CDZ Was Announcing No U.S. Troops in Ukraine a Mistake?

[jwoodie]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while our energy costs will skyrocket.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

 

[JoeMoma]

IDK, it's way above my pay grade. Don't want to see Americans coming home in body bags though.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Yes, no different than showing the other players your poker hand.

 

[Donald H]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while we pay more at the pump.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

You could ask the same question on Russia sending troops to Iraq to fight alongside the Iraqi people against America. Or Afghanistan or any of America's many wars?

Wouldn't the question apply equally to the Vietnam war in which either China or Russia could have sent troops and military support to the people of Vietnam?

Why are you asking such questions at this late date?

 

[jwoodie]

Why are you asking such questions at this late date?

Because this is a current problem that some of us might learn from. You are excused for the rest of the day.

 

[Donald H]

Because this is a current problem that some of us might learn from. You are excused for the rest of the day.

I think everybody is quite well aware of the situation that's been created, in which the war has certain definite rules that apply. Unlike any full out war.

 

[Augustine_]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while our energy costs will skyrocket.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

I think they said it to get it out of the way because the pro-war factions in this country would be blasting him for not sending troops in to start WW3 right now. Troops can always be sent anyways since the word of our government is meaningless.

 

[badbob85037]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while our energy costs will skyrocket.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

That's how biden played it.

 

[candycorn]

no

 

[jwoodie]

I think everybody is quite well aware of the situation that's been created, in which the war has certain definite rules that apply. Unlike any full out war.

1. So do you favor a U.S./NATO no-fly zone over the Ukraine? (Russia already has one.) If yes, how should it be enforced and from where?

2. Do you favor sending military supplies to Ukraine? If yes, how and where should they be delivered?

3. Do you favor an embargo of Russian energy imports? Wouldn't a steep tariff do less damage to our economy? (Or would that be too Trumpian?)

Thanks for sharing your insights.

 

[Slade3200]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while our energy costs will skyrocket.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

Well stated, I agree with much of what you said

 

[Circe]

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

It seems to me the question is, is saving Ukraine worth fighting a shooting war with Russia?

Because 1. Ukraine is going to lose, soon, and 2. Nobody in Europe is so crazy as to fight Russia for Ukraine, so it's us or nobody.

So we announced no, no war with Russia over Ukraine, but that we would put on sanctions. The sanctions are a lot worse than anyone expected. However, sanctions have never worked against any large country (except during the Suez crisis, apparently -- probably for other reasons, such as Britain always wanting to keep us as close allies). They didn't work on Italy, Japan, or Germany. They are not working right now against Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea: nothing has changed in all these years since the sanctions were put on. So I doubt even these severe sanctions will work against Russia, and besides ---- the only thing that really matters is the oil sold to Europe by Russia, and Europe refuses to include that! AND because of the sanctions, oil is rising rapidly in price and Russia gets all that money --- because of the sanctions! And is rapidly overwhelming Ukraine anyway.

So does anyone think we should send the American Army to fight for Ukraine?

 

[Donald H]

1. So do you favor a U.S./NATO no-fly zone over the Ukraine? (Russia already has one.) If yes, how should it be enforced and from where?

No, I don't and that's because it would be breaking the established rules of this war.

2. Do you favor sending military supplies to Ukraine? If yes, how and where should they be delivered?

The appropriate question is: Do I favour a war in which rules are applied that benefit each side? No, I don't because in war there are no rules that actually apply. But according to the Geneva Convention, some rules are supposed to apply. There's no need to discuss that which should be understood.

3. Do you favor an embargo of Russian energy imports? Wouldn't a steep tariff do less damage to our economy? (Or would that be too Trumpian?)

Everything is fair in love and war. And of course one side will apply as much pain and suffering on the other side as it possibly can. Bearing in mind that with this very unusual war, there are rules that apply that must not be violated.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

I hope my answers help. I find it quite simple to understand and I don't envision any other possible answers.

Good on you woodie for asking the questions!

 

[jwoodie]

So does anyone think we should send the American Army to fight for Ukraine?

If we did not have an Alzheimer's patient as Commander in Chief, I would support a small U.S. force in western Ukraine as a show of support for Ukraine and notice to Putin that it is not simply his for the taking. This could not be construed seriously as a direct threat to Russia (although Putin would try to claim it).

This type of "tripwire" worked very successfully to deter the USSR during the Cold War, and there is no reason why it would not be successful in the present circumstances. That being said, Ukraine appears to be a corrupt country which should not have been considered for NATO membership. At this point, it should become a neutral country (like Finland) or else partitioned into two countries (like Czechoslovakia).

 

[Circe]

The appropriate question is: Do I favour a war in which rules are applied that benefit each side? No, I don't because in war there are no rules that actually apply. But according to the Geneva Convention, some rules are supposed to apply. There's no need to discuss that which should be understood.

Everything is fair in love and war. And of course one side will apply as much pain and suffering on the other side as it possibly can. Bearing in mind that with this very unusual war, there are rules that apply that must not be violated.

I don't know what you mean; you say that there are no rules that actually apply: of course not. People do what they hope will win. Whatever that is.

But then you say there are rules that must not be violated. What rules are you referring to?

 

[Circe]

If we did not have an Alzheimer's patient as Commander in Chief, I would support a small U.S. force in western Ukraine as a show of support for Ukraine and notice to Putin that it is not simply his for the taking. This could not be construed seriously as a direct threat to Russia (although Putin would try to claim it).

This type of "tripwire" worked very successfully to deter the USSR during the Cold War, and there is no reason why it would not be successful in the present circumstances.

I hate the concept and actuality of tripwire troops, but I know they have worked in South Korea.
It seems to me that adding American forces during an active war is a simple and obvious casus belli ---- wouldn't Putin nuke us at once?

 

[jwoodie]

It seems to me that adding American forces during an active war is a simple and obvious casus belli ---- wouldn't Putin nuke us at once?

This is what Putin would like us to think, but it is no more likely than the U.S. nuking Russia. The idea of being opposed by a "crazy man" is no more than a negotiating technique. Trump used it quite effectively against our adversaries.

 

[Circe]

This is what Putin would like us to think, but it is no more likely than the U.S. nuking Russia. The idea of being opposed by a "crazy man" is no more than a negotiating technique. Trump used it quite effectively against our adversaries.

So you would be in favor of our fighting for Ukraine.

Why us, and not Europeans? Isn't it more their business than ours?

 

[Slade3200]

It seems to me the question is, is saving Ukraine worth fighting a shooting war with Russia?

Because 1. Ukraine is going to lose, soon, and 2. Nobody in Europe is so crazy as to fight Russia for Ukraine, so it's us or nobody.

So we announced no, no war with Russia over Ukraine, but that we would put on sanctions. The sanctions are a lot worse than anyone expected. However, sanctions have never worked against any large country (except during the Suez crisis, apparently -- probably for other reasons, such as Britain always wanting to keep us as close allies). They didn't work on Italy, Japan, or Germany. They are not working right now against Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea: nothing has changed in all these years since the sanctions were put on. So I doubt even these severe sanctions will work against Russia, and besides ---- the only thing that really matters is the oil sold to Europe by Russia, and Europe refuses to include that! AND because of the sanctions, oil is rising rapidly in price and Russia gets all that money --- because of the sanctions! And is rapidly overwhelming Ukraine anyway.

So does anyone think we should send the American Army to fight for Ukraine?

I don’t think our troops should be front line but I’d be all for sending equipment and personal into safe zones to help, train, supply and strategize a strong defense for Ukraine. This is more than just protecting Ukraine. We are the world superpower. We should not allow Russia to do what they are doing. That’s just simple right vs wrong

 

[night_son]

Please read before emoting.
1. Russia invaded another country allegedly friendly to the U.S. (but not in NATO).
2. We immediately announced that we will not send any U.S. troops to help that country defend itself, and will only act in concert with other NATO countries.
3. NATO is only a mutual self defense treaty between NATO countries.
4. Ukraine is not in NATO, but we announce that the Russian invasion is an act of war against all freedom-loving countries and start taking economic steps to harm the Russian economy.
5. Russia will now sell it energy resources to other countries while our energy costs will skyrocket.

Doesn't it seem unwise to have announced, in advance, that no U.S. troops would to the Ukraine? Didn't that give Russia a green light to invade that country without any consideration of military opposition from other countries? Are we in a war or not? If so, who are we fighting? If not, why are we hurting our own economy?

In retrospect we should have placed, at the invitation of the Ukrainian government, a small contingent of U.S. forces inside the western portion of Ukraine to at least protect a military airfield from which Ukrainian pilots in Ukrainian airplanes could operate. Instead, we have established a de facto hands-off policy where Russia is free to roam the Ukrainian landscape while we cower in fear of possible contact with its troops.

This has now led to clamoring for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Has no one considered the consequences of shooting down Russian aircraft from NATO countries? At least Poland seems to realize the perils of this foolhardy scheme by sending its Russian-built airplanes out of the country. Now the U.S. can decide what to do with them, which is little or nothing. Either way, it will only serve to make the U.S. and NATO look even weaker than they already are.

Comments?

Rest assured certain small, specialized US military units have been operating there, in the Ukraine, since day one of the Russian invasion. Beyond that, both sides knew in advance the consequences of the US stationing large numbers of ground troops inside Ukraine in the shadow of impending Russian invasion. All of that being said, it is not uncommon in modern times for US and Russian troops to be operating in the same theater of war, as they have been doing for years in Syria.