This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

[BioHawk]

Ah, the ol' "just a message board" line. I know, I said it originally that none of us, including myself, know what we're talking about.

My disagreement is your continued misrepresentation of my position, saying (paraphrasing) that I'm scared for the US to get involved because I think a nuclear strike is a "foregone conclusion" or even likely. I've said, multiple times now, that I very seriously doubt it would happen. But I don't know that to be 100%, and apparently neither do the people involved in this who's opinions actually matter. You know, the US administration and NATO.

Getting in a direct hot war with Russia, even just by enforcing a no fly zone (aka, shooting down Russian aircraft), is only going to rally support at home for him, as the US/NATO will likely be seen as the aggressor to them, even though we're not. Maybe that emboldens him and a few of his underlings to escalate things.

I agree with your feelings on the biggest issue with a No-Fly zone, not to mention that from what I've heard and read, it would have a very limited impact on the situation on the ground. So the risk/reward isn't there.

However, I think Putin using nuclear weapons in a direct engagement with the US is almost guaranteed. Maybe not if the fighting is limited to just Ukraine, but if the US were serious about it, they would go after Russia's ability to conduct war. From what I've seen of Russian military defenses, the US might be able to virtually incapacitate Russia's ability to do this in less than a month with conventional weapons alone. Feeling cornered, Putin would go to nukes. If anything because he'd rather end civilization than be forced to admit he lost something. He is just like Donald Trump, only a little bit smarter. If it weren't for Trump, he would have the most fragile ego on the planet.

 

[TC Nole OX]

The suggestion that NATO is paralyzed is nonsense.

All of you saying to bring on the NFZ and other more aggressive tactics because Putin will never launch nukes - what if your wrong?

If we cowered to nuclear threats during the Cold War, as you seem to suggest we should today, the Soviet Union would have never fallen. I remember hearing the same world ending threats from Moscow when we put nuclear missiles along the border with Warsaw Pact countries and when Reagan proceeded with his Star Wars program. If history is our guide, then acting swiftly and firmly is the correct choice.

 

[seminole97]

The formation can be said to be the Dirlewanger Brigade of the 21st century.

Does that rhyme with ‘girlyman banger’ Brigade?

 

[torbee]

If we cowered to nuclear threats during the Cold War, as you seem to suggest we should today, the Soviet Union would have never fallen. I remember hearing the same world ending threats from Moscow when we put nuclear missiles along the border with Warsaw Pact countries and when Reagan proceeded with his Star Wars program. If history is our guide, then acting swiftly and firmly is the correct choice.

It is useful to ask oneself WWRD (what would Reagan do?).

Wasn't a big fan of his domestic policies, but he knew how to deal with Russian/Soviet aggression.

 

[Joes Place]

I agree with your feelings on the biggest issue with a No-Fly zone, not to mention that from what I've heard and read, it would have a very limited impact on the situation on the ground. So the risk/reward isn't there.

It would enable allies to take out Russian artillery quickly and effectively.

 

[Aardvark86]

Most people probably don’t know:

On December 14, 1939, the League of Nations, the international peacekeeping organization formed at the end of World War I, expels the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in response to the Soviets' invasion of Finland on November 30.

Again, all very nice, but Article 6 of the UN Charter only provides for expulsion of a member by the General Assembly "upon the recommendation of the Security Council," at which Russia, as a permanent member, has absolute veto power.

The bottom line is that the UN Charter is an abortion of a governance document.

 

[RileyHawk]

If we cowered to nuclear threats during the Cold War, as you seem to suggest we should today, the Soviet Union would have never fallen. I remember hearing the same world ending threats from Moscow when we put nuclear missiles along the border with Warsaw Pact countries and when Reagan proceeded with his Star Wars program. If history is our guide, then acting swiftly and firmly is the correct choice.

I'm suggesting that those of you who are being so cavalier about escalating this war and so confident there won't be nuclear retaliation need to consider you could be very, very wrong.

 

[RileyHawk]

It is useful to ask oneself WWRD (what would Reagan do?).

Wasn't a big fan of his domestic policies, but he knew how to deal with Russian/Soviet aggression.

I think he would do what we are seeing now as he was pragmatic and listened to experts.

 

[seminole97]

Again, all very nice, but Article 6 of the UN Charter only provides for expulsion of a member by the General Assembly "upon the recommendation of the Security Council," at which Russia, as a permanent member, has absolute veto power.

I found the fact the Russia (USSR) was the kicked out of the last iteration amusing in a ‘history rhymes’ sense.

The bottom line is that the UN Charter is an abortion of a governance document.

Makes more sense when you realize it’s not ‘governance document’, but a mechanism to maintain hegemonic power in a postwar world.

 

[Aardvark86]

I think he would do what we are seeing now as he was pragmatic and listened to experts.

This. And he was dealing with Gorbachev, not Putin.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

It is useful to ask oneself WWRD (what would Reagan do?).

Wasn't a big fan of his domestic policies, but he knew how to deal with Russian/Soviet aggression.

That's cool. Who was his counterpart in the USSR/Russia then?

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[h-hawk]

I'm suggesting that those of you who are being so cavalier about escalating this war and so confident there won't be nuclear retaliation need to consider you could be very, very wrong.

I know, still no sure clarity

 

[TC Nole OX]

This. And he was dealing with Gorbachev, not Putin.

I remember all those Reagan-Gorbachev talks during Reagan's first term

 

[seminole97]

That's cool. Who was his counterpart in the USSR/Russia then?

Guys who kept dying until Gorbachev, and he gave up.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I don't necessarily disagree with your position -- I keep vacillating between "do more" and "be prudent."

But I would ask you to answer this question honestly:

If the mere suggestion/threat of Russian nukes can paralyze all of NATO and the West, what is to stop Putin from picking off one country after another while saying "And you can't do anything about it, because we have nukes."

Do we allow him to conquer every single non-NATO former Soviet republic?

Another question -- if we are so afraid to use our military against a global bully that is murdering babies, the elderly, targeting hospitals and schools -- why the F---K are we spending BILLIONS on conventional weapons if we aren't willing to use them to stop humanitarian atrocities and the attack on a sovereign state?

There is a reason Putin hasn't attacked a NATO member.......

It's a clearly defined red line...an attack on a NATO member will be met with a military response by NATO members.

If we had made it clear that an attack on Ukraine would be met by a NATO military response maybe Putin doesn't invade. NATO didn't.....in fact NATO/US made it abundantly clear that we wouldn't respond militarily.

With the ass whoopin Russia is currently taking in Ukraine, Putin isn't about to open the NATO can of worms for the foreseeable future IMO. He hasn't prior to this debacle....no reason to think he will now.

 

[mnole03]

Destroyed T-90s are my favorite drug.

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

Guys who kept dying until Gorbachev, and he gave up.

I know, maybe you could help me with the point Torbee was attempting to make?

 

[TC Nole OX]

There is a reason Putin hasn't attacked a NATO member.......

It's a clearly defined red line...an attack on a NATO member will be met with a military response by NATO members.

If we had made it clear that an attack on Ukraine would be met by a NATO military response maybe Putin doesn't invade. NATO didn't.....in fact NATO/US made it abundantly clear that we wouldn't respond militarily.

With the ass whoopin Russia is currently taking in Ukraine, Putin isn't about to open the NATO can of worms for the foreseeable future IMO. He hasn't prior to this debacle....no reason to think he will now.

Russian nukes to Belarus and close to Poland. We need to find our white flags, and fast!

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I'd be in favor of a European-led (and 100% European manned) peacekeeping force. Have the coalition be a mix of NATO and non-NATO members. Let the Europeans clean up their own backyard by themselves with us providing materiel and intelligence assistance only. Heck, have it be only non-nuclear states (believe only France and UK are known nuclear powers in Europe no?)

I think that is a more prudent level of escalation and involving non-nuclear states only would send the message the coalition is committed to conventional warfare only.

Problem with that is any attack on any NATO member would entail a response by every NATO member.

Article 5

• Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
• The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
• NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
• NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

If we cowered to nuclear threats during the Cold War, as you seem to suggest we should today, the Soviet Union would have never fallen. I remember hearing the same world ending threats from Moscow when we put nuclear missiles along the border with Warsaw Pact countries and when Reagan proceeded with his Star Wars program. If history is our guide, then acting swiftly and firmly is the correct choice.

What a weird take. Nuclear retaliation and MAD pretty much prevented WW3 throughout the cold war. That's why we never got into a "hot" war with the Soviet Union.

 

[torbee]

Problem with that is any attack on any NATO member would entail a response by every NATO member.

Article 5

• Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.
• The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
• NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
• NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• NATO has standing forces on active duty that contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence efforts on a permanent basis.

Maybe that isn't a problem, then. We'd basically be forcing Putin to either withdraw from Ukraine or face the entire combined might of NATO. Then the "escalation" would be on the other foot.

 

[Aardvark86]

I know, still no sure clarity

I always find that sitting in front of a computer keyboard is a pretty good time to take counsel of my fears.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I'm suggesting that those of you who are being so cavalier about escalating this war and so confident there won't be nuclear retaliation need to consider you could be very, very wrong.

This

Folks are pretty cavalier about the possibility of a direct military confrontation with Russia spiraling out of control.

 

[torbee]

I know, maybe you could help me with the point Torbee was attempting to make?

You think Reagan would have just said "Welp, Putin seems a little unhinged and has nuclear weapons. Guess we do nothing then." ?

I sure don't.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Maybe that isn't a problem, then. We'd basically be forcing Putin to either withdraw from Ukraine or face the entire combined might of NATO. Then the "escalation" would be on the other foot.

So you're counting on Putin acting rationally?

I'd rather not take the risk that he'd do something insane.

In hindsight his invasion of Ukraine has been pretty insane...

 

[TC Nole OX]

You think Reagan would have just said "Welp, Putin seems a little unhinged and has nuclear weapons. Guess we don nothing then." ?

I sure don't.

I, regretfully, voted for that racist a-hole in 1984. He wouldn't have backed down from Putin and would be doing a lot more than we are today.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Russian nukes to Belarus and close to Poland. We need to find our white flags, and fast!

View embedded media

If they attack a NATO member it's game on....Putin and co. know that....

Should have made it abundantly clear we'd respond militarily to an attack on Ukraine BEFORE they attacked if that's what we're advocating NOW.

Pretty simple...

 

[RileyHawk]

You think Reagan would have just said "Welp, Putin seems a little unhinged and has nuclear weapons. Guess we do nothing then." ?

I sure don't.

Again, it's nonsense to say nothing is being done by the US.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I, regretfully, voted for that racist a-hole in 1984. He wouldn't have backed down from Putin and would be doing a lot more than we are today.

Like what?

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

You think Reagan would have just said "Welp, Putin seems a little unhinged and has nuclear weapons. Guess we do nothing then." ?

I sure don't.

You're hypothetical doesn't make sense here, since he never had to deal with Putin. He played cold war games, which is, shockingly, the same thing we're doing now.

 

[Aardvark86]

Again, it's nonsense to say nothing is being done by the US.

And let's not forget just how Reagan defeated the former USSR: by using the power of our economy in a way that they simply couldn't keep up with.

 

[seminole97]

I know, maybe you could help me with the point Torbee was attempting to make?

SEAL Team Six founded Nov 1980.

Maybe Reagan didn’t wait for nature to take its course and Gorby got the hint. /s

He’s still alive. Someone needs to get that interview.

 

[DFSNOLE]

View embedded media

I guess just killing Ukraine's children isn't enough.

 

[h-hawk]

If they attack a NATO member it's game on....Putin and co. know that....

Should have made it abundantly clear we'd respond militarily to an attack on Ukraine BEFORE they attacked if that's what we're advocating NOW.

Pretty simple...

Hope we have made it clear to Belarus that no additional countries will be allowed to attack Ukraine. Which of course could be why Putin is trying to scare the West by possibly moving nukes there. NATO should fly B52s near Belarus and make sure they know we are doing so. Their military does not want to attack, this should give them an excuse.

 

[h-hawk]

I always find that sitting in front of a computer keyboard is a pretty good time to take counsel of my fears.

Apparently, many on here follow your example!

 

[HawkFan1298]

All the pro-NATO and anti-NATO intervention posts make really good points, IMO.

I think we can all agree the best case scenario is Putin dies quick and a more moderate leader takes charge.

 

[torbee]

So you're counting on Putin acting rationally?

I'd rather not take the risk that he'd do something insane.

In hindsight his invasion of Ukraine has been pretty insane...

Yes, I am counting on the ex-KGB head who has seen nothing but capitulation and appeasement from the West for a decade to act rationally if the West actually treats this time differently.

 

[Aardvark86]

Apparently, many on here follow your example!

Yes, it's the ones that don't that worry me. I'm all about courage - it's really the most important virtue from which all else is possible, and frankly, my biggest concern for our culture is that we now act out of fear rather than courage, which is both dangerous and Un-American.

But the idea that we should risk escalating from conventional proxy war against a mediocre opponent that is barely holding its own, to more direct military engagement against a desperate nuclear power is just foolhardy.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Yes, I am counting on the ex-KGB head who has seen nothing but capitulation and appeasement from the West for a decade to act rationally if the West actually treats this time differently.

Torbee....don't you think the time to draw a red line was BEFORE the friggin invasion?

If we're contemplating military intervention NOW why in the F didn't we make it abundantly clear we'd respond militarily BEFORE the invasion?

Might have actually prevented it...

Ass backwards and bat shit crazy...