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 ...
Do they have any choices???
What in the world are you raving about?
Your posts are just gibberish and nonsense.
“Yes, the United States has many fewer forces in Europe than it did in 1989. But Russia has none, its allies have all switched sides, and its military is but a shadow of what it was 25 years ago.”
Good, so these people think we can win a land war in Europe. FINE. That STILL doesn’t make starting one in our interests.
Another bizarre irrelevant post.
Putin has some really whacked out people trying to defend him.
One simpe question: Are you for the NWO???
There seems to be a presupposition that Moscow desires to conquer Europe like the Soviets designed for the triumph of Communism. I think that’s a straw man, and that Russia’s real motive is to counter NATO’s continued expansion to Russia’s southern border. As soon as the February coup replaced Kiev’s previously elected government with a pro-Western regime, it was obvious that Russia would have to occupy Crimea and then secure a broad and defensible land bridge to Crimea through eastern Ukraine. But that has nothing to do with any conquest of Europe or reclaiming the dead Russian empire from NATO.
“What in the world are you raving about? Your posts are just gibberish and nonsense.”
Yea, we’ve been there. You want to start WW3 because you think we can win, I don’t. Since you lit a few firecrackers, you’re now the EXPERT on the subject and I have NO BUSINESS commenting on this topic.
I hear you, but I WILL NOT SHUT UP. Sorry.
I think it is the invading and conquering of countries that gives people the impression that Russia is invading and conquering countries.
It’s very simple Europe is depending on Putin’s gas. And he’s depending on their cash. Who is going to cut that branch of the tree???
However, it seems to me that many here have drunk the Kool-Aid and are totally blind to the NWO, where the real issue is burried!!!
Some of the Ukrainians are good guys, but there is also a large Nazi contingent among the Ukrainian nationalists in the western part of the country.
There are more Nazis in Russia than Ukraine, and it's Putin and Russia that are behaving like expansionist Nazis.
Regardless, my opposition to US/NATO intervention has nothing to do with who is good and bad, but that we are meddling at Russia's backdoor and that this is not our fight.
Actually Russia's "backdoor" borders a sovereign country, in this case Ukraine. They have no right, certainly no inalienable right to invade their neighbor.
If Moscow or Beijing abetted a coup in Mexico City and sought to align Mexico in a hostile treaty alliance against the United States, we would have wasted no time invading in force and installing a friendlier regime along our border.
Stop it. Obama has done next to nothing in Ukraine. Ukraine was NOT joining NATO, although they certainly have the right to if asked. There was no Ukrainian threat to invade Russia. The Ukrainian people certainly had the right to protest against their corrupt former president Yanukovich, whose security force shot and killed about 100 mostly unarmed protestors. Beyond that the interim government is now gone as free elections, which were agreed to by Yanukovich, have now been held.
Unless we are committed to going to war against Russia to guarantee Ukraine's independence from Moscow, we should not commit our prestige and treasure to a wasteful defeat.
We should supply arms to Ukraine. That's what Reagan would have done. It's called peace thru strength. It's a policy that has a history of working.
We should not do what Obama is doing, which is a policy of doing nothing. Appeasement doesn't work.
Do they have any choices???
Well, at least you are being honest with yourself and admitting that one of the choices is indeed the terrible choice of appeasement.
Others here refuse to admit that.
What will admit is that we are talking about something I feel is being ignored totally. Her it comes!!!
[Rothschild] US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the [Hitler Era] Homeland police state and the [Rothschildism/Communism] repeal of civil liberties [for NWO].
"We cannot let this happen. If we believe that Ukraine will one day become a member of the European Union and NATO, then we should be ready to arm it. We must face the fact that the costs of unlimited European Union and NATO expansion have meant war with Russia by proxy — and then fight the war. Having reignited the hottest moments of the Cold War, we must deal with the consequences of encouraging democratization in Eastern Europe.
"This logic demands that we send Western military advisers to Kiev, and give the Ukrainians full intelligence and satellite support. And we must ship them guns, tanks, drones and medical kits by the ton. We must even be ready to deploy NATO troops if Russian tanks roll toward Crimea, as many fear they will, to build a land bridge to the mainland of southern Russia.
"No question, this path involves enormous risks. Russia will throw its might into Ukraine. American and British special forces should be dispatched to plant the flag and protect the airports of Kiev and Odessa. But Mr. Putin may call our bluff: Russian forces might — in an echo of the 1999 Kosovo war — encircle them.
"But if we are not prepared to take these risks, then we must force the Ukrainians to abandon their deadly delusion. It would be up to us to prevent Russia from slaughtering Ukrainian conscripts in vain.
"The only way to achieve this is for the West to oblige Ukraine to surrender. Ukraine is completely dependent on the International Monetary Fund, which is Western money. We must tell Kiev to accept as a fait accompli that Russia has carved out a South Ossetia in the east — or we turn the money off. We can console them: Being another Georgia is not the worst thing in the world."
Again, Ben Judah correctly assesses the war's inevitable outcome and calls on the West to come clean with Ukraine. His calls for Western intervention border on insanity unless we are fully committed to total war in the event "Mr. Putin may call our bluff." We must realize that a major war fought on Russia's border would present an existential threat to Russia and would therefore justify Moscow's use of every weapon in its arsenal. Just as Michael Brown fatally miscalculated Officer Wilson's willingness to use his sidearm to overcome Brown's superior weight and fists, nations must not fail to calculate the full arsenal of any adversaries they might seek to attack in their own homeland. We are talking a very dangerous game that should not be played over Ukraine.
Ukrainian Army left their own tanks, APCs and multiple rocket launchers to Novorussian rebels. Sending more arms would please rebels for sure.
Stop what? Russia is doing EXACTLY what we would do if an outside alliance threatened to expand anywhere in our hemisphere, let alone right on our border. And we have done this many times since the Monroe Doctrine was instituted in 1823. Russia is not going to lose its strategic -- and sole -- warm water port just because Khrushchev gave Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR back in the 1950s. Whether we or the whole world approves or not, Russia is going to secure Crimea to mainland Russia through eastern Ukraine. Ray Charles could see this coming back in February.
Battle losses are one reason that weapons need to be replaced.
Is the real reason you don’t want to send equipment to Ukraine, because you are against Russia taking Ukraine?
At this point, I don’t believe you.
Before you go further, I recommend you read, absorb, think this over very, VERY carefully in details, because this is what’s it’s all about but hidden from the American people. They don’t want you to know, but just having them trotting along like the sheeple. There is more Capitalism in Russia, and more Socialism un the U.S. today !!!
I encourage everyone to follow danamco’s link. It will open your eyes about the divinity of Putin.
Post 78 is ALSO for YOU!!!
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.