Is arming Ukraine akin to waging war with Russia?

[bradly1101]

I know part of the source of the trouble is that Russia got easy access to the resources of these eastern European countries when they were part of the Soviet Union and afterward when 'friendlies' like Yanukovych ran Ukraine. The EU with our and popular support elected a 'western friendly' PM who presumably will reduce Putin's influence and possibly his easy access to Ukraine's resources. Doing this to a man like Putin is bound to have repercussions.

I'm for using diplomacy alone, but our government is threatening the use of 'defensive weapons' like anti-tank rockets (which could never be used offensively ). My other problem with arming the enemy of our enemy is that those weapons can end up in the hands of our direct foe, and used against us if we enter the fray (like in Iraq).

Also would arming Kiev put us at war with Russia?

 

[theeedude]

Just supply weapons but not make a big announcement about it.

 

[norseamd]

Just supply weapons but not make a big announcement about it.

So you are now in favor of us supplying equipment to Ukraine as long as we do not make political drama about it and try to be thoughtful of what we give Ukraine?

 

[brycejones]

Short answer to the question in the title:

No

 

[Fern]

I know part of the source of the trouble is that Russia got easy access to the resources of these eastern European countries when they were part of the Soviet Union and afterward when 'friendlies' like Yanukovych ran Ukraine. The EU with our and popular support elected a 'western friendly' PM who presumably will reduce Putin's influence and possibly his easy access to Ukraine's resources. Doing this to a man like Putin is bound to have repercussions.

I'm for using diplomacy alone, but our government is threatening the use of 'defensive weapons' like anti-tank rockets (which could never be used offensively ). My other problem with arming the enemy of our enemy is that those weapons can end up in the hands of our direct foe, and used against us if we enter the fray (like in Iraq).

Russia already has that. I see no real problem if they get some from us.

Also would arming Kiev put us at war with Russia?

From what I can read in the Euro news, YES.

Merkel and Hollande are in Moscow now to meet with Putin. The Euro media is painting this as desperation on their part.

They're afraid of Putin and what he may do.

Experts etc say if we give the Ukraine weapons it means war with Russia, and we will likely lose.

If we don't, Putin will likely move to expand. If we don't stop him at Ukraine, where will we?

Europe seems to be in a panic.

Fern

 

[rommelrommel]

Hopefully aggression towards a NATO member would be the red line, so to speak.

 

[norseamd]

Experts etc say if we give the Ukraine weapons it means war with Russia, and we will likely lose.

Like Brzezinski has said we want to make it self destruction for the Russians to try to take over Central and Western Ukraine and focusing most of all on the major urban areas since those are the most difficult for invaders to conquer. the equipment that is perfect for this includes anti-tank weapons, anti-air weapons, explosives, grenades, machine guns, submachine guns, shotguns, sniping equipment, etc. and also just as important is regular equipment like mres, nvds, signals and computer equipment, body armor, and medical equipment.

 

[Fern]

Hopefully aggression towards a NATO member would be the red line, so to speak.

I guess so, but my question is who in NATO is going to call for it?

Obama? I can't see that. Come hell or high water (or invasion) he seems determined that his legacy will be no new wars etc.

Europe? Kiss that Russian gas good bye.

In any case, Russian aggression will test NATO.

Fern

 

[Balt]

Is arming Ukraine akin to waging war with Russia?

Nope. It's been going on forever. We supply materiel to our close (or not so close) allies, they supply materiel to theirs.

 

[norseamd]

Kiss that Russian gas good bye.

Azeribajan and Iran might make up for the difference.

 

[theeedude]

So you are now in favor of us supplying equipment to Ukraine as long as we do not make political drama about it and try to be thoughtful of what we give Ukraine?

We are free to give money to Ukraine, and Ukraine is free to buy weapons it needs with that money. No need to make a big fuss out of it. Just do it, and let Putin deal with it or cut bait.
Crimea was all fun and games, but now people are getting hurt, so it has to end one way or another.

 

[Balt]

Europe? Kiss that Russian gas good bye.

Not a problem right now.

 

[werepossum]

Hopefully aggression towards a NATO member would be the red line, so to speak.

Czechoslovakia and Poland would likely disagree.

 

[norseamd]

Crimea was all fun and games, but now people are getting hurt, so it has to end one way or another.

Well if we can make the cost of invading the rest of Ukraine too high for the Russians then that is most of what we need to do as far as raising the potential for conflict. Honestly I do not think the Ukrainians or the Russians own the Crimean Peninsula because it is for the Crimeans as their own historic homeland. And I do think that America has had some background manipulation going on but it is clear that the Ukrainians want to get out of the influence of the Russians and want their own independence and that they want to have stronger relations with the other European countries although joining the EU and NATO is probably more of some way to protect themselves against the Russians then it is about actually wanting to fully integrate with the NATO and EU. And I also could care less if the Russians get Donbass and Luhansk. But the Russians must not be allowed to seize Odessa and the rest of Novorossiya.

 

[norseamd]

Czechoslovakia and Poland would likely disagree.

Hmm? What do you mean? The Poles are most resistive to the Russians and they have the largest military outside of Muscovy. I think that a top strategy for us in this 2nd Cold War is to buildup the Poles and make sure they are a powerful regional state able to strategically operate against the Russians.

 

[werepossum]

Hmm? What do you mean? The Poles are most resistive to the Russians and they have the largest military outside of Muscovy. I think that a top strategy for us in this 2nd Cold War is to buildup the Poles and make sure they are a powerful regional state able to strategically operate against the Russians.

I mean both had extant treaties with their European neighbors when Hitler invaded. The treaties were not honored; in fact, Hitler didn't even have to really invade Czechoslovakia, its nominal allies gave it away.

This is WHY Poland has such a strong military, the strongest it can afford. Poles have long memories.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's clear that 20 years of Ukrainian sovereignty is a failure. It's not because of the Russians. It's because Ukrainian govt has been a corrupt & stupid mess, apparently still is. If Russian govt is bad, Ukrainian has been a lot worse. They created the opportunity, Hell, the geopolitical imperative for Russian intervention when they cozied up to NATO, then fell into complete disorder through a non-elective regime change.

That threatened the cozy relationship over Russia's Black Sea bases, strategic assets. Seeing the opportunity, Putin acted decisively to protect Russian interests in Crimea, a place that has been Ukrainian in name only.

It was all highly predictable. Putin crushed Georgian ambitions to join NATO only a few years before.

Arm Ukraine? Why? So more people can die? So that Putin can escalate & force Kiev into whatever form of submission it takes?

The last thing the Kiev govt needs is more western intervention because they can't possibly win in open conflict with Russia. They done fucked up, failed to govern, & no amount of realistic Western assistance will really help them do anything more than shed more blood.

Like it or not, they need to make some serious concessions to Putin or suffer catastrophe. Their western friends waltzed them right into this, eyes wide shut.

 

[rommelrommel]

Maybe we should replace the nukes that Ukraine surrendered in return for territorial guarantees.

 

[bguile]

...

The last thing the Kiev govt needs is more western intervention because they can't possibly win in open conflict with Russia. They done fucked up, failed to govern, & no amount of realistic Western assistance will really help them do anything more than shed more blood.

...
.

They are basically in an open conflict with Russia at this point. And they are holding their own.

I don't have a problem with the US sending them what they are asking for.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I think it's clear that 20 years of Ukrainian sovereignty is a failure. It's not because of the Russians. It's because Ukrainian govt has been a corrupt & stupid mess, apparently still is. If Russian govt is bad, Ukrainian has been a lot worse. They created the opportunity, Hell, the geopolitical imperative for Russian intervention when they cozied up to NATO, then fell into complete disorder through a non-elective regime change.

That threatened the cozy relationship over Russia's Black Sea bases, strategic assets. Seeing the opportunity, Putin acted decisively to protect Russian interests in Crimea, a place that has been Ukrainian in name only.

It was all highly predictable. Putin crushed Georgian ambitions to join NATO only a few years before.

Arm Ukraine? Why? So more people can die? So that Putin can escalate & force Kiev into whatever form of submission it takes?

The last thing the Kiev govt needs is more western intervention because they can't possibly win in open conflict with Russia. They done fucked up, failed to govern, & no amount of realistic Western assistance will really help them do anything more than shed more blood.

Like it or not, they need to make some serious concessions to Putin or suffer catastrophe. Their western friends waltzed them right into this, eyes wide shut.

I'm sure that the Ukrainians appreciate you telling them to turn around and bend over for Putin. Do you have the contract for the sale of lubricants?

 

[norseamd]

I'm sure that the Ukrainians appreciate you telling them to turn around and bend over for Putin. Do you have the contract for the sale of lubricants?

Good to see you not being an pacifist and/or isolationist. What do you think about the evolution of the ISIS conflict considering that the Jordanians are now increasing their operations in the conflict and the Kurds are routing the ISIS with American and Iranian support?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Good to see you not being an pacifist and/or isolationist. What do you think about the evolution of the ISIS conflict considering that the Jordanians are now increasing their operations in the conflict and the Kurds are routing the ISIS with American and Iranian support?

I think the key in that area is the Kurds. They are the only fighters who actually seem to be able to accomplish much (other than Hezbollah who are apparently stretched about as thin as possible while still managing to be an effective fighting force). As of a couple of weeks ago they had Mosul cut off on 3 sides, had regained almost full control of the Kobani area and don't seem to be stopping.

 

[maddogchen]

My thoughts:

If we DO NOT arm Ukraine, they cannot win the fight.

If we DO arm Ukraine, we cannot arm them faster than Russia reinforcing the Rebels so, Ukraine still does not win the fight.

Either way Ukraine loses....

But if you do arm Ukraine, more Russians die... so I'm leaning towards that.

 

[nickqt]

Well, Cold War 2.0 might reestablish a more stable world. For now.

Of course, none of the benefits of the first cold war will apply, so, I say we stop getting involved in the rest of the worlds BS.

We've hollowed out our country to the core in order to have the most powerful military in the world, and it nets us negative results. Screw carrer politicians and technocrats.

We need historians in political office. Empire never works out in the end. You can verify this by studying every single Empire that came before. They are great for enriching the people at the top of society, and then corruption sets in and the Empire fails. We can either go out like Britain and step back, or we can go out like Rome. I'd vote Britain, but my vote doesn't really count.

 

[norseamd]

Well, Cold War 2.0 might reestablish a more stable world. For now.

Of course, none of the benefits of the first cold war will apply, so, I say we stop getting involved in the rest of the worlds BS.

We've hollowed out our country to the core in order to have the most powerful military in the world, and it nets us negative results. Screw career politicians and technocrats.

We need historians in political office. Empire never works out in the end. You can verify this by studying every single Empire that came before. They are great for enriching the people at the top of society, and then corruption sets in and the Empire fails. We can either go out like Britain and step back, or we can go out like Rome. I'd vote Britain, but my vote doesn't really count.

As someone who has studied history for my whole life this is not exactly a fundamentally sound understanding of world history and world studies. The military-industrial-congressional-intelligence complex is only a symptom not a cause of corruption in America. Although it does act like dominos towards increasing corruption in the rest of American society. And Britain did not step back from their Imperialism on their own the World Wars more or less did that for them. Also Rome did not fall until 1453 and they were culturally advanced and politically and militarily powerful until then. Also there are more than a few empires who did last for a very long time and when you look at China for example they are basically successive dynasties of Imperialism until the 20th century.