• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

In Ukraine, the US and Europe have limited options

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
The correct move is whatever it takes to stop nations from invading an allied country. If that's sinking every Russian ship, buzzing the ground troops with fighters or having a sit down with their leader, it needs to be done.

We tried the isolationist theory before and it did not end well for anyone. Sometimes you have to puff out your chest and sometimes you have to throw punches.

I know it goes against the pussified liberal teaching but...

Sometimes fighting is the right thing to do.
I completely agree that sometimes fighting is the right thing to do, but I'm not convinced we're at that point. Once we start shooting and Putin starts shooting back, there's a very real threat of World War III, and while I'm sympathetic to comparisons with Czechoslovakia, nuclear weapons significantly increase the ante. Even short of a nuclear exchange, I'm not at all sure we and Western Europe have the will to match Putin. If not, engaging would likely leave us worse off, not better off. At the very least, a shooting war would make Ukraine a much less pleasant place to be than it is now, regardless of who wins.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
If it comes to war, an effort to attack all Russian military within Ukraine seems like the place to start, and end. Basically no need to pose a threat to Russia itself. Just its forces outside its own land. If we make that clear to everyone, no one should be dumb enough to toss nukes.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,385
13
61
I completely agree that sometimes fighting is the right thing to do, but I'm not convinced we're at that point. Once we start shooting and Putin starts shooting back, there's a very real threat of World War III, and while I'm sympathetic to comparisons with Czechoslovakia, nuclear weapons significantly increase the ante. Even short of a nuclear exchange, I'm not at all sure we and Western Europe have the will to match Putin. If not, engaging would likely leave us worse off, not better off. At the very least, a shooting war would make Ukraine a much less pleasant place to be than it is now, regardless of who wins.
I'm not convinced we are at that point either. I would be scared of someone who is. But we can't say "it's only Ukraine. We don't want to risk a war." We can't be afraid of Russia. Putin is a psychopath and letting him invade other countries will not end well.

If Kerry or Obama or Dennis Rodman can get Russia to back down then great. We don't need another war but not acting is not a surefire way of preventing a war.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,385
13
61
If it comes to war, an effort to attack all Russian military within Ukraine seems like the place to start, and end. Basically no need to pose a threat to Russia itself. Just its forces outside its own land. If we make that clear to everyone, no one should be dumb enough to toss nukes.
I think sinking their fleet would be a perfect place to start.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I'm not convinced we are at that point either. I would be scared of someone who is. But we can't say "it's only Ukraine. We don't want to risk a war." We can't be afraid of Russia. Putin is a psychopath and letting him invade other countries will not end well.

If Kerry or Obama or Dennis Rodman can get Russia to back down then great. We don't need another war but not acting is not a surefire way of preventing a war.
Agree.

I think sinking their fleet would be a perfect place to start.
Sinking their fleet would be an act of war guaranteed to start World War III. Putin could even claim the moral high ground, as sinking their fleet would kill thousands of Russians whereas a nuke detonated at high altitude over our Eastern seaboard or California coast would fry much of our infrastructure whilst directly killing no one. A nation with the military might of Russia is not to be militarily engaged lightly, and historically sinking several warships is much harder to step back from than a limited land engagement as the former is unmistakable whereas the latter can be blamed on local commanders and confusion.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
14,972
2,269
126
You sound like the Israeli Lobby going on about the holocaust, as if it happened yesterday. At the time you reference, enormous shifts of populations were beginning to get under way, all forced one way or another. They were big believers in it at the time, all over the globe. India. Africa. Europe. Korea.

It's not like people living today had any say in what happened 70 years ago. Might as well go on about giving Minnesota back to the Sioux.

If you think our posturing & meddling would improve the situation, you've got rocks for brains.


Fixed for historical accuracy.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
A good starting point for us: Replace the $15 billion in aid that Russia rescinded. In fact up in to $20 billion. Let Putin choke on that.

Then tell them two words: Afghanistan 1989.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,290
128
106
A good starting point for us: Replace the $15 billion in aid that Russia rescinded. In fact up in to $20 billion. Let Putin choke on that.

Then tell them two words: Afghanistan 1989.

You must've missed the post about Russia having a ~500Billion foreign exchange reserve / surplus. I think they learned something when the Ruble collapsed, something a lot of other countries have yet to learn.

The USA is #16, just below Thailand, with $145B...


And as far as debt, well a picture is worth 1000 words.

This is debt as a percent of GDP, from the CIA :

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
according to http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/top-russians-face-sanctions-by-us-for-crimea-crisis.html?hp&_r=0 , the US may revoke visas and impose sanctions on Russian government officials... but it's likely to have minimal effect without the Europeans on-board and even England has said that economic sanctions or blocking Russian money from the British market is a non-starter.
It would actually be good for Russia if the West clamped down on rich Russians taking money out of Russia and stashing it overseas. But money talks.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
A good starting point for us: Replace the $15 billion in aid that Russia rescinded. In fact up in to $20 billion. Let Putin choke on that.
A Ukraine with money to pay its gas bills would be good for Russia.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
it's true, Obama's totally a hypocrite because GWB invaded Iraq.
So every time a new president is elected we have a new clean slate and past actions of our country have no meaning? How does that work with foreign treaties like trade and alliances and such does the new president have to sign those again every time? ;)
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
82
91
So every time a new president is elected we have a new clean slate and past actions of our country have no meaning? How does that work with foreign treaties like trade and alliances and such does the new president have to sign those again every time? ;)
at a certain point, though, the blame has to end... once the nation realized what a clusterfuck GWB got us into, his ratings dropped and his entire party was kicked out of office in 2006-2008.

within reason, I think the current President has done an OK job with regard to untangling that mess and getting us out of there.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,660
4,483
126
I think Crimea should have a referendum on their status, and Ukraine should respect it.
If I was Crimean I would not be in a hurry to join Russia. But they can leverage Russian presence for greater autonomy, and more money.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
according to http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/world/europe/top-russians-face-sanctions-by-us-for-crimea-crisis.html?hp&_r=0 , the US may revoke visas and impose sanctions on Russian government officials... but it's likely to have minimal effect without the Europeans on-board and even England has said that economic sanctions or blocking Russian money from the British market is a non-starter.
Then there is no point in us getting overly involved. If the Europeans aren't going to commit to a hard line stance then we shouldn't put ourselves in a position to draw lines in the proverbial sand.
 
Last edited:

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
200
106
This is why the US has maintained a military presence in Europe since WWII. Because Europe can't be counted on to live in peace without a big dog threatening them.

I think Crimea should have a referendum on their status, and Ukraine should respect it.
If I was Crimean I would not be in a hurry to join Russia. But they can leverage Russian presence for greater autonomy, and more money.
Doing business with Russia is like doing business with the Mafia. They'll get their hooks into you and then you're working for them.
 
Last edited:

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,766
3,750
126
I think Crimea should have a referendum on their status, and Ukraine should respect it.
If I was Crimean I would not be in a hurry to join Russia. But they can leverage Russian presence for greater autonomy, and more money.
Russia isn't going to give up Sevastopol regardless of the results of any referendum so it's a bit pointless.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,117
902
126
I strongly suggest you look into the details of that election.
Yanukovish was legaly elected and this was recognized as a fair eklection by international bodies including organisations who have the US and EU as member, only his rival who lost the election , ioulia timoshenko, kept on saying that there was frauds, so much from a woman that managed to amass 1bn$ in a few years without creating real businesses and whose first decision
in 2005 was to sell the ultra profitable steel industry to foreign interests,
guess that it was paid back, anonymously...
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,117
902
126
If we printed money like that we'd be in black too.

I'm persuaded that we (meaning the Western nations) could crush them economically if we wanted to, but it would come at some cost.

Fern
Obvious that you understand nothing in economics...

Coup? That wasn't a coup. That was the citizens protesting against their government.
Protesting while using weapons..?.

Theses were a bunch of ultra nationalists fascists mobsters who all originate from the western part of Ukraine , actualy two regions.

Here your "people protesting" :







Try to "protest" like this in your country , sure that
you ll be shot in a matter of minutes...
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,117
902
126
Ummm........The Venezuelan "Spring" resulted in a leftist dictator and his handpicked successor running that country into the ground economically, politically and socially. If that is how low you are aiming then we should continue on with the current "Winter".
The so called leftist dictator is a legaly elected president
so please stop your trolling based on lies and hate of left
tendencies in the political area , that s a given for reactionary
extreme right people like you who see left governments as inherently
illegetimate even if democraticaly elected , heck i suppose that
people like Pinochet or Vidella were legitimate for you liking...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY