NYT- President Biden considering sending thousands of troops to Eastern Europe and Baltics

[WV222]

https://twitter.com/EricSchmittNYT/status/1485394918352822282

[Cassandra]

We don't need to get into a war with Russia.

[jojoju1998]

Last year, we were celebrating the end of Endless Wars with Afghanistan.... and now we're back to...

Endless Wars possibly.

[7,052,770]

We don't need to get into a war with Russia.

Agreed, but we can't just let Russia slice and dice up the parts they want and signal they can do the same in the Baltics and Caucasus. We can look back at the 1930s to see what appeasing tyrants' demands for expansion accomplishes.

[Big Abraham]

I sure love the smell of radioactive fallout.

[Calthrina950]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

About d*** time

[THG]

Not necessarily a bad move for once, but the Senate should pass Cruz’s bill on the Nordstream pipeline, amongst other things. As well as arming Ukraine- that way, we can help Ukraine without needing to even send troops (though I am not opposed to this move either, I innately don’t trust Biden on anything FP related).

Also, evacuate all American civilians. That’s debatably more important than anything else right now.

[7,052,770]

We're gonna have weird political coalitions if we go to war with Russia.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

I mean the Cold War kinda showed letting Russia take Eastern Europe could prove to be an existential threat to the US and while the current Russian Government isnt as evil as the USSR one was, they are still very bad.

[Torie]

Biden did not say to the Ukraine. He said to Eastern Europe. Some counties in Eastern Europe are already in NATO.

[Calthrina950]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

I mean the Cold War kinda showed letting Russia take Eastern Europe could prove to be an existential threat to the US and while the current Russian Government isnt as evil as the USSR one was, they are still very bad.

I certainly think we need to stand firm against Russia, but I think we should do so by providing aid to Ukraine and to our allies, and by intensifying sanctions against the Russians. We need to avoid making military deployments that could escalate the situation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

I mean the Cold War kinda showed letting Russia take Eastern Europe could prove to be an existential threat to the US and while the current Russian Government isnt as evil as the USSR one was, they are still very bad.

I certainly think we need to stand firm against Russia, but I think we should do so by providing aid to Ukraine and to our allies, and by intensifying sanctions against the Russians. We need to avoid making military deployments that could escalate the situation.

We arent sending troop so Ukraine though from what I am seeing, just to other NATO nations.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Good. We have every right to help and support our weaker allies in NATO, in particular the Baltics, with our troops. Likewise, Russia has the same right to do so for it's weaker members in CSTO.

[GALeftist]

First of all, people need to read the article. Biden is apparently contemplating sending troops into NATO countries in Eastern Europe, like the Baltics and Poland. If Russia launches a territorial invasion of a NATO member state, we are probably all going to perish in nuclear hellfire regardless of how many troops are in eastern Estonia, and I think it would be hard to blame Biden for that.

Also, I'm going to take a heterodox position for a maroon avatar here and say that the recent national trauma involving ill-informed military misadventures abroad has given the American left a reasonable but misguided impulse towards absolutely pacifist rhetoric when I think that few people, if pressed, are actually absolute pacifists. Like, the reason the Iraq War was bad was not because it was a war and wars are always bad. It's because it was born of a combination of bad intelligence suggesting that Iraq had or would soon have WMDs, an inexplicable belief that an invasion would ameliorate this situation, and a post-9/11 impulse to "get back" at the people who did this to us and impose democracy. A war with that rationale was never going to be beneficial, either for Iraqis or Americans. The current Ukraine crisis is almost entirely different. If war breaks out, it will be because of a territorial invasion of a sovereign nation in order to expand a sphere of influence. That's far closer to Czechoslovakia 1938 than it is to Iraq 2003.

I sympathize with the people arguing that war with Russia isn't desirable. God knows that the American military is too involved in too many parts of the world already, and war between nuclear powers is scary to think about. At the same time, though, this shouldn't get in the way of making rational foreign policy decisions. Is war with Russia going to be more desirable if it were to finish the job in Georgia? Or if it were to demand the dissolution of NATO and reincorporation of the Baltic states? Of course it won't. So is the thinking that the United States ought to meekly acquiesce to whatever terms Russia imposes given that they have a looser trigger finger than the United States? It should also be remembered that, in the event of invasion, American isolationism isn't going to prevent war, or even necessarily nuclear war. All it will do is ensure that the people killed in the inevitable ensuing war will be entirely Ukrainian. From an ethical perspective, it seems to me that the preference for Ukrainian deaths over American deaths is an entirely arbitrary one.

[Calthrina950]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

I mean the Cold War kinda showed letting Russia take Eastern Europe could prove to be an existential threat to the US and while the current Russian Government isnt as evil as the USSR one was, they are still very bad.

I certainly think we need to stand firm against Russia, but I think we should do so by providing aid to Ukraine and to our allies, and by intensifying sanctions against the Russians. We need to avoid making military deployments that could escalate the situation.

We arent sending troop so Ukraine though from what I am seeing, just to other NATO nations.

As long as we don't send troops to Ukraine, that's acceptable. I'm still wary of American military deployments, however, after what has happened over the past two decades.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

First of all, people need to read the article. Biden is apparently contemplating sending troops into NATO countries in Eastern Europe, like the Baltics and Poland. If Russia launches a territorial invasion of a NATO member state, we are probably all going to perish in nuclear hellfire regardless of how many troops are in eastern Estonia, and I think it would be hard to blame Biden for that.

Also, I'm going to take a heterodox position for a maroon avatar here and say that the recent national trauma involving ill-informed military misadventures abroad has given the American left a reasonable but misguided impulse towards absolutely pacifist rhetoric when I think that few people, if pressed, are actually absolute pacifists. Like, the reason the Iraq War was bad was not because it was a war and wars are always bad. It's because it was born of a combination of bad intelligence suggesting that Iraq had or would soon have WMDs, an inexplicable belief that an invasion would ameliorate this situation, and a post-9/11 impulse to "get back" at the people who did this to us and impose democracy. A war with that rationale was never going to be beneficial, either for Iraqis or Americans. The current Ukraine crisis is almost entirely different. If war breaks out, it will be because of a territorial invasion of a sovereign nation in order to expand a sphere of influence. That's far closer to Czechoslovakia 1938 than it is to Iraq 2003.

I sympathize with the people arguing that war with Russia isn't desirable. God knows that the American military is too involved in too many parts of the world already, and war between nuclear powers is scary to think about. At the same time, though, this shouldn't get in the way of making rational foreign policy decisions. Is war with Russia going to be more desirable if it were to finish the job in Georgia? Or if it were to demand the dissolution of NATO and reincorporation of the Baltic states? Of course it won't. So is the thinking that the United States ought to meekly acquiesce to whatever terms Russia imposes given that they have a looser trigger finger than the United States? It should also be remembered that, in the event of invasion, American isolationism isn't going to prevent war, or even necessarily nuclear war. All it will do is ensure that the people killed in the inevitable ensuing war will be entirely Ukrainian. From an ethical perspective, it seems to me that the preference for Ukrainian deaths over American deaths is an entirely arbitrary one.

Agree with the bolded entirely. Judging the merits of a foreign policy directive solely on the basis of how "isolationist vs. interventionist" it is, without regard for the specific circumstances or the motivating interests, is a painfully unnuanced approach but a far too common one.

[Person Man]

Biden should not do this. The United States does not need to have its military resources drawn into yet another theater of the world.

I mean the Cold War kinda showed letting Russia take Eastern Europe could prove to be an existential threat to the US and while the current Russian Government isnt as evil as the USSR one was, they are still very bad.

I would say Putin's regime is probably similar to Gorbachev's in term of how overall abusive it is. Brezhnev? Not so much. 

[GoTfan]

What's a little nuclear war done to anyone?

[Frodo]

What's a little nuclear war done to anyone?

There is not going to be a nuclear war.  If it didn't happen even during the very worst moments of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, it certainly isn't going to happen now. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Appeasement doesn't work.

Abandoning our allies in NATO to be threatened by Putin is wrong.

I don't want to see a war with Russia. I think the best way to make sure that does not happen in a strong military presence in NATO's eastern members before Russia threatens them (any more).

[Horus]

First of all, people need to read the article. Biden is apparently contemplating sending troops into NATO countries in Eastern Europe, like the Baltics and Poland. If Russia launches a territorial invasion of a NATO member state, we are probably all going to perish in nuclear hellfire regardless of how many troops are in eastern Estonia, and I think it would be hard to blame Biden for that.

Also, I'm going to take a heterodox position for a maroon avatar here and say that the recent national trauma involving ill-informed military misadventures abroad has given the American left a reasonable but misguided impulse towards absolutely pacifist rhetoric when I think that few people, if pressed, are actually absolute pacifists. Like, the reason the Iraq War was bad was not because it was a war and wars are always bad. It's because it was born of a combination of bad intelligence suggesting that Iraq had or would soon have WMDs, an inexplicable belief that an invasion would ameliorate this situation, and a post-9/11 impulse to "get back" at the people who did this to us and impose democracy. A war with that rationale was never going to be beneficial, either for Iraqis or Americans. The current Ukraine crisis is almost entirely different. If war breaks out, it will be because of a territorial invasion of a sovereign nation in order to expand a sphere of influence. That's far closer to Czechoslovakia 1938 than it is to Iraq 2003.

I sympathize with the people arguing that war with Russia isn't desirable. God knows that the American military is too involved in too many parts of the world already, and war between nuclear powers is scary to think about. At the same time, though, this shouldn't get in the way of making rational foreign policy decisions. Is war with Russia going to be more desirable if it were to finish the job in Georgia? Or if it were to demand the dissolution of NATO and reincorporation of the Baltic states? Of course it won't. So is the thinking that the United States ought to meekly acquiesce to whatever terms Russia imposes given that they have a looser trigger finger than the United States? It should also be remembered that, in the event of invasion, American isolationism isn't going to prevent war, or even necessarily nuclear war. All it will do is ensure that the people killed in the inevitable ensuing war will be entirely Ukrainian. From an ethical perspective, it seems to me that the preference for Ukrainian deaths over American deaths is an entirely arbitrary one.

Thoughtful post, but I take major issue with this last line and it has been used time and time again to justify unnecessary intervention. The job of the United States government is to look out for American citizens first and foremost. If our government places Ukrainian lives, or Zimbabwean, or Bolivian lives at the same level of importance as American lives, what is the point of having borders or a government at all?

[ProudModerate2]

What's a little nuclear war done to anyone?

There is not going to be a nuclear war.  If it didn't happen even during the very worst moments of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, it certainly isn't going to happen now. 

You can't say that. We don't know.
Nuclear war could begin from a strange, uncalled-for event or threat. Any little thing could trigger one side or the other to escalate, and then a button is pushed, and the world is burning.

[Hammy]

Dems deserve to lose if they're going to do this. At least Republicans are honest about not giving a sh**t about their own country.

[7,052,770]

Dems deserve to lose if they're going to do this. At least Republicans are honest about not giving a sh**t about their own country.

So we should abandon a democratic country (with strategic value and who wants to be our ally) to its fate?