The U.S. Needs To Act Against Russian Threat To Ukraine!

[Vrenn]

He will shuffle out of office if he can find the door. Why is Brandon and Kamila concerned about the Ukranian border? What about our southern border? Are they that fkn stupid.

They have found absolutely zero nukes being smuggled in from the south. But it's verified that Russia has thousands of Nukes. One is an inconvenience while the other may mean the end of the world. One can be just deported while the other uses their Nukes to threaten the world for the bad deeds.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Well there is certainly a difference between desperate refugees and job hunters trying to cross our Southern border looking for work and a better life … and a possible invasion by armored troops.

But the bottom line is we should seriously seek a way to tamp down Russian and Ukrainian mutual paranoia. The U.S.-supported 2014 Maidan “Revolution” overthrew a corrupt (but fairly elected!) government which had supported a neutral policy for Ukraine and rejected joining any military alliance. At the time a solid majority of Ukrainians opposed joining NATO.

Since then Putin has become increasingly paranoid about larger Western plans, and Ukraine has become paranoid about Russian plans after Russian-speaking Donbas seceded and autonomous Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

There is a diplomatic way out of this mess, but it would require a lot of finessing and probably even secret memorandums of understanding. NATO doesn’t want to lose face, but most West Europeans understandably don’t want Ukraine as a member, for that would probably lead to getting caught in an endless proxy war between the U.S. and Russia. Unfortunately the distant U.S. has little to lose and a chance to gain much in encouraging a conflict. Will wiser statesmanship prevail?

 

[Mushroom]

Well there is certainly a difference between desperate refugees and job hunters trying to cross our Southern border looking for work and a better life and a possible invasion by armored troops.

Really? We are facing an invasion by armored troops?
Not only do I find that completely unbelievable, I fail to see what it has to do with Ukraine.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Really? We are facing an invasion by armored troops?
Not only do I find that completely unbelievable, I fail to see what it has to do with Ukraine.

Let me be clearer: The only conceivable threat of an “invasion by armored troops” is … to Ukraine. This OP is about … Russia & Ukraine.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There would be many willing people and countries in Latin America to help the germans. And of course the fifth column.

American Nazis in the 1930s—The German American Bund

In the United States, the German American Bund, an American Nazi organization, was formed in 1936, and soon grew to have tens of thousands of members.

www.theatlantic.com

I guess you figure there would be no US Navy...?

 

[DudleySmith]

Don't know whose reports to beleive. I'm hearing '120,000 Russian troops' on Ukraine's border to the Ukraine reporting '265,000 and more coming'. Since Russians would need over 300,000 or more at a minimum to come close to a successful invasion, if its the first number I wouldn't be concerned. If the later number then yes, he might really to go for it.

 

[DudleySmith]

The main part of Lend-Lease began to go after Stalingrad. I hope you've heard about this city and know the importance of events for the war that took place in and around it? In Soviet history, the Battle of Stalingrad was the beginning of a radical turning point in the war. If you think that without lend-lease, the USSR would have lost the war, then be sure that without the USSR, the United States would have been conquered by the Germans and the Japanese.

lol rubbish. Churchhill saved you from collapse at Moscow. Stalingrad was rubble. You're lucky Hitler was a moron and the Japanese allowed you to live in exchange for oil shipments and freed over a million men for the battle for Moscow, and even then it was Churchhill's shipment of tanks that saved the day. It was also Churchhill who convinced FDR to feed and clothe you. Instead of statues to Lenin and Stalin you should be putting up monuments to Churchhill and FDR.

 

[Mac-7]

It has been reported in the Washington Post (on Dec. 3 of this year) that American intelligence is assessing the ultimate size of the Russian military force amassing on the Ukrainian border at one-hundred and seventy-five thousand troops the number is already over 100K, many people think this is an omen that the country of Russia will invade Ukraine and annex it. The world has already seen how Russian President Putin stole Ukrainian territory in Russia's military conquest of Crimea in the last ten years; the media has well reported that Vladimir Putin doesn't think of Ukraine as a sovereign country but rather as part of Mother Russia. Wisdom calls for acting like Russia's invasion of Ukraine is imminent. Now America has this segment of Americans that says we shouldn't funnel huge amounts of military equipment to the country of Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression because doing so will provoke Russian Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine because he will argue that America massively arming the Ukrainian army poses a security threat to Russia because Ukraine is on Russia's border so Russia has to invade and conquer Ukraine to eliminate this military threat. The proper thinking on this issue is we're past the stage of worrying about provoking Putin his amassing 175K troops on Ukrainian border should be interpreted that he is intending to invade and conquer Ukraine.

I am not a military expert and have no background in the military but I believe that America should be outstandingly generous in giving military equipment to Ukraine in order to help that country defend itself, be outstandingly accommodating to the Ukraine military leadership's request for assistance in this area. My reasoning is that the Ukrainian people are a good people over the last ten years with this ongoing Russian conflict America has had many contacts with the Ukrainian people and learned they are a good people that deserve their sovereign rights that being the right to their own country. Further, with the world struggling to come out of the Covid 19 pandemic with European countries trying to rebuild their economies which took a terrible hit from this disease the last thing in the world Europe needs is Russia conducting military expansionism and taking over the huge European country of Ukraine. Plus, the world doesn't need to go backwards to Cold War times with a Russian Empire in Eastern Europe America needs to make an outstanding effort to not go back to this security nightmare!

In regards to the issue of whether or not U.S. military personnel should be utilized to defend the country of Ukraine from a military attack from Russia. Ordinarily, I would say no the country of Ukraine is the Ukrainian citizens country it is not the American citizens country American men and women should not give their life defending Ukraine sovereignty it is the Ukrainian citizens duty to make this sacrifice. If America had a Treaty or Treaty like obligation to Ukraine that would be a different story, obviously Ukraine isn't in the Nato alliance so there is no Nato Treaty obligation; there is a matter of an agreement between America in conjunction with a whole bunch of other countries and the country of Ukraine to get Ukraine to disarm all nuclear weapons after the Cold War ended, I don't know the details of that agreement so I have no comment on that issue. But I do think that at the present time the times are extraordinary which does warrant America getting involved in a military conflict related to Russia invading Ukraine albeit in a limited manner. The reasoning goes like this if Russia invades and conquers Ukraine that is going to create a gigantic tidal wave of refugees flooding into Europe, the refugee numbers will range in the hundreds of thousands if not millions not only will this cause grave economic hardship on European countries but this will cause division between these countries (because some countries will not take these refugees or as many that need to be taken) likely so severe that it could threaten the NATO military alliance this cannot be allowed to happen America needs NATO to exist and be a strong and reliable alliance, no other option can be tolerated, so America must act on this Russia invasion matter to protect and preserve the NATO alliance. Specifically what is meant here is not deploying U.S. ground troops on Ukrainian soil what is meant here is if the Russian military invades Ukraine, U.S. air power will be used to slow, weaken and hopefully stop the invasion. U.S. air planes should be used to bomb the advancing Russian tank and troop columns; the Ukrainian military is at least a respectable modern military (they've comported themselves well in the fighting on the Eastern Ukraine border against the Russian proxies over the last eight years) with U.S. air power assistance they should be able to at least stop any Russian military invasion if not repel it out of the country of Ukraine!

Picket the german embassy and demand to know why they are assisting rissia instead of the ukraine

 

[Ringo]

lol rubbish. Churchhill saved you from collapse at Moscow. Stalingrad was rubble. You're lucky Hitler was a moron and the Japanese allowed you to live in exchange for oil shipments and freed over a million men for the battle for Moscow, and even then it was Churchhill's shipment of tanks that saved the day. It was also Churchhill who convinced FDR to feed and clothe you. Instead of statues to Lenin and Stalin you should be putting up monuments to Churchhill and FDR.

I would laugh at this idiotic statement, but you can only laugh at a clown in a circus because he pretends to be an idiot. When a person doesn't pretend to be an idiot, it's sad.

 

[Ringo]

This is how capitalist scum used to solve their financial problems - to start a war and write off their debts to it. Bastards.

 

[Markle]

I'll throw this out for anyone with an answer.

What stratigic interest do we have in Ukraine?

Why are the borders of Ukraine so important to the far-left that they are willing to risk nuclear war?

Why are their borders worth war, but not our own?

 

[Silver Cat]

Which would make them instant war criminals. Are you not aware that the use of flame weapons is banned under the Geneva Convention?

It is banned to use against civilian targets. It's OK to use it against military and paramilitary ones. Anyway, Russia successfully used it in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria, other conflicts.

 

[Silver Cat]

Why do you think the submarines have to be in the North Atlantic? The Trident missiles have a range of more than 7500 miles.

It is correct only for minimal payload and launch from West to East on equator. Real situation is a bit more complicated. Exact numbers are, of course, classified, but Trident II with more or less typical payload, from, say, Hawaii, can attack only targets in Russian Far East, for example Vladivostok, and, may be, Khabarovsk.

 

[Markle]

They have found absolutely zero nukes being smuggled in from the south. But it's verified that Russia has thousands of Nukes. One is an inconvenience while the other may mean the end of the world. One can be just deported while the other uses their Nukes to threaten the world for the bad deeds.

That's all fine and dandy. The problem with your diminishing the importance of our Southern border is that millions of illegal aliens have entered our country. They are then being dispersed around our country. Those invaders are coming from dozens of countries including China. They are allowed to use arrest warrants for identification.

Drugs too are flooding across the border including the deadly Fentenal. A drug causing thousands, tens of thousands of lives each year.

Do you believe all those people illegally crossing our borders are the best and the brightest from those countries?

Out of curiosity, what stratigic importance is Ukraine to our country?

 

[Ringo]

The day before, Washington and Brussels sent a written response to Moscow's proposals.
"There is no positive reaction on the main issue in this document. The main issue is our clear position on the inadmissibility of further expansion of NATO to the east and the deployment of strike weapons that could threaten the territory of the Russian Federation," the Russian Foreign Minister said.

At the same time, the Foreign Minister stressed that the United States deliberately ignores the principle of indivisibility of security, when the peaceful existence of one state cannot be achieved by creating a threat to another.

"It is significant that now, when our Western colleagues react to our proposals to agree on legally binding guarantees in the Euro-Atlantic, they always call for the implementation of the agreed principles concerning the security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic. They immediately say: this means that NATO has the right to expand, no one has the right to prohibit NATO members from considering appeals from any other country," Lavrov said.

The minister added that Moscow intends to continue to focus on explaining Washington's false position on the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance.
"If the 1990s were explained to us by the lack of written commitments on non-expansion of NATO. Now we have these written commitments. They have been confirmed within the OSCE more than once, including at the highest level," he said.

Commitments are not a menu

Lavrov also called unacceptable the position of the United States, which considers the commitments made within the OSCE exclusively as a menu from which they choose only what is "delicious" for them. The Foreign Minister added that he had pointed this out to his American counterpart Anthony Blinken, but he did not answer and only shrugged his shoulders.

"I warned him, as well as our other colleagues, that in the very near future we will send them an official request demanding to explain why they are pulling only one item out of their own obligations, and they are trying to ignore the conditions of compliance with this beloved item for them. This will be an official request to all countries whose leaders signed the Istanbul and Astana Declarations. I hope that in this case it will not take much time to explain why the West takes this position," the minister promised.

The head of Russian diplomacy stressed that Moscow will consider Washington's response to the proposals on security guarantees in conjunction with the reaction of NATO, which was received at the same time.

Possible leakage

Lavrov added that, apparently, the contents of the US response will soon become known to the public.

"As our American colleagues have told us, although they prefer that the document remain for confidential diplomatic dialogue, but it has been agreed with all US allies and with the Ukrainian side. Therefore, I have no doubt that it will "leak" in the very near future—" he noted.

Exactly how Moscow will react to Washington's actions, according to Lavrov, will be determined personally by Vladimir Putin.

"After the interdepartmental coordination, we will report to the president, and the president will decide on our next steps," the minister stressed.

The Ukrainian issue and negotiations with the West
In recent months, relations between Russia and the West have become even more tense. Washington and Brussels accuse Moscow of preparing an "invasion" of Ukraine and are strengthening their presence in Eastern Europe.

The United States told about the content of the responses to Russia's demands

Moscow rejects all claims, emphasizing that they are moving troops within their territories. The Russian side also recalls that Ukraine does not comply with the Minsk agreements providing for a ceasefire. Now Kiev has concentrated half of the army personnel on the border with the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR and regularly fires at the militia, including with the use of prohibited equipment.

The Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry have repeatedly pointed out that the purpose of the "aggression" stuffing is to build up a foreign group near the Russian borders. They also explained that the main reason for the escalation is the actions of the United States and NATO, which are "pumping" Ukraine with weapons, thereby pushing it to military adventures.

At these condition, at the end of last year, Moscow handed over to Brussels and Washington draft documents on security guarantees. Russia insists on ending the bloc's military cooperation with post-soviet countries, refusing to establish bases on their territory, limiting the deployment of strike weapons near the Russian border, exporting American nuclear weapons from Europe and not expanding NATO to the east.

 

[Indeependent]

I'll throw this out for anyone with an answer.

What stratigic interest do we have in Ukraine?

Why are the borders of Ukraine so important to the far-left that they are willing to risk nuclear war?

Why are their borders worth war, but not our own?

I won't pretend to know myself but almost all the people I know who have global financial interests say Ukraine is an artificial entity that the US need not help at the moment.
They say Russia has no intent to inflict damage on a piece of land it considers an asset.

 

[Vrenn]

That's all fine and dandy. The problem with your diminishing the importance of our Southern border is that millions of illegal aliens have entered our country. They are then being dispersed around our country. Those invaders are coming from dozens of countries including China. They are allowed to use arrest warrants for identification.

Drugs too are flooding across the border including the deadly Fentenal. A drug causing thousands, tens of thousands of lives each year.

Do you believe all those people illegally crossing our borders are the best and the brightest from those countries?

Out of curiosity, what stratigic importance is Ukraine to our country?

I stopped reading about half way down. You are just repeating the junk that your "Handlers" tell you to say. I am retired USAF with a bunch of years in Strategic Air Command. You are playing the old "Hey, look over there".

 

[gipper]

That's all fine and dandy. The problem with your diminishing the importance of our Southern border is that millions of illegal aliens have entered our country. They are then being dispersed around our country. Those invaders are coming from dozens of countries including China. They are allowed to use arrest warrants for identification.

Drugs too are flooding across the border including the deadly Fentenal. A drug causing thousands, tens of thousands of lives each year.

Do you believe all those people illegally crossing our borders are the best and the brightest from those countries?

Out of curiosity, what stratigic importance is Ukraine to our country?

Ukraine is of no interest to the American people. Strategic importance only matters to those in the MIC and they find strategic importance everywhere, so that they can start a war to enrich and empower themselves. It’s a tactic as old as the hills.

 

[Markle]

I stopped reading about half way down. You are just repeating the junk that your "Handlers" tell you to say. I am retired USAF with a bunch of years in Strategic Air Command. You are playing the old "Hey, look over there".

Help me then, specifically what did I post which is not fact?

 

[Markle]

Ukraine is of no interest to the American people. Strategic importance only matters to those in the MIC and they find strategic importance everywhere, so that they can start a war to enrich and empower themselves. It’s a tactic as old as the hills.

I agree. I hate to see Russia expanding into the Soviet Union, or whatever, once again but threatening Russia with putting troops on the ground is foolhardy.