Explosions in Kiev

[reinko]

Those were the worst for handjobs back in high school.

I'm sure your hands got beat up by those button flys.

[jesmu84]

I'm not suggesting it per se, I'm saying having our missiles and perhaps MIG-29'S there mean we're already involved and it "could lead to WW3".  Do you really think he wants nuclear war?  Do you agree that if Putin attacks the Baltics NATO will defend their air space?

Do you understand what being a NATO member means?

Come on Mugs

[StillAWarrior]

I'm not suggesting it per se, I'm saying having our missiles and perhaps MIG-29'S there mean we're already involved and it "could lead to WW3".  Do you really think he wants nuclear war?  Do you agree that if Putin attacks the Baltics NATO will defend their air space?

Everyone knows we supply arms. We can do that and Putin can "save face" by pretending we're not actually involved. But if we shoot down a Russian jet...we'll that's a whole different situation. There's no saving face there. Actually shooting a Russian is very different than giving a Ukrainian a gun. Surely you see that.

And if Putin does attack a NATO country, yes, we're probably looking at WWIII and potentially nuclear war.

If you're asking if there is a risk that Putin will lob a nuke because we're aiding the Ukrainians...we'll yes, there's a risk. I think the risk is exponentially higher if we join the shooting war. This is true even if we assume that Putin doesn't "want" a nuclear war.

[MuggsyB]

Everyone knows we supply arms. We can do that and Putin can "save face" by pretending we're not actually involved. But if we shoot down a Russian jet...we'll that's a whole different situation. There's no saving face there. Actually shooting a Russian is very different than giving a Ukrainian a gun. Surely you see that.

And if Putin does attack a NATO country, yes, we're probably looking at WWIII and potentially nuclear war.

So if the Ukrainian pilots get the MIG-29's, and shoot Russian planes down, is that also a different situation?  Even if they come from a US airbase?  And if a non US NATO enforced a no-fly-zone is that also a different situation?  There are some that believe  it's not in  Europe's best interest to have 4 million Ukrainian refugees and Russia controlling their country.

[jesmu84]

So if the Ukrainian pilots get the MIG-29's, and shoot Russian planes down, is that also a different situation?  Even if they come from a US airbase?  And if a non US NATO enforced a no-fly-zone is that also a different situation?  There are some that believe  it's not in  Europe's best interest to have 4 million Ukrainian refugees and Russia controlling their country.

Yes, it's different. BECAUSE IT'S UKRANIANS SHOOTING THE RUSSIANS!

Yes, it's different. BECAUSE IT'S NATO SHOOTING THE RUSSIANS!

jfc

[StillAWarrior]

So if the Ukrainian pilots get the MIG-29's, and shoot Russian planes down, is that also a different situation?  Even if they come from a US airbase?  And if a non US NATO enforced a no-fly-zone is that also a different situation?  There are some that believe  it's not in  Europe's best interest to have 4 million Ukrainian refugees and Russia controlling their country.

Yes. That's a different situation. Very. Are you seriously having trouble seeing that. Obviously it's more provocative than being uninvolved, but it's far short of actually shooting a Russian jet down yourself. It's a diplomatic distinction that is well recognized and established. Sure, it might set Putin off, but I can pretty much guarantee that shooting down a Russian jet would set him off.

[Pakuni]

Everyone knows we supply arms. We can do that and Putin can "save face" by pretending we're not actually involved. But if we shoot down a Russian jet...we'll that's a whole different situation. There's no saving face there. Actually shooting a Russian is very different than giving a Ukrainian a gun. Surely you see that.

And if Putin does attack a NATO country, yes, we're probably looking at WWIII and potentially nuclear war.

If you're asking if there is a risk that Putin will lob a nuke because we're aiding the Ukrainians...we'll yes, there's a risk. I think the risk is exponentially higher if we join the shooting war. This is true even if we assume that Putin doesn't "want" a nuclear war.

Not a rhetorical question ... if we let fear of Putin lobbing a nuke dictate our policy relative to Ukraine, why would it not dictate our policy relative to Poland or the Baltics or Romania?
Is nuclear war more tolerable in the latter instance?

[MuggsyB]

Do you understand what being a NATO member means?

Come on Mugs

And you understand that Ukraine has 44 million people and is next door to Poland?  I assume you also understand he has designs for the old Soviet Empire?  Let's say he was drunk and attacked the wonderful country of Iceland who essentially doesn't have a military?  We would protect the Icelandic people because they are NATO members, correct?     All I'm saying is there is there are many factors to consider in addition to Ukraine not being a NATO member. 

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

Maybe the solution comes from WWII.

https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-britain-pulled-aircraft-with-horses-and-trucks-ddd2dbd2aaa4#:~:text=To%20circumnavigate%20US%20neutrality%20act%20Britain%20took%20delivery,their%20fields.%20Today%20is%20not%20a%20typical%20day.

[jesmu84]

And you understand that Ukraine has 44 million people and is next door to Poland?  I assume you also understand he has designs for the old Soviet Empire?  Let's say he was drunk and attacked the wonderful country of Iceland who essentially doesn't have a military?  We would protect the Icelandic people because they are NATO members, correct?     All I'm saying is there is there are many factors to consider in addition to Ukraine not being a NATO member.

No. In this situation as it stands today, we cannot get directly involved either as solely US or as NATO. Period. Any breach of that is a step towards nuclear war.

[jesmu84]

Not a rhetorical question ... if we let fear of Putin lobbing a nuke dictate our policy relative to Ukraine, why would it not dictate our policy relative to Poland or the Baltics or Romania?
Is nuclear war more tolerable in the latter instance?

Is nuclear war ever tolerable?

The easy-out answer is that once instance is NATO and one isn't.

[MuggsyB]

Not a rhetorical question ... if we let fear of Putin lobbing a nuke dictate our policy relative to Ukraine, why would it not dictate our policy relative to Poland or the Baltics or Romania?
Is nuclear war more tolerable in the latter instance?

Exactly.  That's essentially my point, ty Pakuni.  Is it conceivable he's scared crapless of the USA getting involved and has no other card other than the Nuke threat?  If it starts to get ugly and he carpet and vacuum bombs Ukraine what exactly should the response be of the West and the United States?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There are some that believe  it's not in  Europe's best interest to have 4 million Ukrainian refugees and Russia controlling their country.

Everyone but Russia believes that.  That doesn't mean the correct answer is to start a direct war with Russia. It may be the correct answer, but the refugee crisis doesn't mean that it is. 4 million refugees is better than 4 billion dead in a nuclear war.

I don't actually know how I feel about a no fly zone,  I go back and forth. I just don't like logical fallacies

[MuggsyB]

No. In this situation as it stands today, we cannot get directly involved either as solely US or as NATO. Period. Any breach of that is a step towards nuclear war.

Okay...fine.  Now does it make any sense to get our oil and gas from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or should we move towards energy independence with Europe tomorrow by drilling and reopening nuclear facilities?

[Lighthouse 84]

I hope the Russians love their children too....

[MuggsyB]

Everyone but Russia believes that.  That doesn't mean the correct answer is to start a direct war with Russia. It may be the correct answer, but the refugee crisis doesn't mean that it is. 4 million refugees is better than 4 billion dead in a nuclear war.

4 billion dead....hmm.  That's what will happen if we engage Putin at all during this war?  But if we wait and allow him to do whatever he wants, he won't attack Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary Romania, etc? 

I don't actually know how I feel about a no fly zone,  I go back and forth. I just don't like logical fallacies

[Pakuni]

Is nuclear war ever tolerable?

The easy-out answer is that once instance is NATO and one isn't.

Sure, but the nuclear threat is the same either way. It's probably much greater with NATO, as Putin must know he can't win or survive that conventional war.

I'm not advocating for direct US Intervention here, at least not yet  I'm legitimately torn on it. But I don't think our actions need be entirely dictated by a fear that Putin and his regime suddenly decide to become suicide bombers. They want wealth and power, not 72 virgins.

[MUBurrow]

4 billion dead....hmm.  That's what will happen if we engage Putin at all during this war?  But if we wait and allow him to do whatever he wants, he won't attack Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary Romania, etc?

Even taking the nuclear piece off the table for a second, don't forget that a broader war with Russia would certainly spill into at least some of those places, and likely cause as much damage as if Putin had invaded them directly.  So I don't think its a sure thing that we're doing those countries a huge favor by drawing a military red line against Putin now for fear of what else he might do.

[MuggsyB]

Sure, but the nuclear threat is the same either way. It's probably much greater with NATO, as Putin must know he can't win or survive that conventional war.

I'm not advocating for direct US Intervention here, at least not yet  I'm legitimately torn on it. But I don't think our actions need be entirely dictated by a fear that Putin and his regime suddenly decude to become suicide bombers. They want wealth and power, not 72 virgins.

Fair enough.  Although I had a dream we annexed Russia.

[jesmu84]

Okay...fine.  Now does it make any sense to get our oil and gas from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or should we move towards energy independence with Europe tomorrow by drilling and reopening nuclear facilities?

We should get our oil, in the immediate future, from wherever we can to make it marginally better for US citizens at the gas pumps (and with home heating).

In the shorter term, we increase production as able and use natural gas (over coal). In the longer term, focus on renewables and nuclear as well as developing advanced energy generation methods.

If the goal is energy independence, and the only path forward one sees is to increase domestic drilling/production, then it would require nationalizing the sector otherwise we're no better with regards to independence or pricing for citizens.

[MuggsyB]

Even taking the nuclear piece off the table for a second, don't forget that a broader war with Russia would certainly spill into at least some of those places, and likely cause as much damage as if Putin had invaded them directly.  So I don't think its a sure thing that we're doing those countries a huge favor by drawing a military red line against Putin now for fear of what else he might do.

Agreed.  Especially with 4 million Ukrainian refugees in various countries.  Do people really think Poland is comfortable with this red line?  Apparently they aren't scared of moving the needle to help Ukraine defend themselves. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Okay...fine.  Now does it make any sense to get our oil and gas from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or should we move towards energy independence with Europe tomorrow by drilling and reopening nuclear facilities?

As the administration pointed out, there are over 9,000 oil & gas drilling permits sitting unused right now. Nothing is stopping the energy companies from using them. It doesn't, however, help much in the short term as it can take a year to bring new fields online. So short term, we don't have a lot of good options beyond the Saudis or Iran or Venezuela.

[MuggsyB]

As the administration pointed out, there are over 9,000 oil & gas drilling permits sitting unused right now. Nothing is stopping the energy companies from using them. It doesn't, however, help much in the short term as it can take a year to bring new fields online. So short term, we don't have a lot of good options beyond the Saudis or Iran or Venezuela.

Aren't there government regulations stopping them?

[JWags85]

And you understand that Ukraine has 44 million people and is next door to Poland?  I assume you also understand he has designs for the old Soviet Empire?  Let's say he was drunk and attacked the wonderful country of Iceland who essentially doesn't have a military?  We would protect the Icelandic people because they are NATO members, correct?     All I'm saying is there is there are many factors to consider in addition to Ukraine not being a NATO member.

Can we stop this? I get that you hate Putin and he's a pretty objectively vile dictator, but he's not some drunken unhinged lunatic who has bombed places with on a whim.  He's not Kim Jong with legitimate power.  He and his cabal are calculated and looking for a return to Tsarist Russia. Not looking to lob bombs and missles indiscriminately

[MuggsyB]

Can we stop this? I get that you hate Putin and he's a pretty objectively vile dictator, but he's not some drunken unhinged lunatic who has bombed places with on a whim.  He's not Kim Jong with legitimate power.  He and his cabal are calculated and looking for a return to Tsarist Russia. Not looking to lob bombs and missles indiscriminately

Okay.  I think that's perhaps true.  Tsarist Russia includes the Baltics and former bloc countries, correct?  As Pakumi stated what is the advantage and why is it a nuclear deterrent to wait for Ukraine to be potentially slaughtered and millions of their people to flee?