Ukraine conflict

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2022/04/22/russia-wants-full-control-over-ukraines-south-east-and-eyes-part-of-moldova-commander-says/?sh=6cf46e0d4556

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/22/ukraine-moldova-transnistria-russia/


Based on some leaked calls and Radio Transmissions seem to indicate that Russia plans to continue to push West, and their next target may be Moldova (if they break through the rest of Ukraine).

Moldova is also not in NATO (or the EU).

But, this begs the ethical question, how many invasion of non-NATO countries should be tolerated before America stops them?

Moldova will not be able to hold off Russia on there own, compared to Ukraine their military is a shadow (even if Russia only invades one specific territory). This could be very bad for Moldova if the West does not intervene.

I feel like this is the 1930s, and Germany and Russia are invading random countries in Europe and America and the UK are like "hey let them hash it out what is the worst that can happen", and people are not going to see this until it is too late and Russia achieves expansion.

They need to be stopped at all costs at this point, we do not need Russian control of Europeans countries.

I feel like nobody sees Putin's desire for expansion, and will not until it is too late.

Quote: Gandler

They need to be stopped at all costs at this point, we do not need Russian control of Europeans countries.

.

My only problem with your post is the above. If it is at all costs, what have you done? Have you volunteered to go fight over in Ukraine? Have you donated your total net worth to a group to help stop it?

I personally hope we do get involved. I was not alive for the last major war we were in and would love to see the logistics of one.

Quote: Gandler

They need to be stopped at all costs at this point, we do not need Russian control of Europeans countries.

I feel like nobody sees Putin's desire for expansion, and will not until it is too late.

"At all costs?"

The key impediment to us putting boots and assets on the ground in Ukraine and taking up their cause is the awful spectre of nuclear war.

If Russia weren't the world's largest nuclear power then yeah, have at it, help em out directly, stop the damned Russian bear.

But...they are nuclear, and borderline crazy at the top, so caution must currently be our guide.

Quote: DRich

My only problem with your post is the above. If it is at all costs, what have you done? Have you volunteered to go fight over in Ukraine? Have you donated your total net worth to a group to help stop it?

I personally hope we do get involved. I was not alive for the last major war we were in and would love to see the logistics of one.

I have inquired about volunteering for the Ukraine Foreign Legion.

Until my obligation to the American Military expires this is illegal and could get me in serious trouble if I ignore them and join a foreign military anyway. If this is still occurring come my ETS and the International Legion is still accepting American Veterans, this is quite likely (I have long fantasized about the French Foreign Legion, this is the same concept, except they are actually in a war for their survival, and if I get much older and out of shape this is an experience that I will never be able to have).

I have donated some money, not my entire net worth, because I need to survive, and I am a single middle-income individual, who even if I donate every penny, I have will only impoverish myself and not actually change anything (now if somebody like Elon Musk donates his net worth, that is a different story....) So saying (or implying) that I don't care, because I don't give up everything to live on the streets is not really fair.

I am willing to fight for the Ukraine Foreign Legion for no pay, and risk my life. I think this means more than the amount of money I donate. Even wealthy people like Decaprio (the actor) who donate 25 million directly to the Ukraine Army, is massive, but its a drop in the bucket compared to what the U.S. can fund if it chooses.

However, ideally America would get involved (both financially and militarily) so I can help with the American effort, and both of these points would be moot. But, I am somebody who is very willing to risk myself for a cause that I believe in. Now, I am single (well by single I mean not married and no serious plants to become married soon) with no kids, if I was married and had kids its possible I would feel differently, but right now I am shocked that more people who are legally able to are not going over.

Even if I give every penny and die for Ukraine, in the long run it will make no difference unless either a powerful country gets involved, or thousands of others also do the same (which appears more likely based on their numbers).

I mean this is an unfair point, there are many causes and charities I believe in and think should be supported as well, I can't drain myself for them, but I do what I can. Alzheimer's for example, and other senior diseases, I desperately want cured, am I supposed to live on the streets and donate every penny I can make to a cause that I believe is critical? (Which in the long run is counterintuitive, because that would result in me losing my job, and not being able to donate anything to anyone, or pay taxes, etc....) I donate what I can, and I volunteer what I can. But, on this issue I am bound by law to not join the Ukrainian Military at present.

Quote: missedhervee

"At all costs?"

The key impediment to us putting boots and assets on the ground in Ukraine and taking up their cause is the awful spectre of nuclear war.

If Russia weren't the world's largest nuclear power then yeah, have at it, help em out directly, stop the damned Russian bear.

But...they are nuclear, and borderline crazy at the top, so caution must currently be our guide.

That is the problem we are basically affirming that countries with nuclear weapons can do whatever they want with no consequences (and sadly most people share your view, so that is likely).

This not only emboldens countries that have such capabilities (IE China for another example that may cause some complicated scenarios soon that we should, but probably will not intervene in).

But, perhaps more importantly, it will push every other country to strive for nuclear weapons. Because, they know they will not be helped, and if they want to engage in aggression its a shield.

Ukraine gave up their weapons in exchange for security guarantees (look how that is working out), why would any country even consider giving them up or not developing them now?

Are we supposed to be so afraid of nuclear war that we just ignore nuclear countries and not engage them? Because that is a very dangerous precedent.

We are basically setting the world stage to enter a nuclear arms race, in the name of avoiding a nuclear war. It sounds good and safe in the short term, but it will lead to long term proliferation.

You espouse a policy of brinkmanship, which could quite literally blow up in your face, given Putin's instability / desperation.

I don't disagree with your points, I understand them but cannot at this time say that sending American men and material to Ukraine is the soundest strategy.

Give them all the weapons and ammo we can, they are good fighters.

Maybe it's time to send the American fleet into the Black Sea to rattle our sabre?

Provocative?

Cetainly...but it will distract the Russians and would not warrant them attacking us.

Then again maybe we should just sneak attack Russia with a pre-emptive nuclear attack: it's inevitable anyway...

Quote: missedhervee

You espouse a policy of brinkmanship, which could quite literally blow up in your face, given Putin's instability / desperation.

I don't disagree with your points, I understand them but cannot at this time say that sending American men and material to Ukraine is the soundest strategy.

Give them all the weapons and ammo we can, they are good fighters.

Maybe it's time to send the American fleet into the Black Sea to rattle our sabre?

Provocative?

Cetainly...but it will distract the Russians and would not warrant them attacking us.

Then again maybe we should just sneak attack Russia with a pre-emptive nuclear attack: it's inevitable anyway...

Oh I fully agree on Putin's state of mind. However, I feel that argument can be used for my side as well (he is already willing to do anything and become and international villain, so why stop?)

But, we may be some of the few who understand this (at least we are in the minority).

We only have to look back to FEB of this year (on this very forum for an easy example), where many (perhaps most, on both political sides) were insisting that people like me were being alarmist and Putin would never launch a full scale war against a European county. Everyone downplays his mental State until its too late. Everyone who said Putin would attempt to annex the Ukraine shortly after the Olympics was brushed aside as an alarmist or a pro-war zealot.

Again, you may say its a dramatic example, but look at Hitler in the 1930s....... (The global consensus by antiwar people was he was mentally unhinged and was just trying to restore his impression of the German/Prussian Empire, so what is the harm in letting him play out his fantasy, its just some local bordering countries, what is the harm? ).

Now, even though (scaled for time) Germany was far more powerful than Russia is (in the 19030s), Russia can do more easy damage to us (missiles, nuclear weapons, stuff that did not exist in the early parts of WWII, etc....) WWII we were dealing with very powerful enemies, but they had no real ability to touch us so to speak (outside of pacific outlying outposts). The world is very different now. Not just conventional and nuclear weapons, but cyber-attacks (which can cause a country to come to a standstill if targeted). WWII there was no way for Hitler to effect day to day life in Chicago for example, this is not the case with Putin, where with enough focus, a City could be essentially shut down.

But, should the fear of instant damage scare us from stopping an atrocity? And, if so where do we draw the line?

I would go further and say I am beyond brinkmanship, I am fine walking the line into whatever comes even if it leads to full scale war. I accept most people do not share this view, but during WWII they did not either until it was far too late. America has a long history of not getting involved in massive wars until long after they have started.... I don't think we should risk making that mistake again. Should we wait for another Pearl Harbor before we start caring?

I know you are a lawyer, but you also have told me that you are a student of history (which I also respect), surely you can also see the parallels? Even if you feel it is dramatic to make direct comparisons. The old saying, history does not really repeat itself, but it frequently rhymes.

Indeed I do see the parallels between Putin and Hitler, and it is frightening.

I can only hope that the Russian people, or more likely the Russian elite recognize the foolishness / danger of his actions and that he is made to disappear, much like Czar Nicholas II was deposed / killed by members of the Russian elite.

Putin is aware of this threat, however: that's one reason he, like Hitler, uses propaganda to keep his subjects clueless as to his actions.

He's a believer in Tne Big Lie.

Quote: Gandler

Moldova is also not in NATO (or the EU).

But, this begs the ethical question, how many invasion of non-NATO countries should be tolerated before America stops them?
.

Just because the US (and all NATO) are not announcing what we are currently doing in nearby non-nato counntries doesn't mean there's not much going on.

I don't think any of these countries have gone back to sleep and complacency.

Quote: missedhervee

Indeed I do see the parallels between Putin and Hitler, and it is frightening.

I can only hope that the Russian people, or more likely the Russian elite recognize the foolishness / danger of his actions and that he is made to disappear, much like Czar Nicholas II was deposed / killed by members of the Russian elite.

Putin is aware of this threat, however: that's one reason he, like Hitler, uses propaganda to keep his subjects clueless as to his actions.

He's a believer in Tne Big Lie.

The Russian elite only became against Putin when it starts to hurt them (and only mildly). They care only as much as far as their wallet will go, this is why I have zero sympathy for the Russian people. And, even so its a small minority, because billionaires have ways of evading sanctions... Its the everyday people who can be damaged the most.

If Putin was committing genocide they would only be outraged once their bank accounts start to be seized.... Remeber, Putin made them billionaires, they did not become wealthy by hard work or luck, it was all insider trading during the transition after the USSR....

They were allowed to take control of former Soviet operations and were essentially gifted companies worth billions.....

None of these billionaires are like American billionaires where even if you hate then, you can understand why they are rich....

The Oligarchs will only oppose Putin when it becomes safe to do so (they know he is done and suddenly want good graces by the prospective new government).

But, hoping the Oligarchy will push for progress on pure humanitarian grounds is quite far fetched.....