Why don't we put US troops in Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Go ahead Putin.. Attack US troops, and see how it ends for you.

If you're going to threaten the Russians... then make them know how far we will go if they attack.

[nightdrot]

Leaving aside the probability that such a move could easily lead to miscalculation - and thus an escalation to a thermonuclear exchange - the reason is that the United States' interest in Ukraine does not merit such action. Please note, this is not to say that the USA has no strategic interests in Ukraine, but rather such interests are secondary and derivative.

It being best to start by recalling that through most of American history, Ukraine was part of Imperial Russia and from 1920 to 1991 the Soviet Union. This having no noticeable or deleterious impact on the American global strategic position. This then making the deployment of troops to Ukraine, with its concomitant risk of war, and likely nuclear war at that, disproportionate.

Ukraine's current significance to the USA is rather based on its impact on several NATO allies. This especially true of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. The loss of Ukraine to Russia, absent American security assurances to those aforementioned states, would undermine their strategic position and likely result in the collapse of NATO.

Please also note that the dispute over Ukraine has already, in any case, divided NATO. Britain has been aggressive about sending weapons and diplomatic support to Ukraine. By contrast, Germany is seeking to develop its economic and trade ties with Russia, while using NATO security assurances to protect its own security interests. France, (with some sotto voce help from Italy) in all this, has been quietly seeking to entangle Russia more deeply in Europe, thereby making it a counterweight to German influence in the EU.

Put simply, there is a tangle of conflicting interests not just between NATO and Russia, but within NATO. For the United States to step in with a direct military intervention would likely please Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK, but it would shatter German ties with NATO. This then effectively render NATO "null and void" as it is the fastest strategic access point to eastern Europe, including Russia.

Further, any confrontation between the United States and Russia plays out to the strategic advantage of the People's Republic of China. If the Americans and Russians are engaged in a conflict, (again, assuming that it does not go nuclear in which events all bets are off), China is left a free hand toward Taiwan and the South China Sea, This also meaning, in effect, that the USA would be abandoning Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Put simply, the United States cannot walk away from Ukraine, but its interests require that it avoid war. If Russia invades Ukraine, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer. A direct military conflict between the USA and Russia would split NATO, to the latter's advantage, and give China a free hand.

This is a game of three dimensional chess and not simply a test of wills. The historic interests of the major European powers are at play and in this case American direct interests are secondary. For the USA, this is about reassuring NATO's eastern flank, balancing the interests of NATO's other major members - the UK, France, Germany and Italy - in order to keep the alliance whole, and to avoid driving Russia and China closer together.

This is not a mere contest of muscle. Suffice to add that it would be profoundly dangerous to see it in such simplistic terms.

[DaveJord]

I do not think the lose of the Ukraine would result in the collapse of NATO, but it would severelydamageit. I disagree again about schattering German ties... and if so fuck them. If they left NATO they'd be on their own.

You have limited piont on China, but it the Russians are beaten in the Ukraine then Putin could collapse and become Null and void. That changes everything for China.

Strategically Ukraine in now vital to NATO, if NATO fails to defend it then the alliance will be severely weakened and Russian power will rise... that would be more dangerous in terms to China US relatuins than anything else.. Just like Hilter's did when he took the Sudantland from the Czechs and invaded Austria.

If the United States puts troops on the ground, there would be significant NATO support for it. Sure counties like Germany and France will hesitate... but the others won't and United States would not have to go it alone. Now is the time for desive bold action.

So I completely disagree that putting troops on ground would fracture the alliance, I say by not putting troops on ground plays right into Putin hand and that will do more to weaken NATO then directly engaging Russia in Europe. This whole invasion of Ukraine is wrecks of desperation from Russia... why now? The answer simple, doesn't matter why if they are desperate then apply more pressure on then and engage in fighting... we know the metal of our troops let's see how willing these Ruskies are willing to die for Mother Russia

The cost of inaction is far more dangerous than the cost of taking action. Put troops on ground and win... to hell with Germany and France they will come along. But you don't put troops on ground the Ukraine will lose... and the Russian scheming will never stop... Putin will not stop. This our chance now to cut the head from snake.

[nightdrot]

@DaveJord Question. If Ukraine is vital to NATO. They why would the loss of NATO not result in the dissolution of the alliance?

The point being that if the USA does not take a stand, balancing that off against the interests of Germany, France, Italy etc., Poland and the Baltic states will have no choice but to cut any deal they can to ensure their own security. At a stroke, the very rationale of the alliance would be undermined and while NATO would not necessarily be formally disbanded, it would essentially be an empty shell.

As I have said elsewhere, this is three dimensional chess. You cannot play it with your heart, but must with your head.

To which I add these quotes as the guiding rules of international relations:

rom Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

From Theodore Roosevelt: "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."

From Camillo di Cavour: "Astonish them with my ingratitude." (His response when asked by a reporter what he would do for the Italian liberals who helped him unite Italy.)

CONT.

[nightdrot]

From Victor Davis Hanson (paraphrasing Thucydides): "Power, not justice... is always the final arbiter of state relations; self-interest, not morality, is what guides and must guide the behavior of states. Appeals to mercy or hope for reprieve are misguided, not rooted in logic or a realistic understanding of human behavior."

Oh, and as to the United States specifically, from President John Quincy Adams: "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Good rules to live by when analyzing international affairs.

[DaveJord]

@nightdrot your a smart guy... but I think you over thought this one. It is three demionsuinal chess, but whats the goal of the game? You play and think three demionsuinal inorder to avoid making that one move that could result in a check mate right? Once you get your opponent to make that mistake then its one demionsuinal.

So what I am saying... yeah German is like rook, France a bishop, Italy a knight and they all have each other covered up... so none can be taken with serious cost. But United States is the Queen and we are free to put Russia in check, now queen side rook, knight and bishop might be tied up... but we have pawns and other pieces.

We put troops into the Ukraine then the Russians are in check... they have to move thier King before they take anyone piece... so depending which move they make... depends if we can check mate them in 1 or 3 more moves.

My not putting troops in we are prolonging the game, because Russia just fucked up and we could check mate them... its one demionsuinal now unless we make wring move... by not checking king now... we are just going end up trading pieces one for one and that is what Russia is hoping for.

[nightdrot]

@DaveJord The object of the game is a relative - it is always relative - level of peace and security for the United States. What I would argue that you underestimate - at great peril - are the odds going badly wrong. Particularly in this case where three nuclear powers - USA, Russia, UK, France - are involved.

The object of diplomacy is often. to prolong a crisis, thereby to defuse it. Force a crisis to breakpoint, and unpredictable outcomes may follow.

It is why Burke argued that prudence was the highest political virtue.

[DaveJord]

Yeah maybe, but Putin is at the breaking piont. Its all academic to you, I get it. But realists perffee a realistic approach.

If Russia sucessceeds the outcome is far more devastating... I do not believe in fear mongering over nukes. That only plays into Putin hands because he knows he can hide behind the bluff without being called out because arguments like yours.

Putin counts on people like you, with doctrine and academic logic to do exactly what you are advising here... its predictable... its present and logical.

So Putin can be unpredictable like invading Ukraine, because we will respond predictable... and that plays into his hand.

[nightdrot]

@DaveJord See also my reply to your other comments. Did you know that Ukraine is not a democratic state? ↗

As to the strategic implications of Mr. Putin winning in Ukraine, they won't be good, but are unlikely to be quite so catastrophic as you suggest. Ukraine, after all, spent most of American history as part of Russia - with few implications for the USA or the West in general.

Further,. given that we had months of watching Mr. Putin prepare for war, not to mention his speeches on the subject going all the way back to 2014, this was hardly a surprise on the level of Pearl Harbor. What has been a surprise has been the inability of the Russian armed forces to win quickly. (Though even there, my memory harkened back to the Winter War of 1939-1940, where Finland initially smashed the Soviet invading force.)

In any case, the USA and the West had indications that this was coming but had other priorities. Bottom line, the proper historical analogy is 1914, not 1939. We need to think and act accordingly or VERY bad things could happen.

[wankiam]

because ukraine is not part of nato... interesting though when last week a us sub was found in russian waters on the eastern coat, they ran like little babies when told to get out... anyway regardless of that, this is all a political move by biden to show some kind of strngth before the mid terms... russia always holds millitary exercises this time of year at its western border and has no plans at all to enter ukraine even if the majority in that donetsk region actually support annexation... bout time you look beyond the mainstream media headlines matey

[Anonymous]

I’m guessing Ukraine isn’t important enough to US interests to put troops in harms way.

[Buntyp]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein.

[Wester1967]

Because if there is a war, which there will not be because Germany, which is what this is really all about, is a bitch, they will be mown down like ants. You're not playing in some kiddie kintergarten like Iraq or Libya. You're trying to fkn Cosplay Napoleon or Hitler or Charles II or Ghangis Khan. All four of which got their arses handed to them cold. Go on and do it if you have a death wish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mz0Nn3kGZg

[Anonymous]

Because Biden isn't completely stupid... I hope.
Remember the assassination of top Iranian commander Soleimani that was ordered by then president Trump? Iran vowed revenge and Trump responded there would be payback if any American soldiers were. Well Iran did launch a missle attack on American held Iraqi base Ain al-assad. Luckily no Americans were seriously injured so Trump was able to shrug it off and save face. Something he couldn't have done so easily if there had been American casualties.
Both Biden and Putin know open conflict between Russia and the United States means we both lose. So it's a war of attrition through disinformation and political theater and influence. Putin wants to just make us look weak. I'm not saying he WON'T invade Ukraine if he thinks he can get away with it. But that's the point. This is a political game. He seeing how far he can push without us actually responding.

[ZackBan]

I mean the US hasn't had the greatest track record in foreign soil wars in the past 70 years since world war 2. Every war comes with huge casualties and ends in a stalemate so maybe it's time to switch things up you know.
No point getting people killed over things that can be resolved in a meeting room.
And I am by no mean a pacifist but it doesn't mean it's a good idea to get people killed over ego

[Rangers]

US troops would have no chance against the Russians, they're far better trained, although their technology is inferior, they are far more determined to win, and have strong leaders behind them. Let Russia do their thing and worry about domestic affairs because if Russia invaded us, our cowardly NATO allies wouldn't do a damn thing.

[888theGreat]

US CAN"T BEAT RUSSIA in RUSSIA. Troops would die , be sent home and grave pissed on by media and Biden would just check his watch the whole time. Then we would fight a war with Russia we can't win for 50 years and Americans would die by the thousands year in and year out.

[jshm2]

You have.

It's why Putin is pissed.

You sound like the sort of dumbass that would turn up at your neighbours house with a loaded gun. Then call the cops to claim they are "threatening" to you.

[ChrisMaster69]

Because Ukraine is a sovereign country, is not part of NATO and has not requested any troops.

The only troops that have been there are those training the Ukrainians military since 2015.

[BeMuse]

That's not going to happen... Uranium one will come out. Your puppet masters will be arrested and executed. They are already on the chopping block. The revolution will not be televised...

[BeMuse]

Law dog is coming...

[purplepoppy]

Because Russia has a whopping big army and nuclear weapons. America couldn't defeat the taliban in Afghanistan so do you really want millions to die over Ukraine.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Its one thing for the US to set up a proxy government with very little support, but its a complete other to defend an ally against a foreign invasion

[Dargil]

Ukraine is not a NATO member. We have no obligation to them in any way.
Will you volunteer to carry and M-4 or like most Democrats, you want someone else to do it for you?

[josephinelcajon]

Simple Biden wants Russia to invade so he can start a war.

[ragooo8]

That would escalate things. It's like in Syria where the Russians checked Obama/Biden from invading

[JoyGirl]

I don’t think that is a smart move, atm.

[joeldalton]

Why is Ukraine my business?

[Asker]

People asked the same question about Hitler

[joeldalton]

lol, went the Hitler route already?

[boobliker]

as that would be all out war.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

There are already several bases set up in Ukraine.

[OddBeMe]

When has it worked in the last 50 years?

[ShatteringRedGalore]

I don't think peoplr want an all out war

[Still-alive]

no. terrible idea

[Still-alive]

we will send in armaments and fund any troops there to fight against Russian aggression.