Explosions in Kiev

[jesmu84]

You are partially right. They should have had more weapons years ago. I'd advise reviewing the history of the last several years to see when/where/why we largely abandoned Ukraine.

+1

[jesmu84]

The world is the same amount of safe if Putin annexes Ukraine.  If he expands to the Baltic states or Poland, then everything changes.  The world teeters on the edge of destruction.

Being patient is usually the best response.  What does rushing in to defend Ukraine and potentially ending the world solve?  Nothing.  Ukraine is still destroyed along with everyone and every thing on this planet.

Do you not understand how nuclear weapons work, or what Mutually Assured Destruction is?  Don't be so flippant.

Over-reactionary is not the mindset one should hold in this situation.

[Pakuni]

Do you not understand how nuclear weapons work, or what Mutually Assured Destruction is?  Don't be so flippant.

But isn't this exactly why we shouldn't be too afraid of helping Ukraine?
There's no upside I can see for the Russians to use nukes. They love their power and their wealth, and will protect it at all costs. Both vanish with the use of nukes.
Again, Putin is a very bad man, but he's not some doomsday cultist or religious fanatic who sees the end of times as a positive outcome.

[Hards Alumni]

But isn't this exactly why we shouldn't be too afraid of helping Ukraine?
There's no upside I can see for the Russians to use nukes. They love their power and their wealth, and will protect it at all costs. Both vanish with the use of nukes.
Again, Putin is a very bad man, but he's not some doomsday cultist or religious fanatic who sees the end of times as a positive outcome.

You don't see him as someone who is feeling more isolated from the world and backed into a corner? 

When was the last time two nuclear powers engaged in a conventional war?  Never.  And when one side starts to lose that fight, or is faced with a crushing defeat, are you confident that they wouldn't launch a tactical nuclear weapon to even the odds?

They'd certainly try to bring the West down with them if defeat was certain and they knew they'd spend their lives in prison.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

You are partially right. They should have had more weapons years ago. I'd advise reviewing the history of the last several years to see when/where/why we largely abandoned Ukraine.

I was talking to a colleague the other day who grew up in the USSR before his country became independent. He was watching some of the Russian TV, since he speaks Russian, to see what Putin was saying in his full interviews speeches.

Putin's stance is the following: (I haven't looked into the validity of anything, just referencing what my colleague says is in his speeches/interviews on Russian TV).
1. They tried diplomacy, and were repeatedly promised that NATO would not expand further East, and then time and time again, they expanded further, including to countries on their border. Placing advanced weaponry on the Russian border.

2. He asks why NATO still exists, and expands on the borders of Russia if NATO is not supposed to be a direct threat to Russia, as the West claims.

3. He emphasizes that unlike NATO countries, Russia has never invaded any countries...with the caveat that they only take military action in separatist states that were part of Russia.

Essentially, when his loyalist government fell in 2014 in Ukraine, they had to act to secure what is left of Russian power, or possibly be the next target by the West, where they would be surrounded by NATO countries. At least that is the argument they are making.

I find it kind of interesting to see the opposing perspective of what is going on in the world.

And that's the problem and why he is delusional in thought.
1. NATO never promised not to expand East.  It's s false narrative that was never promised. 
2. NATO still exists because Russia can never be trusted.  Putin just proved it.  it's a DEFENSIVE organization not an offensive organization.  I read a story last week that Yeltsin questioned Clinton why are you expanding NATO and Clinton replied that we can trust you, but how can we be sure to trust the next Russian leader.
3.  Ukraine was never a part of Russia, voluntarily.  It actually was the Soviet Union, not Russia.  No Eastern European country wanted to be a part of the eastern block voluntarily either.

My Polish in-laws live 40 miles from the Belarus border and are only somewhat nervous.
My father-in-law keeps telling my wife that the only thing Putin and Russians will understand is bullets and everyone knows the US has bigger ones than Russian so better to put to use now before things are more precarious later.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

You don't see him as someone who is feeling more isolated from the world and backed into a corner? 

When was the last time two nuclear powers engaged in a conventional war?  Never.  And when one side starts to lose that fight, or is faced with a crushing defeat, are you confident that they wouldn't launch a tactical nuclear weapon to even the odds?

They'd certainly try to bring the West down with them if defeat was certain and they knew they'd spend their lives in prison.

My wife is a fan of author Ken Follett.  He released a book last November about nuclear war started after North Korean nuked South Korean in a last gasp after they attacked the south and were repelled and the south was going to overrun them.  US replies in North Korea only in kind.  The old hardliners but not the young party members think China must reply to respond for North Korea and they all think there is no way the US responds................
https://booktrib.com/2021/11/09/folletts-never-shines-with-the-horrific-brilliance-of-a-nuclear-bomb/

[StillAWarrior]

You don't see him as someone who is feeling more isolated from the world and backed into a corner? 

When was the last time two nuclear powers engaged in a conventional war? Never.  And when one side starts to lose that fight, or is faced with a crushing defeat, are you confident that they wouldn't launch a tactical nuclear weapon to even the odds?

They'd certainly try to bring the West down with them if defeat was certain and they knew they'd spend their lives in prison.

I'm not disagreeing with your underlying point, but: When was the last time two nuclear powers engaged in a nuclear war? Never.

I'm sure we all pray they never do.

[Pakuni]

You don't see him as someone who is feeling more isolated from the world and backed into a corner?

1. I'm not sure he minds that much. 
2. You're still going to have to explain to me how Russian leadership benefits from nuclear war.

When was the last time two nuclear powers engaged in a conventional war?  Never.

India and Pakistan beg to differ.

They'd certainly try to bring the West down with them if defeat was certain and they knew they'd spend their lives in prison.

"Certainly"?
Agree to disagree, I guess.

[MuggsyB]

And that's the problem and why he is delusional in thought.
1. NATO never promised not to expand East.  It's s false narrative that was never promised. 
2. NATO still exists because Russia can never be trusted.  Putin just proved it.  it's a DEFENSIVE organization not an offensive organization.  I read a story last week that Yeltsin questioned Clinton why are you expanding NATO and Clinton replied that we can trust you, but how can we be sure to trust the next Russian leader.
3.  Ukraine was never a part of Russia, voluntarily.  It actually was the Soviet Union, not Russia.  No Eastern European country wanted to be a part of the eastern block voluntarily either.

My Polish in-laws live 40 miles from the Belarus border and are only somewhat nervous.
My father-in-law keeps telling my wife that the only thing Putin and Russians will understand is bullets and everyone knows the US has bigger ones than Russian so better to put to use now before things are more precarious later.

Exactly.  There was never a threat that Ukraine was going to join NATO to begin with.  There's no way all nations were going to agree with that.  And as far as Ukrainian Independence their history goes back before 1991.  They also had like 4 million or more people starve to death in the early 30's under Soviet Rule both in Ukraine and Russia.  None of the former Soviet Bloc want to be ruled by Putin.  We're dealing with a guy who in his national address accused Zelenskky of being a Nazi!!  The man is an evil whacko. 

So yes, we know this is very scary, very complicated, and no one wants a Nuclear World War 3.  At the same time we're capable of doing more and projecting strength here.  Why are we still funding this scumfker??  Why don't we and our allies immediately change course and drill?  Aren't our pipelines cleaner than Russia's and necessary for national and world security?  We can move in this direction immediately in the USA, Canada, and Western Europe.  It would hurt pocketbooks in the short term but I think most people understand he can't survive without his energy stranglehold.  Meanwhile what exactly do people think the reaction is going to be in China?   Is there less of a nuclear threat if he succeeds in Ukraine?  I don't see it that way.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's a good Daniel Craig movie on the Holodomor. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

https://news.yahoo.com/cheap-chinese-tires-might-explain-094313721.html

[MuggsyB]

There's a good Daniel Craig movie on the Holodomor.

Ty.

Isn't it true that in the early 90's Biden and others convinced Clinton to stop the Serbian genocide in Bosnia?  Now obviously Serbia is not Russia.   And Clinton did nothing in Sierra Leone or Rwanda.  But it's something to think about. 

The destabilization of Eastern Europe with a refugee crisis doesn't exactly lessen Putin's threat to the globe.  Why is cowering like Neville here the safe play?  Of course there are risks but the greater risk may be not stopping this now.   Help establish a no-fly zone with NATO and tell Putin to go fk himself for starters?  Cut off his energy supply?  Talk to the GROM and other NATO special ops to get this fkbag??  I feel all options should be on the table. 

[StillAWarrior]

I feel all options should be on the table.

Including nukes? I'm asking sincerely.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Ty.

Isn't it true that in the early 90's Biden and others convinced Clinton to stop the Serbian genocide in Bosnia?  Now obviously Serbia is not Russia.   And Clinton did nothing in Sierra Leone or Rwanda.  But it's something to think about. 

The destabilization of Eastern Europe with a refugee crisis doesn't exactly lessen Putin's threat to the globe.  Why is cowering like Neville here the safe play?  Of course there are risks but the greater risk may be not stopping this now.   Help establish a no-fly zone with NATO and tell Putin to go fk himself for starters?  Cut off his energy supply?  Talk to the GROM and other NATO special ops to get this fkbag??  I feel all options should be on the table.

I honestly feel like NATO is at a WWE tag team match waiting for Putin to do something to trigger a NATO response, tag them in.  They will stand pat otherwise until he blunders into NATO territory.  He's blundering so badly that it feels inevitable. 

It's a defensive organization so there won't be an offensive action. 
I know, we ALL want to do something and it's frustrating but we need patience. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Like this one?

(Modified)
A few more. 

Stay Calm, America
Putin's violence may still get worse. But Americans shouldn't root for a dangerous escalation of hostilities.
By Tom Nichols
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/stay-calm-and-dont-advocate-war-against-putin/624169/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

A Russian businessman has put a $1 million bounty on Vladimir Putin's head, calling for military officers to arrest him as a war criminal
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-businessman-puts-1-million-bounty-on-putins-head-2022-3

[MuggsyB]

Including nukes? I'm asking sincerely.

No, of course not.  But I think the idea he is less likely to use nukes if he annexes Ukraine is patently false. 

[MuggsyB]

Like this one?

(Modified)
A few more. 

Stay Calm, America
Putin's violence may still get worse. But Americans shouldn't root for a dangerous escalation of hostilities.
By Tom Nichols
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/stay-calm-and-dont-advocate-war-against-putin/624169/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

A Russian businessman has put a $1 million bounty on Vladimir Putin's head, calling for military officers to arrest him as a war criminal
https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-businessman-puts-1-million-bounty-on-putins-head-2022-3

NIchols is an interesting guy.  I read his book "The Death of Expertise" which I would recommend.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

NIchols is an interesting guy.  I read his book "The Death of Expertise" which I would recommend.

Read the article if you haven't.  It's a quick read. 

[MuggsyB]

Read the article if you haven't.  It's a quick read.

I understand his points, especially that Putin won't be able to continue West for some time, but I believe there are profound ramifications that are different today as opposed to examples he sites.  The far greater concern geopolitically is if China looks at this situation and attacks Taiwan.  We're well aware of their ultimate goal.  You could also have the Iranians try to exert power in the middle east. 

I'm a strong proponent of American hegemony.  Not because I think it's a great thing but because I think the alternative is....well....a complete and utter disaster.  I believe 100 million people died in both WW2 and the genocides during and after. 

[jesmu84]

No, of course not.  But I think the idea he is less likely to use nukes if he annexes Ukraine is patently false.

Has anyone here said this?

[MuggsyB]

Has anyone here said this?

Not in those specific words but few here have suggested things will potentially be more dangerous and far worse if we don't do more to thwart Putin right now.

[MUBurrow]

The appeasement narrative is extremely "If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail."  If you see anything but the use of international military force to counter territorial agression as "appeasement," you are going to do more harm than good. Especially in the nuclear age. 

I want to point out that even before the invasion of Ukraine, there have been a lot of legitimate debates about the degree to which NATO should have expanded to Russia's doorstep after the fall of the USSR. I don't think the invasion is necessarily proof that the West should have expanded NATO to all willing post-Soviet republics and armed them to the teeth. That is revisionist history that ignores (i) how corrupt and unstable many of those nations are/have been (ii) the significant pro-Moscow minorities in some of those countries whose political influence rises and falls, and (iii) that Putin isn't the only Russian who views NATO encroachment as a threat, and how NATO expansion has been a self-fulfilling threat prophecy for many Russians. 

I guess my point is that the kneejerk reaction to play the West blame game here is unwarranted.  Sure there are things we'll decide could have been done better, but I actually don't think we systematically made a ton of poor decisions to get to this point.  And I think the Hitler comparisons and the appeasement narrative really ignore most of the relevant details of the situation.

[jesmu84]

Not in those specific words but few here have suggested things will potentially be more dangerous and far worse if we don't do more to thwart Putin right now.

Yeah, people have made those suggestions - it's called nuclear war.

[forgetful]

And that's the problem and why he is delusional in thought.
1. NATO never promised not to expand East.  It's s false narrative that was never promised. 
2. NATO still exists because Russia can never be trusted.  Putin just proved it.  it's a DEFENSIVE organization not an offensive organization.  I read a story last week that Yeltsin questioned Clinton why are you expanding NATO and Clinton replied that we can trust you, but how can we be sure to trust the next Russian leader.
3.  Ukraine was never a part of Russia, voluntarily.  It actually was the Soviet Union, not Russia.  No Eastern European country wanted to be a part of the eastern block voluntarily either.

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but the fact is there are two lens to view all of this through. Russian leaders believe their lens, and are reacting to it.

If they really believe that at this point they have nothing more to lose, then we are in a scary situation.

My Polish in-laws live 40 miles from the Belarus border and are only somewhat nervous.
My father-in-law keeps telling my wife that the only thing Putin and Russians will understand is bullets and everyone knows the US has bigger ones than Russian so better to put to use now before things are more precarious later.

I hope it never escalates to anyone using bigger bullets.

[Hards Alumni]

My wife is a fan of author Ken Follett.  He released a book last November about nuclear war started after North Korean nuked South Korean in a last gasp after they attacked the south and were repelled and the south was going to overrun them.  US replies in North Korea only in kind.  The old hardliners but not the young party members think China must reply to respond for North Korea and they all think there is no way the US responds................
https://booktrib.com/2021/11/09/folletts-never-shines-with-the-horrific-brilliance-of-a-nuclear-bomb/

I read the first two books of the Century Trilogy and thought they were great... but I've never been so disappointed in the first 5 chapters of Edge of Eternity than I have ever been reading a series.  Totally killed Follett for me.

I could be tempted to read Never though.