NATO Expansion Would Be an Epic ‘Fateful Error’

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Since you keep posting about the Ukraine issue it’s obviously important to you.

We obviously disagree on whether we should be supporting Ukraine.

What would you like to see Trump handle the issue? What is the ideal end game for the Ukrainian issue?

let them fight it out on their own. no aid. who cares who wins.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Since you keep posting about the Ukraine issue it’s obviously important to you.

We obviously disagree on whether we should be supporting Ukraine.

What would you like to see Trump handle the issue? What is the ideal end game for the Ukrainian issue?

Trump has stated repeatedly that his main aim is to stop the killing.

The US and other Western Democracies gave Ukraine a big “fuck You” when the told them to give up their Nukes. This put them at a huge disadvantage when Putin’s Russia decided to invade.

The war is basically at a stalemate. But the killing goes on. And to what end.

A negotiated peace is about the best any one can hope for. Russia will probably end up with some of Ukraine’s Eastern lands, which will be about 10% of the Country.

Putin will also demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO.

What the Western Democracies have to decide is this. Do we keep putting money into the Ukrainian’s military? More sophisticated weapons that are more offensive to take the war to Russia, risking a repeat of WW-1 where alliances of mutual protection ended up decimating an entire generation on both sides?

And then there is the question of why Western Europe isn’t footing 90% of the bill, and the US 10%. If they don’t care, why should we.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

Right now, people are dying with no end in sight. If Trump can put and end to that, at least it’s something.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jacky S

Trump has stated repeatedly that his main aim is to stop the killing.

The war is basically at a stalemate. But the killing goes on. And to what end.

A negotiated peace is about the best any one can hope for. Russia will probably end up with some of Ukraine’s Eastern lands, which will be about 10% of the Country.

Putin will also demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO.

What the Western Democracies have to decide is this. Do we keep putting money into the Ukrainian’s military? More sophisticated weapons that are more offensive to take the war to Russia, risking a repeat of WW-1 where alliances of mutual protection ended up decimating an entire generation on both sides?

And then there is the question of why Western Europe isn’t footing 90% of the bill, and the US 10%. If they don’t care, why should we.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62002218

Right now, people are dying with no end in sight. If Trump can put and end to that, at least it’s something.

Well, according to the figures in the bbc article the US has supplied 60 billion while Europe has supplied 50 billion. Not to mention all the refugees that Europe has had to absorb.

Yes there are lots of people dying on both sides. But isn’t that up to the Ukrainian people to decide. From my perspective anything we can do to assist the Ukrainian people resist the invasion is money well spent. Better to complete the war now than have to restart the conflict sometime in the next decade after both sides gun up even more than they have before.

A stalemate, in my opinion is a sure fire way to militarize the situation even more including NATO membership for Ukraine and the placement of nuclear weapons closer to the border. Maybe even in the hands of the Ukrainian military.

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Well, according to the figures in the bbc article the US has supplied 60 billion while Europe has supplied 50 billion. Not to mention all the refugees that Europe has had to absorb.

Yes there are lots of people dying on both sides. But isn’t that up to the Ukrainian people to decide. From my perspective anything we can do to assist the Ukrainian people resist the invasion is money well spent. Better to complete the war now than have to restart the conflict sometime in the next decade after both sides gun up even more than they have before.

A stalemate, in my opinion is a sure fire way to militarize the situation even more including NATO membership for Ukraine and the placement of nuclear weapons closer to the border. Maybe even in the hands of the Ukrainian military.

How is it money well spent?
Making arms manufacturers more and more cash? Sending billions of dollars worth of equipment to what was, and might still be, one of the most corrupt regimes in Europe?

Is it money well spent because we can try weapons out in a real war zone with no involvement except monetarily? Ask all of the dead Ukrainians.

Maybe there is no fix. The Western Democracies sending Ukraine long range missiles that can level Moscow might have a certain moral satisfaction, but we are still dealing with a power hungry demagogue with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Planet.

It would be nice if somebody with enough courage would put a bullet in the back of Putin’s head, but whom ever is next in line might be even worse.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

let them fight it out on their own. no aid. who cares who wins.

That ain't happening on either side.

Maybe Ukraine should rename itself to Greenland or Panama.