METO Guido

Yes & no. Russia, PRC, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Israel. Problems then. Problems now. Nato’s readiness is what it is. More or less going to stay that way too. There’s no quick fix or blasting a way out here. Stop looking for one. Hold the line. Give ceasefire incentives a chance.

TransWorld

Here is my position:

NATO countries should contribute 2% of their GDP to defense. A substantial portion should go to Ukraine for equipment and ammunition.

The US should reauthorize a significant amount to Ukraine for equipment and ammunition.

Russia has stated several times if they take over Ukraine, they will take over the Balkans, other former Eastern Block countries, and will not stop until the Russian flag flies over Berlin, Germany.

All a cease fire will do is give Russia time to rearm and recover, to coninue their push. Look at Georgia. Look at Belarus. Look at Crimea. History predicts their motives and future actions.

As Churchill and Roosevelt decided, no ceasefire would be acceptable with Nazi Germany. Only a unconditional surrender, a total defeat in Ukraine territory, would be the ultimate goal. Same in this war.

Excargodog

The story of Europe is one of conflict and pretty much everybody has done somebody else wrong at one time or another. But for a more nuanced view of the Ukraine in the USSR:

https://origins.osu.edu/read/soviet-...tent_entity=en

For that matter, look at the first Crimean War in 1853-56. The French, and British (only thirty years after the death of Napolean Bonaparte and 35 years after Waterloo but now allies) siding with the Ottoman Empire (who they would both subsequently be fighting in WW1) were going against the Russians sixty years before the founding of the USSR

Excargodog

You certainly have a right to your opinion. Are you ready to go nuclear if that's what it will take to take back Crimea? Or to win the war in Ukraine. Just curious...

ShyGuy

Our debt is only getting more expensive to service. Frankly, we need to make cuts. The government (and people) keep talkinga about finding ways to increase tax revenue, no one wants to talk about government cuts. They are needed. Start with Ukraine and Israel.

TransWorld

Do you think Russia would actually use nuclear? All of the threats they keep making have not resulted in them using nuclear weapons.

European NATO and US weapons, and Ukrainian solders have not used nuclear. Adequate quantity of conventional weapons is sufficient to take back Crimea and push back other areas to the original Russian / Ukraine border.

Most retired US and U.K. generals have said the odds of Russia launching a first strike of nuclear is very low. They keep threatening, but no indication they would actually use them. A post nuclear hit by Russia on Ukraine would make it impossible to invade and inhabit those cities for a number of years.

Excargodog

You didn't answer the question.

Before advocating an attack on territory claimed by a country with 5000 nukes it is irresponsible to NOT answer that question.

As for the NATO armies of the larger/more populous NATO nations, read the above. Thirty years of fecklessness have pretty much gelded their militaries. Yeah, I know, Estonia is raring to go. All 7700 of their active duty military.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/coun...try_id=estonia

So if it's NATO boots on the ground you are calling for, the vast majority of those boots will have American feet in them. As for "adequate quantities of conventional weapons, $20 billion of the $60 billion under consideration by Congress is allegedly to restock our own conventional munitions to replace those we have ALREADY sent to Ukraine.

But you believe we have adequate conventional forces to take back Crimea and it won't go nuclear because some retired generals believe it to be so? Were these the same generals who thought Afghanistan would be a pushover before they retired? Same intel people who believed the Afghan Army would hang in there for months or years since we were leaving them with $8 billion in weapons and never predicted they would fold in 48 hours?

But what do you mean by "very low" probability of a nuclear war? One chance in a million? One chance in a thousand? One chance in a hundred? And in risk management "probability" is only one of the factors you consider. It's probability of the event occurring times the severity of the damage if it does occur. So what's YOUR best estimate of the SEVERITY of the damage if such an event DOES occur? You got an opinion on that?

Others do:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjwv...in-a-few-hours

For that matter, other experts are not so blasé as you are about even the probability of Russia using tactical nukes as you seem to be:

https://rusi.org/explore-our-researc...ed-nuclear-war

An excerpt:

In case you aren't familiar with RUSI:


They've been in this business longer than your"MOST retired US and UK Generals" have been alive.
​​​​​​​

Sliceback

Of course things have changed in the past. You're the guy saying we should allow Putin free rein. That hasn't changed over time either, there's always people on the wrong side of history.

TransWorld

I did answer your question, Excargodog. You can Google search for an opposing view.

I have stated my opinion, needless debate with you is fruitless, as I and many others have found in the past. Good day.

METO Guido

You heard the man, more fruit Sir