US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

You might want to review what US drone attacks did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again: so what? Two wrongs do not make a right.

That was not my point. But it’s nice that you respond to drone strikes with “so what”

\

Yes. No one cares. That is why Obama -- and remember it is Obama not Bush that ordered wide-spread drone strikes ---- ordered them.

No one cares about drone strikes against civilians. Disgusting.

You clearly don't.

??

[Anonymous]

This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

DP. You seriously think that this is a defensive move by Putin? It's simply astonishing that people are unable to take Putin's words at literal face value. Zelensky is absolutely right that this won't stop in Ukraine. Anyone who thinks otherwise lacks even a cursory understanding of 20th Century geopolitics and how they've bled into 21st Century conflicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

So every time an American journalist dies in a war zone, our military needs to go in? Interesting take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in February, Biden said this:

“I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we have one dead American journalist and one injured.

I am awaiting this "forceful" response.

This was not just any American.

Putin’s military targeted and murdered a very prominent NYT reporter and member of the press corps.

You simply do not murder press without severe consequences.

There is now ample justification for, at a minimum, a full no-fly zone over Ukraine, if not full intervention by NATO forces.

My son should fight to avenge a journalist that went willingly to a war zone to report and earn a buck? Since when do countries go to war over journalists covering wars around the world?

You son should fight because that's what he signed up for.

Well, Biden says he did not sign up for that. So you should take matter into your own hand, fly there and fight. Don't take other people's lifes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

DP. You seriously think that this is a defensive move by Putin? It's simply astonishing that people are unable to take Putin's words at literal face value. Zelensky is absolutely right that this won't stop in Ukraine. Anyone who thinks otherwise lacks even a cursory understanding of 20th Century geopolitics and how they've bled into 21st Century conflicts.

I never said it was defensive. Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A no fly zone would be dangerous and useless. Russia is pounding Lvyv and other targets in WESTERN Ukraine from Russian jets in RUSSIAN airspace.

The DCUM armchair generals don't care about the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

DP. You seriously think that this is a defensive move by Putin? It's simply astonishing that people are unable to take Putin's words at literal face value. Zelensky is absolutely right that this won't stop in Ukraine. Anyone who thinks otherwise lacks even a cursory understanding of 20th Century geopolitics and how they've bled into 21st Century conflicts.

I never said it was defensive. Calm down.

Someone upthread wrote

He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment.

I'm assuming there are several PPs in this sub-thread.

I think it's interesting that this is turning into a discussion about US morality. I'm a US-born child of immigrants, and I have no delusions about the morality of American international policy. At the same time, I'm an American with a pretty substantial stake in the security of our country. If Putin continues his march westward (and I absolutely think he will should he succeed in taking Ukraine, which he almost certainly will), then it threatens US security. I don't know what the right answer is, but I am fairly certain it will include escalating US military activities.

I am the complete opposite of a hawk/warmonger. I'm just looking at the reality in front of me. I have a couple of colleagues who are Romanian. They see what's happening quite differently than Americans do, because they have a clearer understanding of the geopolitical forces in that part of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

So every time an American journalist dies in a war zone, our military needs to go in? Interesting take.

It’s the only way this chud can get his rage-chubby going against Biden.

We are fortunate to have Biden taking a measured view of things. Sane people are grateful he’s not screaming woo-hook and pushing towards expanded conflict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

It is his job to defend his country and ask for as much as he could, publicly, to put pressure on US and EU politicians. It is not his job to avoid WW3. However other countries have to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

So every time an American journalist dies in a war zone, our military needs to go in? Interesting take.

Biden's words, not mine.
Maybe someone should ask him what he meant by "respond forcefully."

"We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia, though I have been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

So every time an American journalist dies in a war zone, our military needs to go in? Interesting take.

Biden's words, not mine.
Maybe someone should ask him what he meant by "respond forcefully."

"We are not seeking direct confrontation with Russia, though I have been clear that if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully."

Thank you for proving he’s keeping his word, comrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes 2 dead Americans.

Still awaiting that "forceful" response promised by Biden.

Americans die every week in other countries. You want us to invade them all?