"Is Going To War Against Russia To Protect Ukrainian" Topic

…"Democracy" Worth It?

"Recently, Ukrainian authorities announced former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko under formal investigation for high treason, the same charge his predecessor was convicted of just two years ago. Does this sound like a kind of democracy worth shedding American blood to save?

The treasonous activity, according to Ukrainian officials, is his alleged material support of pro-Russia separatist forces in the Donbas. The investigation into the Ukrainian former President emerged from similar charges brought against Viktor Medvedchuk, a pro-Russian lawmaker in the For Life Party with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, for allegedly working with officials in Poroshenko's administration to buy coal mines in the Donbas to finance separatist efforts. The For Life Party has denied any wrongdoing by Medvedchuk, who has spent the past six months under house arrest…"
Main page
link

Armand

I doubt we will "go to war" against Russia over Ukraine.

We may supply them with defensive weaponry, but it is very unlikely we will provide troops.

If we won't fight the terrorists overseas that we fought against for 20 years, it is unlikely we'd get sucked into a new war now.

We won't even defend our own borders, so I can't really see helping another country do that with theirs.

I hope not. About 7 percent of the US population are veterans, seems to me that a lot of the remainder are the ones champing at the bit for war, war, war. Willing to send someone else's sons or daughters to the meat grinder.

The USA will not go to war will Russia. But if need be and it should have massive sanctions[ASAP] from the USA & all NATO members. Putin has pushed a POTUS around in the past. And it appears it is occurring again.

Putin knows IF he does a full scale invasion of the Ukraine. This is not 2014. There will be massive losses on both sides. Even Putin will not make this move. In the long run even he knows this is a bad move.

The USA IIRC has sent non-lethal as well as lethal aid to the Ukraine. Just like the USSR sent the VC & NVA. And probably the Taliban too ? But at this point the Taliban/AQ have a plethora of weapons now. They are selling some of them off, IIRC.

So the US & NATO should get those massive sanctions in effect now. But I don't know if the US leadership has the will, etc.

Putin does not want NATO to continue to push East. He must be livid about the US/NATO on his border in Poland. A new NATO member. Even recently IIRC Finland said Russia will not stop them from joining NATO. If they want to. I don't know if they will or not. But that will be another NATO nation on/near his border.

So Ukraine as a free nation, they could join NATO. However,
with their bad record of corruption, etc., NATO may not want them ? At least at this time ?

Willing to send someone else's sons or daughters to the meat grinder.

That may be the concept of some in Congress, etc. But I just don't think it will happen. The USA is still licking its wounds from A'stan. Plus at this time the USA has its own border invasion. With no end in sight …

NATO and the EU won't can't do much in the way of sanctions, or their populations will freeze this Winter, since Putin will cut off their energy supplies.

We may go to war because President Clinton got Ulkraine to give up it nuclear weapons in exchange for Protection.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]

The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate. Their use was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.

No it's not.

I would bet no.

If I was in charge and trying to ruin the USA, then yes, I would go to war over Ukraine. Just to put more pressure on the US military forces and budget. Not saying anyone is, just being a contrarian (since everyone else is voting "no").

No need to go to war, just shoot down all muscovites flying objects on Ukrainian airspace. On ground Ukrainian morally well prepared defenders will prevail over muscovites mercenary hordes.

For whatever it's worth, no country goes to war to defend a
"government," however good or shaky.

The decision to enter a war someone else has started is commonly based on strategic and/or political interests.

That a country with no history of Democracy, and centuries of oppression by Tsarist/Communist RUSSIAN empires, both largely based on corruption, is still learning the ropes of democratic self-government. It hardly seems fair to fault them at this stage. Indeed, does THIS country have "Democracy" perfected?

I reluctantly agree the US will not directly, militarily support Ukraine when Putin invades, the reasons for which are painfully obvious.

But who thinks that if Ukraine is once again conquered by Russia, that Putin would stop there? He has pointedly repeated that he wishes to restore "Russia" to its previous Communist borders and power. He cannot do that without owning the economic bases that maintained Russian domination of their empire.

So, who cares if Ukraine is conquered by Russia? Or when the Baltic States are taken next? Or that Poland will then be facing a far more powerful enemy?

Or to put it in terms wargamers can readily understand, who cares if Germany reoccupies the Rhineland? Controls Austria? Recovers the Sudetenland? And isn't the Polish Corridor just native German soil, taken from them by an unfair treaty?

Anybody who thinks Vladimir Putin is less ambitious in his goals than a certain Bohmemian Corporal was, is more interested in the doings of the Kardashians than the real world.

Appeasement is not an aberration of an ancient time. It's part of a world view of denial and wishful thinking, currently very much the vogue.

Oh, and "Economic Sanctions" have never deterred anyone. On the contrary, if anyone remembers who effective it was to cut Japan off from oil exports.

Owning Ukraine will more than compensate for the temporary pain after a fait accompli. It will simply be part of the price of "purchase," as surely as the thousands (tens of thousands?) of lives spent and lost.

"Vlad The Impaler" does not share the concerns of some about committing sons and daughters to a meat grinder.

TVAG

Glup!

Armand

While the Five Eyes countries keep seeing Russia as the old USSR then we'll keep pushing Russia back towards being the USSR again. Russia is a paranoid state, but has some reason to be- it's been invaded at least twice by western nations in each of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. By pushing to expand NATO to the borders of Russia the US and UK are poking that paranoia by putting another- loudly anti-Russian- force on the Russian border.

We can't trust Russia (nor does she trust the West, particularly the Five Eyes) and need to keep an eye on the country. But if we'd guarantee that Ukraine won't be permitted to join NATO, and that intermediate range missiles and NATO troops won't be positioned in the Baltic states (as they have been in some of the former WP nations), Russia may step back as well. Remember that at one stage, early on, Putin put out feelers about Russia joining NATO, but was rebuffed.

Cynical me wonders if the continued enmity towards Russia was more about keeping the threat alive, so the US would keep funding major arms corporations and Europe's defence capabilities. Nobody saw Xi taking power in the PRC back in 2015 and Islamic terrorism and Iran were not an existential challenge (regardless of what they thought of themselves). So Russia made a convenient "Threat in Being" for gun-runners and hawks.

A Western-leaning Russia, or even a completely neutral one, would put a big brake on the PRC. Russia knows the PRC does plan to invade and "reclaim" Siberia and some of the former USSR eastern states (the "Stans"), so is a real threat as well. Instead Russia has been pushed towards working with the PRC against the West by aggressive Western rhetoric, while NATO has pushed itself to the Russian borders.The west would have been better off not letting the Baltic states into NATO, not discussing admission to NATO with Ukraine, instead guaranteeing their independence as a buffer between Russia and NATO.

He has pointedly repeated that he wishes to restore "Russia" to its previous Communist borders and power.

Do you have a reference for that? Russia was glad to be rid of a lot of the WP countries' drain on Russian resources- why would they want to do it again? Xi and the PRC have made "reclamation of historical territories" a policy, but I haven't seen it attributed to Putin. (Though I wouldn't be surprised- he's been working hard on the nationalism angle for a couple of years, now.)

Sure Russia has threatened Georgia, and taken over Crimea and waged low intensity war against Ukraine but 80 years ago Germany attacked them so it's okay.

So if Russia wants to invade Ukraine, a country they signed no fewer than three treaties that guaranteed their territory, who can blame them?

If only we agreed to all their demands, they would stop invading their neighbors and we could all live in peace and harmony.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Bunkermeister, don't twist what I said. What is it about America and Russia? Did they steal the jam out of your doughnuts?

I'm not giving Russia a free pass, I am saying the West could have done things better. Pushing them towards the PRC is not doing anyone any favours.

Or do you think the West can take both of them at once?

Patton was right.

can't do much in the way of sanctions, or their populations will freeze this Winter, since Putin will cut off their energy supplies.

When the USA was energy independent about a year ago. This would not have been a problem. 'nuff said …