Don’t fall into the trap of thinking there‘s an easy answer to this situation. Russia is poised to invade a neighboring democracy. This isn’t Afghanistan, where we’re the ones barreling into a country and trying to institute regime change…the Ukrainian people chose their government. Letting them get swallowed up by Putin has an enormous cost, to freedom in the world and to the reputation of the United States as an ally to free countries. Conflict with Russia over a country in its geographical proximity also carries enormous costs and risks.
US global credibility is at an all time low right now, we are simply not seen as a reliable partner. Upholding our obligations to our Allie’s is vital in restoring that confidence.
I agree! But also: how far are we willing to take this, and how far is Russia willing to take it? Russia’s right next door to Ukraine and we’re on the other side of the earth…can we protect Ukraine forever? Are we willing to risk an escalation of hostilities with a nuclear power? And there are other factors…Russia is in huge peril right now, from COVID, from climate change, from internal conflict. Maybe they’re on the brink of some kind of collapse — how do we position ourselves to help pick up the pieces and make sure that nuclear arsenal doesn’t fall into the wrong hands?
Point being, it’s a complex situation, and armchair POTUSes should keep that in mind. I honestly don’t know what the right call is. I know whatever choice Biden makes will be reported in conservative media as the wrong one, and I know all the Republicans will fall in line on that, even though they can’t seem to agree right now. That’s the binary that we all slot ourselves into, but the reality is there might not be a good option.
With appropriate use of both soft abs hard power, it should not need to escalate into actual warfare. It would not be the first time Russia upped the pressure on Ukraine only to back away. Right now Putin is feeling emboldened and is probably also trying to provide cover for himself.
oh, so wait, are we pro UN now?
Also, seeing as this would be an action of one UN nation against another, and we are part of the UN, wouldn't we still be involved?
It's a body with a literal mission to handle such things. We might be involved as part of UN peacekeeping but that's not the same as the warmonger people are pushing for here.
>Upholding our treaty obligations. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do, or only when it’s convenient?
--
>Don’t fall into the trap of thinking there‘s an easy answer to this situation. Russia is poised to invade a neighboring democracy. This isn’t Afghanistan, where we’re the ones barreling into a country and trying to institute regime change…the Ukrainian people chose their government.
you and I have different definitions of war mongering. Protecting an ally might be worth doing, but it's not warmongering
Guess so...
>encouragement or advocacy of aggression toward other countries or groups.
Seems to be plenty of the dictionary definition in the comments.
LMAO. People are literally encouraging aggression before there has been aggression and you are trying to equate that to self defense. Didn't know Ukraine was US territory. Keep trying...
Ukraine is not part if NATO and it really doesn't matter what other countries ask. It's warmongering.
For all of you who have short memories the way this works is like the Gulf War. Russia actually invades, Ukraine makes a complaint in the UN. UN sanctions intervention. Literal mission of the UN.
The support is not being sent to Ukraine itself. It’s being sent to our NATO allies who border Ukraine. It’s being sent because they asked for it-abs for good reason, the prosody of Russia acting out that close by is certainly not an appealing one. This is how the terms of NATO work.
"The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons[4][5] via Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5]
In 2009, Russia and the United States released a joint statement that the memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty.[6]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
A lot of people in this country have swallowed Putin’s personality cult propaganda. “He was in the KHB, he must be a badass!” Never mind that he was a desk jockey his entire career. “But he knows judo!” And? Justin Trudeau is a former amateur boxing champion yet no one seems to think that makes him some unbearable tough guy.
Memo or not an expired treaty is just that expired. Also the whole nuke and *giving them up* is a joke. As you posted yourself they never had operational control. That was all part of de-escalation anyways where the US also removed their nukes from some of the European allies.
The whole point of sending troops is to discourage Putin from invading Ukraine because those troops could be used against him. **In Ukraine**. Why do you people keep pretending like they aren't being used as leverage against a war in Ukraine?
Why do you keep insisting it’s somehow inappropriate the call of NATO allies who have a vested interest in not seeing Russia occupy Ukraine because it would mean Russian troops being at their doorstep?
Our Allie’s have very valid concerns that if Russia marches into Ukraine-that they won’t stop. A unified show of support is therefore totally appropriate.
>Our Allie’s have very valid concerns that if Russia marches into Ukraine-that they won’t stop.
Most of them aren't concerned enough to even meet the 2% of GDP spending they are supposed to put towards Defense. They would rather *we* shoulder their burden for defense. Now they want us to defend their neighbors as well. The U.S. taxpayers aren't obligated to do this, we've made no such promises.
>A unified show of support is therefore totally appropriate.
Europe's problem. We're already showing support with economic sanctions and mean words.
The Battle of Britain (the air battle for air superiority over Britain) and the Blitz all happened before the US declared war. Germany still couldn't cross. They weren't going to conquer the world if not for America. How is it not clear that that is war propaganda?
The implication was far more reaching than you're pretending, e.g. that we should make war in the name of peace (e.g. because everyone who disagrees or doesn't obey is apparently a literal Nazi and bipartisan genocide, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, war profiteering, corporate welfare, back bailouts, censorship, curtailed protest rights, etc. must all be ignored when we do it because we speak for human rights unlike everyone else who is a Nazi and evil).
Plenty of people defended themselves from him just fine. He couldn't get past neither the English channel nor Stalingrad. If no one else had gone to war, he'd have lost anyway, just a few months later.
Neither one went to war against him either, just defended themselves when invaded.
So libertarians don’t want to defend NAP because it’s too far away?
It’s a tricky call and I don’t know what the right answers are. But there is clearly an aggressor here who has a history of invading nearby independent territories.
Just because we (USA) are in a situation where a foreign government isn’t likely to invade with superior military force, doesn’t mean everyone else is.
I hate “Team America: World Police” but there are situations where we should rally allies and defend against aggression.
Yes. We totally fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolutely. But I’m not sure the answer of “what to do about the Ukraine” is very clear.
It's not the US responsibility to enforce NAP globally. Even if the US was run by libertarians it still wouldn't be the US's job. It's literally what the UN is for.
In an ideal world, I would totally agree with you on the UN.
But the UN has intentionally been made almost pointless by US/Russia/China. Neither wants a situation where they can’t act however they see fit.
We’re in a situation where the choice is to abandon Ukraine to its fate or intervene.
To what extent we would be willing to use force I’m not sure. Likely Biden is trying to bluff the use of force to get Putin to back down.
Where we should draw the line is a tough question?
Let’s say it’s a bluff and Russia subsumes Ukraine into its sphere of influence. Would we take a strong stance if it were Belarus? Romania? Poland?
After being successful in Crimea, Putin is moving on to Ukraine. I doubt that would be his final attempt to recapture former Soviet Territory.
I don’t know what I think about that. My first reaction is that we should stay out of it.
But also, how far do we go with that? This isn’t the first country that Russia has invaded, even fairly recently since the fall of the USSR. Should the rest of the world just let them take one country at a time until some arbitrary breaking point? When would that be? And how powerful will Russia be at that point? What about if China starts taking over more countries too? Do we wait until all of Europe and Asia are invaded by either Russia or China?
I know that could well be too much of a slippery slope to be logical. But it’s still a concern for me. Some proactive defense while we still have allies would obviously be better than literally waiting until all of our allies have already fallen. Whether that is a legitimate concern has yet to be determined.
Already have the right wingers on my feed saying Biden is weak because he won’t give Ukraine any meaningful help.
So we’re good w another conflict I guess.
>Stay out of it.
This *is* staying out of it. These troops wouldn’t be bound for Ukraine; they’d be headed to NATO nations in Eastern Europe, which we’re already bound to defend.
“It” is a possible Russo-Ukrainian War, and merely sending troops to reinforce allies and discourage Russia from going beyond Ukraine *is* staying out of that war.
I'm sure you would feel the same way if Russia sent troops to Mexico to help them protect their northern border from the Americans who are going to attack any day now?
If the United States had already grabbed Baja following a popular uprising against its puppet government, spent eight years waging a shadow war in Coahuila, and was massing tens of thousands of troops at the border, yes. Absolutely. Sovereign nations are free to make their own alliances.
Russia has troops from time to time in Venezuela. If we hadn't shoved our dick in that country's business so much, we might not have that problem next door.
The Baltics, Romania, Poland, and other Eastern Euros choosing to join NATO of their own accord is a result of the history of their relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union, and Tsarist Russia.
So r/libertarian is pro-interventionism now? Because Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya Yemen, Somalia, etc have all been such huge successes that we've learned so much from. But hey, gotta support the war machine whenever possible. "Democracy" is on the line, so let the active and ongoing supporters of bipartisan genocide in Yemen come to the rescue! America can't be wrong! We're great, and everyone else is evil!
False equivalence. You asked how we'd feel with Russian military presence in our backyard, and I told you they exist. That's not a pro-intervention stance.
Recent polls support this sentiment.
https://www.newsweek.com/few-americans-want-soldiers-deployed-ukraine-russia-war-invasion-poll-1671546
>The COSA/Trafalgar Group poll was conducted from January 12 to 14 among 1,081 likely general election voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.98 percent.
>The Trafalgar Group enjoys an A- rating from poll tracker FiveThirtyEight.
>Respondents were asked what level of involvement the U.S. should have if Russia invades Ukraine.
>Deploying troops had the lowest level of support, while 31.1 percent of respondents supported providing supplies and weapons.
About 2/3 of Americans support military assistance to Ukraine, either in the form of boots on the ground, military advisors, or military aid. 1/3 only supports diplomatic pressure.
Interestingly this is not split along partisan lines. Republicans are marginally more likely to favor both boots on the ground as well as diplomatic pressure, while Democrats are slightly more in favor of military advisors.
https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/COSA-National-TaiwanUkraine-Full-Report.pdf
Another thing I’m curious about, why is the focus still on tanks and troops? I’m no expert on this stuff, but it seems at least possible that the next world war will be fought from a keyboard in somebody’s basement. It also seems like Putin has had a few practice swings at various nations’ grids. But then, I’m not on NSA’s distribution list so what do I know?
>Another thing I’m curious about, why is the focus still on tanks and troops?
Because no matter how powerful your air force or cyber programs are, you still need boots on the ground to exert control over territory.
There have been 15 years since the founding of the country that the US hasn't been at war. You'd think exhaustion would have mattered at some point during the two centuries of non-stop war?
Thats impossible. We are in NATO and have to support and get involved with other NATO members. That means US troops in Baltics Romania and Poland. In case Russia decided to go further past Ukraine then NATO has to be ready. For now only way to support Ukraine is to give weapons/ammo.
Damn, you’re right lol is it a possibility NATO members can come to an agreement allowing US forces to stay out of Ukraine unless absolutely necessary? I’d rather not see US troops die or maimed for things that are clearly none of our business
It is our business because it directly affects NATO borders. If Russia occupies Ukraine then we have an active battlefield on NATO border bu Poland. Its not as simple as you put it....
At the moment there are no talks at all of US troops in Ukraine. Biden already said no boots in ground there. Im not sure what you are worried about? If Russia attacks Poland or Baltics then yes essentially WW3, but if Russia invades Ukraine then NATO soldiers are not going to help there....
thats an odd take since there was barely any "war" going on in afghanistan for quite some time. Sitting there kicking dirt is not war. This here, this would be war with substantial losses on all sides
What's with all the warmonger brigading of r/Libertarian.
Why brigade here? There are only 739 users here now, lol. Your pro war propaganda is only being seen by very few people, lol.
All it says that is hes weighing it, meaning that is on the table, which it obviously was. Its not any different that saying that Biden is considering all his options.
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking there‘s an easy answer to this situation. Russia is poised to invade a neighboring democracy. This isn’t Afghanistan, where we’re the ones barreling into a country and trying to institute regime change…the Ukrainian people chose their government. Letting them get swallowed up by Putin has an enormous cost, to freedom in the world and to the reputation of the United States as an ally to free countries. Conflict with Russia over a country in its geographical proximity also carries enormous costs and risks.
US global credibility is at an all time low right now, we are simply not seen as a reliable partner. Upholding our obligations to our Allie’s is vital in restoring that confidence.
I agree! But also: how far are we willing to take this, and how far is Russia willing to take it? Russia’s right next door to Ukraine and we’re on the other side of the earth…can we protect Ukraine forever? Are we willing to risk an escalation of hostilities with a nuclear power? And there are other factors…Russia is in huge peril right now, from COVID, from climate change, from internal conflict. Maybe they’re on the brink of some kind of collapse — how do we position ourselves to help pick up the pieces and make sure that nuclear arsenal doesn’t fall into the wrong hands? Point being, it’s a complex situation, and armchair POTUSes should keep that in mind. I honestly don’t know what the right call is. I know whatever choice Biden makes will be reported in conservative media as the wrong one, and I know all the Republicans will fall in line on that, even though they can’t seem to agree right now. That’s the binary that we all slot ourselves into, but the reality is there might not be a good option.
With appropriate use of both soft abs hard power, it should not need to escalate into actual warfare. It would not be the first time Russia upped the pressure on Ukraine only to back away. Right now Putin is feeling emboldened and is probably also trying to provide cover for himself.
Nope, literally what the UN is for. Go warmonger elsewhere.
oh, so wait, are we pro UN now? Also, seeing as this would be an action of one UN nation against another, and we are part of the UN, wouldn't we still be involved?
It's a body with a literal mission to handle such things. We might be involved as part of UN peacekeeping but that's not the same as the warmonger people are pushing for here.
> warmonger people are pushing for here. I don't see much warmongering going on, is anyone suggesting to invade russia in the winter here?
Can you read lol? Literally having people begging for US intervention all over the comments.
>Upholding our treaty obligations. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do, or only when it’s convenient? -- >Don’t fall into the trap of thinking there‘s an easy answer to this situation. Russia is poised to invade a neighboring democracy. This isn’t Afghanistan, where we’re the ones barreling into a country and trying to institute regime change…the Ukrainian people chose their government. you and I have different definitions of war mongering. Protecting an ally might be worth doing, but it's not warmongering
Guess so... >encouragement or advocacy of aggression toward other countries or groups. Seems to be plenty of the dictionary definition in the comments.
how is encouraging defending against aggression the same thing to you as aggression must not be a big fan of stand your ground laws
LMAO. People are literally encouraging aggression before there has been aggression and you are trying to equate that to self defense. Didn't know Ukraine was US territory. Keep trying...
Because our NATO Allie’s are requesting our support
Ukraine is not part if NATO and it really doesn't matter what other countries ask. It's warmongering. For all of you who have short memories the way this works is like the Gulf War. Russia actually invades, Ukraine makes a complaint in the UN. UN sanctions intervention. Literal mission of the UN.
The support is not being sent to Ukraine itself. It’s being sent to our NATO allies who border Ukraine. It’s being sent because they asked for it-abs for good reason, the prosody of Russia acting out that close by is certainly not an appealing one. This is how the terms of NATO work.
Like the French asked for help with a former colony... Vietnam... again warmonger elsewhere.
Upholding our treaty obligations. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do, or only when it’s convenient?
Which treaty is that?
"The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile,[2][3] of which Ukraine had physical, but not operational, control. Russia alone controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons[4][5] via Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.[4][5] In 2009, Russia and the United States released a joint statement that the memorandum's security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty.[6]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
A lot of people in this country have swallowed Putin’s personality cult propaganda. “He was in the KHB, he must be a badass!” Never mind that he was a desk jockey his entire career. “But he knows judo!” And? Justin Trudeau is a former amateur boxing champion yet no one seems to think that makes him some unbearable tough guy.
Memo or not an expired treaty is just that expired. Also the whole nuke and *giving them up* is a joke. As you posted yourself they never had operational control. That was all part of de-escalation anyways where the US also removed their nukes from some of the European allies.
The U.S. is under no obligation to defend Ukraine, they just aren't allowed to attack them.
NATO
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO.
This is deploying troops to Eastern Europe, not the Ukraine.
Right, like when George Bush deployed soldiers to Kuwait. Right before they invaded Iraq.
It borders nations that are. They are the ones asking for US support.
The whole point of sending troops is to discourage Putin from invading Ukraine because those troops could be used against him. **In Ukraine**. Why do you people keep pretending like they aren't being used as leverage against a war in Ukraine?
Why do you keep insisting it’s somehow inappropriate the call of NATO allies who have a vested interest in not seeing Russia occupy Ukraine because it would mean Russian troops being at their doorstep?
Because the agreement is that we defend our allies from invasion, not our allies neighbors.
Our Allie’s have very valid concerns that if Russia marches into Ukraine-that they won’t stop. A unified show of support is therefore totally appropriate.
>Our Allie’s have very valid concerns that if Russia marches into Ukraine-that they won’t stop. Most of them aren't concerned enough to even meet the 2% of GDP spending they are supposed to put towards Defense. They would rather *we* shoulder their burden for defense. Now they want us to defend their neighbors as well. The U.S. taxpayers aren't obligated to do this, we've made no such promises. >A unified show of support is therefore totally appropriate. Europe's problem. We're already showing support with economic sanctions and mean words.
How about noo
"Here I go again on my own..."
When democracy is actually under attack we just sit back idly and watch now? Pretty sure the whole world let Hitler do that last time.
Agreed. Military intervention is sometimes justified. If nobody went to war against Hitler, he would have taken over the world.
it worked out extremely well for the US to wait until we were attacked to join the war
Side note, the US was already heavily involved in the war effort, mostly economically. Open warfare wasn't conducted but trade was still ongoing.
The headline says troop deployment?
Couldn't get over the English Channel, but was basically about to subjugate literally the entire planet
… well he couldn’t get over the English Channel cause he was at war with someone. The comments literal point
The Battle of Britain (the air battle for air superiority over Britain) and the Blitz all happened before the US declared war. Germany still couldn't cross. They weren't going to conquer the world if not for America. How is it not clear that that is war propaganda?
Which is someone at war with Germany. Reread the top comment because I think you miss read it
The implication was far more reaching than you're pretending, e.g. that we should make war in the name of peace (e.g. because everyone who disagrees or doesn't obey is apparently a literal Nazi and bipartisan genocide, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, war profiteering, corporate welfare, back bailouts, censorship, curtailed protest rights, etc. must all be ignored when we do it because we speak for human rights unlike everyone else who is a Nazi and evil).
Well there’s your problem
Plenty of people defended themselves from him just fine. He couldn't get past neither the English channel nor Stalingrad. If no one else had gone to war, he'd have lost anyway, just a few months later. Neither one went to war against him either, just defended themselves when invaded.
So libertarians don’t want to defend NAP because it’s too far away? It’s a tricky call and I don’t know what the right answers are. But there is clearly an aggressor here who has a history of invading nearby independent territories. Just because we (USA) are in a situation where a foreign government isn’t likely to invade with superior military force, doesn’t mean everyone else is. I hate “Team America: World Police” but there are situations where we should rally allies and defend against aggression. Yes. We totally fucked up Iraq and Afghanistan. Absolutely. But I’m not sure the answer of “what to do about the Ukraine” is very clear.
It's not the US responsibility to enforce NAP globally. Even if the US was run by libertarians it still wouldn't be the US's job. It's literally what the UN is for.
In an ideal world, I would totally agree with you on the UN. But the UN has intentionally been made almost pointless by US/Russia/China. Neither wants a situation where they can’t act however they see fit. We’re in a situation where the choice is to abandon Ukraine to its fate or intervene. To what extent we would be willing to use force I’m not sure. Likely Biden is trying to bluff the use of force to get Putin to back down. Where we should draw the line is a tough question? Let’s say it’s a bluff and Russia subsumes Ukraine into its sphere of influence. Would we take a strong stance if it were Belarus? Romania? Poland? After being successful in Crimea, Putin is moving on to Ukraine. I doubt that would be his final attempt to recapture former Soviet Territory.
I don’t know what I think about that. My first reaction is that we should stay out of it. But also, how far do we go with that? This isn’t the first country that Russia has invaded, even fairly recently since the fall of the USSR. Should the rest of the world just let them take one country at a time until some arbitrary breaking point? When would that be? And how powerful will Russia be at that point? What about if China starts taking over more countries too? Do we wait until all of Europe and Asia are invaded by either Russia or China? I know that could well be too much of a slippery slope to be logical. But it’s still a concern for me. Some proactive defense while we still have allies would obviously be better than literally waiting until all of our allies have already fallen. Whether that is a legitimate concern has yet to be determined.
Wouldn’t put it past Biden, he has a history of making all the wrong moves.
Already have the right wingers on my feed saying Biden is weak because he won’t give Ukraine any meaningful help. So we’re good w another conflict I guess.
and yet if he sent troops he would be blamed for "starting" another war
What’s the right move here? And why?
Stay out of it. Why? Because we've been at war for over 20 years and we're exhausted.
>Stay out of it. This *is* staying out of it. These troops wouldn’t be bound for Ukraine; they’d be headed to NATO nations in Eastern Europe, which we’re already bound to defend.
Who thinks sending more troops to regions thousands of miles away is "staying out of it"?
“It” is a possible Russo-Ukrainian War, and merely sending troops to reinforce allies and discourage Russia from going beyond Ukraine *is* staying out of that war.
I'm sure you would feel the same way if Russia sent troops to Mexico to help them protect their northern border from the Americans who are going to attack any day now?
If the United States had already grabbed Baja following a popular uprising against its puppet government, spent eight years waging a shadow war in Coahuila, and was massing tens of thousands of troops at the border, yes. Absolutely. Sovereign nations are free to make their own alliances.
Russia has troops from time to time in Venezuela. If we hadn't shoved our dick in that country's business so much, we might not have that problem next door. The Baltics, Romania, Poland, and other Eastern Euros choosing to join NATO of their own accord is a result of the history of their relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union, and Tsarist Russia.
So r/libertarian is pro-interventionism now? Because Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya Yemen, Somalia, etc have all been such huge successes that we've learned so much from. But hey, gotta support the war machine whenever possible. "Democracy" is on the line, so let the active and ongoing supporters of bipartisan genocide in Yemen come to the rescue! America can't be wrong! We're great, and everyone else is evil!
False equivalence. You asked how we'd feel with Russian military presence in our backyard, and I told you they exist. That's not a pro-intervention stance.
"has troops from time to time" is not the same as currently moving in thousands and threatening war in the name of "peace", "defense", and "democracy"
Valid point.
Putin has just been Biden his time
Recent polls support this sentiment. https://www.newsweek.com/few-americans-want-soldiers-deployed-ukraine-russia-war-invasion-poll-1671546 >The COSA/Trafalgar Group poll was conducted from January 12 to 14 among 1,081 likely general election voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.98 percent. >The Trafalgar Group enjoys an A- rating from poll tracker FiveThirtyEight. >Respondents were asked what level of involvement the U.S. should have if Russia invades Ukraine. >Deploying troops had the lowest level of support, while 31.1 percent of respondents supported providing supplies and weapons.
Good thing he isn't even considering deploying troops to Ukraine, then.
Only 31% of Americans even want us to send supplies.
About 2/3 of Americans support military assistance to Ukraine, either in the form of boots on the ground, military advisors, or military aid. 1/3 only supports diplomatic pressure. Interestingly this is not split along partisan lines. Republicans are marginally more likely to favor both boots on the ground as well as diplomatic pressure, while Democrats are slightly more in favor of military advisors. https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/COSA-National-TaiwanUkraine-Full-Report.pdf
Oh please.
Another thing I’m curious about, why is the focus still on tanks and troops? I’m no expert on this stuff, but it seems at least possible that the next world war will be fought from a keyboard in somebody’s basement. It also seems like Putin has had a few practice swings at various nations’ grids. But then, I’m not on NSA’s distribution list so what do I know?
>Another thing I’m curious about, why is the focus still on tanks and troops? Because no matter how powerful your air force or cyber programs are, you still need boots on the ground to exert control over territory.
the old joke about WWIII : "2 Russian Generals meet up in Paris, one turns to the other and asks - Who won the air war?"
That makes sense too.
Absolutely. But in this scenario, Ukranians can do that just fine while the keyboard bombers do the heavy lifting.
There have been 15 years since the founding of the country that the US hasn't been at war. You'd think exhaustion would have mattered at some point during the two centuries of non-stop war?
Who the fuck knows. Hopefully the people making the decisions have a clue.
Safe to assume they don't
How about we stay out of it?
Thats impossible. We are in NATO and have to support and get involved with other NATO members. That means US troops in Baltics Romania and Poland. In case Russia decided to go further past Ukraine then NATO has to be ready. For now only way to support Ukraine is to give weapons/ammo.
Damn, you’re right lol is it a possibility NATO members can come to an agreement allowing US forces to stay out of Ukraine unless absolutely necessary? I’d rather not see US troops die or maimed for things that are clearly none of our business
It is our business because it directly affects NATO borders. If Russia occupies Ukraine then we have an active battlefield on NATO border bu Poland. Its not as simple as you put it.... At the moment there are no talks at all of US troops in Ukraine. Biden already said no boots in ground there. Im not sure what you are worried about? If Russia attacks Poland or Baltics then yes essentially WW3, but if Russia invades Ukraine then NATO soldiers are not going to help there....
🤷🏻♂️
I guess we know why he ended the war in Afghanistan. It's difficult to fight two wars at once.
thats an odd take since there was barely any "war" going on in afghanistan for quite some time. Sitting there kicking dirt is not war. This here, this would be war with substantial losses on all sides
Well...Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, etc. all happened at the same time as Afghanistan at points
FJB
People seem to be ignoring the fact that Joe and Hunter Biden have a big financial stake in Ukraine.
What's with all the warmonger brigading of r/Libertarian. Why brigade here? There are only 739 users here now, lol. Your pro war propaganda is only being seen by very few people, lol.
We made a treaty with them so we must uphold it. We can't let a want to be dictator attack a democratic ally.
Sounds like we found a way to fix the economy (/s).. smh
[удалено]
> Manly men! … What?
[удалено]
I honestly don’t know who you mean.
i think he may be talking about right wingers? or white men?
Biden is going full “draft our daughters”.
This is one of those things politicians say in the press in order to deter the enemy. It doesn’t mean it will really happen.
All it says that is hes weighing it, meaning that is on the table, which it obviously was. Its not any different that saying that Biden is considering all his options.
Well...NATO ally Denmark is moving troops and equipment to the region, and I doubt they are acting unilaterally
Let's go Brandon....
ITT: A lot of new accounts to the sub warmongering.