Posted on 09/01/2014 8:04:33 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Russia would have triumphed over the world order imposed by the West after the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. This would mean the destruction of American geopolitical deterrence. America’s enemies, from China to Iran, would see this as an invitation to establish their own spheres of influence amid the wreckage.
Russia would not stop there. Mr. Putin wants to undermine NATO, and the smell of weakness would tempt him further. It would be merely a matter of time before Moscow exploited the Russians in the Baltic States to manufacture new “frozen conflicts.” Poland would feel compelled to act as though NATO did not exist, creating a defensive military alliance of its own with the Baltics; it might even establish a buffer zone in western Ukraine.
There is no easy way out now. But we must not let thousands of Ukrainians die because we dithered. We must be honest with them if we are not willing to fight a new Cold War with Russia over Ukrainians’ independence. But if we force Ukraine to surrender, rather than sacrifice lives in a fight for which we have no stomach, then we must accept that it is a surrender, too, for NATO, for Europe and liberal democracy, and for American global leadership. That is the choice before us.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“WE dither?”
All the dithering has been by the NYT’s own favorite ditherer-in-chief.
Putin’s been around for a while. If we REALLY thought he was some kind of monster, then why did we allow ourselves to unilaterally disarm?
...and what’s the point of sending arms to Ukraine, do we REALLY think that they can read the instruction manuals (if we even have them printed in Ukranian) and then start blasting away Russian tanks and planes?
Because "we" as in the American electorate, were more concerned about free abortions, free birth control, homosexual marriage, and union control, than we were about leadership that could stand up to our enemies.
We unilaterally disarmed?
You think that the Ukraine Army can’t use our weapons?
what's the point? Finding new ways to funnel money into the MIC, that's the point. Who cares if they read the instructions as long as the check clears. Guess who's account those checks will drawn on...
“You think that the Ukraine Army can’t use our weapons?”
They can certainly try...but they’re not as easy as you may think. And the Russians have pretty good ones at their disposal, and MUCH BETTER TRAINED troops.
So yea - Ukraine can give it their best, lose, and then have to deal with not only defeat, but an angry victor.
But what the hell, the president is having domestic trouble here and elections are just around the corner.
“Finding new ways to funnel money into the MIC, that’s the point.”
Actually I would support that...anything to keep us from further demilitarizing. Unfortunately, given that whatever we give Ukraine will be in Russian hands a week later, we’d probably just give them junk we were about to scrap anyway.
...but at least we can say we tried, and we kept Obamacare and the Middle East off the minds of the voters in November.
Of course they can use our weapons, how complicated to you think an artillery piece or machine gun, or LAW is?
You think that all the armies we have armed over time couldn’t use the weapons? You think the Russians couldn’t in WWII?
You not only claimed that the weapons they are begging for would go unused because their army wouldn’t know how to use them, but also that we are hopeless because we “unilaterally disarmed”.
What is that about?
I think the strategy is called, “if we’re nice to Putin, maybe he’ll kill us last.”
If you think that our weapons are simply “point and shoot” for people that have never even seen them, much less used them, then I’m pretty much done trying to convince you of anything.
And you’re damn right that we have disarmed. We’re firing officers by the THOUSANDS, closing bases by the HUNDREDS and building one carrier every 10 years or so. Maybe we have a few scraps left, but I very much doubt we’re in any condition to fight a land war in Asia these days.
Evidently. These guys are blowing Russia up to be the world’s 800 pound gorilla that rules the roost.
It is absurd.
NATO a defense organization initially, has been totally changed to an attack dog by help Rothschild/Soros!
Those two, the NWO “leaders”, are NOT welcome in Russia, Putin fighting them off. And they should NOT be welcomed here either, but seems to flourish here pretty well, cashing in BIG time on the world’s unrest!!!
I used to teach artillery, and of course like many GI’s have given classes in simple weapons such as LAWs, the Ukrainians can use the weapons that we give them.
As far as you lying about “unilateral disarmament” Russia is no where near being a match for the United States, throw that in with Great Britain, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland and the other 22 nations of NATO against Russia’s limited military with 766,000 personnel in all branches, and the question arises, what in the devil is your angle in spewing this nonsense?
The point IS the NWO, Rothschild/Soros cashing in BIG time, not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East. BTW, Egypt saw it and said ENOUGH is ENOUGH and the Putt King did NOT like that!!!
Simple history. We need to BOMB Serbia to the STONE AGE to get them out of Kosovo and nearly go in with ground troops. We needed to BOMB the Serbs in Bosnia to get them to buckle. Dumping obsolete weapons on our allies didn’t do a damn thing to change the facts on the ground, and I’m not sure how happy the Russians will be when we start bombing them.
So what’s in it for you in starting WW3...more contract work maybe?
What was NATO’s original establish for???
“The point IS the NWO, Rothschild/Soros cashing in BIG time, not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East. BTW, Egypt saw it and said ENOUGH is ENOUGH and the Putt King did NOT like that!!!”
More likely Agenda 21 than the New World Order...but then does it matter?
You are just rambling now.
I guess you gave up your first pro-Russia, surrender monkey strategy.
“What was NATO’s original establish for???”
To give us the pretext and forward basing capability to fight the Soviet Union in Western Europe.
The last time I checked NATO did not exist to go in and liberate Eastern Europe or to dismember the Soviet Union, but then maybe I’m misinformed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.