I go to sleep every day hoping for Western/NATO military action against Russian military units in Ukraine. Specifically, a large scale aerial operation to annihilate concentrations of Russian forces inflicting maximum and unsustainable casualties forcing Russian withdrawal.
There’s a distinction between attacking Russia and stoping an invasion by eliminating military forces of the aggressor in the sovereign territory of another country.
A Ukrainian military is heroically fighting a much larger and better equipped invasion force, Ukrainian civilians are hiding in subways, fleeing across the border, Ukrainian people are dying, Ukrainian government is asking for help from the neighboring countries of the liberal West.
Let’s not escalate the situation or a war might break out.
> Let’s not escalate the situation or a war might break out.
You are being pithy, but is this not the truth? We are on the first rung of a ladder that leads up to the end of the world.
The NATO strategy so far seems to be to isolate and damage Russia economically and politically and provide weapons (and one can assume intel) to Ukraine. I think it makes sense.
One of the major problems with escalation is that Russia is weak - so weak that any direct NATO intervention will almost certainly provoke some kind of nuclear response.
Go enlist in your military's combat arms and put your life where your mouth is. If you aren't personally willing to sacrifice yourself, why are you so eager condemn others to death or life changing injury?
I am not eager at all. I am not calling for aggression against any country. I have been ideologically opposed to much of the military action of the countries I resided in.
Are you not aware of death and life changing injuries mounting as you observe? Whose people and how many of them need to meet that fate until you think I may have a point hoping for an intervention?
I happen to think that a decisive, overwhelming and united military action against the forces of the aggressor may prevent a larger bloodshed. History seem to offer some evidence that backs that conclusion.
> I go to sleep every day hoping for Western/NATO military action against Russian military units in Ukraine.
You stated you want Western militaries to intervene, which is an act of aggression. If you’re not willing to join your local military in a combat role, don’t state you want them to get involved in a war. Unless you post proof of your rank and MOS (or equivalent) in a NATO military, it sounds like you’re a coward who wants others to die so that you can feel good about yourself and get good boy points on the internet.
I don’t hold military ranks, and I am not a particularly brave person. Quite the opposite - I often seek conflict resolution by trying to appeal to peoples better nature, find a compromise, and turn around and leave if I have to, to try another day.
But I don’t really see how hoping for military forces to protect innocent people who are being killed by an immoral aggressor and expressing these feeling publicly requires passing some sort of a bar of approval from you?
If you don’t mind, I think you and I have spoken for the last time on this subject.
Because you are willing to send other, much braver people to their deaths, so that you can feel good about helping people in a war in a country you don’t live in. You admit that you are not willing to put your own life on the line, yet you are willing to carelessly sacrifice the lives of your own countrymen without a second thought. If you want to help the innocent people of Ukraine, be willing to help them yourself. I suggest you read Starship Troopers as a light read to gain some more perspective and that you learn not to be a chickenhawk.
You are the “Fortunate Son” mocked in the famous song: someone privileged who advocates war knowing that they won’t ever be asked to pay a price.
I’ve just read in the news that Kadyrov’s Chechen forces of islamist murderers are going to be deploying to Ukraine to assist Russian forces. Should the West continue to wait and see?
Isn't that just Cold War 101? Both sides are supposed to know where the other side's red line is. And both sides are supposed to avoid creating ambiguous situations, where the other side may no longer know the red line. If the enemy does not know your red line, it's your fault. And if you don't know it yourself, your existence may be enough to start a nuclear war.
This is absolutely correct! I've been watching Putin's public briefings for over 10 years and have to say that when he expressed his concern over NATO Allies invoking Article 5 to the reporters, he was out of his normal character (calm, collected, and thoughtful)...meaning that he was NOT KIDDING about using his hypersonic nuclear arsenal on anyone that wanted to interfere!
I can’t imagine why you’re confused by this. The redline is aggression against a NATO member. Hint: it’s why the potential for Ukraine joining NATO was such a contentious issue. (It’s why troops and fighters are, one hopes only symbolically, moving in to reinforce those NATO states with their presence right now)
There's a very good reason the parent may be confused about it. The NATO red line is fraudulent, a lie.
Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.
The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.
> Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.
This was a confusing comment but I don’t think the US would fight WWIII for Finland if they weren’t a NATO member (and they’re not). Do you?
> The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.
I guess that’s possible, but you’re entirely confused about its import. The NATO countries denying membership to Ukraine because they do not want to defend Ukrainians is an indication that NATO member countries take the “red line” associated with NATO membership seriously.
I'm not a politician and my red-line will always be no war, only peace! However, I also realize that we do not live in a fantasy and humans are not perfect.
Lets put a pin in this conversation which we can pick up when Baltics are invaded and I fully expect to hear explanations how while it’s a very regretful turn of events, they are materially different from, let’s say if it was Germany or France that was attacked.
The Ukrainian life is less valuable than the Finn life (surely we'd respond to an invasion of Finland)? Where shall we finally call Putin's bluff? Putin is destroying a large country in Europe out of conquest and empire building, like the tsars of old. The Ukrainians deserve better than the modern, weak version of America they have 'helping' them. There were so many ways we could have easily helped them over the prior seven years and yet failed to do so.
If the US is truly a superpower (that has no qualms picking fights with far weaker nations), let it begin acting like it.
If not, then lie down, cower and fade from the pretension of superpower relevancy. It's either or and it's time for the US to demonstrate whether it still has the grit and strength of past generations or not, to demonstrate that it deserves the global position it has possessed post WW2.
We'll bomb the hell out of numerous weaker nations. We'll shock and awe Iraq, bombing them back in time, invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for two decades. We'll help destroy Libya and Syria because it's viewed as a convenient, low risk move on the global chess board. Then when it comes time to deal with a context involving a strong opponent where we'd have moral standing to act in the defense (no-fly zone over Ukraine) of innocent people that are being attacked, what do we do? Wave our hands furiously in the air and throw around impotent sanctions.
What if enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine leads to a full nuclear exchange a.k.a. end of the world?
We are actually seeing some strong early results from the soft power approach. The US under Trump all but abandoned this powerful and necessary tool. Give it a chance.
There’s a distinction between attacking Russia and stoping an invasion by eliminating military forces of the aggressor in the sovereign territory of another country.