Russia Angrily Demands U.S. Stop Sending Weapons to Ukraine

As one of our historical figures once said "
Ulysses S.
Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time."

Mr President, solve this problem on our own terms

 

I’ve heard that quote before. Very apt.

 

Past ties aren't meaningless. Most States existing today, including the USA, base a large component of their sovereignty on their history. Not the entirety, however, and that is often an important consideration.

 

Are you still worked up over Yemen and Syria?

and once again, why do you repeat that I liked Biden and/or Obama? I loathed them as much as I do Trump.

You know full well that the presidents I adore are Reagan and Bush, Bush.

 

As I have stated many times the US should have left NATO in 1989 and let the Europeans form their own security which would have included Russia since it is a European country. Russia has always believed a nuclear war can be won if a country prepares for it. I believe Putin has been preparing Russia for nuclear war since he took power in 1999. They don't have a MAD doctrine when it comes to using nuclear weapons and Putin will IMO use them first on a smaller scale in Ukraine if the US led NATO continues to interfere with his war.

 

Note the bolded

As our President has pointed out; direct action against the most well equipped nuclear nation is WWIII, and that is unthinkable. We are playing brinkmanship already, do not ask that we go beyond.

 

The US never stopped funding/supporting NATO. Without the US in NATO it would have ended.

 

Completely irrelevant to what I posted.

 

The US still outspent all other nations on defense. And NATO is relevant to this discussion.

 

Which only increases the chances Putin will use his nuclear weapons. There is no unified force powerful enough to win against nuclear weapons.

 

Not the US' war. This is a European problem.

 

The U.S. has the most extensive military obligations globally of any nation. That didn't change when the Cold War ended.

But the U.S. hasn't spent enough on its military since the late 1980s.

 

Russia has LESS of a MAD doctrine for the simple reason that they are bigger and more spread out. They have it, however, and they have had it for most of the Cold War. Indeed, most Western analysts see it as about the only real reason that Western Europe existed as independent entities until 1989 as well as Southeast Asia until 1972.

I don't think Putin's army will support him if he uses nukes. An integral part of Russian MAD, according to my understanding, was that the Armed Forces would not support its first strike use and Putin's Army seems less disciplined than what existed then.

If Russia joined NATO who would the nations in it be allied AGAINST? Are you suggesting a world government. (I support that idea)

 

Why does the US have extensive military obligations? The Cold War never ended for the US/NATO even after The Warsaw Pact ended. And exactly what is enough for military spending?

 

Your understanding of Russia's MAD doctrine is wrong. Russia has been designing and testing small nuclear weapons and will use them before they accept defeat. Putin will never accept defeat. The Russia military knows they have these less destructive nuclear weapons and will use them when ordered knowing they will not be powerful enough to end the world. They have been training for such an event. And I'm pretty sure if a person fuses to push the button someone will shoot them in the back of the head and replace them with a person who is more than eager to use them.

 

Because we have more extensive economic and political interests overseas than any other nation.

The minimal the U.S. should spend on its military is about 1 trillion per year with 50 billion annual increases thereafter more or less.

 

Russia is far, far bigger than the U.S. But contrary to expectations they are NOT more "spread out". Thanks to the Soviet era centralization their population and industry is actually concentrated in a smaller land area than that of the U.S.

 

Agreed. Putin's rise would probably have been impossible as well. He is there now, however.

Our military spending supports our plutocracy and vice versa and that has been the main reason for its existence and continuation since the end of WWII

 

They are 100% meaningless in the context Paul was bringing them up in...

 

looks like you failed to understand my point. Literally multiple paragraphs arguing for more sanctions and more weapons transfers much much earlier and you come away from that as me arguing for direct warfare. Holy crap that is some serious tunnel vision

 

Of course not. I'm not referring to the despot Putin using nukes... I'm simply saying that this news, assuming it happens, makes his defensive position measurably worse than pre-invasion, regardless of how Ukraine turns out..

Finland/Sweden joining NATO is the 2nd biggest game changer of this war to date, after the Ukrainians defending their capital (I'm still not sure of the current approved spelling - Kiev/Kyiv)

 

I don't read all of anyone's post before I reply to the one in question. Your post as written seemed to suggest that all of our sanctions so far have failed.

What further sanctions are you proposing?

 

don't be ridiculous

 

How so? By not allowing him to have his way in Eastern Ukraine?

 

History and particularly shared cultures are never completely meaningless in any context. Opinions vary on this, however. Generally, it is agreed that the people should decide, and in the Ukraine they did (and are deciding now)