• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight

  • I would change my mind.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I would reconsider.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • I would remain steadfast in my current position.

    Votes: 18 81.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
specklebang said:
OK, 100,000 soldiers. Why don't you answer my original question instead of making me the problem.
Click to expand...

I don't have an definitive answer, but it sure seems way odd that we have a treaty to protect and yet they have one of our worst "enemies" all over their soil in uniforms, with tanks, navy, compounds, etc.

I'm imagining that while we have boots on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, any other treaty that might be used against us is considered dead, don't you?

It's just odd. Usually we are physically nearby and/or within the boundaries of those we promise to protect, certainly not a case where we are no where to be found and the Russians, or the Pakistani's, or any other iffy ally (which is the best we could ever have called Russia) in nearly full force (I say full force because 100K troops seems like a plenty big enough force to be considered full for state the size of Crimea.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, we do not have nor have ever had a command post in Ukraine or Crimea.
 
ocean515 said:
So you don't think they would let Putin resurrect the USSR, but you think they will attack Ukraine if Putin turns off the gas should Ukraine try to stop him from taking over?

The logic escapes me.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying they'll attack Russia if they try to take Ukraine for fear that Russia will interfere with gas and oil flow. And/or if Ukraine on it's own with it's new extreme right wing stooges decide to choose to interfere with the flow of gas and oil to the EU, regardless of Russia, they'd be just as easily going to war with Ukraine. Make sense now? I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

In the end, EU, I think, will go to war against whomever they perceive is a threat to their oil and gas whether it be Russia or Ukraine. I think the reason they aren't really doing anything now, is because Crimea isn't critical to those pipelines.
 
Summerwind said:
No, I'm saying they'll attack Russia if they try to take Ukraine. And/or if Ukraine on it's own with it's new extreme right wing stooges decide to choose to interfere with the flow of gas and oil to the EU, regardless of Russia, they'd be just as easily going to war with Ukraine. Make sense now? I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

In the end, EU, I think, will go to war against whomever they perceive is a threat to their oil and gas whether it be Russia or Ukraine. I think the reason they aren't really doing anything now, is because Crimea isn't critical to those pipelines.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, it's the extreme stooges of the left wing the EU is concerned with. The right is interested in erasing the blight of the left, and Putin seems hell bent on stopping them.
 
MaggieD said:
Steadfast. It's right in their backyard, for God's sake. Would anyone want to go toe to toe with the Russian military over this? You'd have to be crazy.
Click to expand...
jamesrage said:
My position is that it is none of our business and we should stay the **** out of it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I would hesitate to give the Russians a blank check.

We should not get involved militarily in any Urkaine vs Russia conflict unless the Russians threaten the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation and Ukrainians as a sovereign people.

Occupying Crimea does not threaten Ukrainian survival as a nation. Forcibly annexing large portions of eastern Ukraine might, forcibly reincoorperating the entire Ukrainian nation into a reconstitution of the Sovet system sans communism would.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
Unfortunately for you, it's the extreme stooges of the left wing the EU is concerned with. The right is interested in erasing the blight of the left, and Putin seems hell bent on stopping them.
Click to expand...

WTF, are you talking about? The folks that took over Ukraine in a coup are not left wing at all, they are right wing not far off from the Taliban if what I've read and heard is accurate. At no point has anyone suggested that they are left or liberal or progressive.
 
Summerwind said:
WTF, are you talking about? The folks that took over Ukraine in a coup are not left wing at all, they are right wing not far off from the Taliban if what I've read and heard is accurate. At no point has anyone suggested that they are left or liberal or progressive.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? The forces of the left have illegally taken Crimea, and are certainly indicating a desire to keep going.
 
ocean515 said:
WTF are you talking about? The forces of the left have illegally taken Crimea, and are certainly indicating a desire to keep going.
Click to expand...
You think Russia is left wing???? Wow, nevermind, carry on.
 
We have no business in the Ukraine's fight, period. If they want to have a war against the Russians, that's up to them. It is not, nor will it ever be our business. Now if they want to pay us to take part and completely fund our involvement, maybe. So long as it remains at U.S. taxpayer expense, we have no business there at all.
 
Almost 40% of domestic gas consumption in Germany was from Russia, and France and Italy also depend on the supply, about an eight and quarter respectively. NATO and the EU are doing what they've always done, and that is interfere in Europe's affairs when they clearly shouldn't be doing so. The annexation of Crimea by Russia was a historical inevitability, especially when Kiev shows signs of being hostile towards ethnic Russians (they threatened to abolish the law on languages of minorities; in other words, intimidate ethnic Russians). What do you expect Russia to do? You have to understand the angle they're coming at this from. To them, the protests in Kiev were incited and encouraged by the West and the toppling of the legitimate Yanukovych government was the fault of the EU. If the majority of the Crimean population supports succession, and let's face it, whether the results of the election were fabricated or not is irrelevant, it is certain that a majority of Crimeans supported the measures, then why should the West get involved at all? They know that their actions lead to a bellicose environment.

The West seems to forget that the current Kiev government has far-right elements that it so keenly denounces in other scenarios, and yet it pledges to provide aid and assistance, violating all of its supposedly rigid frame of principles.
 
radcen said:
If we're willing to do that, why not put US troops in (what remains of) Ukraine right now?
Click to expand...

We should do so. Even with just a token small force Russia would not move further in Ukraine. Obama announcing he will not do so is effectively his giving his permission to Russia to grab anything else of Ukraine he wants.
 
jamesrage said:
So your solution is provoke Russia but you do not want American troops directly against Russian troops? Thats like sending in someone to call one of the meanest bikers the worst name possible and expecting to not get punched or worse.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Its like the meanest biker of all - the USA - giving a little guy whose being bulleted a .38 special.

Putting USA troops in non-Russia-claimed Ukraine does not "provoke" Russia whatsoever. Its just reminding Russia that actually we are still the toughest guy on the block - and they can test if it that is true if they REALLY want to start a fight. The entire cold war was built upon which ever side was able to put troops anywhere it meant the other side was locked out of it. That has worked for decades, never failed.

Russia, like all countries, wants many things. The absolute top of the list thing Russia does NOT want to a war with the United States since, in the final analysis, such a war is impossible for either side to win. It would just be a non-nuclear killing contest. Since this is on Russia' border, not ours, they actually have more to lose it they cause armed conflict all around their own borders.

Do you REALLY think Russia would attack a USA base in the Ukraine? Really??

COWARDICE doesn't work in foreign policy - it is blood before sharks.
 
While Ukraine gave away its self defense nuclear arsenal, they have many nuclear power plants. They could turn large areas of Russia and Europe into a radiation wasteland. Just by waiting until there was a strong wind blowing the right way and venting their reactors they could kill a few million Russians - although it'd be slow, really painful killing spanning many years.

Ukraine won't fight. They know all the words everyone is saying means exactly nothing. They have been totally tricked into disarmament is backroom deals, betrayed, lied to, and abandoned by exactly everyone. They are a defeated country now left no choice but to be beggars of Russia and laboring to give their money to Russia - basically Russia's sweatshop labor. We sure tricked them good! Very skilled at doing so.

The USA gave Russia Crimea and in return Russia won't mess with the resources we are taking in Southern former Eastern USSR bloc countries. Its the same business that has been going on for decades - and in some regards a couple centuries.

The bottom line to the deal is Russia gets anything it wants from its former Eastern bloc subjugated nations, while the USA and certain Western Europe countries get what we want out of their former Southern USSR block countries. But a good show of shaking fists and cursing each other will be put on for us stupid sheeple.
 
I would need to see the NATO reaction, and evaluate the Russian stomach for decimation.

If it was clear NATO was united in the decision to block the Russian advance I would probably accept the decision and say we need to adhere to the treaty.....but if we do so, we do it full force and understand the implications.


Either we get Nuked, along with others....or Russia becomes a third world nation.
 
joko104 said:
No it's not. Its like the meanest biker of all - the USA - giving a little guy whose being bulleted a .38 special.

Putting USA troops in non-Russia-claimed Ukraine does not "provoke" Russia whatsoever. Its just reminding Russia that actually we are still the toughest guy on the block - and they can test if it that is true if they REALLY want to start a fight. The entire cold war was built upon which ever side was able to put troops anywhere it meant the other side was locked out of it. That has worked for decades, never failed.

Russia, like all countries, wants many things. The absolute top of the list thing Russia does NOT want to a war with the United States since, in the final analysis, such a war is impossible for either side to win. It would just be a non-nuclear killing contest. Since this is on Russia' border, not ours, they actually have more to lose it they cause armed conflict all around their own borders.

Do you REALLY think Russia would attack a USA base in the Ukraine? Really??
Click to expand...
If they take what we do as an act of aggression then sure. They may count on the fact that we may not want a war or that we are reluctant to use our nukes.

COWARDICE doesn't work in foreign policy - it is blood before sharks.
Click to expand...

Neither does trying to make the world our bitch - it creates lots of enemies.
 
It would depend on the situation, and whether our European allies are steadfast in wanting to prevent a Russian takeover of Ukraine itself. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, so no NATO action would be imposed, but if our major European allies would suffer economic hardship and/or feel threatened by Russia marching to establish the new Greater Russia of Putin's dreams, then I would approve of supporting them economically, diplomatically and if needed, militarily.
 
radcen said:
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?
Click to expand...

Since they gave up their bases the last few days and walked out toward home without a shot, I can see how well any fight against the Russians will go. Yet, they will do well in NATO with the other "joiners" feeding at the US trough. They might not fight, but its always good to have another few auxiliaries cheering you on while you dig. Gotta love NATO. *winks*
 
Cryptic said:
I agree, but I would hesitate to give the Russians a blank check.

We should not get involved militarily in any Urkaine vs Russia conflict unless the Russians threaten the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation and Ukrainians as a sovereign people.

Occupying Crimea does not threaten Ukrainian survival as a nation. Forcibly annexing large portions of eastern Ukraine might, forcibly reincoorperating the entire Ukrainian nation into a reconstitution of the Sovet system sans communism would.
Click to expand...

There is, IMO, practically zero chance that Putun would ever be so stupid as to attack the Ukraine. He is ruthless and cruel...not dumb.

What on Earth would Russia gain? They would immediately lose almost ALL their oil/gas revenues (which their economy depends on). A war would cost tons of money Russia cannot afford to lose (especially if their natural resources revenue stream is cut off). Ukraine is a mess, so far in debt they are begging the world for help. It makes zero sense.

Besides, I think now that Kiev was dumb enough to reduce the rights of Russian-speakers in the Ukraine (mixed in with the economic mess it is - gas prices might rise by 40% it was recently announced), I think it is quite possible that the Russian-speaking/supporting eastern Ukraine might want to join the Crimea as part of Russia in the next few months/years without Russia fring a shot.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/n...rices-may-have-to-rise-40-to-satisfy-21366832
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Steadfast. It's right in their backyard, for God's sake. Would anyone want to go toe to toe with the Russian military over this? You'd have to be crazy.
Click to expand...

In the Russians backyard. The logistics alone would be a nightmare/almost impossible. The Russians can pour as much troops as they want into there. They have an easy task of bringing in as many tanks, planes, attack helicopters, missiles etc. etc. etc. etc. into the region while the US/West has to airlift or transport it over many nations/miles to even get close to there.
 
Peter King said:
In the Russians backyard. The logistics alone would be a nightmare/almost impossible. The Russians can pour as much troops as they want into there. They have an easy task of bringing in as many tanks, planes, attack helicopters, missiles etc. etc. etc. etc. into the region while the US/West has to airlift or transport it over many nations/miles to even get close to there.
Click to expand...

*winks*...I suspect memories have faltered, reading of the fighting on the Eastern Front during WW2 is no longer of any value, or there are a lot of young people with no memory of how the Russians can fight on their own homeland contributes to talk of a need to go to ground with them over Ukraine.

In actuality, it would be the most horrifying experience, even without nuclear weapons, that the West has suffered since World War 2, and most definitely the most bitter fight for Americans since the Civil War, or worse. Then again, we would have to get there to even deploy, and I don't think the Russians are going to just sit there like Saddam did in Iraq, just watching us build up what meager forces we can muster against their massive armor divisions. That is tank country. "Can I get a shout-out for Kursk redo?" But, perhaps not. The Germans, during WW2, in losing that battle, had an armor force of over 2000 tanks, and more than 790,000 men in three separate Army groups. We don't have anywhere near such a force to deploy close enough to even see a Russian from afar, let alone be able to shoot at them. Interesting sandbox discussion though.
 
Destroy the black sea fleet by air, bring in the 7th to the ports, launch from carrier groups to eliminate ground forces....and hope Putin isn't crazy enough to nuke his own backyard.
 
A direct US military intervention in Ukraine has never been nor will be on the table.
 
SayMyName said:
*winks*...I suspect memories have faltered, reading of the fighting on the Eastern Front during WW2 is no longer of any value, or there are a lot of young people with no memory of how the Russians can fight on their own homeland contributes to talk of a need to go to ground with them over Ukraine.

In actuality, it would be the most horrifying experience, even without nuclear weapons, that the West has suffered since World War 2, and most definitely the most bitter fight for Americans since the Civil War, or worse. Then again, we would have to get there to even deploy, and I don't think the Russians are going to just sit there like Saddam did in Iraq, just watching us build up what meager forces we can muster against their massive armor divisions. That is tank country. "Can I get a shout-out for Kursk redo?" But, perhaps not. The Germans, during WW2, in losing that battle, had an armor force of over 2000 tanks, and more than 790,000 men in three separate Army groups. We don't have anywhere near such a force to deploy close enough to even see a Russian from afar, let alone be able to shoot at them. Interesting sandbox discussion though.
Click to expand...

As an avid student of the second world war I do know that. Russia is one of those empires who has hardly ever fallen to anyone. Hitler tried it and failed, Napoleon tried it and failed, King Charles of Sweden tried it and failed. Russia is one tough nut to crack/defeat and with loads of nuclear weapons, troops, etc. etc.

Sure, if you would pool all the US armed forces into one great army Russia would have a difficult time without nuclear weapons but the odds of the US being able to put all that military force on the ground near Russia will be almost impossible. And if the US would amass such an army in that region, what would their biggest Geopolitical foe do (China).
 
tecoyah said:
Destroy the black sea fleet by air, bring in the 7th to the ports, launch from carrier groups to eliminate ground forces....and hope Putin isn't crazy enough to nuke his own backyard.
Click to expand...

First, that would be an act of war. Secondly, waging an attack on a Russian naval base (with their defenses) which lies real close to the Russian mother land (with their military basis in that region, more than 300 available fighter jets) does not seem that smart. Also, the Russian will defend themselves against attack with all the missiles at their disposal.

Who knows, there are a lot of Russian SAM installations near Sochi, how difficult would it be to transport those to the Crimea? Who knows, maybe they are already on their way to the area as we speak.
 
Peter King said:
First, that would be an act of war. Secondly, waging an attack on a Russian naval base (with their defenses) which lies real close to the Russian mother land (with their military basis in that region, more than 300 available fighter jets) does not seem that smart. Also, the Russian will defend themselves against attack with all the missiles at their disposal.

Who knows, there are a lot of Russian SAM installations near Sochi, how difficult would it be to transport those to the Crimea? Who knows, maybe they are already on their way to the area as we speak.
Click to expand...

My scenario was purely sarcastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom