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

[Donald H]

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.

In a normal war there are no rules that are adhered to in reality, even though the Geneva Convention does state some rules. You will know what those rules are, or at least you should. I don't have the time to state them.

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

There are several rules that apply to this war and everybody should be aware of what they are by now. It's your job to find out but I'll start you out with a few that come to mind:

1. No Nato direct involvement
2. No attack on Nato countries by Russia.
3. No allout Russian offensive against Ukraine.
4. No nuclear weapons allowed.
5. ....................................
6. ...................................
7. ...................................
??
Any other rules that didn't apply to the destruction of Iraq and the killing of Iraqis but do apply here.

 

[jwoodie]

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

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

I would be in favor of returning fire if our troops were attacked. Ukraine is still and independent country, so an attack on our troops by Russia would be a deliberate act of war. Why shouldn't Russia be held to the same rules as other countries?

As far as Europeans are concerned, they are powerless as individual countries and feckless as a group, whether as NATO or the EU. (In reality, NATO is an agreement for the U.S. to protect Europe, not vice versa.) The U.S. is the only power strong enough to keep other aggressive countries in check. If we don't, no one will.

 

[Circe]

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

We had trainers over there till about 3 days before the invasion, when they left out for safer areas. As for right and wrong, Putin thinks we are wrong to lure Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of interest.

Sanctions are wholly a tactic to AVOID war. That's what they were invented for in the 1930s. And they are iffy: what sanctions will end up being called a casus belli and getting us into war? Putin said cutting them out of the SWIFT interbank system would do it last time he moved against a country, but apparently he didn't mean it because we did that and they haven't declared war. But sanctions don't work. They almost never have and only really against small, powerless countries. We are trying a new big bang sanctions action; I am very interested to see if they work. "Work" means Russia loses and Ukraine stays independent: it doesn't mean Russia takes over Ukraine and then we just stop the sanctions!

My guess is that the only way to stop a war is to fight. The one thing we know for sure doesn't stop or win wars is to move equipment and training personnel in. I mean, look at Afghanistan. Iraq. Vietnam. Anywhere, really. That we know doesn't work. And Russia is already in Ukraine, bombing cities and civilians (there aren't really many organized soldiers to fight, so they have to kill civilians, like the Romans did).

It seems to me the only way to fight Putin is to actually FIGHT Putin, and I don't see that happening, or wanted. Especially since the rest of Europe refuses flatly to get involved: they won't even put on sanctions against Russian oil. I can't quite see why it would be a GOOD idea for the United States way over here to go to full war, risking a nuclear exchange, for Ukraine?

 

[Donald H]

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).

You really don't get it do you. Putin would not only try to claim, he would claim, and then he would nuke America. There are rules being agreed upon by both America and Russia and ignorance of why those rules are necessary is no excuse.

You can support your side but you can't make up new rules that apply to the other side. This is a simple concept!

 

[Circe]

I would be in favor of returning fire if our troops were attacked. Ukraine is still and independent country, so an attack on our troops by Russia would be a deliberate act of war. Why shouldn't Russia be held to the same rules as other countries?

As far as Europeans are concerned, they are powerless as individual countries and feckless as a group, whether as NATO or the EU. (In reality, NATO is an agreement for the U.S. to protect Europe, not vice versa.) The U.S. is the only power strong enough to keep other aggressive countries in check. If we don't, no one will.

It seems to me if Europe won't, why bother? They have a lot more to lose if Russia moves next on Moldova, then eats up Belarus, then Lithuania, then Latvia and Estonia and starts looking at Poland. Not to mention the 'Stans, though no one really cares about the Stans, probably including Putin. Though who knows --- they used to be in the USSR.

As for acts of war, American troops entering a country at war with Russia is a clear act of war. We would instantly be at war with Russia, with all that implies. Wouldn't it imply a nuclear exchange? What a problem.

I do agree it's a terrible problem, and probably you are right, no one will do it if we don't, because Europe just doesn't care, as usual. I don't think the sanctions will work in the sense of stopping the conquest of Ukraine. Maybe they will deter the NEXT invasion by Putin --- or maybe not if he takes something no one cares about, like Belarus or Moldava. I would guess he could get both of those before anyone in Europe gets seriously worried.

I think this is one of those cases that it is Europe's responsibility, not ours, and they don't want war with Russia, so that's that.

 

[Circe]

In a normal war there are no rules that are adhered to in reality, even though the Geneva Convention does state some rules. You will know what those rules are, or at least you should. I don't have the time to state them.


There are several rules that apply to this war and everybody should be aware of what they are by now. It's your job to find out but I'll start you out with a few that come to mind:

1. No Nato direct involvement
2. No attack on Nato countries by Russia.
3. No allout Russian offensive against Ukraine.
4. No nuclear weapons allowed.
5. ....................................
6. ...................................
7. ...................................
??
Any other rules that didn't apply to the destruction of Iraq and the killing of Iraqis but do apply here.

It's not "my job" to find out anything in particular; I'm just wondering what you are thinking here. Okay, the nonsense over the Geneva Conventions being spouted aren't one of the rules (like "bombing cities is a war crime")---everybody everywhere always and now does that. Indeed, they do most of the Geneva Conventions. But people carrying on about them probably lessens them, and lessens the "we were just following orders" folks.

I agree with your implicit rules 1,2, and 4 --- but another is no American soldiers in Ukraine, I think.

 

[Circe]

You really don't get it do you. Putin would not only try to claim, he would claim, and then he would nuke America. There are rules being agreed upon by both America and Russia and ignorance of why those rules are necessary is no excuse.

You can support your side but you can't make up new rules that apply to the other side. This is a simple concept!

Yes, I agree: American soldiers in Ukraine is an obvious act of war. You can do the pretend game with the "trainers" while there is no active war, but then when war starts it doesn't really work. At that point you have to either put in regular troops or pull out the "trainers."

 

[Donald H]

Yes, I agree: American soldiers in Ukraine is an obvious act of war. You can do the pretend game with the "trainers" while there is no active war, but then when war starts it doesn't really work. At that point you have to either put in regular troops or pull out the "trainers."

Now you're getting it!

 

[jwoodie]

As for acts of war, American troops entering a country at war with Russia is a clear act of war. We would instantly be at war with Russia, with all that implies.

Actually, I'm not sure who has (or if they have) declared war on who. Maybe the U.S. should declare war on Ukraine and assert that Russia is engaging in an act of war against us.

Then we could sign a peace treaty and rebuild both countries. Win-win?

 

[Circe]

Actually, I'm not sure who has (or if they have) declared war on who. Maybe the U.S. should declare war on Ukraine and assert that Russia is engaging in an act of war against us.

Then we could sign a peace treaty and rebuild both countries. Win-win?

What would be the basis for asserting Russia is warring against us? I'm pretty sure they are only fighting against Ukraine.

As for declaring war, nobody does that anymore. They just jump over the borders and start firing artillery.

 

[Donald H]

It's not "my job" to find out anything in particular; I'm just wondering what you are thinking here. Okay, the nonsense over the Geneva Conventions being spouted aren't one of the rules (like "bombing cities is a war crime")---everybody everywhere always and now does that. Indeed, they do most of the Geneva Conventions. But people carrying on about them probably lessens them, and lessens the "we were just following orders" folks.

I agree with your implicit rules 1,2, and 4 --- but another is no American soldiers in Ukraine, I think.

Good for you!
But don't deny #3 because it's painfully obvious that Russia is holding most of their conventional resources back in reserve. When we see thousands of cruise missles rain down on Ukraine, as well as huge convoys of bombers dropping huge bombs on Ukaraine, we'll know that Russia has become serious.

It's not in Russia's interests to do that and it's against everybody's interests to see it happen.
Russia needs and wants a governable territory coming out of this, in which they have a large faction of supporters in Ukraine.

 

[Circe]

But don't deny #3 because it's painfully obvious that Russia is holding most of their conventional resources back in reserve. When we see thousands of cruise missles rain down on Ukraine, as well as huge convoys of bombers dropping huge bombs on Ukaraine, we'll know that Russia has become serious.

It's not in Russia's interests to do that and it's against everybody's interests to see it happen.
Russia needs and wants a governable territory coming out of this, in which they have a large faction of supporters in Ukraine.

The Economist agrees with you on #3. They also think Russia is holding back. I think they'll do whatever it takes to win, which may not be all they've got, unless we somehow stupidly get involved.

 

[jwoodie]

You really don't get it do you. Putin would not only try to claim, he would claim, and then he would nuke America. There are rules being agreed upon by both America and Russia and ignorance of why those rules are necessary is no excuse.

You can support your side but you can't make up new rules that apply to the other side. This is a simple concept!

Claims are cheap; actions are expensive. Why do you believe that Russia is any more likely to nuke America than vice versa? To use your words, "you can't make up new rules that [only] apply to the other side." I agree that this is a simple concept!

 

[Circe]

Claims are cheap; actions are expensive. Why do you believe that Russia is any more likely to nuke America than vice versa? To use your words, "you can't make up new rules that [only] apply to the other side." I agree that this is a simple concept!

This is an interesting point you make. When Putin threatened nukes last week (oh, yes, he did: The Economist says he's threatened it three times, though I only noticed the putting his nuclear forces "on alert.") I was fascinated to see the media erupt with diagnoses of Putin's mental non-health, how bad he looked lately, depressed, senile, etc. ------ I assume the media was fed all that by government, as an excuse for a pre-emptive nuclear strike, should they need to, if Putin in fact does start looking like nuking us. And that has died down now, as Putin has not repeated the threat.

I feel sure the Russian government heard that loud and clear. Let's watch if they do any more nuke threats.

 

[Slade3200]

We had trainers over there till about 3 days before the invasion, when they left out for safer areas. As for right and wrong, Putin thinks we are wrong to lure Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of interest.

Sanctions are wholly a tactic to AVOID war. That's what they were invented for in the 1930s. And they are iffy: what sanctions will end up being called a casus belli and getting us into war? Putin said cutting them out of the SWIFT interbank system would do it last time he moved against a country, but apparently he didn't mean it because we did that and they haven't declared war. But sanctions don't work. They almost never have and only really against small, powerless countries. We are trying a new big bang sanctions action; I am very interested to see if they work. "Work" means Russia loses and Ukraine stays independent: it doesn't mean Russia takes over Ukraine and then we just stop the sanctions!

My guess is that the only way to stop a war is to fight. The one thing we know for sure doesn't stop or win wars is to move equipment and training personnel in. I mean, look at Afghanistan. Iraq. Vietnam. Anywhere, really. That we know doesn't work. And Russia is already in Ukraine, bombing cities and civilians (there aren't really many organized soldiers to fight, so they have to kill civilians, like the Romans did).

It seems to me the only way to fight Putin is to actually FIGHT Putin, and I don't see that happening, or wanted. Especially since the rest of Europe refuses flatly to get involved: they won't even put on sanctions against Russian oil. I can't quite see why it would be a GOOD idea for the United States way over here to go to full war, risking a nuclear exchange, for Ukraine?

America needs to leverage their position to rally our ally’s and the rest of the world to cut Russia off. Their currency is tanking, now we need to cut off their supply chain.

I don’t really care what Putin thinks is right and wrong. Invading a peaceful country and killing civilians is wrong 100% of the time.

We should not be doing this alone, it needs to be a world wide effort to stand up to Russia and show that what they are doing is not OK.

 

[Circe]

America needs to leverage their position to rally our ally’s and the rest of the world to cut Russia off. Their currency is tanking, now we need to cut off their supply chain.

I don’t really care what Putin thinks is right and wrong. Invading a peaceful country and killing civilians is wrong 100% of the time.

We should not be doing this alone, it needs to be a world wide effort to stand up to Russia and show that what they are doing is not OK.

I agree: it sure doesn't matter what Putin thinks is right or wrong -- I'm watching the news right now and the photos are so sad! Hello, I know all those bombed out apartment buildings are wrong, that's clear.

But we are not the one country that Europe can use to fight all its wars. Let THEM do it, if they want it done.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree: it sure doesn't matter what Putin thinks is right or wrong -- I'm watching the news right now and the photos are so sad! Hello, I know all those bombed out apartment buildings are wrong, that's clear.

But we are not the one country that Europe can use to fight all its wars. Let THEM do it, if they want it done.

We are world leaders, we rally everybody to push back against Russia. We do it together

 

[Circe]

We are world leaders, we rally everybody to push back against Russia. We do it together

I guess we already are, sort of ---- sanctions have been like herding cats since the 1930s, though, and still are. But yeah, we're leading. Hate Biden or not, he is. Whether it will WORK, that remains to be seen.

 

[YoursTruly]

Ukraine is non of our business. So we shouldn't send troops to fight against Russia.

To most Americans, whether Ukraine land is owned by Russia or not, it doesn't matter to us. If you think it matters, then you must be brainwashed.

Personally, I could care less if Ukraine takes over Russia, or Russia takes over Ukraine.

 

[jwoodie]

Ukraine is non of our business. So we shouldn't send troops to fight against Russia.

To most Americans, whether Ukraine land is owned by Russia or not, it doesn't matter to us. If you think it matters, then you must be brainwashed.

Personally, I could care less if Ukraine takes over Russia, or Russia takes over Ukraine.

How do you feel about sanctions against Russia?