Top U.S. general says it is time to consider arming Ukrainian forces

[fathertime]

While browsing this morning I found this article discussing why American Generals are hesitant to want to arm Ukraine.  They make a lot of good points, and present a side that isn't talked about as much here.


http://news.yahoo.com/why-pentagon-hesitant-arm-ukraine-211027484.html


Fathertime!   

[cc3]

On the other hand, in the Washington Post's Opinion section yesterday, the WaPo's most distinguished foreign affairs columnist, David Ignatius, who has more knowledge about the US' foreign relations than all of Obama's advisers combined, wrote this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/back-to-the-future-in-putins-europe/2015/03/17/6c8dbb94-cce9-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html?tid=hybrid_linearcol_2_na

[Boethius]

Good piece.
 
I can understand rebuilding military strength.  However, Russia will lose any nuclear arms race with the US, just as it did in the 1980's. 
 
Russia's main enemy is not the US, I don't think, but China.

[Gator]

On the other hand, in the Washington Post's Opinion section yesterday, the WaPo's most distinguished foreign affairs columnist, David Ignatius, who has more knowledge about the US' foreign relations than all of Obama's advisers combined, wrote this:

Interesting question raised in article:  What would NATO do if the Baltics were invaded not by Russia but by Little Green Men?

[AC]

Interesting question raised in article:  What would NATO do if the Baltics were invaded not by Russia but by Little Green Men?

I raised this exact same scenario in my response to one of your posts in the "useless US political banter" thread.  Because our CIC believes in "leading" from behind and because there is no real European leadership, look for another disaster similar to E. Ukraine with territory lost and large recriminations on both sides after loss of life.

[Faux Pas]

Interesting question raised in article:  What would NATO do if the Baltics were invaded not by Russia but by Little Green Men?

NATO countries are bound to come to the aid and assist any other NATO country that is breached. Fortunately this will not hinge on any decision by the Campaigner in Chief in Washington. The little eventuality that enabled Obama to turn away from Ukraine was/is that Ukraine isn't a NATO country. Little Green Men from Russia in the Baltics would be met with a swift and firm defense.

Say what you want but Putin has played the West like a fine violin. So far he's only poked the West with a stick. If he attempts to disrupt or foment in a NATO country would be a clear slap in the face. I would hope he would receive a much different response

[lordtiberius]

If Obama won't honor the NATO treaty, why would anyone else?  He just exempted himself from the FOIA law.

[Muzh]

No talk of dwarfs or mongoloids or shaved vagina's  or even Putin....makes this post seem so out of place forYOU.

Fathertime!

Psst, next time use the "Paste as plain text" option.

[BillyB]

Interesting question raised in article:  What would NATO do if the Baltics were invaded not by Russia but by Little Green Men?

NATO will not come the aid of a member nation if the government changes through election or revolution. Greece recently elected a pro Russian government and no preparations from NATO to right the wrong.


Approximately 25% of the population in the Baltics are ethnic Russians. If Putin can find enough willing and disgruntled ethic Russians who are citizens of the Baltics to take up arms and take over the government, Putin will go for it not only to take more land but test NATO. Sending in too many little green men and getting caught will get a response from NATO so Putin will not do everything he's doing in Ukraine. Once Russia covertly begins destabilization of one of Baltic nations, I doubt many NATO members will have the stomach to fight a giant in order to rescue a tiny nation.


This one I predicted. Putin will give Minsk 2 a chance to work out, take a break from Ukraine but while on break, he will go after land in Georgia.


The Devil went down to Georgia

[lordtiberius]

That Stratfor article that Much cited and everyone ignored as actually pretty good.  Russia doesn't have a lot of options in Ukraine.  They are all bad.  Also Russia must modernize its military and its proposals to do that will still seem weak compared to a fight with NATO or a solo fight with a NATO member. 

Many EU members want a relaxation of sanctions.  Ukraine is friendless and isolated.  But Putin himself is vulnerable.  Things will never be the way they were.  Sometimes its just easier to start over with someone new or someone they know and trust. 

Obama and Medvedev got along swimmingly.

[fathertime]

Psst, next time use the "Paste as plain text" option.

Thanks...I'll give that a go.


Fathertime!   

[mendeleyev]

While browsing this morning I found this article discussing why American Generals are hesitant to want to arm Ukraine.  They make a lot of good points, and present a side that isn't talked about as much here.


http://news.yahoo.com/why-pentagon-hesitant-arm-ukraine-211027484.html


Fathertime!

In writing her article, Anna used "generals" in the plural but only cited one to back up her claim. Neville, there are probably a million US generals who think otherwise for ever two who follow her thinking.

[mendeleyev]

Russia's main enemy is not the US, I don't think, but China.

Spot on. Russia knows it, and so does China. They are not moving together as much as they are "dancing," while watching the other dancer's footwork studiously.

- Some 30% of Russia's professional forces are permanently stationed in key spots on the borders. They rotate troops for training, but the stations are permanent.

- Russia's push to develop the Siberian and Far East has nothing to do with raising the standard of living for those folk, but everything to do with infrastructure and the ability to facilitate troop movements more rapidly.

[fathertime]

In writing her article, Anna used "generals" in the plural but only cited one to back up her claim. Neville, there are probably a million US generals who think otherwise for ever two who follow her thinking.

The General and Lieutenant General make good points.  One of those points is that they are concerned any weapons given would wind up being misused or fall into Russian hands.  Another point that was stated is that 'it won't make a difference' in the outcome, even Brzezinski acknowledges this.  The goal is to increase the cost for Russia, but to meet this goal Ukrainians are used as somewhat willing cannon fodder.


Fathertime!   

[mendeleyev]

Common sense is lacking in your arguments. It is a fact that if every house, but one, advertises the existence of alarms, guard dogs, and weapons are inside, criminals are obviously going to chose the unarmed home.

Translate that into aggression. The ability of the Ukrainians to defend themselves is in direct proportion to the cost in lives that Putin will have to pay to realize his dreams. Just yesterday at the celebration on Red Square he uttered this statement: "I have always believed that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. I still think so."

He will not stop, unless those being forced back into the fold have the ability to stop him. Simple.

[fathertime]

Common sense is lacking in your arguments. It is a fact that if every house, but one, advertises the existence of alarms, guard dogs, and weapons are inside, criminals are obviously going to chose the unarmed home.

Translate that into aggression. The ability of the Ukrainians to defend themselves is in direct proportion to the cost in lives that Putin will have to pay to realize his dreams. Just yesterday at the celebration on Red Square he uttered this statement: "I have always believed that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. I still think so."

He will not stop, unless those being forced back into the fold have the ability to stop him. Simple.

Tell the General's that their arguments lack common sense.

   It seems Russia is going to do what they want regardless of whether Ukraine is better armed or not.  If better armed the cost would be higher for both nations...but the outcome would be similar..And supplied weapons could wind up in Russian hands in the end.

Fathertime!

[mendeleyev]

Tell the General's that their arguments lack common sense.

   It seems Russia is going to do what they want regardless of whether Ukraine is better armed or not.  If better armed the cost would be higher for both nations...but the outcome would be similar..And supplied weapons could wind up in Russian hands in the end.

Fathertime!

Gladly, and since there was only one mentioned, it shouldn't be that difficult.

Neville, had we used your lame logic, we'd have never given weapons to the Russians out of fear that they'd end up in the hands of the Germans.

[mendeleyev]

Several Russian media sources are now reporting that 170 humanitarian trucks have left Moscow with 1.9 tonns of aid headed towards Eastern Ukraine.

My friend Daniel at Moscow FM Radio poses this question: if an average over-the-road truck can haul an average of 22-25 tonns, then why so many trucks?

I understand what he is hinting at, but I am not a truck expert. Are those calculations reasonable?

[fathertime]

Gladly, and since there was only one mentioned, it shouldn't be that difficult.

Neville, had we used your lame logic, we'd have never given weapons to the Russians out of fear that they'd end up in the hands of the Germans.

You can address your complaint to the General and Lieutenant General (since you are certain you are correct) and they are lame. You viewpoint  (and lack if respect) comes across more and more as a partisan hack.  The silly comparison to the Germans in ww3 is apples to oranges.  Much higher ranking and experienced don't agree with everything you say on this issue, so it obviously isn't just me.

Fathertime!

[mendeleyev]

Neville:

The silly comparison to the Germans in ww3 is apples to oranges

Please explain exactly how they are different.

You viewpoint  (and lack if respect) comes across more and more as a partisan hack.

When I defended Putin on issues like Syria, and I still do by the way, many aimed the same arrows my direction. The one advantage that I have over those with heads in the sand is experience, knowledge, and contact with some of the key players.

I always rub someone the wrong way--truth does that. Unfortunately, at least on this issue, it is you who has an agenda. Sadly, it is developed out of real ignorance. Visit Russia and Ukraine sometime, not just a week vacation, but come live for a month or more in each country. I guarantee that you will see sides which today you find impossible to comprehend.

Until you do, your viewpoint is going to be limited to, "I was browsing and found an article..."

[Larry1]

Russia's main enemy is not the US, I don't think, but China.

I agree. For quite some time the Chinese leadership has grumbled about the series of "unequal" treaties by which a great deal of territory in Ching Dynasty China was transferred to Russia because China was too weak to defend it. Those with an interest in this can begin by searching for these:

Treaty of Nerchinsk
Treaty of Aigun
Convention of Peking

Russia's Far East has great resources but is sparsely populated.

... The silly comparison to the Germans in ww3 is apples to oranges...
 
Fathertime!

Did I miss a world war?

[jone]

Love the Chinese term:  Northern Resource Area!

What was that joke about 60 years into the future:  The German Polish border with China?

[fathertime]

Partisan Hack:

Neville:
Please explain exactly how they are different.

Why would you need to read how WW2 is different than what is going on now?  I'll indulge you this time. One big difference between the USA arming the Russians then was that the Russians had a real chance of victory.  Germany was already embroiled on several fronts.  And what happened AFTER we began the lend-lease program?  We clearly took a side and of course we wound up fully embroiled in war ourselves. People don't want that here in 2015, as there is a lot more at stake.   

When I defended Putin on issues like Syria, and I still do by the way, many aimed the same arrows my direction. The one advantage that I have over those with heads in the sand is experience, knowledge, and contact with some of the key players.

 

...and the big disadvantage you have is complete arrogance.  Your position is 'right', and you 'know' for certain.  Even if American Generals (that have more practical knowledge) than you, offer an opposing viewpoint, you are quick to mention their position is 'lame'. 

I always rub someone the wrong way--truth does that. Unfortunately, at least on this issue, it is you who has an agenda. Sadly, it is developed out of real ignorance. Visit Russia and Ukraine sometime, not just a week vacation, but come live for a month or more in each country. I guarantee that you will see sides which today you find impossible to comprehend.

Until you do, your viewpoint is going to be limited to, "I was browsing and found an article..."

It has nothing to do with 'truth' which is the hilarity of it.  You are offering an opinion which is to be applauded, where you overstep is when other widely held (elsewhere) opinions are bashed.  People don't have to live in Ukraine/Russia, or rub elbows with other journalists to form an educated opinion regarding US arms sales to Ukraine.  If you actually think that is a requirement, you would be condemning most of the members here, rather than picking the ones out that you don't agree with...that is one reason why you are coming across as a partisan hack.


I noticed you did not respond to any of the individual arguments presented from the General or Lieutenant General, you only tried to bash their credibility to give the opinion.  You, or people that agree with you, are NOT the only ones who have valid points to make.   


Fathertime!   

[fathertime]

Did I miss a world war?

hehe, you got me there Larry...I do make  some typing miscues from time to time.   


Fathertime!   

[BillyB]

For quite some time the Chinese leadership has grumbled about the series of "unequal" treaties by which a great deal of territory in Ching Dynasty China was transferred to Russia because China was too weak to defend it. Those with an interest in this can begin by searching for these:

Treaty of Nerchinsk
Treaty of Aigun
Convention of Peking

Russia's Far East has great resources but is sparsely populated.

Alaska was sold cheap but old news is usually forgotten. Today's news has Russia and China in more business partnerships than ever before. Russia sells them sophisticated warships and weapons systems. That is a no no if China sees Russia as an enemy. They both have a common goal of dethroning America. China's main goals are to expand their boundaries eastward, not north. China will never invade Russia. I believe Russia will use their nukes to liquidate an enemy if their existence depended on it and Russia has much more nukes than China. I understand a lot of people want China to jump on our bandwagon and isolate Russia or even invade them but truth is the war in Ukraine have made China and Russia closer. If there is a major land grab starting WW3, I see China and Russia as allies.