There’s a distinction between attacking Russia and stoping an invasion by eliminating military forces of the aggressor in the sovereign territory of another country.
Let’s not escalate the situation or a war might break out.
You are being pithy, but is this not the truth? We are on the first rung of a ladder that leads up to the end of the world.
The NATO strategy so far seems to be to isolate and damage Russia economically and politically and provide weapons (and one can assume intel) to Ukraine. I think it makes sense.
One of the major problems with escalation is that Russia is weak - so weak that any direct NATO intervention will almost certainly provoke some kind of nuclear response.
Are you not aware of death and life changing injuries mounting as you observe? Whose people and how many of them need to meet that fate until you think I may have a point hoping for an intervention?
I happen to think that a decisive, overwhelming and united military action against the forces of the aggressor may prevent a larger bloodshed. History seem to offer some evidence that backs that conclusion.
You stated you want Western militaries to intervene, which is an act of aggression. If you’re not willing to join your local military in a combat role, don’t state you want them to get involved in a war. Unless you post proof of your rank and MOS (or equivalent) in a NATO military, it sounds like you’re a coward who wants others to die so that you can feel good about yourself and get good boy points on the internet.
But I don’t really see how hoping for military forces to protect innocent people who are being killed by an immoral aggressor and expressing these feeling publicly requires passing some sort of a bar of approval from you?
If you don’t mind, I think you and I have spoken for the last time on this subject.
You are the “Fortunate Son” mocked in the famous song: someone privileged who advocates war knowing that they won’t ever be asked to pay a price.
There is a nonzero chance that the endgame of the decision you hope for results in gigadeaths within ten weeks.
Calling such a bluff risks the entire human civilization.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
Where is the red line?
I’ve just read in the news that Kadyrov’s Chechen forces of islamist murderers are going to be deploying to Ukraine to assist Russian forces. Should the West continue to wait and see?
Can you provide a reference for that? I wasn't aware of this
Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.
The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.
I don’t understand why you think so.
> Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.
This was a confusing comment but I don’t think the US would fight WWIII for Finland if they weren’t a NATO member (and they’re not). Do you?
> The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.
I guess that’s possible, but you’re entirely confused about its import. The NATO countries denying membership to Ukraine because they do not want to defend Ukrainians is an indication that NATO member countries take the “red line” associated with NATO membership seriously.
The Ukrainian life is less valuable than the Finn life (surely we'd respond to an invasion of Finland)? Where shall we finally call Putin's bluff? Putin is destroying a large country in Europe out of conquest and empire building, like the tsars of old. The Ukrainians deserve better than the modern, weak version of America they have 'helping' them. There were so many ways we could have easily helped them over the prior seven years and yet failed to do so.
If the US is truly a superpower (that has no qualms picking fights with far weaker nations), let it begin acting like it.
If not, then lie down, cower and fade from the pretension of superpower relevancy. It's either or and it's time for the US to demonstrate whether it still has the grit and strength of past generations or not, to demonstrate that it deserves the global position it has possessed post WW2.
We'll bomb the hell out of numerous weaker nations. We'll shock and awe Iraq, bombing them back in time, invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for two decades. We'll help destroy Libya and Syria because it's viewed as a convenient, low risk move on the global chess board. Then when it comes time to deal with a context involving a strong opponent where we'd have moral standing to act in the defense (no-fly zone over Ukraine) of innocent people that are being attacked, what do we do? Wave our hands furiously in the air and throw around impotent sanctions.
Oh what a mighty superpower.
We are actually seeing some strong early results from the soft power approach. The US under Trump all but abandoned this powerful and necessary tool. Give it a chance.
If he uses them, that's on him. Time to level these dogs.