10 ms·
>> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do
by gambiting 5y ago
>> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev
And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? Because like....there is no other good option out of this you know. By placing American(or NATO) troops and assets in the harms way, you need to be prepared for what you are going to do if those troops get attacked - and the current strategy is to attack back, which again = end of the world. Arming Ukraine to the teeth and letting them fight back was the second best option and that's exactly what the west has done.
Also, there was a meme recently - it's all fun and games being an expert on the internet, but then you remember you are an able bodied male who would absolutely be drafted in to actually fight. "West should do something" - great, you first. I have kids and family, as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now.
- bobsmooth 5y agoI guess we let Putin have Ukraine then.
- 314 5y agoThere are more than options, as the post that you are replying to explained. This kind of cheap response does not add anything.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- d3ckard 5y agoOtherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
- elric 5y agoThe nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~200k people. Any target worth nuking, (say Nato HQ) will result in millions of casualties. Urbanization & increased population density have many benefits, but they make for mind-bogglingly disastrous targets of nukes. If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nuclear war.
- lobocinza 5y agoThen he will rule the world and nuke regardless because you are weak.
- catlikesshrimp 5y agoIt is easier to come up to that conclusion when you don't have skin in the game. Poor Ukranians are the ones thinking they shouldn't have given up their nuclear warheads.
- elric 5y agoEveryone has skin in this game.
- kgwgk 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesson_of_Munich "Although appeasement, which is conventionally defined as the act of satisfying grievances by concessions with the aim of avoiding war, was once regarded as an effective and even honourable strategy of foreign policy, the term has since the Munich Conference symbolised cowardice, failure and weakness. Winston Churchill described appeasement as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last".
- misja111 5y ago> And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia You are assuming here that Russia would be willing to cause a World War by attacking those American soldiers. > as a Pole the risk of actually being involved in military operations is making me extremely uncomfortable right now. But the alternative, to let Russia have Ukraine, will become very uncomfortable in the long term. It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future. The analogy with 1938 is striking.
- gambiting 5y ago>>You are assuming here that Russia would be willing to cause a World War by attacking those American soldiers. I think Russia has been "calling the bluff" of the west for a long time. Attacking American soldiers on Ukrainian soil to send a message "look what I can do, you aren't going to attack me back because you know what it will cost you" would be entirely within the standard Russian strategy. And it would place US and NATO into an extremely uncomfortable position - attack back = world war 3, don't attack back = send a message that you can kill American troops without punishment. That's not a position anyone wants to be in. >>It's naïve to assume that by giving Putin what he wants he will be satisfied and not invade any other countries in the future. I don't think I'm naive, I fully realize that this is what will happen in the future. But again, there's having a nicely formed opinion on the internet, and then there's receiving a letter stating you are to report to your nearest military base for training and deployment. We should do something. I don't want to leave my wife and kid and go fight in Ukraine. Those aren't contradictory statements.
- XorNot 5y agoIt's not NATO -> nuclear war, but it can head that way though. NATO is currently desperately trying to not get into a limited-scale shooting war with Russia, because that's an escalation game which then depends on the other side recognizing the scope of the conflict.
- vidarh 5y agoLook at the long history of authoritarian leaders thinking they could act without triggering escalation, e.g. Taliban, Saddam, and consider again if you want to take the risk that Putin will be rational enough to avoid further escalation and the consequences of doing so given the failure to defeat even the Taliban.
- slg 5y ago>And when those American soldiers are killed by Russian missiles, do you then declare full on war on Russia, and we basically all die? If we are going by the game theory, mutually assured destruction only works if both sides believe the other is willing to engage. If one side knows the other side will not engage, it becomes easy for the aggressive side to take advantage of the passive side. Putin also doesn't want to die so the hope would have been that if the west was stronger and made it clear that an invasion would lead to war, there would be no invasion. Putin didn't see that commitment so he attacked.
- gambiting 5y agoLike I said above - Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one? Would he literally attack American/NATO troops to see if we'll really end the world over it? I really don't want to find out. It's one hell of a gamble.
- slg 5y ago>Putin has literally made a career out of calling west's bluffs. Would he call that one? Well that is the point. As I said the west needs to make it clear that an invasion would lead to war. It can't be a bluff. But we all know the west wasn't willing to end civilization over this so here we are. Seems like Putin is going to keep prodding the west until he finds the line he is convinced we won't let him cross. That line was never going to be Georgia, Crimea, or the whole of Ukraine.
- xorfish 5y agoDon't underestimate Ukraine in this conflict. The Russian military doesn't have the resources for a prolonged guerilla conflict against a motivated resistance. With the current actions, the Ukrainian population won't easily forget what Putin has done and even dictatorships need some level of approval from the population. There is a reasonable chance that Putin excavated his own grave with his reprehensible actions.
- 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ed_balls 5y ago> end of the world They are all rational actors. Turks killed Russian solders in Syria, where they nuked? Putin is bluffing. In case of aggression, you have to sand your ground, there is no other option.
- MrDresden 5y agoAre you truly comparing the "accidental" shooting down of a military plane to an actual boots on the ground invasion of a sovereign nation? These are so wastly different that mentioning apples and oranges doesn't even come close to it.
- ed_balls 5y agoIt was not accidental. A plane capable of caring nuclear bombs was in their airspace. I'm not comparing anything - I was referring to "end of the world". According to Turkish strategist, nuclear weapon is not usable, so they have no problem to retaliate. End of world is impossible.
- CodeArtisan 5y agoI am not a native English speaker and may have badly expressed myself. I am not urging the "west" or "allieds" to intervene nor i am condemning them for not to. But if they were serious about stopping Putin, they would have sent troops weeks before the invasion. When Joseph Biden went everyday on television to warn that the invasion was imminent and that usa will not send troops but instead establish more economic sanctions, it was pretty clear to me that they already had accepted to abandon Ukraine to Russia.
- mort96 5y agoI don't understand. You're not urging the "west" or "allies" to intervene, but you want them to have sent troops to fight russian troops? In what world isn't that "intervening"?
- drewbug01 5y agoMy understanding of the comment in question is: "Sanctions are not an effective deterrent; if the West truly wanted to put a stop to this they should have sent troops because that's the only thing that Russia would listen to." Debatable as to the truth of that sentiment, perhaps. And obviously ... NATO and Russia being at war would be incredibly disastrous. But, I do think it's possible to hold that sentiment in good faith - I feel something similar. I desperately do not want to be in a "hot" war with Russia, but at the same time I recognize that sanctions are ineffective. The lesson here, perhaps, is that the options range from "bad" to "worse." :(
- jpgvm 5y agoHe explained why they can't send troops. They can send equipment because if equipment is lost it's no big deal. If you send NATO troops and they are killed then all out war between NATO and Russia is inevitable and that could easily be world ending. Essentially sending troops to Ukraine has a very poor risk/reward. If it works and Russia is discouraged from attacking then great, everyone goes home. If it doesn't work then it's WW3.