Ukraine (11 Viewers)

[Tapxe]

 

[efil4stnias]

 

[efil4stnias]

Time for the West to make a decision.

 

[boutte]

The world and the nations are a lot more complicated than that. I get the desire to be so reductionist, but the West is a complex mix of countries with a lot of competing agendas who have committed to coming to the aid and defense of their partner nations. None of them can make decisions in a vacuum, and as much as they've mostly supported Ukraine, you have to remember that support is not unlimited or reckless.

I don't think cowardice is an accurate description. They're part of a coalition and while you might perceive selfishness, I perceive that they're wanting to preserve their partnership. The actions we take as a nation affect other member nations, so our actions with Ukraine need to be measured carefully.

Call it what you want. When the war first started the complications of supplying Ukraine with armored vehicles were used to explain why no one wanted to supply those weapons systems. It was explained to me that my simplistic idea about doing these things just showed that I was ignorant of the facts.

The fact is we're slow rolling our aid. If we, meaning the US, had supplied Ukraine with ATACMS, HIMARS, Bradleys, Patriots etc and F-16s (I know F16s require more training and logistics) right off the bat the situation in Ukraine would look a lot different. Our NATO allies look to us to take the lead, as evidenced by the reluctance to provide armor till we announced we were going to send Abrams. We didn't even have to send them, all we had to do is signal that it was okay and suddenly everybody who them was sending MBTs.

Remember that Biden said that we had to temper our aid with a view toward relations with Russia after the war. In other words we still want to do business with them. We also stopped all US aid for 6 months at crucial time in the war.

They've oblitirated whole major cities, killed tens of thousands of of cilillians, targeted hospitals, schools, crowded shopping centers and civillian infrastructure. Now they're bringing Koreans. So Putin has no restraints whatever but we're still placing crippling restrictions Ukraine. And the further away from Russia you get the less enthusiastic the support (with some exceptions). Germany sends a lot financial support but not much else, France is more concerned with their former colonies in Africa, the UK tries but their military (like Germany) has regressed to the point that they couldn't defend themselves from an attack if they had to.

After three years we're finally starting to see F16s become a factor. Imagine if we had started training and building a logistical support chain a soon as Ukraine asked (begged) for it. How many lives and assets could have been saved. How much more successful would Ukraines counter offense have been if they were properly equipped? And now that they've accumulated some long range capabilities we won't let them use them effectively. Meanwhile whole cities are being reduced to rubble.

I stand by my reductionist statement.

 

[DaveXA]

Call it what you want. When the war first started the complications of supplying Ukraine with armored vehicles were used to explain why no one wanted to supply those weapons systems. It was explained to me that my simplistic idea about doing these things just showed that I was ignorant of the facts.

Well, I was an advocate of sending advanced weapons from the jump, but without hindsight, we had no idea that Ukraine was going to be able to stand against Russia as long as they did. Really Russia was at Kiev's doorstep in the early stages and many thought Ukraine would fall in a matter of days. Had that happened and advanced weaponry fallen into Russia's hands, today would look radically different.

Since the early stages we've steadily supplied Ukraine will billions in equipment and aid.

The fact is we're slow rolling our aid.

Yes, no one is disputing that. There were good reasons for taking their time. We might not agree that the reasons are sufficient, but they're there.

If we, meaning the US, had supplied Ukraine with ATACMS, HIMARS, Bradleys, Patriots etc and F-16s (I know F16s require more training and logistics) right off the bat the situation in Ukraine would look a lot different.

Probably, but had we just went all out from the jump, two things happen, one, the US would have run into shortages in some materials needed to produce the necessary supplies to replace the depleted inventory, and 2, sort of tied to the first point is this could impact our own military readiness.

Something else to consider is if we blatantly and recklessly provoke Russia, it could well be Europe/NATO allies bearing the brunt of Russia's retaliation. They might not directly attack us, but they'll hit targets of opportunity.

Our NATO allies look to us to take the lead, as evidenced by the reluctance to provide armor till we announced we were going to send Abrams. We didn't even have to send them, all we had to do is signal that it was okay and suddenly everybody who them was sending MBTs.

I get that we are or should be the leaders of the coalition, but we still should be measured in our actions towards Russia so as not to goad them into attacking an ally closer to them.

Remember that Biden said that we had to temper our aid with a view toward relations with Russia after the war. In other words we still want to do business with them. We also stopped all US aid for 6 months at crucial time in the war.

I believe he said that early in the current conflict. He's been saying the opposite for at least a year. I don't think he's changed that in recent months.

The 6 month pause in aid had more to do with Congress, and we know well why that happened. Hopefully that doesn't happen again.

They've oblitirated whole major cities, killed tens of thousands of of cilillians, targeted hospitals, schools, crowded shopping centers and civillian infrastructure. Now they're bringing Koreans. So Putin has no restraints whatever but we're still placing crippling restrictions Ukraine. And the further away from Russia you get the less enthusiastic the support (with some exceptions). Germany sends a lot financial support but not much else, France is more concerned with their former colonies in Africa, the UK tries but their military (like Germany) has regressed to the point that they couldn't defend themselves from an attack if they had to.

Germany has sent a lot of weapons to Ukraine, not just financial support. But yes, other NATO allies are tied up with their own issues, but they're still sending what they can to Ukraine.

After three years we're finally starting to see F16s become a factor. Imagine if we had started training and building a logistical support chain a soon as Ukraine asked (begged) for it. How many lives and assets could have been saved. How much more successful would Ukraines counter offense have been if they were properly equipped?

I supported sending F-16s fron day 1, but that was always going to be a logistical challenge. You need trained pilots, mechanics, a reliable supply chain, and the ability to coordinate attacks with troop movements on the ground. It's no small task.

And now that they've accumulated some long range capabilities we won't let them use them effectively. Meanwhile whole cities are being reduced to rubble.

Allies are starting to come around on allowing long range weapons to hit deep in Russia because Russia hasnt taken the hint to stop bombing cities. It's all a complicated mess, and this with a country in Russia who has an incredibly large nuclear arsenal. Nobody wants a nuclear conflict. The way to avoid that is by not making Russia think they have no other choice. You put a frog in hot water and it jumps right out. Put it in lukewarm water and slowly raise the temp and it's none the wiser to what's happening.

I stand by my reductionist statement.

Fair enough, we disagree. I can respect that.

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[nolastyle]

This is a bit far for me. Definitely take the gloves off of Ukraine regarding where they can strike with US/NATO-provided weapons. But, NATO ground troops??

Asking this question not to provoke, but to better understand where you are coming from in your post: if you had a son/daughter/grandchild who would be one of those infantry mobilized to go fight on the front lines in Ukraine, would you still hold the same opinion?

I thought about this for a while today. My answer is yes. Hell, as a male of fighting age, I would volunteer myself (though I only have medical experience, no physical training at all).

I am of the opinion that NATO should make a stand now rather than later. Either Russia is defeated in Ukraine, or NATO will be dragged into a wider war once Georgia/Moldova/Lithuania are next for Putin.

In historical parallels, it almost seems like we're inching toward 1938 all over again. Could Hitler have been stopped if the Allies took his occupation of Austria seriously? The Czechs? Sudentenland? If he were confronted before the German army even crossed into France? If North Korean troops are the difference between Ukraine being overrun or Ukraine living to fight another day, something must be done.

10,000 more cannon fodder doesn't move the needle entirely in that direction. But 25,000? 50,000? 100,000? Where do we put the red line? If Kim is emboldened in Ukraine, what does he attempt next?

So many questions and so much uncertainty. But there has to come a point where rhetoric and deterrence is given the teeth needed to mean something (without resorting to nukes). Hopefully people far smarter than me have the balls to stand up when we hit that point.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I thought about this for a while today. My answer is yes. Hell, as a male of fighting age, I would volunteer myself (though I only have medical experience, no physical training at all).

I am of the opinion that NATO should make a stand now rather than later. Either Russia is defeated in Ukraine, or NATO will be dragged into a wider war once Georgia/Moldova/Lithuania are next for Putin.

In historical parallels, it almost seems like we're inching toward 1938 all over again. Could Hitler have been stopped if the Allies took his occupation of Austria seriously? The Czechs? Sudentenland? If he were confronted before the German army even crossed into France? If North Korean troops are the difference between Ukraine being overrun or Ukraine living to fight another day, something must be done.

10,000 more cannon fodder doesn't move the needle entirely in that direction. But 25,000? 50,000? 100,000? Where do we put the red line? If Kim is emboldened in Ukraine, what does he attempt next?

So many questions and so much uncertainty. But there has to come a point where rhetoric and deterrence is given the teeth needed to mean something (without resorting to nukes). Hopefully people far smarter than me have the balls to stand up when we hit that point.

Thanks for the considered response, and your explanation of a position I certainly respect. I disagree with it as a direct analogy to Hitler but only somewhat. In my view, the Ukraine situation is more akin to his initial grab for the Sudetenland.

That said, I agree that Putin’s lebensraum desires are effectively the same as Hitler’s, and that he must be confronted with strength. Perhaps I only differ from your view regarding the how, the where and the when.

I’d be willing to sacrifice American lives (and, by extension, the lives of my kin) to honor existing treaty obligations to NATO allies or, perhaps, in the event of an open Russian attack on a third country without any historical claim underpinnings.

Further, I wonder if you’re fully considering the Asian theatre ramifications of the US getting involved in a shooting war in Europe now. Doing so would, at minimum, put Taiwan at much greater risk. Frankly, from a realpolitik perspective, Taiwan is a lot more important to US security than is Ukraine.

And, of course, all of this is without mentioning at all the associated potential opening of the nuclear Pandora’s box.

One other thing to consider: People always assume things would have gone swimmingly had Hitler been confronted earlier and, in 1936, I’d agree. But in 1938, things actually may have gone much differently (and worse) in the Battle of Britain had the UK and France drawn the line in Czechoslovakia in 1938 rather than Poland in 1939. No one knows, of course, but the human mind is biased to simplicity in these “What If” hindsight scenarios, and I think it often is a flawed way of assuming what would have happened.

All this said, I do respect and appreciate your position as a valid viewpoint. Thanks again for offering it.

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[Sailorsaint]

Thanks for the considered response, and your explanation of a position I certainly respect. I disagree with it as a direct analogy to Hitler but only somewhat. In my view, the Ukraine situation is more akin to his initial grab for the Sudetenland.

That said, I agree that Putin’s lebensraum desires are effectively the same as Hitler’s, and that he must be confronted with strength. Perhaps I only differ from your view regarding the how, the where and the when.

I’d be willing to sacrifice American lives (and, by extension, the lives of my kin) to honor existing treaty obligations to NATO allies or, perhaps, in the event of an open Russian attack on a third country without any historical claim underpinnings.

Further, I wonder if you’re fully considering the Asian theatre ramifications of the US getting involved in a shooting war in Europe now. Doing so would, at minimum, put Taiwan at much greater risk. Frankly, from a realpolitik perspective, Taiwan is a lot more important to US security than is Ukraine.

And, of course, all of this is without mentioning at all the associated potential opening of the nuclear Pandora’s box.

One other thing to consider: People always assume things would have gone swimmingly had Hitler been confronted earlier and, in 1936, I’d agree. But in 1938, things actually may have gone much differently (and worse) in the Battle of Britain had the UK and France drawn the line in Czechoslovakia in 1938 rather than Poland in 1939. No one knows, of course, but the human mind is biased to simplicity in these “What If” hindsight scenarios, and I think it often is a flawed way of assuming what would have happened.

All this said, I do respect and appreciate your position as a valid viewpoint. Thanks again for offering it.

I think you may be underestimating the importance of UKR. The vast…vast wealth of resources in Ukraine are estimated to be in the trillions. If russia controls UKR, they will use them to strangle the world economy. Ukraine is very important to the strategic wellbeing of Europe and the US.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I think you may be underestimating the importance of UKR. The vast…vast wealth of resources in Ukraine are estimated to be in the trillions. If russia controls UKR, they will use them to strangle the world economy. Ukraine is very important to the strategic wellbeing of Europe and the US.

No, I don't think I am, especially not with respect to Taiwan's relative importance to US security. In addition, if Russia does control Ukrainian resources one day, they're certainly not going to "use them to strangle the world economy". They are and will continue to be absolutely desperate for foreign capital...to fund rearmament for another push into eastern Europe in 5-10 years, if nothing else.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating letting Ukraine go it alone in the slightest. I agree that entry of North Korean troops should elicit a move to take the gloves off of Ukraine to strike anywhere in Russia with everything they have at their disposal. I'm simply of the mind that such an entry should not trigger the active involvement of NATO ground troops (or certainly not American men and women) into the front lines of Ukraine.

 

[baarbogast]

Related?