How will the administration react to this dangerous escalation by Russia? Why is Putin choosing now to authorize this type of action?
Europe needs to send in there mighty navies and prevent this atrocity.
The Royal and French Navies could sink the Russian Navy almost as fast as we could.
Good…then they don’t need us.
Agreed. We shouldn’t do anything if Russia attacks The Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland or anywhere else in Eastern Europe. It’s not our problem.
The Europe should have defended themselves shouldn’t they?
Totally. It wouldn’t matter to me if Russia rolled tanks into Warsaw. Western Europe should take care of it.
The Baltic states and Poland are part of NATO, and we are obliged to defend them under article 5 of the NATO charter.
Ukraine is not part of NATO; we have no treaty obligation to defend them. Of course NATO had no obligation to attack Serbia in 1999 under Clinton or to attack Libya in 2011 under Obama.
European Union massive Navies, Air force and Marines plus their Armies is no match for the Russians…Not to mention European massive nuclear deterrent.
European flags are flying world wide keeping the world sea lanes open for all to use.
You betcha they could and and all this is taking place in Europe. We wouldn’t expect Germany or France to take care of a problem happening close to our border.
Hmmm Finland Ireland and Austria are also not part of NATO. I agree we shouldnt defend them either.
Then they should pull out of Afghanistan Iraq,anti piracy missions etc?
Deal. we pull out of Europe and they pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for piracy…European can use their powerful navies to keep the sea lanes open…because it’s also their interest.
Yes America does have a treaty to defend Ukraine.
No. We have no obligation to defend Ukraine. Here are the points of the Budapest Memorandum from the Wikipedia link:
- Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
- Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
- Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, “if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
- Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
The US provided similar security assurances to Libya in return for ending the Libyan nuclear weapons program; the security assurances ended when Obama and NATO bombed them.
Moral of the story: Nations who voluntarily give up their nukes are likely to be attacked in spite of any security assurances.
Gee, why am I not surprised that Trump supporters use talking points that also conveniently happen to benefit Putin?
One poster participating in this discussion said not so long ago that Western powers should just allow Russia to retake Ukraine for the sake of peace and stability. So let that tell you the mindset that some here have.
Canadian Judo said:
BlockquoteYes America does have a treaty to defend Ukraine.
Read a wee bit further in wikipedia
Blockquote Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine “security assurances” in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Ukrainian government nevertheless found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, though it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations “It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine.” In the U.S. neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, nor did they believe the U.S. Senate would ratify an international treaty, so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum does indicate a requirement of consultation among the parties “in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the[…] commitments” set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security guarantees offered in exchange for non-proliferation commitments.
Apoogies for the lack of quotes, info was quoted form wikipedia.
Exactly. Isolationists gave the Axis their greatest gift, and lead to the war being far bloodier than it could have been.
It’s a shame that the Party of Reagan, Mr “Tear Dowm this Wall”, have been reduced to sniveling, selfish, isolationists. “America First” were Nazi sympathizers then, and they’re Fascist sympathizers now.