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

[skepticalbip]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles.

European countries do have stockpiles of war supplies though most likely not as large as American stockpiles. Also they could certainly be buying weapons from weapons manufacturers around the world to be sent to Ukraine.

And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

Their reliance on Russian gas and oil is a result of European inaction in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. If they had protected Ukraine at that time then they would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.

The Ukrainian war is the shallow end of the pool. It would seem to be the perfect opportunity for Europe to test its muscles and show Russia that they will defend their interests.

 

[Jayjay]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles.

European countries do have stockpiles of war supplies though most likely not as large as American stockpiles. Also they could certainly be buying weapons from weapons manufacturers around the world to be sent to Ukraine.

And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

Their reliance on Russian gas and oil is a result of European inaction in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. If they had protected Ukraine at that time then they would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil.

Ukraine isn't a main exporter of gas and oil. There are some possible gas deposits they could develop, but nothing comparable to Russia.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.

The Ukrainian war is the shallow end of the pool. It would seem to be the perfect opportunity for Europe to test its muscles and learn to defend their interests.

And you want to bet Ukraine's future as a sovereign state on Europe's ability to support it?

 

[Tigers!]

The western arms and support to Ukraine will shorten the war. Yes, it's going to be a slog. But the war will either end the Russian way or the Ukranian way. The Russians want to "de-nazify" Ukraine. That is their term. You know and I know that this isn't really possible. It's not reasonable for Ukraine to commit suicide. The Ukrainian way is to destroy the Russian military offensive weapons and encourage them to go home. This is slowly happening. The Russians have lost 1,000s of tanks and artillery pieces. 50,000 soldiers have been killed or wounded (estimated). Many ships sunk. The Russians are running out of offensive weapons. If you know of a better quicker way to encourage Russians to return home, I'd love to hear it.

We could nicely ask Barbos to nicely tell Putin that it is getting dark and it is time to go home.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles.

European countries do have stockpiles of war supplies though most likely not as large as American stockpiles. Also they could certainly be buying weapons from weapons manufacturers around the world to be sent to Ukraine.

And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

Their reliance on Russian gas and oil is a result of European inaction in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. If they had protected Ukraine at that time then they would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil.

Ukraine isn't a main exporter of gas and oil. There are some possible gas deposits they could develop, but nothing comparable to Russia.

The Crimean Peninsula (a major oil production area) was part of the Ukraine until Russia took it from Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was a major exporter of oil and gas until 2014. That is why I said Europe's inaction in 2014 is why they are buying oil and gas from Russia instead of Ukraine. In 2014 Russia forcibly took the Ukrainian oil fields and Europe just shrugged.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.

The Ukrainian war is the shallow end of the pool. It would seem to be the perfect opportunity for Europe to test its muscles and learn to defend their interests.

And you want to bet Ukraine's future as a sovereign state on Europe's ability to support it?

There are no guarantees in life but Ukraine's continuing independence would be much more likely if Europe demonstrated that they would not tolerate Russian expansionism.

 

[bilby]

How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Who has suggested that the EU shouldn't act?

Wanting the US to get involved isn't synonymous with not wanting the EU to get involved.

The EU isn't (yet) a United States of Europe, with a single military command, so it's not only really "the EU" that needs to act anyway; It's the EU member states as separate nations, each with their own armies, navies and air forces.

Germany, in particular, is very limited in how they are permitted to project military force, due to their constitution - which was written in large part by the USA, with the assumption that the USA would project power so that Germany didn't have to.

One reason America has to be the world's policeman is that they have explicitly denied both Germany and Japan the ability to project military power for themselves. America signed up for the job, and deliberately prevented some countries from doing the job themselves, so to renege now would, at the very least, require a long transitional period for those nations to re-arm, before it's morally justified for the US to quit the role.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is whether Putin who facing defeat by NATO would follow in Hitler's footsteps and destroy the country with him, in this case using nuclear weapons.

It is not hyperbole. Putin is right up there with Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Mussolini.

Putin is starving millions who depend o Ukraine wheat. He signed a deal to allow wheat by sea, then attacks the seaport saying he was not attacking wheat infrastructure. He is the worse since WWII.

A question may be whether or not Putin would have invaded if NATO had followed through on its agreement to let Ukraine in.

The only thing that will end it completely is military defeat of Russia.

 

[skepticalbip]

How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Who has suggested that the EU shouldn't act?

Wanting the US to get involved isn't synonymous with not wanting the EU to get involved.

The EU isn't (yet) a United States of Europe, with a single military command, so it's not only really "the EU" that needs to act anyway; It's the EU member states as separate nations, each with their own armies, navies and air forces.

Germany, in particular, is very limited in how they are permitted to project military force, due to their constitution - which was written in large part by the USA, with the assumption that the USA would project power so that Germany didn't have to.

One reason America has to be the world's policeman is that they have explicitly denied both Germany and Japan the ability to project military power for themselves. America signed up for the job, and deliberately prevented some countries from doing the job themselves, so to renege now would, at the very least, require a long transitional period for those nations to re-arm, before it's morally justified for the US to quit the role.

True that Germany and Japan were limited on building an offensive military, only defensive forces, but not the rest of Europe. Germany recently amended their constitution and Japan amended their constitution a while back to allow them to have offensive capability over concerns of Chinese expansion. But then the difference between offensive forces and defensive forces is only in how it is used, not so much what it is.

But even without Germany there is nothing preventing the other European nations (two of them nuclear powers) from agreeing to work together to confront Russian expansionism if they feel it threatens their national interests.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

The stockpiles are being depleted, new manufacture is nowhere near the rate they are being sent to Ukraine.

And with the targets the weapons are meant for being destroyed we won't need to replace them all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Showing the EU should have acted doesn't mean we shouldn't act if they don't. Yugoslavia showed us that European military capability isn't very good.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We are currently witnessing the abysmal state of the Russian military. While I doubt NATO forces are anywhere near such a degraded state, I question whether true assessments can be garnered by the public as to the successfulness of NATO exercises and how they might perform in a fight. And to run through comparing quantities of Russian armament to NATO’s would not be telling as we do not know the state of readiness of this armament. This is where the gundecking comes in.
I’ve read snippets of the degraded state of the German military, that France could only stand up for a short time, that Sweden while still a quality force, is much smaller than in days past, and that Poland try as they will, find it difficult to afford to defend themselves as they deem adequate.

This is not a European problem. As Biden described early in on the conflict, this is a fight for democracy, a battle against authoritarianism. Should this comment be dismissed as so much bluster, akin to saying “God is on our side”? I don’t think so. Perhaps I’m not piecing the big picture together properly, but I can’t help but dovetail this war and Biden’s comments in with the rise of authoritarianism (Trumpism) in the US. We need to keep in mind that Moscow’s work of propagating lies across the internet is part of the fight. We are in this war.

This has been an epic fuck up by Putin that we should take full advantage of. He is changing the energy infrastructure in Europe. He has brought Finland and Sweden into NATO. He has woken up Germany or at least brought all their embarrassing missteps into the world’s view.
Russia has a very capable Finland on their border. They can have an equally capable Ukraine if Ukraine survives. Russia will also have the Stans to their south less inclined to bend to Moscow’s will. With a victorious Ukraine and sanctions maintained on Russia for the great harm they are causing Ukraine, Russia’s has-been status will be cemented.
Russia’s attack is the most blatant of lies. The world knows this. There is no ambiguity. Ukraine asks no other country to shed blood for them. They ask only for the weapons to defend themselves. They ask this of anyone who would contribute.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

Clearly Europe (Germany in particular) greatly underestimated the depravity of Russia. They thought that maybe Russia could be persuaded to stand down if enticed by economic ties. This was Angela Merkels great belief. Well, it was obviously wrong. They are seeing now that Russia is a bandito nation that can't be trusted. But it takes time to ramp up their military defenses. They are doing it now. But Europe is an alley of the US. The purpose of allies is to help each other when side is surprised by an enemy that they weren't anticipating. If we can come together and help Ukraine survive (that's all that they are asking for now at this time); it might prevent future Russian imperialism.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The question is whether Putin who facing defeat by NATO would follow in Hitler's footsteps and destroy the country with him, in this case using nuclear weapons.

It is not hyperbole. Putin is right up there with Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Mussolini.

Putin is starving millions who depend o Ukraine wheat. He signed a deal to allow wheat by sea, then attacks the seaport saying he was not attacking wheat infrastructure. He is the worse since WWII.

A question may be whether or not Putin would have invaded if NATO had followed through on its agreement to let Ukraine in.

The only thing that will end it completely is military defeat of Russia.

The amazing thing is that Russia is trying to convince Africa that it isn't responsible for the grain shortage!

 

[steve_bank]

Look at a map of Europe. Berlin to Kiev is about 750 miles. It wold be risky and unpredictable to go into Ukraine.

A case of the cure being worse than the disease. World economies cpuld crash.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is whether Putin who facing defeat by NATO would follow in Hitler's footsteps and destroy the country with him, in this case using nuclear weapons.

It is not hyperbole. Putin is right up there with Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Mussolini.

Putin is starving millions who depend o Ukraine wheat. He signed a deal to allow wheat by sea, then attacks the seaport saying he was not attacking wheat infrastructure. He is the worse since WWII.

A question may be whether or not Putin would have invaded if NATO had followed through on its agreement to let Ukraine in.

The only thing that will end it completely is military defeat of Russia.

The amazing thing is that Russia is trying to convince Africa that it isn't responsible for the grain shortage!

China too. They paint themselves as leaders in world peace out to save the world and make it safe.

 

[Elixir]

Look at a map of Europe. Berlin to Kiev is about 750 miles. It wold be risky and unpredictable to go into Ukraine.

A case of the cure being worse than the disease. World economies cpuld crash.

So ... you're arguing that we should wipe Russia off the map before that happens?

 

[steve_bank]

I am saying actually making these decisions are a bit harder than talking about it on the net.

 

[Jayjay]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles.

European countries do have stockpiles of war supplies though most likely not as large as American stockpiles. Also they could certainly be buying weapons from weapons manufacturers around the world to be sent to Ukraine.

And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

Their reliance on Russian gas and oil is a result of European inaction in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. If they had protected Ukraine at that time then they would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil.

Ukraine isn't a main exporter of gas and oil. There are some possible gas deposits they could develop, but nothing comparable to Russia.

The Crimean Peninsula (a major oil production area) was part of the Ukraine until Russia took it from Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was a major exporter of oil and gas until 2014. That is why I said Europe's inaction in 2014 is why they are buying oil and gas from Russia instead of Ukraine. In 2014 Russia forcibly took the Ukrainian oil fields and Europe just shrugged.

I don't know where you get the idea that Ukraine was an exporter of oil and gas. It was a net importer, from Russia, and tried to wiggle out of it. But even if Crimean gas reserves were utilized, most of that would go to domestic market, not Europe. And the European natural gas consumption and imports from Russia were vastly greater than anything Ukraine could have provided.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.

The Ukrainian war is the shallow end of the pool. It would seem to be the perfect opportunity for Europe to test its muscles and learn to defend their interests.

And you want to bet Ukraine's future as a sovereign state on Europe's ability to support it?

There are no guarantees in life but Ukraine's continuing independence would be much more likely if Europe demonstrated that they would not tolerate Russian expansionism.

And how, in practical terms, could they have done that in 2014? Send troops to Crimea to retake it? Stop gas flow from Russia until they give Crimea back? If it is hard now to even send weapons or try to reduce the energy-dependence, in 2014 it would have been even harder.

Then again, you could argue that maybe Europe should've learned from 2008 war in Georgia and made their stand then. Or maybe when Putin started purging disloyal oligarchs in mid 2000s. Or when Putin became a president. And so on. But the real question was that what can we do now to stop this cycle from repeating in the future. And the answer is to make it so costly and devastating to Russia that it will not want to do it again for a long time. Europe can't do that alone.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles.

European countries do have stockpiles of war supplies though most likely not as large as American stockpiles. Also they could certainly be buying weapons from weapons manufacturers around the world to be sent to Ukraine.

And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

Their reliance on Russian gas and oil is a result of European inaction in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. If they had protected Ukraine at that time then they would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil.

Ukraine isn't a main exporter of gas and oil. There are some possible gas deposits they could develop, but nothing comparable to Russia.

The Crimean Peninsula (a major oil production area) was part of the Ukraine until Russia took it from Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was a major exporter of oil and gas until 2014. That is why I said Europe's inaction in 2014 is why they are buying oil and gas from Russia instead of Ukraine. In 2014 Russia forcibly took the Ukrainian oil fields and Europe just shrugged.

I don't know where you get the idea that Ukraine was an exporter of oil and gas. It was a net importer, from Russia, and tried to wiggle out of it. But even if Crimean gas reserves were utilized, most of that would go to domestic market, not Europe. And the European natural gas consumption and imports from Russia were vastly greater than anything Ukraine could have provided.

Ukraine has massive gas reserves. Chevron had signed a very large contract to start drilling in the Northern Kyiv area before 2014. The west would love to have a dependable friendly supplier of natural gas. This is the one of reasons why Russia attacked in 2014.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.

The Ukrainian war is the shallow end of the pool. It would seem to be the perfect opportunity for Europe to test its muscles and learn to defend their interests.

And you want to bet Ukraine's future as a sovereign state on Europe's ability to support it?

There are no guarantees in life but Ukraine's continuing independence would be much more likely if Europe demonstrated that they would not tolerate Russian expansionism.

And how, in practical terms, could they have done that in 2014? Send troops to Crimea to retake it? Stop gas flow from Russia until they give Crimea back? If it is hard now to even send weapons or try to reduce the energy-dependence, in 2014 it would have been even harder.

Then again, you could argue that maybe Europe should've learned from 2008 war in Georgia and made their stand then. Or maybe when Putin started purging disloyal oligarchs in mid 2000s. Or when Putin became a president. And so on. But the real question was that what can we do now to stop this cycle from repeating in the future. And the answer is to make it so costly and devastating to Russia that it will not want to do it again for a long time. Europe can't do that alone.

Yea, I don't really blame Ukraine for not being more ready after 2014. They did quite a bit, preparing for an eventual invasion. Europe should have been more prepared. In particular Germany. Hopefully the word is finally out, Russia word is shit. You can't depend on them. Depend on yourself and your allies. Always prepare for Russian hostility. The world gets that now. But I think that the US should continue supporting our allies. Thats what allies do. It's what friends do. It's what people do that care about world peace: band together and oppose imperialism and thuggery.

 

[Jayjay]

Yea, I don't really blame Ukraine for not being more ready after 2014. They did quite a bit, preparing for an eventual invasion. Europe should have been more prepared. In particular Germany. Hopefully the word is finally out, Russia word is shit. You can't depend on them. Depend on yourself and your allies. Always prepare for Russian hostility. The world gets that now. But I think that the US should continue supporting our allies. Thats what allies do. It's what friends do. It's what people do that care about world peace: band together and oppose imperialism and thuggery.

It's true that there are plenty of things EU and in particular Germany could have done after 2014, but the point I was responding to was that EU could have somehow prevented or reversed the annexation of Crimea to begin with.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The 10th Amendment clearly points out that powers that haven't been explicitly granted are not granted. I really like the 10th Amendment, so you probably hate it.

Please stop your conjectures about my thoughts

I think I touched a nerve.

Because of that amendment the question is where in the constitution it is authorized.

Since you believe it is authorized by Section 8, where in Section 8 is it authorized?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," is the relevant phrase, IMO. Apparently, it is not only what I believe, because the USA has engaged in aid to countries since 1812.

Okay, you actually made a constitutional argument. I can see how it can be interpreted that way.

Is there anything else besides sending aid (goods or cash) you want the US government to do?

It really is up to those who claim it is unconstitutional to make their case.

No, the default position is that an act is unconstitutional unless shown otherwise. Only someone who hates the 10th amendment could say the opposite.