NATO sending fighters, ships to region; UK to withdraw some staff from embassy in Ukraine

Well, I did preface with 'as I understand it'. So yes, it was from a place of I'd say some general ignorance of the deeper sentiment of Ukrainians about this issue. I wasn't hiding my ignorance of the matter. Rather, it's about what would bring peace to Ukraine given the circumstances that both EU/Russia are vying to incorporate Ukraine(I'll not use the terms 'client state', since you've illustrated that Ukraine is quite relatively economically prosperous. Though I remember reading about the oil/gas issue with the Russians. Perhaps developing oil independence would be a next step for Ukraine.) Nevertheless, the two big powers are competing for shall we say Ukrainian alliance then?

I apologize if my ignorance offended you. I only want both what is good for the Ukrainians, and what is good for my country as well in this matter. Speaking from the US prospective, as I said I admire your position as it isn't the easy position, but it is the right position to take. Speaking from the US prospective, I feel emboldened to say that Ukraine is obviously not a US protectorate, or a US State. Yes, our government gave the Ukrainians 'aid'. We citizens, didn't ask them to do this. It wasn't campaigned on and it wasn't made an issue. It's something they themselves decided to do on a whim, without asking us if we wanted to entangle inside of Eastern Europe.

Many older Americans(and even some younger ones especially) wish to once more have a 'patriotic' crusade. Religious fanaticism and delusion grandeur has led us to pursue a foreign policy that only worked miraculously because we won WWII. Essentially, it's lightning in a bottle and it hasn't been recaptured since. They also want to see themselves as carving some civil/human rights legacy. All of these delusions have led to the US interference(lobbyists, etc also don't help in the matter.). Theoretically, one would presume a policy of detente but the aid is primarily militaristic, not economic(and our humanitarian aid actually leaves much to be desired, see: Haiti.).

So I see our entanglement as little more than 'war is bad, aggression is bad. This worked before, so let's go in with our own guns!' Basically, if Putin wants to revive the Soviet Empire, a segment of Americans want to revive the Greatest Generation. Both of these, are grossly out of touch with reality on the ground.

For my part, while an imperial Russia is not ideal(or preferred), the vast Russian nation is already one of the largest countries in Europe. If they liquidated Ukraine, how much would change from the US prospective? Not that much. If only that due to NATO obligations, the entire European world will be once again engulfed in war. This would give the American fanatics their wish, but would spiral us into a depression.

The US it would appear would like to stop said growth, but we lost that opportunity after the outcome of WWII. Like it or not, Russia's vast territory is its to command, and we don't have the stomach to rip it away, and the Europeans despite blustering I don't believe has the military power to do so. Our best role would be as a mediator.

 

Directly from the horse's ................ mouth. The most popular Russian bot of all....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-again-questions-why-100059397.html

 

Yep, and they will be very disappointed when there is no war/US casualties to be used in partisan attacks.

 

Hah.... Nice selective clip editing. a 12 second snippet that absolutely doesn't advocate for Russia, but why would the US jeopardize our soldiers for either country. Seriously Egoboy... your own side is trolling you and once again, you ate it up hook, line and sinker.. Congrats.

 

You too... it's gotta be tough to type with your fingers in your ears....

Comparing Russia to Ukraine at this stage is straight Russian propaganda...

Put some pepper on that... it tastes better...

 

I agree with you.
Ukraine was building a terminal in Odessa that would accept LNG, but I’m not sure where they are with this. I think they are more conscious about energy independence than the Germans.
In many ways, Ukrainians are the cause of their troubles - corruption and the neglect that their armed forces experienced during the 90-s and early 00-s. But, they are definitely improving and deserve to have their own country - as I mentioned before, many misconceptions about Ukraine from the 90s are no longer valid, as an average Ukrainian can afford good food, rent, a smartphone, and even a used car. They are also distinct from Russians - they have their own language, customs, and cuisine.
While I do not believe a single American soldier should die for Ukraine, the Budapest memorandum makes it important for the US to keep Ukraine whole and independent to further its prestige and international standing, especially with nuclear negotiations with other countries. If the US manages to get Ukraine to completely fight off Russians (like Finland did 80 years ago) then they’ll stop harassing Ukraine for good and the US will be able to offer a similar security deal to countries like Iran or North Korea in exchange for them giving up their nukes. This is the reason why republicans and democrats are concerned about Ukraine. It’s not become the US wants something in particular from Ukraine, rather because the US made an obligation and it must stick to it if it want to stay relevant.
As for Ukrainian contribution to the West - they build rocket engines that are used on the US rockets sometimes. They are also pretty good at building medium range transport aircraft. They have experience building nuclear weapons and maintaining nuclear power plants. They used to build microprocessors for space hardware used in the USSR. All of that is there and can be very useful to the West, they just need to keep pressuring Ukraine to get its crap together with corruption (and they do, albeit slowly). Ukrainians are already enjoying visa-free regime with the EU, so they are proving themselves as civilized partners and don’t run across the border at a first chance just to get onto EUs welfare.
And, most importantly, they are peaceful and mind their own business. They aren’t threatening anyone and just want to live normal lives. I never see a rational reason why Ukrainians must go back to Russia. Ukraine probably will have to have a real war for independence soon, and we should not be sacrificing our troops for their cause, but there are a ton of benefits in helping them with their fight for independence. Don’t forget, there was a time even Americans needed help from French. A lot of innovation and scientific discoveries from imperial Russia or USSR originated in Ukraine, so they do have a good potential at being great allies.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...re-about-ukraine-and-the-budapest-memorandum/

You mentioning Budapest gave me a point of reference to google and read, and to further my education on the current Eastern European crisis. And with it, my position actually changes. I understand that we gave the Ukrainians security assurances, so as to remove these nuclear weapons from potential antagonistic forces in Europe. But to me, the landscape of the deal changed with Russia's violation of it. Economic sanctions will not deter Russia(in the same manner they didn't deter Hitler's Germany.). And the deal was made largely under the idea that the Russians would hold to their word.

The meat and bones clearly is meant to be NATO, but not only is Nato woefully underprepared(as Trump laid out) but it guarantees as I said: It's like a WWI map. If we want to avoid a greater European conflict, we may have no choice but to engage in the conflict itself(and I don't mean 8,500 troops.)

If I were POTUS, I would give an ultimatum to Putin: Withdraw all Russian forces from Odessa and all occupied Ukrainian territory, or face a formal declaration of war from the United States. I'd rather bare the brunt of a war with Russia, then watch a world war once again develop.

 

How will a world war develop?

 

Nato is basically a military alliance composed of soldiers from several European nations. Now, if war were to break out and these soldiers die, it'll turn from a 'nato mission' to Germany for example being '**** it, time to formally fight back', etc. So to me, it's a WWI scenario all over again. The death of a single NATO soldier is the powder keg.

 

Disintegration of security relationships between countries and the lack of a strong player who keeps their word will result in countries that are not part of some string security alliance seeking their own WMDs, which will lead to explosive environment just waiting for someone to light that match.
Wiping Ukraine from the map will literally result in a new world order.

 

Where are there Russian forces in Odessa?

 

@Thedimon....that's likely to happen...Vladolf Putler isn't interested in another "chunk" of Ukraine...he wants it all. If he succeeds he'll be that much more aggressive....Baltics,Poland,Finland,all on the table. He ain't looking for regime change....he wants total annexation to the RF.

 

I think he meant Crimea.
His point stands as valid.

 

Yeah, oops. My bad lol.

 

Gunman opens fire outside Ukraine Security HQ in Kiev
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/gunman-opens-fire-outside-ukraine-security-hq-in-kiev/

 

Yes, I think aging Pootin wants to leave the legacy of the world being run by 3 countries - The US, China, and Russia, with the rest of the countries being under “the sphere of influence” of one of those 3. He pretty much wants to get back to the good old colonialism. While one can argue that the colonialism can be credited for the spread of civilization and technology (like rail roads in Africa), the concept has been accepted as immoral by the majority of the humanity because it treats locals as borderline slaves who have no say in anything outside of their limited locales, yet must unquestionably comply with the demands of their “protector”.

 

Thing is, lowkey: I actually agree with that premise. That said, the US as a colonizer is almost generally nonexistent(which pisses me off in the sense that, why do we have our forces scattered everywhere, if we're not going to plant roots.) Instead, we're kind of a military parasite that you either tolerate(Japan, somewhat though that dissolved I think two years ago) or dislike(Iraq)

I think we'd be better off, peace would be more maintained if we were in fact a colonizer, and able to sniff out dissents before they became rebellious antagonistic al-qaeda esque forces.

The issue is that with China-Russia in that "sphere of influence", as seen with the minority muslims in China, neither of these countries has a favorable or even mediocre human rights track record. We'd be much more secure if it were EU/UK-based.

 

The US should not be viewed as a colonizer. Those who want to align with the US are doing so because they like the fact that the US treats its citizens fairly. If the US was a colonial power, it would be forcing Ukraine to support it, while in reality it follows the US like a poppy because it wants to learn from it and attract investments for their ideas. The relationships are very different, and I think every country should have a free choice of what kind of a relationship they have with others, as long as it’s peaceful.

 

Poland and Latvia declare Germany's ban on supplying arms to Ukraine 'a big mistake' as Kiev arrests Russian team planning series of attacks aimed at destabilising border regions

Ukraine says it has dismantled a group of Russian-backed saboteurs who were planning attacks in border regions with the aim of 'destabilising' the country. The 'criminal' group was preparing a 'series of armed attacks' on city infrastructure 'coordinated by Russian special service', Ukraine's SBU security service said today. Raids were carried out on the gang in Kharkiv, an eastern Ukrainian city just 20 miles from the Russian border, and Zhytomyr, western Ukraine, on Tuesday. It comes amid a build-up of Russian troops near Ukraine, with the US warning Moscow may launch 'false flag' attacks in border regions to justify an invasion.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...teurs-ordinated-Russian-special-services.html

 

Croatia to recall NATO troops in Eastern Europe in case of conflict between Russia and Ukraine
https://news.am/eng/news/683762.html

 

More details here:
https://www.politico.eu/article/croatia-withdraw-military-from-nato-conflict-ukraine-russia/

 

Croatia has weird government structure. Their president is quite limited as far as I understand.

 

Yeah well, hold up on the whole "treats its citizens fairly" thing(and I don't view this as historically connected to colonization, though it's the simplified naked version taught in schools.) Rather a government's civil right policy is conducted independently from the warfare/colonization period. As an example, Bontaparte brought legal reforms throughout France and the regions that he conquered. So you can colonize and support human rights, that's just atypical of the normal situation however.

And there certainly is something where if a person comes from Russia/NK to America and they say "OMG, this is better." And for them it is, but for me as a native born: Bleh. I think our human rights have gone down since the beacon of the 90's. Right now, politicians on both sides of the aisle take us for granted and want us to be their voting bloc.

If we were a colonial power, incorporating Ukraine as a State or as a territory, there would be actual value(taxable for instance) to the government and in nature, it would feel worth it. Here, we help out Ukraine and we get what? Hopefully an ally? it's a hard sell from a native/nationalist

I do agree overall with the sentiment that relationships between countries(like people) should be consensual and on an equal basis. It's just hard to see that 'equality' when world leading power helps a smaller power grow and doesn't see an immediate benefit(or even a long-term benefit at times.)

 

You are looking at the reality through political lenses in your criticism about the US government treatment of its citizens. I’m fairly conservative now and I see where the US government deserves criticism, but, in overall, I think it’s better than others. There are many honorable things that Americans do without noticing - helping strangers at a time of distress, sense of community (outside of New York), responsibility, treating their workers and coworkers well, etc. Yes, there are exceptions, but, in general, Americans stand out as a nice bunch who mean you well if you don’t interfere with their everyday lives. Many things that you see every day and are used to are rare in other countries and cultures. As I said before, I’d prefer to live among Americans during Civil War 2 over living in Ukraine at the time of peace. To me, my American citizenship is my greatest asset, which is the source of my pride of being a part of this giant machine called the United States of America.
Americans have something in them that makes others to want to be like them. When you have a reputation like that, you don’t need to be a colonizer.

 

Do we need to be? No, frankly we don't even govern well over the protectorates we do have. But so long as we have this 'policing around the world crap', it'd be better if we got something long-term out of it. Hong Kong's reaching out to the US? They're the richest port in the entire Asiatic area, They can become the 52nd State. To me, US Foreign Policy should operate more on the basis of "what's in it for us?" Rather than a "they asked us, and we're a part of the international community!" A part is the operative words. Where's the rest of the community? Why do they always fail to step up, in their neighborhoods!(then they complain we're there.) Note this is just a general sentiment, and each situation is of course different.

Like, the Budapest agreement. This thing REALLY tied the US's back, even with using the word "assurance" that's like stepping in without stepping in and it forces you to step in anyway. Who honestly believed that Russia would be a part of such an agreement?(and then later, their violation of the arms treaty.). What would I have done? Well, first of all were these arms destroyed or not, or what gives? Brookings doesn't say. I would have instead had them sign the NPT and convert the nuclear arms into nuclear energy. That'd kill two birds with one stone, no weapons and an energy independent Ukraine.

Or, we could do what we tried to do in Iraq(and probably with more success given what you've told me about your homeland) and made it a strong, vibrant democracy that could have secured said arms. There were other ways than tying ourselves to the situation. Washington LOVES to tie itself, then it regrets we're tied.