5 ms·

> So, what should Ukrainians do if they want to live in a society not controlled by Putin? Fight like hell? The Afghans have fought off two world powers in the

> So, what should Ukrainians do if they want to live in a society not controlled by Putin? Fight like hell? The Afghans have fought off two world powers in the last century. The Ukrainians can do the same (with plenty of low-key, low-risk support). > It's reprehensible that the West is standing by while a fellow Western country is overrun. We're so scared of some hardship (or convinced that only Anericans have the mental stability to not shoot nukes) that we're allowing Ukraine to be demolished by Russia while we have the equipment to stop the whole thing in its tracks, just standing by all around Europe. It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Fight like hell? They are doing just that. > It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine. We'll let them burn then I guess? /s
- rhexs 5y ago
  Well, unfortunately, yes? The EU can fund and field a military if they so please. And with recent events, they might want to.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Ok, so a single nuke gets dropped on NYC or LA. Just the one. And Europe stands back and says: "Well, unfortunately we'll let them burn, because otherwise Putin might do the same to us." What would you make of that?
    - rayiner 5y ago
      Europe would have a responsibility to their people to do what’s best for them.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Right, like how after 9/11 Europe had a responsibility to ignore the USA? But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA. They fucked up the aftermath of that but in the moment there was zero doubt about what was the right thing to do: to stand as one.
        marcusverus 5y ago
        > But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA. The cost-benefit analysis was entirely different. Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. The benefit was that they stayed in the good graces of the global superpower. The risks were not existential—-they signed on for a pair of wars against third world countries. There was zero risk of provoking a world war. There was zero risk of atomic bombs being dropped at home. Compare to the current crisis. The benefit to the US of fighting the Ruskies is—-what? We would gain weak ally. The costs would be our THIRD Great War fought in Europe for the benefit of Europeans. With the risk of world war or even nuclear war. And don’t preach to Americans about doing “the right thing” in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies. I haven't heard that one in a long time, but thank you for reminding me. You were there? My grandparents and parents were there. And I've seen up close what a Russian annexed country looks like. Believe me you don't want either. > Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. Ah ok. I will re-calibrate accordingly. > There was zero risk of provoking a world war. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke25-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke2...
    - marcusverus 5y ago
      The US is in NATO. If Russia nuked a NATO member, all NATO members would respond with force. That’s the entire point of NATO—-to deter Soviet/Russian aggression against any of its member countries. The failure of any member country to respond accordingly would be a breech of faith. Ukraine is not in NATO. There is no obligation to intervene.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        > That’s the entire point of NATO—-to deter Soviet/Russian aggression against any of its member countries. No, the goal of NATO is to provide security for its members. That can be effectuated in many ways, including for instance acting on UN requests. Besides that: each NATO country is still free to act on its own, or in concert with other NATO members outside of NATO. So even if there is no obligation to intervene, there also isn't an obligation not to intervene, see the last 45 years for many examples.
stickfigure 5y ago
> It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine. Yes, it is? Didn't we go through this in 1936 already? You say this as if Putin isn't the one risking nuclear annihilation. To radically simplify the situation, take a cue from Putin's playbook: Drop some bombs and deny involvement. It's not like we aren't already sending weapons and material to Ukraine. We're already involved.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Didn't we go through this in 1936 already? Who had thousands of nuclear warheads in 1936?

jacquesm 5y ago

> Fight like hell? They are doing just that. > It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine. We'll let them burn then I guess? /s

rhexs 5y ago
Well, unfortunately, yes? The EU can fund and field a military if they so please. And with recent events, they might want to.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Ok, so a single nuke gets dropped on NYC or LA. Just the one. And Europe stands back and says: "Well, unfortunately we'll let them burn, because otherwise Putin might do the same to us." What would you make of that?
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Europe would have a responsibility to their people to do what’s best for them.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Right, like how after 9/11 Europe had a responsibility to ignore the USA? But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA. They fucked up the aftermath of that but in the moment there was zero doubt about what was the right thing to do: to stand as one.
      - marcusverus 5y ago
        > But we didn't. And even if the way that was handled sucks and the intelligence was faulty and I was utterly against invading Iraq because it seemed the wrong thing to do, right after 9/11 the whole world stood with the USA. The cost-benefit analysis was entirely different. Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. The benefit was that they stayed in the good graces of the global superpower. The risks were not existential—-they signed on for a pair of wars against third world countries. There was zero risk of provoking a world war. There was zero risk of atomic bombs being dropped at home. Compare to the current crisis. The benefit to the US of fighting the Ruskies is—-what? We would gain weak ally. The costs would be our THIRD Great War fought in Europe for the benefit of Europeans. With the risk of world war or even nuclear war. And don’t preach to Americans about doing “the right thing” in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        > Hundreds of thousands of our boys are buried on your soil—-the cost of a long history of ‘standing as one’ with our European allies. I haven't heard that one in a long time, but thank you for reminding me. You were there? My grandparents and parents were there. And I've seen up close what a Russian annexed country looks like. Believe me you don't want either. > Europe got on the bandwagon with the global superpower. Ah ok. I will re-calibrate accordingly. > There was zero risk of provoking a world war. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke25-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-25-fg-nuke2...
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    The US is in NATO. If Russia nuked a NATO member, all NATO members would respond with force. That’s the entire point of NATO—-to deter Soviet/Russian aggression against any of its member countries. The failure of any member country to respond accordingly would be a breech of faith. Ukraine is not in NATO. There is no obligation to intervene.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      > That’s the entire point of NATO—-to deter Soviet/Russian aggression against any of its member countries. No, the goal of NATO is to provide security for its members. That can be effectuated in many ways, including for instance acting on UN requests. Besides that: each NATO country is still free to act on its own, or in concert with other NATO members outside of NATO. So even if there is no obligation to intervene, there also isn't an obligation not to intervene, see the last 45 years for many examples.

stickfigure 5y ago

> It is not reasonable to expect the NATO members to risk nuclear annihilation to actively defend Ukraine. Yes, it is? Didn't we go through this in 1936 already? You say this as if Putin isn't the one risking nuclear annihilation. To radically simplify the situation, take a cue from Putin's playbook: Drop some bombs and deny involvement. It's not like we aren't already sending weapons and material to Ukraine. We're already involved.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Didn't we go through this in 1936 already? Who had thousands of nuclear warheads in 1936?