Really, do many really care about Ukraine? Or the “war” going on? Does it affect them? Or, are they more worried with the continuing inflation that we were told was transitory? Are they tired of Los Federales pissing away money and arms in an attempt to start WWIII? Whatever happened to the anti-war left, and groups like ANSWER and Code Pink?
(Rasmussen) More than a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, half of U.S. voters think the war has harmed America’s national security and many want to see a negotiated peace.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. voters believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine has made America’s national security situation worse – up from 42% last September.
Just 14% now say the Russian invasion has made U.S. national security better, and 28% think it has not made much difference. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
No one in the administration offers up much in the way of Reasons for why we’re giving Ukraine so much money and weapons, other than a nebulous “Democracy, baby!” What’s in it for us? How long will it last? What more will we give them?
Republican lawmakers press Biden to send cluster bombs to Ukraine -letter
Four Republican members of Congress urged U.S. President Joe Biden to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, alleging in a Tuesday letter to the White House that the administration fears doing so would be seen as an escalation by Russia.
Ukraine is seeking the MK-20, an air-delivered cluster bomb, to release its individual explosives from drones, and 155 mm artillery cluster shells, Reuters reported earlier this month. Kyiv had urged members of Congress to press the White House to approve sending the weapons.
The letter criticized Biden for “reluctance to provide Ukraine the right type and amount of long-range fires and maneuver capability to create” a breakthrough against Russian forces.
The letter was signed by Jim Risch, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mike McCaul, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mike Rogers the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
I can’t criticize Democrats on this if I do not criticize Republicans, because a goodly chunk of the Elites in both parties are pushing this.
Our very tolerant host asked, “Really, do many really care about Ukraine?” Well, a lot say that they do, but beyond the World War II logic that we can’t let Adolf Hitler have the Sudetenland, ’cause look how badly that turned out, I have to wonder if they’re really thought this through? Had France and the United Kingdom stood firm on the Sudetenland, Germany was preparing to invade, and given the performance of France and the UK against the Wehrmacht when Germany struck west, would or could the Allies have actually done much?
French military thinking was heavily defensive, based on the experience of World War I.
While we can’t know what would have happened if the Allies had attacked the Third Reich from the west while the Wehrmacht was busy in the east, we do know that when the Allies declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, following the German invasion of Poland, they didn’t actually do anything.
The reasoning is that if we let Vladimir Vladimirovich take Ukraine, he’ll strike at the Baltic States or Poland next, but I reject that, due to events. The Russian army has performed so poorly in its invasion of Ukraine that it will have to be completely rebuilt after the war, even if Russia conquers all of Ukraine; there’s no way that Russia can seriously contemplate an invasion of the Baltic States in fewer than ten years, and he’s already 70 years old.
World War II thinking falls apart, it seems to me, because both Russia and the US possess World War III weaponry. While France and the UK couldn’t, or at least didn’t, do anything to Germany when it invaded Poland, Germany couldn’t do much against those Allies either, not until the Germans completed their conquest of Poland and turned the Wehrmacht around to target France. But Russia has the ability to strike anywhere in the world, with wholly devastating nuclear weapons, and do so within an hour. No, I’m not willing to put American cities at greater risk to save Ukraine.
Dana
Your reasoning about what Putin may or may not do rests on assuming that Putin will make what you consider to be the correct military and political decision about future plans
Putin has already made one stupid decision, invading Ukraine, I think we can assume that he may/will make more stupid mistakes if allowed. Hopefully Putin remembers the mistake Japan made by trying to frighten the USA into allowing them to grab the Indonesian oil by attacking Pearl. Any attack by Russia either conventionally or nuclear would be net without mercy by the Dark Brandon
Russia is not doing well in Ukraine. They are now trying to refurbish tank hulls from the 60s for reuse in Ukraine. After concentrating their best units on the city of Bskhmut for 4 weeks still unable to take it
Putin has even had to buy Chinese rifle ammo
Does any of this buttress Trump’s claim that his buddy’s invasion was “genius” ?
Mr H wrote:
It’s more than that. Any assessment of the situation has to recognize that Mr Putin’s future choices are constrained by his past ones, and regardless of the outcome of the Ukraine war, Russia’s army has been badly shown up, and has lost a great deal of equipment. The Russian military will have to rebuild a tremendous amount from the devastation it has suffered in the war, and simply can’t be used aggressively against another nation, for a long time to come.
More, Mr Putin’s position depends upon the support of the army, and while the officer corps loves to be aggressive, they also know that they really can’t be at this point.
There are always probabilities to consider. Could Mr Putin try something even crazier than the invasion of Ukraine? That’s always possible, but at a certain point it becomes so improbable that it becomes less than a serious concern. What I am concerned is the increasing probability that he will resort to ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons as a purely conventional attack has failed. It is most probable that, if he did, such use would be limited to Ukrainian military positions in Ukraine, but once the nuclear threshold is crossed, who can know what will happen?
Dana, as I have mentioned already, there is a near zero probability of Russian first use of nukes. The only situation that would compel it is a large land formation crossing into Russia from Poland. And then the only target would be that military formation.
And, as I have said, Russia is certainly not done yet. Ukraine very likely is done. Ukraine has lost over 100k men, some say nearer to 250k. They can’t replace those. The army that was trained by the USA last year is already in cold graves. Replacements are untrained and ill equipped. Some reports claim ukraine has resorted to the ancient custom of impress gangs to fill their rolls.
We will likely see some spring offensives any week now and the collapse of ukraine by summer.
It is astonishing to me why american neo-cons (like Jeff) are all in on slaughtering another 100k Ukrainian men. There is no doubt that the people of Ukraine would benefit from any negotiated settlement offered to them. But American political leaders are determined that Ukraine will fight to the death. And now Neo-cons (new and impoved neo-cons, now with 65% more Democrats) are looking to sacrifice Georgia too.
The good professor wrote:
Define “near zero.”
When it comes to nuclear weapons, any probability of them being used that is above zero is serious.
But my point has been that yes, if Russia used nuclear weapons, the almost certain targets would be military ones, but once that nuclear threshold is crossed, no one can know what will happen next.
“Near Zero” is exactly the same risk we always have. The greatest threat we have is that there are Americans, working in the US Government who seem hell bent on starting a war with Russia and China, both of whom are nuclear powers. We can count on Russia to not use them unless attacked by a superior land force. And there are no superior land forces other than China anywhere near them. Not anyone in Europe and the USA is too far away. All we can muster is a serious provocation, not a real threat. Thus, Putin and his generals will have no incentive or need to use nukes.
Further, At the rate the Ukrainian army has expended US munitions, it will take us 5 years of accelerated production just to replenish our own meager stockpiles. Europe has nothing left and aren’t even trying to replenish. The USA is in no position to start a war with anyone bigger than Mexico, Canada, or Brazil. Someone who isn’t known for having any large forces of their own.
The best argument that Putin is not Hitler is that if Putin wanted to take someone else in Europe, there is nothing we could do to stop him and he knows that, and yet, he isn’t doing it already. He isn’t even doing the groundwork for such things.
Caveat: If the Taliban, decide to send their fleet of US-made vehicles north into Russia, Russia might nuke them just because they would see the Taliban as “not worth all the artillery it would take to kill them” and would want to get it over with quickly to get on with more important things.
Nor would they follow it up by going into Afghanistan and building schools and wells.
John,
Exactly when did Trump say genius?
Consider this, you were on track for a decent comment which would allow us to incorporate your statements into our knowledge base. But then you went into full stupidity by bring Trump into your statement.
Feb 22 2022
Jeff,
I consider you to not be the type of person that I wish to exchange comments. Please refrain from trying to enter into a discussion with me.
I might add that someone accessed my profile in the national data bank and I am contemplating my options.
Don’t ask questions if you don’t want them answered.
After all the cyberstalking you’ve done…