What's your strategy here? This is probably the most dangerous time - when Russia has the most incentive to use nukes even as just a warning shot to the West. But any use of Nukes by Russia is a dangerous game. Thus far NATO and the US have taken a course of action that probably infuriates Russia, but still keeps the nuclear genie bottled up. Why? Because NATO Is not directly threatening Russian security - but if NATO troops were on the ground, that would no longer be the case. Russia doesn't want NATO to get involved any more than it is. If it uses nukes, it can not predict what NATO will do. That uncertainty is probably the only thing standing in way of the use of tactical nukes.
Our assistance hasn't changed in terms of not providing bodies. Ukraine isn't our responsibility. Still not a NATO member. Russia has taken over other countries successfully. That makes no difference to us. Ukraine would be a bigger loss but it doesn't change anything with our security or economic Interests. Any action by us would have to bt significantly supported by other countries. It's upsetting to see innocent people suffer at the hands of a delusional maniac. He has now created a situation that has a serious chance of taking him down. We have been blessed, God bless the Ukrainians and their resistance
I'm not proposing NATO troops on the ground. Poland was going to send MIGs back in March/April which would have helped Ukraine control its skies - we killed that. We limited our supplying of offensive and long-range weaponry at first, allowing Ukraine do nothing more than hold off Russian forces. But it gave Russia the chance to regroup and launch their new May/June offensive and capture tons of ground. Then we decided to give Ukraine the longer range stuff, drones, etc, and not surprisingly, it let them launch stop Russia and started the counteroffensive. If we had given this stuff early, we could have (edit: potentially) prevented a ton of damage and saved tons of lives. It's never been about NATO troops on the ground - it's about providing the equipment Ukraine was asking for. And that we were clearly willing to provide ... months later.
See above. Providing troops is irrelevant to my post, and it's not what Ukraine was even asking for. EDIT: Sorry, your original post asked two things. Not sending troops and then basso's criticism. I'm not arguing the troops part; I believe basso, like me, did criticize our incrementalism, which is the part I was intending to comment on.
We live in a global economy. Cutting idiots off economically is a significant tool of war. Europe can't turn off the gas but boycotting the oil has impact
Agreed - the sanctions were impressive and I think very useful. I haven't read much about the details, but my understanding is we launched a bunch more sanctions yesterday after Russia's annexation nonsense. But it brings up the question of why are there still sanctions we haven't used? Why didn't we already whatever those sanctions are in place? That said, again, I don't know the specific details so this is not a well-informed post on my part.
Maybe you are right, but I'm not sure to be honest. There are lots of other variables at play here such as training time and other logistical items. Also, my understanding is the US is running low on many of the weapons it is providing Ukraine.
They got planes falling out windows now, wonder what's next Where's a drone strike when you need one?
my opinion hasn't changed. we have a rare opportunity to completely destroy the Russian army's offensive capabilities, at least in the near term. but that opportunity is transitory. harsh weather is coming, and that will give Russia time to rebuild, regroup, re-equip. time is short, and incrementalism does not favor Ukraine.
I'm interested in how Russia can rebuild in the coming months. N. Korean munitions and 2nd hand micro controllers for crucial electronic weaponry projects so much confidence to the new conscripts heading to boot camp. Putin's best gamble rn is breaking up EU solidarity with right leaning populist riots and election takeovers. If we're gunning for his head, it would be dumb to not assume he's gunning for ours.
Why we would we invest in trying to take out their offensive capabilities as you say? Do you realize what an undertaking of that size would cost? Rus
I am not sure logistically we could have gotten the stuff over there in March, and we have tailored what we have given them to the war they are fighting. I agree it could have helped and the human loss is tragic, but this is not NATOs fault it is Putins....and we are accomplishing our goals of a significantly weaker Russia. DD
There were Polish MIGs sitting there and Ukrainian pilots on site ready to fly them out and the US killed the deal. We keep making up justifications but the simple fact was that the US was trying to not antagonize Russia who said that foreign airplanes would be considered an act of war. We were playing by their rules. The US response has improved over time as its become more and more clear that Ukraine can hold its own weight, but at first our response was pretty woeful.
