3 ms·

Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat..

by Alupis 1y ago

Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does. If Ukraine is so important to the world order, why has Europe (you know, Ukraine's actual neighbors) not stepped up with their full military power? Why is Europe not threatening troops, missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc... even nuclear obliteration if Putin doesn't yield? Why is it the US has to swoop in, from half a world away, and save the day (again, and again, and again...)? The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine. Maybe Europeans should?

alfiedotwtf 1y ago
> The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump. So much has happened that we’ve collectively forgotten that it was Zelensky said “No” to Trump on the phone when wanting to find any dirt on Joe Biden helping Hunter in business deals.
- Alupis 1y ago
  > The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump That totally explains why Biden kept slow-walking support packages...
ModernMech 1y ago
> Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. It certainly will when Putin moves on to invading Poland or Finland. The whole point of holding the line at Ukraine is because everyone believes Putin won’t stop there.
- lukas099 1y ago
  After the unexpected difficulty of the Ukraine war, how likely is it that they would try to extend themselves even further, against stronger countries than Ukraine?
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    More likely than if they lose in Ukraine, that's for sure. Because the lesson they will have learned is that invading countries is a winning strategy. They were deluded enough to invade Ukraine, they are deluded enough to invade Poland. "Putin is too sensible to invade Ukraine" was the argument people were making the day before he did. My guess is these are the same people who now say "Putin would never invade Poland".
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  It would not be a terrible loss for the world if Russia invades Poland. Been there, too many consonants in their names and the food is too sweet. Never been to Finland so no opinion on that.
peoplefromibiza 1y ago
[dead]
hvb2 1y ago
Just to state a fact. Article 5 of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) has only been invoked once, by the US. So why did NATO members send their militaries to Afghanistan? The real reason is that most conflicts never happen. Or are resolved before ending in a full war. Either the US or a European NATO country sending in troops would muddy the conflict so much that the risk of escalation is huge.
coryrc 1y ago
> People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does. There's a difference between the US invading Iraq and US aiding a country being invaded.
- Alupis 1y ago
  > US aiding a country being invaded Why can't the Germans send troops into Ukraine? Or the Brits (for all their grandstanding and bluster)? Why must it be the US? If "everyone" thinks Putin isn't going to stop with Ukraine, then it would seem Europe has an existential crisis to deal with - not the US, thousands of miles away...
  - ben_w 1y ago
    Why the US and not Germany or UK? Two reasons: 1. Because whichever country does go in, it gives everyone else in NATO an excuse to do nothing in response to Russia subsequently going to full war with whoever it was that went in. Strategic vs tactical response in local political sphere, short-term tactical benefit of using such an excuse comes at long term strategic cost. 2. Right now, each individual European power is in a state of "Oh no, Russia's probably 3-5 years away from attacking us if Ukraine falls, and it will take us 5-8 years to be ready to defend ourselves". The UK, for example, has a 136k active and 32k reserve personnel in total, while Ukraine forces have suffered ~400k wounded and ~50-100k fatalities. Both points become "we can only intervene directly as a joint act from multiple nations". That said, if the USA were to leave NATO, I wouldn't be overly surprised if rest of NATO may issue a joint declaration that Ukraine is now under their combined protection, nor would I be overly surprised by an alternative outcome such as NATO being functionally replaced with Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016M042 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... And also, much of Europe is, in fact, sending aid (and arms) to Ukraine. All the other stuff is about troops on the ground.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    There's plenty of threats by Putin to use first strike nuclear weapons if NATO troops directly engage Russian troops. So the current approach is indirect: British "military advisers" train Ukranians in the use of British Javelin missiles, but don't pull the trigger themselves. Even a non-nuclear direct conventional war would get very messy very quickly. NATO would have to seize Kaliningrad and Belarus, start interning Russian nationals, rush forces to hold the Baltic states, and so on. It's not complicated to say "this will be very expensive and deadly, so we're not going to do it unless absolutely forced to". European states are now re-arming (the irony of fate is that it's now US policy for Germany and Japan to re-arm), but that is going to take a while.
oezi 1y ago
You are taking a short sighted view on what it means to be a super power. If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will show everyone that the US is incapable to hold even a weak enemy such as Russia to account. It is irrelvant that you frame it as a choice rather than a failure. Europe has been doing more than the US in absolute and relative terms to prop up Ukraine but it hasn't been enough to help Ukraine win. As a European, I would want our governments to put soldiers down and end the war, but Russia has been successful in the information war to make too many citizens afraid to enter with troops. The US hasn't been saving the day for anyone without ulterior motives for a long time (ever?). You make it seem like it were generous moves to counter mostly Russia or e.g. ensure access to middle eastern oil. The US has never spend money on its allies which it didn't believe has a large return. So the current Republican administration's view to reduce engagement is actually hurting themselves. Classic lose-lose.

by Alupis 1y ago

alfiedotwtf 1y ago

> The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump. So much has happened that we’ve collectively forgotten that it was Zelensky said “No” to Trump on the phone when wanting to find any dirt on Joe Biden helping Hunter in business deals.

Alupis 1y ago
> The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump That totally explains why Biden kept slow-walking support packages...

ModernMech 1y ago

> Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. It certainly will when Putin moves on to invading Poland or Finland. The whole point of holding the line at Ukraine is because everyone believes Putin won’t stop there.

lukas099 1y ago
After the unexpected difficulty of the Ukraine war, how likely is it that they would try to extend themselves even further, against stronger countries than Ukraine?
- ModernMech 1y ago
  More likely than if they lose in Ukraine, that's for sure. Because the lesson they will have learned is that invading countries is a winning strategy. They were deluded enough to invade Ukraine, they are deluded enough to invade Poland. "Putin is too sensible to invade Ukraine" was the argument people were making the day before he did. My guess is these are the same people who now say "Putin would never invade Poland".
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
It would not be a terrible loss for the world if Russia invades Poland. Been there, too many consonants in their names and the food is too sweet. Never been to Finland so no opinion on that.

peoplefromibiza 1y ago

[dead]

hvb2 1y ago

Just to state a fact. Article 5 of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) has only been invoked once, by the US. So why did NATO members send their militaries to Afghanistan? The real reason is that most conflicts never happen. Or are resolved before ending in a full war. Either the US or a European NATO country sending in troops would muddy the conflict so much that the risk of escalation is huge.

coryrc 1y ago

> People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does. There's a difference between the US invading Iraq and US aiding a country being invaded.

Alupis 1y ago
> US aiding a country being invaded Why can't the Germans send troops into Ukraine? Or the Brits (for all their grandstanding and bluster)? Why must it be the US? If "everyone" thinks Putin isn't going to stop with Ukraine, then it would seem Europe has an existential crisis to deal with - not the US, thousands of miles away...
- ben_w 1y ago
  Why the US and not Germany or UK? Two reasons: 1. Because whichever country does go in, it gives everyone else in NATO an excuse to do nothing in response to Russia subsequently going to full war with whoever it was that went in. Strategic vs tactical response in local political sphere, short-term tactical benefit of using such an excuse comes at long term strategic cost. 2. Right now, each individual European power is in a state of "Oh no, Russia's probably 3-5 years away from attacking us if Ukraine falls, and it will take us 5-8 years to be ready to defend ourselves". The UK, for example, has a 136k active and 32k reserve personnel in total, while Ukraine forces have suffered ~400k wounded and ~50-100k fatalities. Both points become "we can only intervene directly as a joint act from multiple nations". That said, if the USA were to leave NATO, I wouldn't be overly surprised if rest of NATO may issue a joint declaration that Ukraine is now under their combined protection, nor would I be overly surprised by an alternative outcome such as NATO being functionally replaced with Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12016M042 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A... And also, much of Europe is, in fact, sending aid (and arms) to Ukraine. All the other stuff is about troops on the ground.
- pjc50 1y ago
  There's plenty of threats by Putin to use first strike nuclear weapons if NATO troops directly engage Russian troops. So the current approach is indirect: British "military advisers" train Ukranians in the use of British Javelin missiles, but don't pull the trigger themselves. Even a non-nuclear direct conventional war would get very messy very quickly. NATO would have to seize Kaliningrad and Belarus, start interning Russian nationals, rush forces to hold the Baltic states, and so on. It's not complicated to say "this will be very expensive and deadly, so we're not going to do it unless absolutely forced to". European states are now re-arming (the irony of fate is that it's now US policy for Germany and Japan to re-arm), but that is going to take a while.

oezi 1y ago

You are taking a short sighted view on what it means to be a super power. If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will show everyone that the US is incapable to hold even a weak enemy such as Russia to account. It is irrelvant that you frame it as a choice rather than a failure. Europe has been doing more than the US in absolute and relative terms to prop up Ukraine but it hasn't been enough to help Ukraine win. As a European, I would want our governments to put soldiers down and end the war, but Russia has been successful in the information war to make too many citizens afraid to enter with troops. The US hasn't been saving the day for anyone without ulterior motives for a long time (ever?). You make it seem like it were generous moves to counter mostly Russia or e.g. ensure access to middle eastern oil. The US has never spend money on its allies which it didn't believe has a large return. So the current Republican administration's view to reduce engagement is actually hurting themselves. Classic lose-lose.