If Russia attacks NATO, should the U.S. respond with “Operation Russian Freedom”?

[TheReckoning]

Why or why not?

[dead0man]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATO member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATO has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.


edit-NATA? that was weird

[TheReckoning]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

Ok, definite No then.

[dead0man]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

at least, yeah.  What's the problem?  If the answer to that is "but the nukes", at what point do we stand up to him?  Do we just let everyone with nukes bully their neighbors? that's a ridiculous world to live in, and one we do not live in.  Thank Og.  You can tell because (and I'm sayin this for the fortieth time) Vlad the Incompetent only invades neighbors NOT in NATO.  It's a point people on all sides like to ignore.


It's also why, if we actually want more peace and less war in the world, we should let everyone in that wants into NATO or otherwise make defense pacts with them.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

at least, yeah.  What's the problem?  If the answer to that is "but the nukes", at what point do we stand up to him?  Do we just let everyone with nukes bully their neighbors? that's a ridiculous world to live in, and one we do not live in.  Thank Og.  You can tell because (and I'm sayin this for the fortieth time) Vlad the Incompetent only invades neighbors NOT in NATO.  It's a point people on all sides like to ignore.


It's also why, if we actually want more peace and less war in the world, we should let everyone in that wants into NATO or otherwise make defense pacts with them.

I’d argue simply throwing him out of said countries is sufficient and practical enough

[TML]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

[wnwnwn]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

X2 (sane, normal)

[PSOL]

I would monetarily support and agitate for communist militants against the Russian invasion, but I wouldn’t support the United States going to war under the current circumstances.

[TheReckoning]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

[Brother Jonathan]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

Well in that case you just continue to hold the borders. I mean avoiding a devastating nuclear exchange up to that point would be a miracle enough, so no need to tempt it by going into Russia proper.

[TheReckoning]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

Well in that case you just continue to hold the borders. I mean avoiding a devastating nuclear exchange up to that point would be a miracle enough, so no need to tempt it by going into Russia proper.

If this is what the Allies did during WW2, Nazi Germany would still exist.

[dead0man]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

at least, yeah.  What's the problem?  If the answer to that is "but the nukes", at what point do we stand up to him?  Do we just let everyone with nukes bully their neighbors? that's a ridiculous world to live in, and one we do not live in.  Thank Og.  You can tell because (and I'm sayin this for the fortieth time) Vlad the Incompetent only invades neighbors NOT in NATO.  It's a point people on all sides like to ignore.


It's also why, if we actually want more peace and less war in the world, we should let everyone in that wants into NATO or otherwise make defense pacts with them.

I’d argue simply throwing him out of said countries is sufficient and practical enough

well good thing other people are in charge of these decisions then.  Fighting Russia without attacking Russia is a dumb way to self handicap and we self handicap in war enough already.

What's the deal with people not wanting to attack the aggressor's homeland in war?  Why would you want to limit the war to your or your friend's homeland?

[Brother Jonathan]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

Well in that case you just continue to hold the borders. I mean avoiding a devastating nuclear exchange up to that point would be a miracle enough, so no need to tempt it by going into Russia proper.

If this is what the Allies did during WW2, Nazi Germany would still exist.

Are you actually an idiot or is the consensus now that you're some sort of troll?

Nazi Germany did not have ICBMs, thank God. I'll help you out here by noting an "ICBM" is a really big bomb, in case you did not know.

[PSOL]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

Well in that case you just continue to hold the borders. I mean avoiding a devastating nuclear exchange up to that point would be a miracle enough, so no need to tempt it by going into Russia proper.

If this is what the Allies did during WW2, Nazi Germany would still exist.

Are you actually an idiot or is the consensus now that you're some sort of troll?

Nazi Germany did not have ICBMs, thank God. I'll help you out here by noting an "ICBM" is a really big bomb, in case you did not know.

Cowardly, Palestinians have with varying degrees of foreign help engaged in military operations against Israel for decades when Israel has nukes and Ukraine has actual troops on the ground in Russia. Nukes are not the be all end all, as the Taliban won a war against a nuclear power and India and Pakistan go at it just fine.

[Brother Jonathan]

I would only support military action insofar as to drive Russian forces out of non-Russian territory. I do not support actually invading Russia proper and attempting to conquer it.

What if Russia refuses to surrender and continues offenses even after being pushed out of non-Russian territory?

Well in that case you just continue to hold the borders. I mean avoiding a devastating nuclear exchange up to that point would be a miracle enough, so no need to tempt it by going into Russia proper.

If this is what the Allies did during WW2, Nazi Germany would still exist.

Are you actually an idiot or is the consensus now that you're some sort of troll?

Nazi Germany did not have ICBMs, thank God. I'll help you out here by noting an "ICBM" is a really big bomb, in case you did not know.

Cowardly, Palestinians have with varying degrees of foreign help engaged in military operations against Israel for decades when Israel has nukes and Ukraine has actual troops on the ground in Russia. Nukes are not the be all end all, as the Taliban won a war against a nuclear power and India and Pakistan go at it just fine.

Well, I would suggest there are several distinctions here, but I will agree that nuclear weapons are not the be all end all. However, in the case of a conflict between NATO and Russia, I do not think it all that unlikely we would be in a uniquely likely scenario for use. Especially for Russia, there really is no scenario in which such use is more likely. In most of the cases you point to the cost for use, both in terms of actual damage to the using state itself and even more so in terms of international and public reaction, far outweigh any conceivable benefit. There was simply no utility. But if Russia truly felt itself on the brink of catastrophic defeat on its own territory, while nuclear use would not be inevitable I would think it far more likely than not, at the very least too close to comfort.

And of course, a comparison between Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia is at this level absurd. There is much that is awful but Russia today, but it is absolutely nowhere near as bad as Nazi Germany, not even close.

[MasterJedi]

Yes, if Russia attacks NATO the goal should be:

1. Complete defeat of Russia.
2. Russia forced to give up Kalingrad and everything east of the Urals.
3. Complete reconstruction of Russia with the goal of full integration into the west and the EU in the end.
4. The current power brokers/oligarchs get gulaged for life.

[PSOL]

The current US doctrine has already brought the usage of nuclear weapons on the table, it is meaningless to assume the taboo hasn’t been relevant.

Yes, if Russia attacks NATO the goal should be:

1. Complete defeat of Russia.
2. Russia forced to give up Kalingrad and everything east of the Urals.
3. Complete reconstruction of Russia with the goal of full integration into the west and the EU in the end.
4. The current power brokers/oligarchs get gulaged for life.

Cool it Dick Cheney

[MasterJedi]

The current US doctrine has already brought the usage of nuclear weapons on the table, it is meaningless to assume the taboo hasn’t been relevant.

Yes, if Russia attacks NATO the goal should be:

1. Complete defeat of Russia.
2. Russia forced to give up Kalingrad and everything east of the Urals.
3. Complete reconstruction of Russia with the goal of full integration into the west and the EU in the end.
4. The current power brokers/oligarchs get gulaged for life.

Cool it Dick Cheney

Only happens if Russia continues on its current path for Tsar Putin. We can only hope he DOES have cancer and dies soon, whoever comes next probably has a little bit more of an option for backing off the destruction path they’re on right now.

[PSOL]

The current US doctrine has already brought the usage of nuclear weapons on the table, it is meaningless to assume the taboo hasn’t been relevant.

Yes, if Russia attacks NATO the goal should be:

1. Complete defeat of Russia.
2. Russia forced to give up Kalingrad and everything east of the Urals.
3. Complete reconstruction of Russia with the goal of full integration into the west and the EU in the end.
4. The current power brokers/oligarchs get gulaged for life.

Cool it Dick Cheney

Only happens if Russia continues on its current path for Tsar Putin. We can only hope he DOES have cancer and dies soon, whoever comes next probably has a little bit more of an option for backing off the destruction path they’re on right now.

[Big Abraham]

Why didn't Russia respond with "Operation Liberate America" when the U.S. decided to carpet bomb Russia's allies?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The current US doctrine has already brought the usage of nuclear weapons on the table, it is meaningless to assume the taboo hasn’t been relevant.

Yes, if Russia attacks NATO the goal should be:

1. Complete defeat of Russia.
2. Russia forced to give up Kalingrad and everything east of the Urals.
3. Complete reconstruction of Russia with the goal of full integration into the west and the EU in the end.
4. The current power brokers/oligarchs get gulaged for life.

Cool it Dick Cheney

Yeah this is mindless escalation. Maximalist goals aren't a good idea. Our focus ought to be on defending NATO allies on their existing territory not forcing change on Russia.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I don't know what "Operation Russian Freedom" is, but if a NATA member is attacked by anyone, the rest of NATA has to step up.  And they will, otherwise, what's the point?  Anyone that says otherwise hates the West, liberal democracy and freedom.

Imagine Operation Iraqi Freedom, but done to Russia.

at least, yeah.  What's the problem?  If the answer to that is "but the nukes", at what point do we stand up to him?  Do we just let everyone with nukes bully their neighbors? that's a ridiculous world to live in, and one we do not live in.  Thank Og.  You can tell because (and I'm sayin this for the fortieth time) Vlad the Incompetent only invades neighbors NOT in NATO.  It's a point people on all sides like to ignore.


It's also why, if we actually want more peace and less war in the world, we should let everyone in that wants into NATO or otherwise make defense pacts with them.

I’d argue simply throwing him out of said countries is sufficient and practical enough

well good thing other people are in charge of these decisions then.  Fighting Russia without attacking Russia is a dumb way to self handicap and we self handicap in war enough already.

What's the deal with people not wanting to attack the aggressor's homeland in war?  Why would you want to limit the war to your or your friend's homeland?

Hitting facilities and bases in Russia is one thing but no way would Russia not launch a nuke if we tried to properly invade

[Fuzzy Bear]

In the short run, no.  We should do what is necessary to dislodge Russia from the attacked NATO nation.  "Operation Russian Freedom" is a euphemism for World War III.

We have now expanded NATO pretty much to where it is John McCain's "League of Democracies".  Is that a good idea for America?  That's a fair question.  War Guarantees drove two (2) World Wars.  World War II brought about 50,000,000 dead and total devastation of most of the Old Continent, to be followed by what JFK described as a "harsh and bitter peace".  Russia's military has problems, but they are still a nuclear power, and capable of waging nuclear war.  I'm humbly suggesting that our future foreign policies focus on avoiding World War III.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If Russia legitimately attacks a NATO state then we should honor our treaty obligations and roll back the Russian invasion. I don’t support any action towards regime change in Moscow because that would, as Fuzzy noted, likely end civilization as we know it. But I’d support limited military intervention to preserve the status quo.