"should US announce it would support a Ukrainian resistance?" Topic

link

Interview with Congressman (R, Fla) with military background who was recently in Ukraine.

No. As a former UK diplomat said during the Crimea: Is the US going to war for the Crimea? No? Then you deal. Half-baked support answers nothing and at worst gets us in a shooting war that is being walked into, eyes wide open and eager.

I don't know. It is what we did all throughout the Cold War. The Russians too. Supply the enemies of Russia with weapons just as the Russians supplied weapons to whom we fought.

An insurgency would happen regardless of what ever country supported or didn't support it.

Not trying to sound melodramatic, if Ukraine (and its pretty huge 'if') was invaded or otherwise the sovereignty redline gets flushed, and the 'West', specifically the US, did nothing. There would be geopolitical ramifications. Certain nations would take it as cart blanche to run amuck. Probably would be more likely to lead to unavoidable conflict in the future.

I'm pretty sure … no one is going to war. Putin just needs a way to save face at this point. Until he and his ilk are gone this type of "crisis" will continue …

No, Putin "saves face" by doing what he's said he'd do--unlike the US that has clearly "lost face" over the last year.

And, whether we overtly or not support the insurgency that will follow a successful Russian occupation, there will be one, and it won't be pretty.

The Ukrainians have a long history of resistance to Soviet/Nazi occupation, and many of them don't see any distinction between the two--nor should they.

It's not widely known, but after the Wehrmacht skedaddled out of Ukraine, the mountain of weapons left behind was used to conduct a guerrilla war against the Soviets that wasn't completely crushed until the mid-1950's. Probably the only people in Europe who viscerally hate the Russians more are the Poles.

I'm sick to death of arguments that wars are fought for "rational" reasons. "Rationalizations," definitely, but war is in the hearts of those who want it, and Putin wants it.

Oh, if he can be given everything he wants for free, he'll take it, alright, but he wants to reestablish the Soviet Union, just without the "Soviet" parts, and make it the same super power it was in the 50's and 60's. To do that, he must demonstrate military power and resolve.

Ukraine is his "Polish Corridor," the pretense for making his first great war and victory. The West is currently at the stage of giving Adolph the Sudetenland--not willing/able to fight and hoping sacrificing a distant place with a funny name will make everything nice again.

And, Legion, no one hopes you're right more than I do, but "he and is ilk" are NEVER GONE.

TVAG

Absolutely.

We should fight communists/socialists, and the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Iranians, Syrians, Pakistanis, and many, many others at every opportunity.

We don't have to send troops, but can arm the opposition very well in order to weaken and help defeat our enemies.

Tell Putin !!

Nope, but it could be 1980 – 1988, with another brave and Pro-American, Pro-Democracy leader in the White House, to help lead the world (instead of "leading from behind", otherwise known as "following"), and to help others fight against oppressive and hostile governments, and government leaders around the globe, and at home.

The last guy to do that broke the USSR, by defeating them economically, which is what the current guy in charge in Russia is so mad about.

I agree with the 1983 comment.

We should have gone in and cleaned house there AND in Iran.

The world would have been a much better place for the last 40 years if we had.

Of course, perhaps Ronnie knew of certain political realities, so…….

My hero defeated the USSR, caused its breakup, AND ended the Cold War with a win for the West and NATO, for quite some time.

It IS a shame a new one is back on, but that didn't happen on his watch.

He is FAR BETTER than most of those who have come after him, since he did something substantial for the world. It's not his fault that those following his lead squandered the new paradigm.

When I see the mess in internal politics and current political instability in the US, the level of corruption of the financial market, not to mention the Afghanistan debacle and Iraq quagmire, I have a hard time trusting the validity of a "US" led policy in Europe pushing the boundaries of NATO eastward.

Regardless, as I have said, former WP/Soviet nations want to join NATO because they don't want to take a chance of Putin actually going to try to get the old USSR/WP states back.

That is why it looks like NATO is pushing East. Those former WP, etc., nations don't want to risk it.

What was the result?
PRESIDENT REAGAN proceeded to pull out of Lebanon

As in many mid East states, dominated by religious, tribal, ethnic hatreds. No one can get the situation there under positive control. As we see, much of that region is still in turmoil. Until the denizens of many of those failed or failing states, and don't forget A'stan, move into the 20th Century, let alone the 21st. The religious, tribal and ethnic differences will keep the a centuries behind.

BTW, both Syria & Iran supported the Shia in Lebanon in their terrorists attacks again the US, France, etc., who were deployed there as UN "peacekeepers". A French Paratrooper barracks was attacked the same way about the same time the USMC's was. Other UN units were attacked, and some died too.

The Shia Lebanese terrorist in charge, al-Mughnia. Was eventually killed years later and removed from the USA's terrorist hit list. Rumor is the Mossad put the bomb in his car. That blew him to bits. And either the US or Mossad killed in son, also a terrorist to IIRC.

Note little has changed in the failed and failing states of that region and Africa.

Ronaldus Magnus destroyed the Soviet Union and freed a lot of people, but he made mistakes as well, of course. Still one of our top three presidents.

Of course USA should support Ukraine. Question is, whether USA has enough determination and power?

If most of Ukraine fall into Russian hands (or Russians succeded with installing pro-Russian government in Kiev by coup d'état) that means Russian army is based in Lwów/Lviv. It means Russian army can very easy attack southern Poland into Silesia or Romania.

Vistula, Niemen, Oder and consortes are easy to cross in upper (southern) part (when they are small streams and the valleys are shallow) and very difficult to cross in lower (nortern) part. Thus Russians always tried to attack Poland throgh Lwów/Lviv because it is much easier.
If Russian Army would be stationed near Lwów/Lviv gate, Poland would need at least THREE US Armoured Divs near Bug River. Which USA could not afford.

Which means Poland and Romania would be forced to change the orientation (along with change of govts) and agree on security guarantees from China (China is doing everything to get such a deal) and start earning money on Belt and Road Initiative (reversing Columbian world).

Noone in Central Europe wants Russia influence (Russia cannot offer any positive modernization packet). It is either USA (preferably) or China+Germany (second choice).

Fall of Kiev means fall of USA unilateral hegemony. Fall of Breton Woods. Proliferation of nukes. Fall of US Dollar.

USA would still have Elon Musk, internet, Hollywood, maybe Visa. But BRI would starve USA empire.

We in Central Europe will NOT fight war in Kiev alone, in the best interest of USA. USA has to show us in Central Europe their commitment and determination. Yankees first. If not, bye bye USA hegemony.

We in Central Europe will survive and we will adapt to new world.

"Take up the white man's burden."

Albeit I am a fan of Kipling. Don't know if I'd go that far today. I've known/seen a lot of very smart people from the Mid East and Africa. But just like in the West in many cases the general population may not be that way. Same in the Far East. Many, many very smart capable people come from there too. So I won't totally go with the concept of "white man's burden" today. I'm not "woke" however, at all but that rings of racism. But then with many, everything is racism. So if everything is racist then nothing in racist.

We in Central Europe will survive and we will adapt to new world.

As I have said before the US leadership is "outclassed" by predators like Putin & Xi, etc. But

Didn't Uk, USA and Russia all sign an agreement before the Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons?
They were of doubtful usefulness anyhow.

But that's not the point.
Don't we still have an obligation?

Yes, You have. And all the world is watching. Philipines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Saudi, Poland, Romania, Sweden, GB, Turkey, India, Canada, Norway. Your blood is already in the water and sharks are circling.

Do You have determination and power to fulfill You obligation or maybe You, Yankees, give up?

***

Of course You remember that Ukraine (as one Ukrainian ambassador said "Budapest Memorandum ex tunc is invalid due to Russian malevolence") is de lege and by ability nuclear power (it can legally and physically produce and deploy nukes, is producing 1/4 of Russian uranium, can enrich uranium and still has ability to produce space rockets).

I don't think you meant this when writing "We in Central Europe will survive and we will adapt to new world," but this was being said across Europe between 1940 and '44, too.

Just going with the flow, accommodating yourselves to brutal totalitarianism, doesn't seem very wise. If Europe holds its Liberal, Western values as being better than traditional Russian tyranny, then that won't be possible, anyway.

And who thinks that making nice with China is materially any different?

TVAG

No. It won't come to this. For now, I think we are actually more or less on the only path that makes any sense in this situation. I apologize for the slight positivity.