Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe
Biden Issues Order To Send 3,000 U.S Reserve Troops To Europe
WASHINGTON DC (WSAU) - The Pentagon will be able to call up to 3,000 military reservists for deployment to Eur...
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ukraine is more than capable of defending itself. The US has no obligation whatsoever to that country. I would love if Russia just decided to stop, but I don't think that's a likely scenario. What does seem likely is if the us directly commits troops this will escalate the current situation dramatically. Any US involvement will trigger a declaration of war by Russia on the us. That will trigger article 5 of NATO brining all members of the alliance into war. Both side have nuclear weapons which will be used barring some sort of miracle rendering plutonium inert or something.
I have just as much a right not to die over some territory on the other side of the world as the Ukrainians do defending their land. Didn't know that was controversial. Hope you're ready to die for Ukraine then
The US did make an agreement with Ukraine (the Budapest Agreement), Russia, and the UK that stated if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, we'd guarantee their security. Russia violated that agreement with their invasion and now we're holding up our end of the bargain by offering security.
I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they're already struggling to capture former USSR nations. You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.
You wanting to sit on the sidelines is no guarantee of safety. Russia isn't going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?
The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.
I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they’re already struggling to capture former USSR nations.
And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity. You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say
Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?
It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.
You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.
It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.
Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that. While you seem to be yeehawing like Major Kong
So the only situation where a Russian bomb falls on my house is when it's an ICBM launched because the US escalated themselves into full on war over Ukraine.
The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.
You stated the US has no obligation to help Ukraine, which is proven wrong with said agreement stating we would offer protection. You never stated anything about "legal obligations," nor did I argue we have a legal obligation but I suppose it's easier to move the goalposts than admit to being proven wrong.
And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity.
What I stated was that they're struggling with Ukraine and could not win a war against NATO currently. I also stated that if they were to capture Ukraine they would have a whole nation of conscripts to do their bidding. They would be more powerful combined and would likely continue their attempts to conquer their neighboring sovereign nations and build influence if not stopped.
You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?
I meant Russia attacking the US is just as likely as Russia launching nuclear weapons. You seem to think once they've conquered Ukraine that'll be the end of things which is laughably absurd. Why would they stop with Ukraine if the rest of the world just allows it to happen unchecked?
It's incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn't declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.
Who said they wouldn't? This is a strawman argument. I stated that they wouldn't drop nukes.
It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they're not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we've both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.
What historical factuality? The only country to ever use a nuke is the US at the end of WWII. Please enlighten us on how you've determined Russia is willing to use nukes when they've never in history used them.
Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don't want to get anywhere close to that.
As I tried to allude to in my previous comment, what guarantee is there that allowing Russia to conquer Europe unchecked won't also lead to nuclear conflict? You seem willing to roll the dice with that, so why not here too? Why not stamp out their aggression just as it's getting started rather than waiting until they have nations full of cannon fodder to throw at the rest of the world in addition to their nuclear arsenal?
I'm not arguing with someone who keeps contradicting themselves in their own comment and lacks any basic historical awareness of the cold war or 20th century at large. Let me make my point crystal clear:
Nuclear war and world war should be avoided at all costsThe US committing troops to the ground to fight for Ukrainian sovereignty will trigger WW3A third world war between NATO and Russia will involve the use of nuclear warheadsIf you'd like to refute any of these points please be prepared to bring something to back up your words. I am a historian so I'll take any primary source or peer reviewed secondary sources. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air for the purpose of stoking hate. Something I won't take any more part in.
Lol you're a historian and a fortune teller now? That's quite the combination.