

If you know any Mexicans that still have family in Mexico, you may want to ask them what is happening in Mexico.

And I suppose you think the US isn't addressing the Mexican cartels within her own borders too? You just implied US isn't doing anything about Mexican cartels, but should, and I have to point out that the US is addressing Mexican cartels. But you insist that I am uninformed.

Disturbing video shows Mexican cartel lining up rivals for mass execution

Shocking video shows Mexican cartel members lined up on their knees and taunted, moments before they are executed by a rival gang.

nypost.com

12 cartels at war for territory across Mexico; AMLO dismisses report as propaganda against his administration

These are the findings of the study 'Mexico: Organizations of Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking', prepared by the US Congressional Research Service. In

mexicodailypost.com

Here's what the Mexican President says :

PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: There are places where a strong gang predominates and there are no clashes between groups and therefore there are no homicides. Shall I explain more? It’s interesting.

INTERLOCUTOR: In what states does this occur, President?

PRESIDENT ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR: For example, in Sinaloa, Sinaloa is not among the states with the most homicides.

But this isn't about Mexico.

 

[bilby]

I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged?

Because the threat of potential future Russian military action against EU member states has to be balanced against the threat of immediate term Russian economic action against Germany.

Germany dominates the EU, and Russian gas is the only thing preventing the collapse of the German power grid, which would be politically and economically devastating.

Germany has allowed themselves to be put into a position where Russia can dictate their actions in this way, because the German people have been thoroughly persuaded to believe things that are factually untrue about generating electricity without greenhouse gas emissions, viz. that wind and solar power can achieve this objective. They can’t.

 

[Jayjay]

I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged?

Because the threat of potential future Russian military action against EU member states has to be balanced against the threat of immediate term Russian economic action against Germany.

Germany dominates the EU, and Russian gas is the only thing preventing the collapse of the German power grid, which would be politically and economically devastating.

Germany has allowed themselves to be put into a position where Russia can dictate their actions in this way, because the German people have been thoroughly persuaded to believe things that are factually untrue about generating electricity without greenhouse gas emissions, viz. that wind and solar power can achieve this objective. They can’t.

That's not entirely correct. Germany doesn't think wind and solar are sufficient, but wind and solar with natural gas. The second problem apart from ignoring nuclear power is that they thought getting over 55% of their gas from a single, unpredictable supplier was not going to be a problem. This is particularly ironic because in the 70s, when West Germany first started importing gas from the Soviet Union, that dependency was a major concern and the politicians at the time swore that Germany would never get more than 10% of its gas from the USSR. I guess they forgot about that at some point.

Next winter, Germany will likely need drastic measures to ration gas and electricity. In fact they should start as soon as possible, or it'll be worse later.

 

[Jayjay]

The irony is that Germany was in a unique position to prevent or end the war, if it had the backbone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/turbines-canada-ukraine-germany-russia-1.6522643

German leaders have admitted that the bind Germany finds itself in is largely self-inflicted. The choice to make the country dependent on Russian energy was a "grievous mistake," said Germany's Economy Minister Robert Habeck.

Despite repeated warnings from allies, German politicians forged ahead with their Russian business partners, loading the gun the Kremlin now holds to Germany's head.

The ruling Social Democrats met this week to consider expelling former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for his role in hooking Germany up to Russia, which won him lucrative seats on the boards of Russian energy companies.

(...)

Some Ukrainians say there's also a question of backbone. Did Germany really have to blink first? Could it have stared down the Russians — who, after all, have to sell their gas to someone?

India and China may be able to absorb Russian oil, but gas is not so simple.

A background document prepared by Ukraine's Ministry of Energy explains Russia's difficulty: "Gazprom operates 73 bcm of storages in Russia and can place nearly 1.3 bcm of gas in storages in FSU (former Soviet allied) countries.

"Gazprom has very limited options to use more gas inside Russia or to convert it into LNG and ship elsewhere. Its export pipeline to China is not connected to the fields that supply Europe. Therefore, the gas cannot be redirected there …"

"… Gazprom will run out of storage space in August."

Once Russia has no more storage capacity, it will have to either resume deliveries or cap its wells, say the Ukrainians, who argue that Germany holds more cards than it thinks it does.

And they can point to a recent example of another country that stood up to pipeline blackmail.

Recently, after Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev publicly disagreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said his country would not recognize the breakaway republics of the Donbas, Russia's state oil company cut off a pipeline essential to Kazakhstan's economy, citing environmental problems.

But the Kazakh government didn't blink and instead began talks with western companies about going around Russia via Azerbaijan.

Russia reversed course this week, allowing the pipeline to reopen and slapping the Kazakhs with a face-saving fine of $3,250.

Giving in to blackmail just encourages the blackmail to continue.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?

Yes! Silly Americans are doing the opposite. I agree. We should be sending US troops to help Russian troops kill those meanie Ukrainians. I'm sure that you're willing to buy an airline ticket to help the Russians as they pillage through the Donbass?

Let's see.

A popular position in this thread: Go help the Ukranians.
My position: Stay out.
Your "interpretation" of my position: Go help the Russians.

How many times must I say that my position is "stay out" before you realize that my position is "stay out"?

I think you need my offer of an airline ticket more than anyone else in the forum. Why are you still not in Ukraine standing up for what you claim to believe in? Is it your actual position that poor people and foreigners should die for what you believe in?

Jason buddy, you're not a very careful reader! I'm actually not in favor of the west sending in direct combat troops. I think that it is too provocative and could directly lead to WW3. I do think that we should do everything in our power short of direct military engagement to help Ukraine. There is very little doubt that Putler intends to invade the Baltics and Poland once he's done in Ukraine. And if so, due to Nato, we'll be in war. In reality, there really is no way for anyone to really "stay out of this conflict". If you are a consumer of fuel or food, you are affected by this conflict.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How many armed conflicts going on in the world include a nuclear power as the criminal aggressor? A nuclear power who may have the firepower to singlehandedly send the entire planet into a nuclear holocaust and a 100 years of winter?

That is weird "logic" there. Did you really suggest a nuclear holocaust while suggesting that the the U.S. should should poke that bear? If you are really afraid of a nuclear exchange then confrontation by another nuclear power (the U.S.) sounds like piss poor reasoning.

Maybe you should rethink and offer another reason the U.S. should get involved in the Ukraine.

The Mexican cartels are a threat to Mexican law enforcement and some innocent Mexican people, but mostly they are a threat to other Mexican drug cartels. As I recall, the US does send considerable aid to Mexico for the drug war. 3 billion dollars for military equipment in the past decade. Meanwhile, Russia is a MAD threat to the world.

Should we address the Mexican cartels killing eachother, and just ignore a nuclear superpower gone rogue?

It is a shame that the U.S. media does not inform its viewers what is happening in Mexico. There was some strife between cartels but not so much now. Generally, they cooperate... that is how the drugs and 'refugees' are able to move through several cartel's territories from southern Mexico to the U.S. border. The cartels hold some areas that the government will not enter because they are out gunned. The troops they have been sent in were quickly driven out with high losses. The cartels are not only fighting the government but are also kidnapping for ransom and killing civilian Mexicans. Also the cartels have infiltrated the U.S. and are involved in some of the gang shootings on our streets.

If you know any Mexicans that still have family in Mexico, you may want to ask them what is happening in Mexico.

I agree. Very sad what is happening in Mexico. But the bad guys in Mexico don't have the ability to invade other countries and attempt to start WW3.

 

[Patooka]

I agree. Very sad what is happening in Mexico. But the bad guys in Mexico don't have the ability to invade other countries and attempt to start WW3.

I would also suggest that whilst Mexico might need support, it certainly wouldn't be HIMARS, M777s and Javelins. Supplying those to Ukraine doesn't mean there's nothing left to to help Mexico. If drugs are the key log, then a secure exchange of intelligence would be infinitely more productive.

 

[steve_bank]

There has been plenty of coverage of Mexico, has anything changed?

It is a thoroughly corrupt state. Drug cartels and gangs have popular support.

Afghanistan was a corrupt narco state. After all we did nobody wanted to fight, oe at lest only a few. The same question in Mexico as in Libya, Afhagsnitsn, and Iraq. Exactly who and what do we support?

Ukraine is different.

 

[Harry Bosch]

There has been plenty of coverage of Mexico, has anything changed?

It is a thoroughly corrupt state. Drug cartels and gangs have popular support.

Afghanistan was a corrupt narco state. After all we did nobody wanted to fight, oe at lest only a few. The same question in Mexico as in Libya, Afhagsnitsn, and Iraq. Exactly who and what do we support?

Ukraine is different.

Yes, Ukraine is different. First off, war in Ukraine has dramatic effect on everyone's pocketbook. Dramatic. Thousands could starve. Secondly, if Ukraine had fallen early, most likely Russia would have attacked the Baltics and/or Poland; and NATO would be engaged in conventional combat against Russia (if we were lucky).