Should the US provide enough long-range weaponry to cut off the Russian supply lines and drive them out of Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
You got to be kidding; how old are you? I'm old enough that I would be no benefit to the Ukrainians; not only would I not be a benefit I wouldn't even be an impediment I'd be a burden. There was a time when I went off to war to kill communists to defend freedom, but unfortunately those days are behind me now. I can still work a little, but it's all downhill from here.
Are you saying you would send your kids? Not my war.
 
It is their fight, if they wish to fight it. I would continue material support.
What if THEY (the people of Ukraine) dont want to? What if Zelenski only wants to continue the war so they cant elect a new president? Do you even consider that as a possibility? Its pretty weird that he is so cavalier with human life. He knows they cant win the war, yet he continues fighting. Why? Just cuz?
 
(sigh) Okay a show of hands, who thinks the U.S. should fund every stupid war in the world started by imbeciles over stupid shit that could have been negotiated? We are only $36 TRILLION in debt, hell let's borrow another $100 trillion!!!!!!!!
 
What if THEY (the people of Ukraine) dont want to? What if Zelenski only wants to continue the war so they cant elect a new president? Do you even consider that as a possibility? Its pretty weird that he is so cavalier with human life. He knows they cant win the war, yet he continues fighting. Why? Just cuz?
What if they do want to keep their independence? I say let them, if they do, until they do not or they decide the cost in the lives of their countrymen is too great. Ukrainian troop losses at 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded. Estimates suggest that more than 800,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or severely wounded, making this one of the deadliest conflicts for Russia since World War II. Maybe Russia should quit and go home. They obviously are not very good at it comparatively, though Putin does not care about their losses of life.
 
What if they do want to keep their independence? I say let them, if they do, until they do not or they decide the cost in the lives of their countrymen is too great. Ukrainian troop losses at 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded. Estimates suggest that more than 800,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or severely wounded, making this one of the deadliest conflicts for Russia since World War II. Maybe Russia should quit and go home. They obviously are not very good at it comparatively, though Putin does not care about their losses of life.
They are certainly welcome to fight, but I dont want my tax dollars going to it. :dunno:
 
They are certainly welcome to fight, but I dont want my tax dollars going to it. :dunno:
Missing any meals or government support checks? Did you support the war in Iraq? We spent nearly $2 Trillion on that. Is is just a money thing, to you?
 
Why? They only ask us for material support, not troops, to defend against Russia, a known international pariah, attacking to conquer their country. Early on, we committed more to the effort, but the trend presently is more support coming from the European Union, with overall US $128 billion (.55% GDP) and European Union $124 Billion, the largest Non US contributors by GDP being Germany (1.31% GDP,
UK (.93% GDP) and Canada (.67% GDP). Ukraine has supplied all the bodies and boots on the ground in their defense. If we give Ukraine to Russia, which country will they want next? If we had not disarmed Ukraine, with assurances, Russia would never have attacked, but not Trump want to walk away.
****** you are almost correct. The "walk away" was done in 2014 by your lads Obama and Biden.

1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force.

2009 Joint Declaration by Russia and the United States

Russia and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 confirming that the security assurances made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum would still be valid after START expired in 2009.

2014 Russian Annexation of Crimea

Following months of political unrest and the abrupt departure of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Russian troops entered the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine in March 2014. On March 18, over the protests of the acting government in Kiev, the UN Security Council, and Western governments, Russia declared the annexation of Crimea. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine called the action a blatant violation of the security assurances in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. However, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, “the security assurances were given to the legitimate government of Ukraine but not to the forces that came to power following the so called "coup d'etat.”"

Timeline

  • July 16, 1990: Ukraine’s Declaration of Sovereignty
  • July 31, 1991: The United States and the Soviet Union sign START
  • Dec. 26, 1991: The Soviet Union officially dissolves, delaying entry into force of START
  • Dec. 30, 1991: Minsk Agreement on Strategic Forces
    • The Commonwealth of Independent States agrees that strategic forces would be under the joint command of the former Soviet Union states
  • May 23, 1992: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the United States sign the Lisbon Protocol
    • The protocol calls for the return of nuclear weapons in three formerly Soviet states to Russia and for all states to be added to the START treaty and join the NPT
  • Jan. 14, 1994: Ukraine, Russia, and the United States sign the Trilateral Statement
    • Ukraine commits to full disarmament, including strategic offensive weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia
  • Sept. 4, 1993: Massandra Accords
    • Failed summit between Russian and Ukrainian governments
  • Dec. 5, 1994: Russia, Ukraine, United States, and the United Kingdom sign the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
    • Includes security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence
  • Dec. 5, 1994: Ukraine submits its instrument of accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state
    • The five START parties exchange instruments of ratification for START, which enters into force
  • June 1, 1996: Ukraine transfers its last nuclear warhead to Russia
  • October 30, 2001: Ukraine eliminates its last strategic nuclear weapon delivery vehicle
  • Dec. 4, 2009: Joint Statement by Russia and the United States
    • The two countries confirm the security guarantees made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum
  • March 18, 2014: Russia annexes Ukraine's Crimean peninsula and provides supports an ongoing insurrection by separatist forces in the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk provinces of Ukraine.
  • Late 2021 to early 2022: Russia engages in "military exercises" with a force estimated to exceed 150,000 military personnel involving land-, sea-, and air-based weaponry on the northern, eastern, and southern borders of Ukraine raising fears of an invasion by Russia.
  • February 24, 2022: Russia began a large-scale military attack and invasion of Ukraine, with planes and missile launcher attacks on Ukrainian cities, airports, and military infrastructure across much of the country.

Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons, and Security Assurances at a Glance | Arms Control Association

Yes; there were stuff ups all right but it wasn't TRUMP at all. PLEASE put the "blame" where it belongs; that's on Putin of course but also on the wrong decisions of the Democrats.

Greg
 

Should the US provide enough long-range weaponry to cut off the Russian supply lines and drive them out of Ukraine​

The US should spend money on its own citizens so they won't need to rob banks and shoot up the schools and shopping malls.
 
Do you have grandchildren that you love; how well do you think they will do fighting a war in Arctic Winter Hell.

Not one more dime means (obviously) not one soldier.

If Europeans want to slaughter each other ... not our table.
 
Ukraine should be given everything they need. Right now it’s the bulwark of democracy, since Trump has decided to take us out of that role. Europe and much of the world has joined together in opposition to Putin and Trump. One positive thing I do have to say is, Trump is a uniter!
 
It is their fight, if they wish to fight it. I would continue material support.

So with "long range weaponry" I'm assuming you have no problem with Ukraine lobbing American-made missiles into Russia? And Russia is going to turn tail and run away, instead of retaliating?

Geez you guys and girls suck at war. So what's going to happen when Ukraine runs out of bodies to throw into the meat grinder? And who's going to pay for all that "long range weaponry"?
 
With no elections.

Democrat version of democracy?
Hard to hold elections when 20% of your country is under siege. There are no real calls for elections, anyway. Most parties are united behind Zelensky. My version of democracy doesn’t involve the US backing an invading dictator. That’s Munich ‘38 level idiocy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom