VERY large models.Methinks Ukraine would find a nuclear deterrent quite handy at the moment....
We should send them a bunch of model rockets.
VERY large models.Methinks Ukraine would find a nuclear deterrent quite handy at the moment....
We should send them a bunch of model rockets.
Interesting read. IMHO, Putin sees himself as the new Czar of Russia and is working to reclaim former Russian territories one piece at a time.
Nah, let's go with Czar, just because we all know what they did to the last Czar they had.I would replace "Czar of Russia" with, "Premier of the Soviet Union", but, yeah.
Interesting read. IMHO, Putin sees himself as the new Czar of Russia and is working to reclaim former Russian territories one piece at a time.
...the USA, UK and Russia promised to respect and defend Ukrainian sovereignty.
NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.Not quite. The commitment is to respect the sovereignty and borders, not to defend them. That's an important distinction. Only one country is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.
Jim
Yea...But...Who did it to the Czar and his family and what did Russia turn into afterwards?Nah, let's go with Czar, just because we all know what they did to the last Czar they had.
Sure, let's take a hard look at who's picking a fight in Eastern Europe. Which country has invaded/taken chunks of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova... Don't think that's NATO. If Russia doesn't want former SSRs to feel like they need NATO to defend them, they have a clear course of action. Don't threaten to/actually invade their neighbors. With apologies to Princess Leia, the more Putin tightens his grip, the more countries slip through his fingers.NATO was formed to defend against offensive actions by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Neither the USSR or the Warsaw Pact exists any longer. When those entities disbanded, it was done with the understanding that NATO would not try to recruit any the former SSRs. I think we should take a hard look at who seems to be picking a fight in eastern Europe.
Jim
The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.Sure, let's take a hard look at who's picking a fight in Eastern Europe. Which country has invaded/taken chunks of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova... Don't think that's NATO. If Russia doesn't want former SSRs to feel like they need NATO to defend them, they have a clear course of action. Don't threaten to/actually invade their neighbors. With apologies to Princess Leia, the more Putin tightens his grip, the more countries slip through his fingers.
Let's be real. Regardless of NATO's potential ability to put missiles within a few hundred miles of [St. Petersburg or Moscow], they aren't going to launch the first strike. That would be an invitation for nuclear war. Furthermore, as you said, NATO is a mutual defense treaty. If Ukraine decided to get frisky and invade Russia on their own, they'd be on their own.
...or Airman or Guardian.We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.
Right you are, Bravo 52. I regret my oversight. I'm a USCG vet, I should know better...or Airman or Guardian.
There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.
Jim
There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.
I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders lookin
The US does not have any form of mutual defense treaty with Ukraine or any other former SSR. If we did, Putin would be understandably angry. He doesn't want NATO in his back yard. The US isn't too happy about Cuba and Venezuela. The root of the issue is NATO trying to bring Ukraine into the alliance. It's not a friendly world out there and NATO's actions have done nothing to calm the situation. We have no national interests in eastern Europe that can justify the loss of a single American soldier, sailor, or marine.
JimThe Ukraine is in a no-win situation. If it joins NATO it will lead to a Russian invasion plus retaliation by all of NATO because the NATO treaty is worded in a way that makes an attack on one NATO nation, an attack on every NATO nation If they don't join NATO Russia will still try to annex them, but at least then you'll have universal world opinion against Russia because they no longer will have the excuse that their border has been infringed upon by another military alliance.There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.
I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders looking to join NATO.
You'll also note from several items upthread that I'm all for giving Ukraine means to defend themselves, but not for sending any US servicemembers there or starting a shooting war elsewhere.
* Technically, no US servicemembers involved, but you get the point.
The US has no national interests in that area, It's simply none of our business. After it's last general election, Ukraine imprisoned the opposition party candidate and shut down all of the opposition party media outlets. Those edicts are still in force. Kind of sounds a lot like Putin and the CCP, doesn't it? Not even a moral high ground to be had here. For what it's worth my military service was during the late Vietnam era and the cold war. I'm definitely not a member of the USSR fan club. My kneejerk response is to go fight Russians and cheer on NATO. Knee jerk response is a really crappy reason to be morally attached to a war. Just supplying material is still enabling a war that we have no good reason to be involved in.There is a very long distance between "I'm unhappy about a situation" and "I'm invading." Are we unhappy about Cuba and Venezuela? Sure! Are we sending troops? Absolutely not! (at least not since Bay of Pigs*/Cuban Missile Crisis) As previously noted, Russia has already invaded Ukraine once and annexed Crimea. And you want to blame NATO? Fascinating.
I respectfully disagree with you about the root of the issue. Backed by several of the items upthread, I believe that the root of the issue is that Putin wants Ukraine to be a client state of Russia, much like most of Eastern Europe was during the Cold War. Ukraine's current government doesn't believe that's in their best interest (see also, Holodomor). They are interested in joining NATO as a hedge against Russian aggression. If Putin didn't throw his weight around trying to create client states, there would be a lot fewer nations on his borders looking to join NATO.
You'll also note from several items upthread that I'm all for giving Ukraine means to defend themselves, but not for sending any US servicemembers there or starting a shooting war elsewhere.
* Technically, no US servicemembers involved, but you get the point.
After it's last general election, Ukraine imprisoned the opposition party candidate and shut down all of the opposition party media outlets. Those edicts are still in force. Kind of sounds a lot like Putin and the CCP, doesn't it?
The premise that US has not national interests in Central/Eastern Europe is plain false, as has been discussed earlier:The US has no national interests in that area, It's simply none of our business.
You know, the Brits knew the USA knew that the Ukrainians would exchange their arsenal because the other powers' shields would make their own redundant.Not quite. The commitment is to respect the sovereignty and borders, not to defend them. That's an important distinction. Only one country is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
You know, the Brits knew the USA knew that the Ukrainians would exchange their arsenal because the other powers' shields would make their own redundant.
Back that statement up with facts
With fears still high that the Kremlin may soon launch a new invasion ofU kraine, it's not surprising that a curious flight by a U.S. Army HH-60M, a "dustoff" or air ambulance variant of the Black Hawk, to a checkpoint along the Polish-Ukrainian border last night drew significant attention on social media. For some, the scene had almost a clandestine Bridge Of Spies feel to it. The War Zone can now confirm that this helicopter was retrieving a U.S. service member assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine who was experiencing an unspecified medical emergency.
I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.Recently the New York Times has published its opinion that the war has entered a prolonged stalemate phase, potentially lasting through the coming year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-stalemate.html
Elsewhere, leaders such as Macron, Scholtz, Boris Johnson, Anthony Blinken, Admiral Mike Mullen and Henry Kissinger have surprisingly hinted or even openly suggested the February 24th borders could be the basis for a cease fire and peace deal.
While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?https://original.antiwar.com/Ted_Snider/2022/12/22/five-statements-that-could-change-the-war/
But there is another view that the war will be settled decisively in the coming weeks and months by a massive Russian offensive. Scott Ritter and Col. Douglas Macgregor have published extensively on this possibility.
It's also worth observing that in the article Dotini linked, neither Scholz or Macron hinted or openly suggested accepting the February 24th borders.I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.
While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?
Interesting that you didn’t mention a fourth possibility-a successful Ukrainian attack that leads to a quick victory.
So offensive weapons on Russian borders are a topic of discussion...Macron said that "We need to prepare what we are ready to do, how we protect our allies and member states, and how to give guarantees to Russia the day it returns to the negotiating table. One of the essential points we must address – as President Putin has always said – is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia."
Likewise - arms control and missile deployment are on Scholz's mind.After criticizing Russia for "destroying the peace order we worked on for so many decades," the German chancellor made a startling addition. He said there was a "willingness" to engage with Putin on issues of arms control and missile deployment. He said that "We have to go back to the agreements which we had in the last decades and which were the basis for peace and security order in Europe." And then he said that "all questions of common security could be solved and discussed. There is a willingness to do so."
Thanks for a very reasonable reply! Also, you asked a great question.I wouldn’t put much stock in any of those except Scholz and Macron. Everyone else is out of power, some for years or decades.
While it’s possible that Russia will make a successful counteroffensive, it’s hard to imagine how that would happen since their 70% of their forces in Ukraine are recently mobilized with little training. They’re also losing ground everywhere, even losing the recent gains in Bakhmut that had everyone so worried last week. Not to mention that Russia tried the big offensive to take the country once-back in February. If it didn’t work then when Russia has all of the advantages, why would it work now?
Interesting that you didn’t mention a fourth possibility-a successful Ukrainian attack that leads to a quick victory.
Enter your email address to join: