Will/Should US defend Ukraine against Russian invasion, at the risk of starting WW3?

[Torie]

Maybe he is all hat and no cattle, but here is what the Ukrainian defense minister has to say:

https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/584672-ukraine-defense-minister-warns-of-bloody-massacre-if-russia

[Chips]

Frankly, I hope this crisis can be solved diplomatically and I don't think we should risk WW3 over Ukraine.

[7,052,770]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

[Cashew]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

I'm assuming you think JFK is a delusional madman for not accepting Soviet nukes in Cuba as well?

[President Johnson]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

A nuclear war only knows losers.

[Del Tachi]

Will not/should not, at least not in the way the OP seems to be asking.

NATO can assume a strong posture and aid the Ukrainians short of committing ground troops to war with Russia, which would be an unnecessary escalation of the situation

[7,052,770]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

I'm assuming you think JFK is a delusional madman for not accepting Soviet nukes in Cuba as well?

No?

Your analogy only works if the United States would have been hopeless in a 1961 war against the USSR, which I don't think is backed up by history at all.

My point is that there is no chance Russia beats NATO and the Free World in a war, and Putin knows that. He won't actually start anything unless he knows he can get away with it. I don't see any kind of parallel to the USA during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[DaleCooper]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

I'm assuming you think JFK is a delusional madman for not accepting Soviet nukes in Cuba as well?

No?

Your analogy only works if the United States would have been hopeless in a 1961 war against the USSR, which I don't think is backed up by history at all.

My point is that there is no chance Russia beats NATO and the Free World in a war, and Putin knows that. He won't actually start anything unless he knows he can get away with it. I don't see any kind of parallel to the USA during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is also just a plain ol' bad comparison. If the United States and NATO were stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine right now, then it would be hard to begrudge the Russians for being aggressive. But what Putin is threatening is nothing but Hitlerian military expansion, which is why it's so essential to make clear to him that any soldier he sends into Ukraine will get sent back to Moscow in a body bag. Putin may have all the sleek new gadgets of the 21st century, but he is no more sophisticated or civilized than any barbarian warlord throughout history. Death and violence are all he can comprehend, so while we should be prepared to sanction Russia and destroy its economy, we also need to be prepared to rain death and destruction upon his men should they make any attempt to conquer any part of Europe.

[Cashew]

Russia knows it cannot possibly win WW3 against NATO. Unless Putin is a delusional madman, he would back down if it comes to that.

I'm assuming you think JFK is a delusional madman for not accepting Soviet nukes in Cuba as well?

No?

Your analogy only works if the United States would have been hopeless in a 1961 war against the USSR, which I don't think is backed up by history at all.

My point is that there is no chance Russia beats NATO and the Free World in a war, and Putin knows that. He won't actually start anything unless he knows he can get away with it. I don't see any kind of parallel to the USA during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The reality is that the fate of Ukraine matters far more to the Russian government than to the American government, and everybody knows it, constant proclamations to the contrary does not change that and ensures that the onus for backing down from a nuclear escalation will always fall on the American side as the consequences for backing down will be far more devastating for the legitimacy of the Russian government. The same is true of the Cuban missile crisis, so far from the warsaw pact the missiles were little more than bargaining chips for the Soviet union, while they Were an existential issue for the American government, ensuring that regardless of whatever other concessions the Soviet Union received the main thing people remember is the Soviets removing the nukes to de escalate. I suspect the same will hold true in any Taiwan related crisis, although the situation will be more balanced and dangerous in a Russian invasion of the baltic states, as not doing anything will destroy NATO, creating a perception that the United States must intervene lest its alliance system fall apart, thereby reinforcing the notion that the United states will inevitably intervene. What will actually happen in that scenario I do not know, but it is different from the Ukrainian situation in that both sides actually have something significant at stake and painful consequences if they back down. Simply admitting Ukraine into NATO a day before a Russian invasion would be seen as an obvious bluff and would end up humiliating the rest of NATO once the Russian invade anyways and they back down.

[AndyHogan14]

Yes, we should. Britain and France should have stood firm when it came to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, Anschluss, and the decapitation of Czechoslovakia. Appeasing Hitler only made him more bold until the allies had no choice but declare war once he invaded Poland. But even then, the UK and France didn't bother to take action in the west while the Nazis were preoccupied in Poland in the hopes that they wouldn't **actually** have to fight a war. All this did was prolong the conflict. How many lives could have been saved if the allies took decisive action against Hitler at any point in the 1930s? Now, Putin is certainly not as evil as Hitler, but there are some unsettling similarities. Putin's argument for annexing Crimea is straight out of Hitler's playbook for the annexation of the Sudetenland. If we do not take a stand here, then Putin (or is successor) may be bold enough to attack the Baltic States or Poland and what do we do then? I believe that if American/NATO troops are in Ukraine, then Putin wouldn't dare send Russian troops into the country (beyond where they already are). Also, it would send a firm message that the days of him meddling in the affairs of his neighboring countries are over.

With that said, will we? Almost certainly not. And that is just what Putin is counting on: the weakness of the west.

[Big Abraham]

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

[AndyHogan14]

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

Maybe, just maybe, if Russia weren’t such a piss poor neighbor then the former Soviet republics wouldn’t have run towards NATO and the EU after the fall of the Soviet Union. Also, NATO is only hostile to Russia if Russia wants it to be. If they simply left their neighbors alone to do as they wish, then there would be no problem and there wouldn’t be any need for NATO at all. Does anyone honestly believe that Russia wouldn’t be screwing with the Baltic States right now had they not joined NATO and the EU?

[Aurelius]

We shouldn't, and I am confident that we aren't stupid enough to do so.

[7,052,770]

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

Ukraine has the right to align itself with whatever global bloc it wants. By contrast, Belarus seems to actually want to be a Russian puppet, so fine. Be one.

But Ukraine wants to be a Western democracy, and we should not abandon them to invasion and oppression. Russia has no right to do that to them.

[dead0man]

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

The "but muh NATO on Russia's border" argument doesn't really carry any weight because it's a defensive treaty.   An adversary bitching about a defensive treaty proves why the countries needed a defensive treaty in the first funking place.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The Cuban Missile Crisis is also just a plain ol' bad comparison. If the United States and NATO were stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine right now, then it would be hard to begrudge the Russians for being aggressive.

Russia claims it sees that nuclear missiles etc will be the end game here. West says, it's up to Ukraina, and Russia has no say about it, which is why Cuba is good exempel. Nobody in West thinks, it's up to Cuba and USA has no say. Nobody.

But what Putin is threatening is nothing but Hitlerian military expansion, which is why it's so essential to make clear to him that any soldier he sends into Ukraine will get sent back to Moscow in a body bag. Putin may have all the sleek new gadgets of the 21st century, but he is no more sophisticated or civilized than any barbarian warlord throughout history. Death and violence are all he can comprehend, so while we should be prepared to sanction Russia and destroy its economy, we also need to be prepared to rain death and destruction upon his men should they make any attempt to conquer any part of Europe.

LOL, wut? There is zero talks to threat Putin military re:Ukraine. Zero.  Or, do you mean, NATO&EU-members?

Btw, US's even struggled to destroy Iran's economy, which is much less resilient than Russia's. Yes, you could hurt us, but that's it. You live in the past. Once upon time US's share of global GDP (PPP) was around 40% (70% with western world), now just around 20% (50%).  Moreover, a full-blown attack on Russia's economy would likely totally destabilize energy market, which would do anything but ensure Trump 2024 

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

The "but muh NATO on Russia's border" argument doesn't really carry any weight because it's a defensive treaty.   An adversary bitching about a defensive treaty proves why the countries needed a defensive treaty in the first funking place.

Nuclear missiles were deployed in Cuba due to defensive countermeasure as well. It's not like USSR had intention to attack US. US was and would be bitching again around it, if Russia/China made it now. So?

[dead0man]

Nuclear missiles were deployed in Cuba due to defensive countermeasure as well. It's not like USSR had intention to attack US. US was and would be bitching again around it, if Russia/China made it now. So?

if we put put nukes (why would we need to? it's not the 60s anymore) in Ukraine, you'd have a great point, otherwise, not so much.

Have we put nukes in Estonia?  No?  Poland?  No?  Has anyone in the west even seriously suggested it, ever?  no


The only threat Russia faces if Ukraine, Georgia, others join NATO is that they will have fewer potential countries to invade.  We should have invited them all in 1992 and we wouldn't be in this mess today (and Georgia and Ukraine would still be whole).

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Nuclear missiles were deployed in Cuba due to defensive countermeasure as well. It's not like USSR had intention to attack US. US was and would be bitching again around it, if Russia/China made it now. So?

if we put put nukes (why would we need to? it's not the 60s anymore) in Ukraine, you'd have a great point, otherwise, not so much.

Have we put nukes in Estonia?  No?  Poland?  No?  Has anyone in the west even seriously suggested it, ever?  no


The only threat Russia faces if Ukraine, Georgia, others join NATO is that they will have fewer potential countries to invade.  We should have invited them all in 1992 and we wouldn't be in this mess today (and Georgia and Ukraine would still be whole).

There are talks.

2015
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/poland-considering-asking-for-access-to-nuclear-weapons-under-nato-program
Poland considering asking for access to nuclear weapons under Nato program
Deputy defence minister says Poland is discussing whether to join other European countries in hosting nuclear arms to strengthen defences



19 Nov 2021 by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the German Atlantic Association 'NATO Talk' Conference 2021
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_188772.htm

The alternative to NATO nuclear sharing is different kinds of bilateral arrangements and also the risk of having, you know, nuclear weapons also . . . so, of course, Germany can, of course, decide whether there will be nuclear weapons in your country, but the alternative is that we easily end up with nuclear weapons in other countries in Europe, also to the east of Germany.

He pushes Germany to be part of NATO nuclear sharing, because otherwise according to NATO's Secretary General nuclear weapons might "very easily" end up in countries to the east of Germany... Hm...

Excuse me, but Russia should take extremely seriously NATO's Secretary General's "predictions", don't you think so?

[DaleCooper]

The Cuban Missile Crisis is also just a plain ol' bad comparison. If the United States and NATO were stationing nuclear weapons in Ukraine right now, then it would be hard to begrudge the Russians for being aggressive.

Russia claims it sees that nuclear missiles etc will be the end game here. West says, it's up to Ukraina, and Russia has no say about it, which is why Cuba is good exempel. Nobody in West thinks, it's up to Cuba and USA has no say. Nobody.

But what Putin is threatening is nothing but Hitlerian military expansion, which is why it's so essential to make clear to him that any soldier he sends into Ukraine will get sent back to Moscow in a body bag. Putin may have all the sleek new gadgets of the 21st century, but he is no more sophisticated or civilized than any barbarian warlord throughout history. Death and violence are all he can comprehend, so while we should be prepared to sanction Russia and destroy its economy, we also need to be prepared to rain death and destruction upon his men should they make any attempt to conquer any part of Europe.

LOL, wut? There is zero talks to threat Putin military re:Ukraine. Zero.  Or, do you mean, NATO&EU-members?

Btw, US's even struggled to destroy Iran's economy, which is much less resilient than Russia's. Yes, you could hurt us, but that's it. You live in the past. Once upon time US's share of global GDP (PPP) was around 40% (70% with western world), now just around 20% (50%).  Moreover, a full-blown attack on Russia's economy would likely totally destabilize energy market, which would do anything but ensure Trump 2024 

I realize that the US is not capable of destroying Russia on its own, but we can still do whatever we can. I'm saying that, in the event that Russia attempts to invade Ukraine, we should make its people as miserable as we have the power to make them. We need to send a message to Russians quickly that if they declare war on the free world, their economy will suffer and their sons and daughters will be gunned down.

As for Trump, wicked leaders in a democracy are a judgment on wicked voters. If the wretched people of this country want Trump, then the wretched people of this country can suffer the consequences in this world and the next.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We're not going to War with China or Russia they're on the UN Security Counsel, FDR and Truman put them there as a check so we don't never go to nuke war with them

Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine yet but even if they take over Ukraine , it's not there are taking over France or a Western European ally

[Ferguson97]

The "but muh Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia" argument doesn't really carry any historical weight because the Western Powers were never trying to absorb those countries into a military alliance hostile to Germany - they were trying to keep them neutral. Meanwhile, NATO has expanded to Russian borders and obviously has long been trying to integrate Ukraine into the neoliberal order. It's obvious why Russia sees this as an American-led aggression.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1468612402640048134?t=kh2wX8th3o8oKl6FL9jOyA...

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/edokeefe/status/1468612402640048134?t=kh2wX8th3o8oKl6FL9jOyA...

Great American Patriots Biden and Tucker get it!

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1468394056191385606



https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-accuses-gop-trying-to-spark-us-russia-war-2021-12
Tucker Carlson accused the GOP of trying to goad the US into war with Russia, the day after he took Putin's side on Ukraine

• Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Wednesday again addressed Russian-Ukrainian tensions.
• He accused some Republicans of seeking to pull the US into a conflict with Vladimir Putin.
• It followed a segment the previous day when Carlson argued in favor of Putin's actions.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson accused part of the Republican Party of seeking to goad the US into military confrontation with Russia.

Carlson's claim was part of a series of sympathetic arguments he made as Russia conducts a military buildup along its border with Ukraine, sparking fears of a conflict.

The host claimed Tuesday that Russia actions were a defensive response to NATO aggression, drawing accusations that he was pushing Kremlin propaganda.

On Wednesday night's edition of his show he turned his attention to those in the US he claimed are seeking to push the Biden administration towards conflict.

"It's almost impossible to believe, but we actually are moving closer to a hot war with Russia," said Carlson, claiming "you could wake up one morning and it's 1914," referencing the year that World War I broke out in Europe.

"Republicans are doing nothing to stop this," Carlson said. "In fact, they're egging the weak and incompetent president on to do more. 'Oh, Biden is weak. He's not standing up against Vladimir Putin!'"

"You're hearing that constantly, including on this channel from Republicans. And the rhetoric is getting hotter and crazier and more disconnected from reality."

[Not Me, Us]

I don't believe Putin is actually going to invade Ukraine, it would be too big of a provocation to the West. If it does happen, however, it is in the national security interest of the United States to send weapons and aid to Ukraine while doing everything it can to economically destroy the Russian state, obviously with no direct military action against them. If Russia is allowed to take Ukraine without a consequences, all of Eastern Europe will be directly threatened by Russia.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1469028133911343106?s=20