Should the US Arm Ukraine?

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,958
Reaction score
3,296
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
 
Last edited:

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Nice link. From my reading of it, the pov of Mershiemer and Wald coincided with needing a political solution, but disagree on how they get there. The weakness of arming Ukraine is that all agree it will only cause more deaths but that increases the cost to Putin, but it may be a price he's willing to pay because keeping Ukraine out of the western orbit is a vital interest to him.

The weakness of not arming Putin is that assuming he views having Ukraine a soviet (ah Russian) satellite is a vital national interest, he's not going to stop his tanks till he reaches Poland .... and that is making the Poles very nervous.

In my opinion, the problem for both views on this issue is NOBODY knows what Putin wants. There's some question that he may not know. Not that he's insane, but that he may be unstable enough to want to see just how far he can go without the UK and US sending in armored brigades. If he wants the Ukraine never to be in Nato, Nato has given him that. If he wants the eastern provinces ... he's got those, and the EU has agreed he can keep them. If he wants Crimea, nobody's forcing him out.

Maybe we need some pro-Putin folks from the Europe board.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
Why should we arm the usurpers who overthrew the elected government?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
No, but then it's an inaccurate depiction of what we're actually talking about. The US government doesn't own weapons manufacturers, they're private businesses. What we're talking about is allowing US companies to sells arms to a foreign power. And/Or giving the power in question loans with which they'll then purchase those weapons.

My position remains the US shouldn't be arming other countries to continue wars. Sooner a war ends one way or the other the better. Helping them continue is more immoral than hastening their cessation even if the "bad guy" wins (sooner a bad guys wins, sooner the remaining good guys can go on living.)

If Russia wants Ukraine or any other or even all the USSR client states, I don't pretend to give a shit. And would rather the US not come in on their side vs Russia. That's what we did with China vs Japan and look how well that turned out.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
No, but then it's an inaccurate depiction of what we're actually talking about. The US government doesn't own weapons manufacturers, they're private businesses. What we're talking about is allowing US companies to sells arms to a foreign power. And/Or giving the power in question loans with which they'll then purchase those weapons.

My position remains the US shouldn't be arming other countries to continue wars. Sooner a war ends one way or the other the better. Helping them continue is more immoral than hastening their cessation even if the "bad guy" wins (sooner a bad guys wins, sooner the remaining good guys can go on living.)

If Russia wants Ukraine or any other or even all the USSR client states, I don't pretend to give a shit. And would rather the US not come in on their side vs Russia. That's what we did with China vs Japan and look how well that turned out.
Having Japan a democratic free market econ ally was a bad outcome?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
No, but then it's an inaccurate depiction of what we're actually talking about. The US government doesn't own weapons manufacturers, they're private businesses. What we're talking about is allowing US companies to sells arms to a foreign power. And/Or giving the power in question loans with which they'll then purchase those weapons.

My position remains the US shouldn't be arming other countries to continue wars. Sooner a war ends one way or the other the better. Helping them continue is more immoral than hastening their cessation even if the "bad guy" wins (sooner a bad guys wins, sooner the remaining good guys can go on living.)

If Russia wants Ukraine or any other or even all the USSR client states, I don't pretend to give a shit. And would rather the US not come in on their side vs Russia. That's what we did with China vs Japan and look how well that turned out.
Having Japan a democratic free market econ ally was a bad outcome?
Was thinking Pearl Harbor and World War 2 in the Pacific. YOu know, shit like that.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
Why should we arm the usurpers who overthrew the elected government?
I agree the Maiden was at least precipitous, and the exit strategy engineered by Kerry was the better course, but the current Ukraine govt is democratically elected. It's true that the eastern provinces don't want to be part of it, but no one is saying they can't go with Russia.

You'd really be OK with Russia "reacquiring" the old soviet empire?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
No, but then it's an inaccurate depiction of what we're actually talking about. The US government doesn't own weapons manufacturers, they're private businesses. What we're talking about is allowing US companies to sells arms to a foreign power. And/Or giving the power in question loans with which they'll then purchase those weapons.

My position remains the US shouldn't be arming other countries to continue wars. Sooner a war ends one way or the other the better. Helping them continue is more immoral than hastening their cessation even if the "bad guy" wins (sooner a bad guys wins, sooner the remaining good guys can go on living.)

If Russia wants Ukraine or any other or even all the USSR client states, I don't pretend to give a shit. And would rather the US not come in on their side vs Russia. That's what we did with China vs Japan and look how well that turned out.
Having Japan a democratic free market econ ally was a bad outcome?
Was thinking Pearl Harbor and World War 2 in the Pacific. YOu know, shit like that.
Oh, ok. I think the war v totalitarianism was inevitable.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
For a debate between a retired USAF General and John Mearsheimer on what could possibly go wrong with arming the Kiev government, please listen to this twenty-seven minute segment of DemocracyNow!

"As fighting continues in Ukraine, President Obama said Monday he has not ruled out arming the Ukrainian military against Russian-backed rebels. Meeting with Obama at the White House, German Chancellor Angela Merkel reiterated her opposition to arming Ukraine, saying the conflict could not be resolved militarily. Merkel is set to hold talks in Minsk on Wednesday with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and France in a bid to end the crisis that has killed thousands and displaced 1.5 million people over the past year. Should the United States escalate its role in the conflict by arming Ukraine? We host a debate between retired Air Force general Charles Wald, the former deputy commander of U.S. European Command, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer."
Playing with Fire A Debate on U.S. Arming Ukraine NATO Expansion to Russia s Border Democracy Now
No, but then it's an inaccurate depiction of what we're actually talking about. The US government doesn't own weapons manufacturers, they're private businesses. What we're talking about is allowing US companies to sells arms to a foreign power. And/Or giving the power in question loans with which they'll then purchase those weapons.

My position remains the US shouldn't be arming other countries to continue wars. Sooner a war ends one way or the other the better. Helping them continue is more immoral than hastening their cessation even if the "bad guy" wins (sooner a bad guys wins, sooner the remaining good guys can go on living.)

If Russia wants Ukraine or any other or even all the USSR client states, I don't pretend to give a shit. And would rather the US not come in on their side vs Russia. That's what we did with China vs Japan and look how well that turned out.
Having Japan a democratic free market econ ally was a bad outcome?
Was thinking Pearl Harbor and World War 2 in the Pacific. YOu know, shit like that.
Oh, ok. I think the war v totalitarianism was inevitable.
Am more pessimistic and would say all wars are inevitible. It's part of our nature and why our species is so successful - we're predatory. We've succeeded and endured and developed as far as we have precisely because we routinely and predictably kill one another and everything else. Wars spark technological innovations. While those innovations are usually concerned with killing people, they have spinoff technologies like the internet which came from computers which came from artillery computers.

What I expect to happen is we will arm Ukraine. The real power in the US is these defense contractors. It's why no President who runs on scaling back the military ever actually does. He'd be shot before he was ever sworn in. I like to imagine every President dureing their first week in office gets a visit from some nameless guy in a suit who hands him a piece of paper detailing all the things he shouldn't do if he's continued breathing is important to him. :) "Do this and you'll be assassinated." :) Thus Presidents aren't really in charge, they're just the scapegoats. The real people in charge are the ones who donate to the politicians' campaigns getting them elected. Love to see a complete ban on all political donations and force poltiicians to run on their own merit or monies. While the worry of only the rich becomming elected is present, it's gotta be better than what we have.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,958
Reaction score
3,296
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If he wants the Ukraine never to be in Nato, Nato has given him that. If he wants the eastern provinces ... he's got those, and the EU has agreed he can keep them. If he wants Crimea, nobody's forcing him out.
I'm wondering if Putin believes NATO has given up on acquiring Georgia and Ukraine since it was only seven years ago when NATO publicly proclaimed both former soviet states would be given an option of joining.

As far as the events of the last year in Ukraine are concerned, it seems clear a political dispute (possibly instigated by the US) has morphed into a civil war, and Russia has far more to lose than does the US.

I'm sure the prospect of short-term profit from "defense" arms sales to Ukraine is driving Obama in this regard; however, Putin isn't likely to hesitate escalating to a level of violence the US would be unwilling to match should push come to shove in Ukraine.
Nuclear artillery - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
I don't think all wars are inevitable. There's support for the view that totalitarianism would not have arisen, at least in Germany, if the WWI reparations hadn't inevitably have made any democratic govt unable to respond to the economic crisis. Japan pretty much had to be expansionist until birth control and the pill evolved.

But back to the problem. There's a basic disagreement over whether arming Ukranians will, or will not, facilitate reaching some diplomatic solution. To me, that question is unanswerable without reaching some consensus on just what Putin's bottom line is. If Putin doesn't want a Ukraine and Belarus in Nato, it's a done deal. The other end of the spectrum of what Putin might want is just that he's convinced Russia must be a world superpower economically and militarily, and the only way to do that is to destabilize all the democratic govts in the former soviet empire, because a mafia/communist/non-freemarket economy will never be able to compete with the EU economies. All he really has is ... tanks and oil. Poland and E. Germany are probably beyond his reach. He may view a Russia that is isolated economically beyond importing western goods with petro-dollars. If that's the case, then it's probably in our interest to arm Ukraine.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
If he wants the Ukraine never to be in Nato, Nato has given him that. If he wants the eastern provinces ... he's got those, and the EU has agreed he can keep them. If he wants Crimea, nobody's forcing him out.
I'm wondering if Putin believes NATO has given up on acquiring Georgia and Ukraine since it was only seven years ago when NATO publicly proclaimed both former soviet states would be given an option of joining.

As far as the events of the last year in Ukraine are concerned, it seems clear a political dispute (possibly instigated by the US) has morphed into a civil war, and Russia has far more to lose than does the US.

I'm sure the prospect of short-term profit from "defense" arms sales to Ukraine is driving Obama in this regard; however, Putin isn't likely to hesitate escalating to a level of violence the US would be unwilling to match should push come to shove in Ukraine.
Nuclear artillery - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't think arms sales has anything to do with US policy in Ukraine. It's quite likely that an unintended consequence of the Maiden is pulling both Russia and the US along. But, again, the Maiden actually arose AFTER US policy was to negotiate an peaceful exit for Yanukovych. The eastern provinces would probably have seceded in any event.

But can anyone tell what Putin wants? From what I see Germany and France are asking this question.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,958
Reaction score
3,296
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Why should we arm the usurpers who overthrew the elected government?
If the next Edward Snowden provides proof of US involvement in overthrowing a corrupt, yet elected, Ukrainian president, the US government will lose its moral high ground in this debate. Should a majority of US voters come to the conclusion that Republicans AND Democrats alike serve the interests of Empire instead of what's best for the majority of citizens, we might fire the second shot heard 'round the world.
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
27,925
Reaction score
10,638
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
Arm Ukraine if you wanna creep closer to an extinction event. Putin could've had Kiev in 4 days if he had truly wanted it at any time in over the last year but didn't do it.
If Russia is really the aggressor, then why do the vast majority of refugees from the fighting areas flee into Russia as opposed to heading to Kiev?
 

Igrok_

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
947
Reaction score
146
Points
90
If US would like to have a war with Russia, they should send weapons and maybe soldiers there. Europe doesn't like such scenario, but States are far away from the conflict and are used to solve their problems by making wars here and there outside their borders with no revenge and harm.
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
40,692
Reaction score
12,352
Points
2,250
Why should we arm the usurpers who overthrew the elected government?
If the next Edward Snowden provides proof of US involvement in overthrowing a corrupt, yet elected, Ukrainian president, the US government will lose its moral high ground in this debate. Should a majority of US voters come to the conclusion that Republicans AND Democrats alike serve the interests of Empire instead of what's best for the majority of citizens, we might fire the second shot heard 'round the world.
Agreed. However Snowden informed Americans of the tyrannical things their government is doing and nobody did anything. So, not sure another Snowden would change anything. Many Americans are blissfully stupid and uninformed. They accept whatever their lying government and state run media tells them.

We sure do need another shot heard round the world though.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,321
Reaction score
5,492
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Why should we arm the usurpers who overthrew the elected government?
If the next Edward Snowden provides proof of US involvement in overthrowing a corrupt, yet elected, Ukrainian president, the US government will lose its moral high ground in this debate. Should a majority of US voters come to the conclusion that Republicans AND Democrats alike serve the interests of Empire instead of what's best for the majority of citizens, we might fire the second shot heard 'round the world.
My bet would be that the CIA was doing all it could to torpedo any Russia Ukraine trade agreement. However, that proposed agreement was also opposed by a majority of Ukrainians. The deal with Yanukovych forestalling any deal till he was out of office satisfied that issue.

and the reason the refugees are going east is that so far the fighting has been in pro-Russia areas, so the refugees are heading that way.

Putin may not need Kiev if his goal is to make sure there's no stable Ukraine govt that is aligned economically with Europe. But again, the question remains what must Putin have for a peace?
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
27,925
Reaction score
10,638
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
Neo-Nazi junta in Kiev acted foolishly upon taking power. They threatened to de-populate the Donbass and make the Russian language illegal.
This is the kind of democracy current Washington warpigs support. They also know that 80% of American muppets cannot find Ukraine on a map.
 
OP
georgephillip

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
38,958
Reaction score
3,296
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Arm Ukraine if you wanna creep closer to an extinction event. Putin could've had Kiev in 4 days if he had truly wanted it at any time in over the last year but didn't do it.
If Russia is really the aggressor, then why do the vast majority of refugees from the fighting areas flee into Russia as opposed to heading to Kiev?
Be careful what you wish for:
"Ukraine –
Ukrainian government officials confirmed a nuclear blast was detected in Ukraine Sunday. No other news is coming out of the area.

"Three videos just uploaded show the small nuclear blast below. Nothing more is known at this time, including who launched the weapon or against which target.

"The materials appear to have originated from the war-torn region of Ukraine, where separatists are attempting to return control of the former Soviet nation to Russia.

"The attack comes after Britain’s defense minister voiced concerns Russia may have 'lowered the threshold' for using nuclear weapons."

Nuclear bomb detonated in Ukraine 8211 nuclear blast detected The Internet Chronicle
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
27,925
Reaction score
10,638
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
Arm Ukraine if you wanna creep closer to an extinction event. Putin could've had Kiev in 4 days if he had truly wanted it at any time in over the last year but didn't do it.
If Russia is really the aggressor, then why do the vast majority of refugees from the fighting areas flee into Russia as opposed to heading to Kiev?
Be careful what you wish for:
"Ukraine –
Ukrainian government officials confirmed a nuclear blast was detected in Ukraine Sunday. No other news is coming out of the area.

"Three videos just uploaded show the small nuclear blast below. Nothing more is known at this time, including who launched the weapon or against which target.

"The materials appear to have originated from the war-torn region of Ukraine, where separatists are attempting to return control of the former Soviet nation to Russia.

"The attack comes after Britain’s defense minister voiced concerns Russia may have 'lowered the threshold' for using nuclear weapons."

Nuclear bomb detonated in Ukraine 8211 nuclear blast detected The Internet Chronicle
Bullshit detector is turned on. We can detect the smallest of nuclear blasts from shitholes like N. Korea.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top