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

[Rigby5]

Why did they occupy Eastern Europe for 45 years?
Germany was the only country that invaded them.

Russia rebuilt those Warsaw Pact countries, at great expense, and wanted simply to keep them from becoming NATO, since NATO declared itself to be anti-Russian.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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!

Why the Ukraine and not other countries that need it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Russians never invaded anyone I know of.
They were totally defensive, and lost about 35 million people when Germany invaded in WWII.
Before WWII, there were conflicts cause by the White Russian imperialists.

They totally invaded Finland.

 

[Rigby5]

They totally invaded Finland.

Good point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Russia rebuilt those Warsaw Pact countries, at great expense

Oh, enslaving them was okay, because they did some crappy commie reconstruction. LOL!

and wanted simply to keep them from becoming NATO

NATO hadn't been created yet. Are you saying without NATO, Russia would have freed them in the 50s?

since NATO declared itself to be anti-Russian.

Well, Russia had just enslaved a bunch of their neighbors, should the West have just ignored that?

 

[Rigby5]

Oh, enslaving them was okay, because they did some crappy commie reconstruction. LOL!

and wanted simply to keep them from becoming NATO

NATO hadn't been created yet. Are you saying without NATO, Russia would have freed them in the 50s?

since NATO declared itself to be anti-Russian.

Well, Russia had just enslaved a bunch of their neighbors, should the West have just ignored that?

No Warsaw Pact country was "enslaved".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No Warsaw Pact country was "enslaved".

Liar.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No Warsaw Pact country was "enslaved".

Well, being told what to do by the USSR certainly looked like being "enslaved"

 

[Silver Cat]

They totally invaded Finland.

From the Russian point of view, it was self-defence. Finland attacked their Border guard near village Mainilla and Finnish infiltrators attacked Soviet units.

 

[Silver Cat]

Liar.

Depends of your definition of the word 'enslaved'. The Russians act with other nations as good, as they act with themselves (if not better).

 

[frigidweirdo]

From the Russian point of view, it was self-defence. Finland attacked their Border guard near village Mainilla and Finnish infiltrators attacked Soviet units.

Yeah right.... It's amazing how the USSR wanted to attack Finland and then suddenly Finland "attacks the USSR"..... People say it was a false flag operation

Winter War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Research conducted by several Finnish and Russian historians later concluded that the shelling was a false flag operation, because there were no artillery units placed there at the time, and it was carried out from the Soviet side of the border by an NKVD unit with the purpose of providing the Soviet Union with a casus belli and a pretext to withdraw from the non-aggression pact."

There are sources there, but from books, so can't be posted here.

 

[Silver Cat]

Oh, enslaving them was okay, because they did some crappy commie reconstruction. LOL!

and wanted simply to keep them from becoming NATO

NATO hadn't been created yet.

NATO was created in April 1949, WP - in May, 1955.

Are you saying without NATO, Russia would have freed them in the 50s?

Yes. As well as the Soviet forces leaved Austria, Finland and Yugoslavia after their promise to be neutral.

since NATO declared itself to be anti-Russian.

Well, Russia had just enslaved a bunch of their neighbors, should the West have just ignored that?

The West enslaved much more - significant parts of Asia, Africa and America.

 

[AlexanderPK]

They totally invaded Finland.

So? It was do or die thing. Who cared about Finns at the time? After all Finland was part of the Russian empire only a few decades earlier.
The West had been bending over the whole world for centuries without experiencing any remorse. Now you’re all saints all of a sudden.

 

[Silver Cat]

Yeah right.... It's amazing how the USSR wanted to attack Finland and then suddenly Finland "attacks the USSR"..... People say it was a false flag operation

Winter War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Research conducted by several Finnish and Russian historians later concluded that the shelling was a false flag operation, because there were no artillery units placed there at the time, and it was carried out from the Soviet side of the border by an NKVD unit with the purpose of providing the Soviet Union with a casus belli and a pretext to withdraw from the non-aggression pact."

There are sources there, but from books, so can't be posted here.

And another people said, that it was a well made provocation, which forced still not prepared Russians attack already prepared and totally mobilized Finns in the least favorable for the Russians time.
Both sides do not have proves.

 

[Silver Cat]

So? It was do or die thing. Who cared about Finns at the time? After all Finland was part of the Russian empire only a few decades earlier.
The West had been bending over the whole world for centuries without experiencing any remorse. Now you’re all saints all of a sudden.

Anyway, Leningrad as a political, industrial and military center was much more important than few almost inhabited regions of Karelia.
Even in our history blockade of Leningrad cost at least 2 million of Soviet lives in Leningrad itself and unknown number on other fronts, which didn't get Leningrad's military production.

Let's play the game - you can change the past:
1) You can totally win the Winter War. Soviet Finland bravely fight against the Germans, there is no blockade of Leningrad, at least two millions of Soviet citizens are saved, Leningrad's production - weapons, tanks, munitions, etc, help to end the war against Germany earlier (say, in August 1944), and against Japan - in April 1945 (preventing all those unnecessary American and Japan deaths).
2) You can prevent the Winter War. In this case German and Finnish forces capture Leningrad and totally destroy it in September 1941. It costs Soviets 3 million lives, war against Germany ended in August 1945, against Japan - in March 1946 with millions of unnecessary death of Japans and Americans.

What would you choose?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So? It was do or die thing. Who cared about Finns at the time? After all Finland was part of the Russian empire only a few decades earlier.
The West had been bending over the whole world for centuries without experiencing any remorse. Now you’re all saints all of a sudden.

A do or die thing? As if the Finns were going to kill the USSR..... what the f***?

I don't get your post in the slightest. Someone made a statement that was not true. To try and back up their untrue statement they made another lie. Now it's emotional nonsense instead of argument.

Russia invaded Finland with a false flag to justify it. Simple as. We don't need emotion here. This is HISTORY.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And another people said, that it was a well made provocation, which forced still not prepared Russians attack already prepared and totally mobilized Finns in the least favorable for the Russians time.
Both sides do not have proves.

And why would the Finns attack the USSR? They had nothing to gain. The USSR was putting pressure on Finland. They told them to give up land or else. And the "or else" happened.

The reality is larger countries bully smaller countries. The USSR had invaded eastern Poland, it was easy. They had gone into Mongolia. They were aggressive already by this time. They weren't ready. But they thought they could whip Finland's ass. They were wrong.

 

[AlexanderPK]

A do or die thing? As if the Finns were going to kill the USSR..... what the f***?

I don't get your post in the slightest. Someone made a statement that was not true. To try and back up their untrue statement they made another lie. Now it's emotional nonsense instead of argument.

Russia invaded Finland with a false flag to justify it. Simple as. We don't need emotion here. This is HISTORY.

That's the problem with you. You don't get nothing in our history. You're taught that the USA won the war while Russians were "lazing on a Sunday afternoon" all the time. False flag or true, the USSR needed that strip of land to guard itself from the coming inevitable war with Germany and Finland was as good as a jumping-off-ground for Germans at the time. Besides, everything coming from you is emotional nonsense. Is there a point in having an argument? If Tucker Carlson, one of the few remaining sensible men in America can't din into your heads that guarding your southern boarders is more important than wasting money on Ukraine, whose location on the map is dimly known to most, the only thing left for me is being emotional.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From the Russian point of view, it was self-defence. Finland attacked their Border guard near village Mainilla and Finnish infiltrators attacked Soviet units.

From the Russian point of view, it was self-defence.

And you believed that? LOL!

Cut back on the vodka. It's making you dumber.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Anyway, Leningrad as a political, industrial and military center was much more important than few almost inhabited regions of Karelia.
Even in our history blockade of Leningrad cost at least 2 million of Soviet lives in Leningrad itself and unknown number on other fronts, which didn't get Leningrad's military production.

Let's play the game - you can change the past:
1) You can totally win the Winter War. Soviet Finland bravely fight against the Germans, there is no blockade of Leningrad, at least two millions of Soviet citizens are saved, Leningrad's production - weapons, tanks, munitions, etc, help to end the war against Germany earlier (say, in August 1944), and against Japan - in April 1945 (preventing all those unnecessary American and Japan deaths).
2) You can prevent the Winter War. In this case German and Finnish forces capture Leningrad and totally destroy it in September 1941. It costs Soviets 3 million lives, war against Germany ended in August 1945, against Japan - in March 1946 with millions of unnecessary death of Japans and Americans.

What would you choose?

Of course I'd choose 1, and something like that really happened, except it wasn't easy to totally win. Finns were fighting for their own after all and fighting hard, you could give them that. And even having won the war and taking the land that was needed the USSR almost lost Leningrad. Without that there would have been your number 2 scenario. I don't see your point, to be honest. My thought was exactly as yours.