Compelling Interest?

[VinnyVeritas]

...

There is currently a massive backlog in arms sales to Taiwan because systems have been diverted to Ukraine. The Chinese Nationalists are not asking for welfare. They are willing to pay and fight the communist aggressor. They are only asking to be supplied.

Just the News reached out to the Pentagon for clarification about where we stand in terms of our ability to respond to a Taiwan invasion by Mainland China forces in view of our depleted weapons systems. No one responded. Similarly, the Navy failed to respond when the Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to them with questions.

It has now been reported that we are raiding U.S. weapons supplies in Israel and South Korea for Ukraine’s benefit. These supplies were in place to support our vital interests in the Middle East and Korean Peninsula. A war in the Middle East brings instant worldwide economic chaos. The sovereignty of the Republic of South Korea must be maintained as part of our coalition against China.

Is Ukraine now considered a more valuable ally than countries with first-world economies and true democracies that are willing to pay their own way and fight for their freedom? Thanks to the Biden administration, the United States has very limited resources, and we must choose our friends and battles carefully.

And I’ll leave you with one question: Who in their right mind would choose Ukraine over Taiwan, Israel, or The Republic of South Korea?

Al Bienenfeld, AmericanThinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...session_endangers_america_and_her_allies.html

 

[John_von_Neumann]

What is the compelling interest with regard to Ukraine that makes the initiation of another world war? No one I know of disagrees on the wrongness of Russia’s blatant and ruthless aggression. Nor is there any particular disagreement regarding supporting Ukraine’s efforts to defend their territory. But exactly how far should we go and why? Our political leaders need to make a case for the risks they’re subjecting us to.

In today’s world secrets don’t last very long. There’s always someone, somewhere that will talk to someone else or just come out and make something public.

Over the past week we’ve been made aware of exactly who was behind the bombing of the Nordstrom Pipeline and the US torpedoing the efforts to reach a negotiated end to the conflict early on. And if those acts weren’t bad enough on their own we are witnessing an incremental escalation of the war. Whereas the Ukrainian’s were first given purely defensive weapons we are now furnishing weapons that are arguably offensive in nature. Needlessly to say the Russians are going to respond accordingly.

Along about May the Russians are going to make a big push. Will the Ukrainian’s be ready for that? And if not what are we going to do? And if they are what is Putin going to so? We can’t answer those questions; no plan survives the first contact with the enemy. No matter which way that pendulum swings the side that’s on the short end of the stick is going to do something.

If our political leadership is going to march us to the brink of nuclear holocaust then they need to step up and tell the American people exactly why, in plain works, Ukraine is of such compelling interest that we have to take the risk.

Grampa Boxwine strikes again! Next, tell us about the impending US-China world war.

 

[jaF0]

Yup, only AssJerk would quote American Stinker as a source.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

In nastiness resides truth?

 

[icanhelp1]

...

There is currently a massive backlog in arms sales to Taiwan because systems have been diverted to Ukraine. The Chinese Nationalists are not asking for welfare. They are willing to pay and fight the communist aggressor. They are only asking to be supplied.

Just the News reached out to the Pentagon for clarification about where we stand in terms of our ability to respond to a Taiwan invasion by Mainland China forces in view of our depleted weapons systems. No one responded. Similarly, the Navy failed to respond when the Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to them with questions.

It has now been reported that we are raiding U.S. weapons supplies in Israel and South Korea for Ukraine’s benefit. These supplies were in place to support our vital interests in the Middle East and Korean Peninsula. A war in the Middle East brings instant worldwide economic chaos. The sovereignty of the Republic of South Korea must be maintained as part of our coalition against China.

Is Ukraine now considered a more valuable ally than countries with first-world economies and true democracies that are willing to pay their own way and fight for their freedom? Thanks to the Biden administration, the United States has very limited resources, and we must choose our friends and battles carefully.

And I’ll leave you with one question: Who in their right mind would choose Ukraine over Taiwan, Israel, or The Republic of South Korea?

Al Bienenfeld, AmericanThinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/art...session_endangers_america_and_her_allies.html

Everyone thinks that all ya have to do is snap your fingers and resupply happens. RG and Myself posted info on the lead time to resupply weapon systems like Stinger and Javelin.

 

[Rightguide]

America has no national security interest in Ukraine that would warrant WWIII and the possible destruction of our country and millions of our people, other than the Deep State need to destroy Russia and elevate China to universal dominance. Democrats and totalitarians everywhere share the same need for power. Freedom, as it is envisioned in our Constitution, is their real enemy. Hence the battle we are all in right now to subvert it and cast it aside.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

America has no national security interest in Ukraine that would warrant WWIII and the possible destruction of our country and millions of our people, other than the Deep State need to destroy Russia and elevate China to universal dominance. Democrats and totalitarians everywhere share the same need for power. Freedom, as it is envisioned in our Constitution, is their real enemy. Hence the battle we are all in right now to subvert it and cast it aside.

Keep defending your boss......!!

 

[Chobham]

Some excellent observations gentlemen.

Here's what's bothering me. No one has taken the time to explicitly state what our goals are. Yes, the easy answer is, "to expel Russia from Ukraine." That's the easy answer but there are consequences.

Putin considers Ukraine to be part of Russia. We can argue whether he's right or wrong but he's the one with the armies to try to enforce his belief so what we think is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. The only thing that matters is how far he's willing to go to realize his vision and how far are we willing to go to thwart that vision?

What sort of war is it turning into? What happens if he losses? What happens if he wins?

I'll start with my view on the first question, "What sort of war is it turning into?" From my perspective it's devolving into a war of attrition. Russia geared up it's weapons stocks, we, the West, haven't. The US has already depleted a great deal of it's weapon stocks we've supplied to the Ukraine. Only now has the US begun to float RFQ's to ramp up weapon production. Russia has always been willing to sacrifice their people in the interests of the nations goals. They also have a history of having their asses handed to them in the initial phases of any conflict they've been involved in.

If we're still discussing this a year from now my call is that Russia wins unless there is a real unless for some reason, real or manufactured, NATO becomes fully engaged (and that has a whole set of consequences on its own).

 

[Rightguide]

What is the compelling interest with regard to Ukraine that makes the initiation of another world war? No one I know of disagrees on the wrongness of Russia’s blatant and ruthless aggression. Nor is there any particular disagreement regarding supporting Ukraine’s efforts to defend their territory. But exactly how far should we go and why? Our political leaders need to make a case for the risks they’re subjecting us to.

In today’s world secrets don’t last very long. There’s always someone, somewhere that will talk to someone else or just come out and make something public.

Over the past week we’ve been made aware of exactly who was behind the bombing of the Nordstrom Pipeline and the US torpedoing the efforts to reach a negotiated end to the conflict early on. And if those acts weren’t bad enough on their own we are witnessing an incremental escalation of the war. Whereas the Ukrainian’s were first given purely defensive weapons we are now furnishing weapons that are arguably offensive in nature. Needlessly to say the Russians are going to respond accordingly.

Along about May the Russians are going to make a big push. Will the Ukrainian’s be ready for that? And if not what are we going to do? And if they are what is Putin going to so? We can’t answer those questions; no plan survives the first contact with the enemy. No matter which way that pendulum swings the side that’s on the short end of the stick is going to do something.

If our political leadership is going to march us to the brink of nuclear holocaust then they need to step up and tell the American people exactly why, in plain works, Ukraine is of such compelling interest that we have to take the risk.

The US has never had a national security interest in Ukraine, as Obama determined by not taking military action in Crimea in 2014. When did Ukraine become the 51st state?

 

[Rightguide]

Some excellent observations gentlemen.

Here's what's bothering me. No one has taken the time to explicitly state what our goals are. Yes, the easy answer is, "to expel Russia from Ukraine." That's the easy answer but there are consequences.

Putin considers Ukraine to be part of Russia. We can argue whether he's right or wrong but he's the one with the armies to try to enforce his belief so what we think is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation. The only thing that matters is how far he's willing to go to realize his vision and how far are we willing to go to thwart that vision?

What sort of war is it turning into? What happens if he losses? What happens if he wins?

I'll start with my view on the first question, "What sort of war is it turning into?" From my perspective it's devolving into a war of attrition. Russia geared up it's weapons stocks, we, the West, haven't. The US has already depleted a great deal of it's weapon stocks we've supplied to the Ukraine. Only now has the US begun to float RFQ's to ramp up weapon production. Russia has always been willing to sacrifice their people in the interests of the nations goals. They also have a history of having their asses handed to them in the initial phases of any conflict they've been involved in.

If we're still discussing this a year from now my call is that Russia wins unless there is a real unless for some reason, real or manufactured, NATO becomes fully engaged (and that has a whole set of consequences on its own).

If he's victorious in Ukraine then it is said Poland will be next. If that were the case we would be forced into all out war with Russia. Personally I don't think Putin has the power to take on Poland unless he wants a full blown NATO response. Poland by itself is much more powerful than Ukraine. They'd probably maul the Russian army as it is presently constituted and commanded. The best way to handle Russia is to increase the sanctions and do all we can to incite revolution in Russia.

 

[Rightguide]

Yup, only AssJerk would quote American Stinker as a source.

Only you would think The View was a better source.

 

[Chernosoth]

The aim is not so much to risk nuclear annihilation over a country most Americans probably couldn't identify on a map. Rather, it is to tie down the Russian army, and by extension, their economy, to such a degree that they don't pose an additional threat to conquering the rest of Europe.

Without Russian fuel, Europe doesn't have anything worth that much of an effort. It is struggling to keep homes heated through a warm winter.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ False.

In many ways, Europe has already divorced from Putin's teets and moved on to other sources.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

The US has never had a national security interest in Ukraine, as Obama determined by not taking military action in Crimea in 2014. When did Ukraine become the 51st state?

Putin thanks you for your service, comrade.

 

[Comshaw]

What is the compelling interest with regard to Ukraine that makes the initiation of another world war? No one I know of disagrees on the wrongness of Russia’s blatant and ruthless aggression. Nor is there any particular disagreement regarding supporting Ukraine’s efforts to defend their territory. But exactly how far should we go and why? Our political leaders need to make a case for the risks they’re subjecting us to.

In today’s world secrets don’t last very long. There’s always someone, somewhere that will talk to someone else or just come out and make something public.

Over the past week we’ve been made aware of exactly who was behind the bombing of the Nordstrom Pipeline and the US torpedoing the efforts to reach a negotiated end to the conflict early on. And if those acts weren’t bad enough on their own we are witnessing an incremental escalation of the war. Whereas the Ukrainian’s were first given purely defensive weapons we are now furnishing weapons that are arguably offensive in nature. Needlessly to say the Russians are going to respond accordingly.

Along about May the Russians are going to make a big push. Will the Ukrainian’s be ready for that? And if not what are we going to do? And if they are what is Putin going to so? We can’t answer those questions; no plan survives the first contact with the enemy. No matter which way that pendulum swings the side that’s on the short end of the stick is going to do something.

If our political leadership is going to march us to the brink of nuclear holocaust then they need to step up and tell the American people exactly why, in plain works, Ukraine is of such compelling interest that we have to take the risk.

The same excuse used in the 1940's to ignore what Germany was doing to the Jews and others, "It's not our fight!" "Why should we bleed for the people Germany is trying to get rid of?" "We should just hunker down and hide." It was (and still is) Mealy mouthed bullshit.

The only reason you and other conservatives are questioning this is the Democrats are in charge. If a Republican was I can bet $10.00 against a hole in a doughnut you would be one of the loudest cheerleaders. Proof? I've been here long enough to remember the discussion when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan. You were a huge supporter of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie and used that as an excuse that we should invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. I to supported the invasion, but being a Vietnam vet I also knew what kind of quagmire we could (and did) get into so my take was, get in, kick their ass, and get the fuck out. Unfortunately none of our leaders, of either party, over that 2 decade involvement took notes from history (both Vietnam and Afghanistan under the Russians) and we lost thousands of America lives because of their ignorance.

But I'm straying from my point. Do you really believe Putin will stop if he takes Ukraine? He won't. If he takes that country, it will only bolster his ego and prove he can, with the threat of nuclear war as a stick, wage war with impunity.

We can't and shouldn't get directly involved, but supplying Ukraine with what it needs isn't the same thing. Additionally, there is plenty of historical instances of Russia doing exactly that (Vietnam, Korea) with counties we were at war with.

All anyone with a few good brain cells needs to do is look at history, look at what Russian is trying to do, and then look at what the administration is doing to understand why "Ukraine is of such compelling interest". We can keep silent and bury or heads in the sand as you seem to think we should, or we can try to assist Ukraine in their fight for freedom. There is no in between. I think Martin Luther King Jr. said it best:

“...On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, ’Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ and Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ but Conscience asks the question, ’Is it right?’
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right...There comes a time when silence is betrayal...”

So shall we be cowardly as you seem to want, or make it known we will support freedom? Choose wisely.

I think, most Western governments realize that Ukraine will, inevitably, lose the war eventually. Bottom line is, they are simply out-manned and out-gunned. The aim is not so much to risk nuclear annihilation over a country most Americans probably couldn't identify on a map. Rather, it is to tie down the Russian army, and by extension, their economy, to such a degree that they don't pose an additional threat to conquering the rest of Europe. Prop up Ukraine, and fight them IN Ukraine, so as to avoid having to fight them in Germany and Finland. At least, that is the theory. I don't think (or at least I HOPE) that Biden will push Russia to the brink of nuclear catastrope as some have implied.

Those "rumor's" have been circulating for quite some time now.

Russia was more like 3rd or 4th militarily. And now we find out that they are virtually incapable of fighting a modern war of maneuver.

How far we go with this shouldn't be up to the Ukrainians and our leadership still has to make a case to the people.

Yeah, oh hell NO! That's what was said about Finland during the Winter War. While they didn't actually win the war, they did keep the Russians at bay and killed enough of them they won a stalemate. That was also what was said about Vietnam. "Oh we'll roll over these unsophisticated Vietnamese and have this war won in no time!" We won every major battle. We had 2.6 Million troops in Vietnam over the course of the war. We had them beat in technology 100 times over. And we lost the war and got our asses kicked out of the country. It doesn't matter if it was done by troops or politics. It was done and they won.

After the last time it happened everyone, and I mean everyone thought Ukraine was going to fold up and give in within a month of Russia invading. It' has been a year. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks, over a hundred aircraft, and thousands of troops. Sometimes a sure thing isn't such a sure thing. And some times a people prove they deserve our support.

Our leadership doesn't need to make a Case to the people. That case has already been made if you and the rest (like Ish) will open your eyes. Read what I wrote to Ish above.


Comshaw

 

[jomar]

I have a compelling interest in this VinnyVerducci fuck's history here .... AJ/Spearcatcher maybe? WillNumbers? PeckerSniffer?

Yes it's AJ, no doubt of that...not will or peckersniff

Yes, Spearchucker. He sometimes lapses back to his cutesy visual posting style.

 

[jaF0]

But I'm straying from my point. Do you really believe Putin will stop if he takes Ukraine? He won't. If he takes that country, it will only bolster his ego and prove he can, with the threat of nuclear war as a stick, wage war with impunity.

He's already going after Moldova and will likely take Belarus more peacefully. I wouldn't place any bets on Hungary either.

 

[Lazaran]

The compelling interest is the same as it was when America formed a coalition to deal with Iraq. - Other major players / bad actors on the global stage are constantly seeking to get a corner on certain markets so they can dictate / impose their will on the world, or make the economic environment more favorable for them. - Remember when the RWCJ was peeing themselves about Russian having leverage over Europe because of oil and natural gas???

Ukraine is a lynchpin country in the food supply chain, electricity generation ( the Zaporizhyzhya npp ), and oil and gas production/ movement.

There is definitely a compelling interest to deny Russia that prize, and to incorporate Ukraine into the EU, NATO, and the Democratic world order.

*nods*

 

[JohnnySavage]

The largest debtor nation in history, borrowing money from a Communist country, to give to a corrupt Eastern European "democracy" to prevent an invasion by a Socialist country, into an area ethnically of the same heritage of said Socialist country.

The US has been the biggest, dumbest kid on the play ground that the smart kids get to fight their battles for 70 years now.

It's one of those things; you just have to laugh and go on about your day.

 

[HisArpy]

We gave our word to help defend Ukraine. That's our national security interest in that country.

Taiwan also has our word to help defend them. That's in our national security interests too.

What gets me about Taiwan is that they're technologically advanced and can't seem to manufacture their own guns and missiles. Or make chips with embedded tech which makes them obey their Taiwanese "masters." Chips the CCP uses in their military technology and weapons systems. (As do we.)

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What gets me about Taiwan is that they're technologically advanced and can't seem to manufacture their own guns and missiles.

Maybe it makes more sense to just buy the American made ammunition for the American made weapons they have? oh I see,you want to cut the GDP for the US selling Taiwan that stuff........got it!!

 

[icanhelp1]

If he's victorious in Ukraine then it is said Poland will be next. If that were the case we would be forced into all out war with Russia. Personally I don't think Putin has the power to take on Poland unless he wants a full blown NATO response. Poland by itself is much more powerful than Ukraine. They'd probably maul the Russian army as it is presently constituted and commanded. The best way to handle Russia is to increase the sanctions and do all we can to incite revolution in Russia.

What most armchairs warrior will not admit or just don't understand is that a conflict between Russia and Poland is a completely different type of conflict. Russia cannot win a conventional style conflict with an adversary that will control the skies. Russia has not had to deal with AH-64s, 16s, 15s and 35s. Throw in A-10s and any Russian armor column would be destroyed as fast as they could send them. The only combat multiplier missing from the equation to literally kick Russia out of Ukraine are air assets.

So I ask the same question, what is the strategy, unlimited warfare. The question that deserves an answer from our politicians is how far do we advance past our ability to resupply advanced weaponry. Even with our magazines busting at the seams a conflict with China would probably exhaust our stockpiles in short order. IMHO

 

[Rightguide]

We gave our word to help defend Ukraine. That's our national security interest in that country.

Taiwan also has our word to help defend them. That's in our national security interests too.

What gets me about Taiwan is that they're technologically advanced and can't seem to manufacture their own guns and missiles. Or make chips with embedded tech which makes them obey their Taiwanese "masters." Chips the CCP uses in their military technology and weapons systems. (As do we.)

Joe Biden made a personal political determination to help Ukraine. Up until Biden strategically speaking, what was happening in Ukraine was not a security threat to our homeland.

What Is America’s Strategic Interest In Ukraine?​

As the Ukraine war enters its twelfth month, the military situation remains a stalemate, but a stalemate that gives the political advantage to Russia. If Russia can hold most of the territory in the oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson that it annexed on Sept. 30, 2022, it will claim success for its “special military operation.”

Friday, February 3, 2023 5 min readBy: David Goldman

The West probably does not have the military capacity to drive Russia out of Ukraine. To be sure, some U.S. analysts see military aid to Ukraine as a cheap option. The Hudson Institute’s Rebecca Heinrichs tweeted on January 12, 2023, that the U.S. risks “running out of certain weapons systems. But those weapons are also destroying weapons of a top-tier adversary cooperating with our number one adversary. Not a waste.” That is, the U.S. may sacrifice Ukraine in an unwinnable war of attrition in the hope of degrading Russian capabilities. U.S. military analysts touted one Wunderwaffe after another as the key to victory: Javelin anti-tank missiles, Switchblade drones, HIMARS, and so forth. Even if the U.S. provided Abrams tanks and F-16s to Ukraine, though, these systems would require many months of training before deployment. Russia meanwhile has successfully mobilized forces roughly double the size of its initial invasion force and improved its performance on the ground.

Having stumbled into a war for which it was poorly prepared, and having then failed to crush the Russian economy through sanctions, the United States faces a dilemma. A cease-fire in place, even an armistice like the North-South Korea divide, would allow Russia to claim success in its annexation of Ukrainian territory. Continuing the war, though, eventually will reduce Ukraine to dysfunctionality, as Russian forces continue to inflict casualties on the Ukraine Army, and Russian ordnance degrades Ukraine’s infrastructure. The U.S. could deploy weapons to strike targets deep inside Russia, or even deploy American combat forces, but at the risk of nuclear war with Russia, something the Biden Administration appears to recognize.

Barring a decisive offensive by either the Ukrainian or Russian side during the coming months, the war of attrition will continue. Western weapons will not give Ukraine a decisive advantage. With roughly five times Ukraine’s much-reduced population, Russia is the likely victor in a war of attrition.

The most likely outcome is a humiliating armistice. Paradoxically, that may redound to the long-term benefit of the United States. North Vietnam did the United States a favor by humiliating us before the Soviet Union did. It destroyed the limited-war illusion that possessed American military planners from the late 1950s onward. Our humiliating withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975 made possible a radical re-thinking of American military strategy, beginning under Defense Secretary Harold Brown in 1977 and continuing through the Reagan Administration. The United States undertook a revolution in defense technology that produced modern avionics and precision weapons, reversing the advantage that Russia enjoyed in conventional weapons in the early 1970s. The Russian military concluded after the 1982 Beqaa Valley air war and the initiation of the Strategic Defense Initiative that it could not keep pace technologically with America.

Much more here: https://www.hoover.org/research/what-americas-strategic-interest-ukraine


Yep. We design them and Taiwan builds them, China wants that technology.

 

[ll74]

What most armchairs warrior will not admit or just don't understand is that a conflict between Russia and Poland is a completely different type of conflict. Russia cannot win a conventional style conflict with an adversary that will control the skies. Russia has not had to deal with AH-64s, 16s, 15s and 35s. Throw in A-10s and any Russian armor column would be destroyed as fast as they could send them. The only combat multiplier missing from the equation to literally kick Russia out of Ukraine are air assets.

So I ask the same question, what is the strategy, unlimited warfare. The question that deserves an answer from our politicians is how far do we advance past our ability to resupply advanced weaponry. Even with our magazines busting at the seams a conflict with China would probably exhaust our stockpiles in short order. IMHO

What seems to be missing from most discussion along the lines of this thread is that Ukraine is in defense of its country from an invader.

They have a right to fight as long as they want to defend their country.

As for how we support or don't support their effort....their government deserves to define what peace means...not Russia.

 

[icanhelp1]

What seems to be missing from most discussion along the lines of this thread is that Ukraine is in defense of its country from an invader.

Who is arguing that point? No-one!!

They have a right to fight as long as they want to defend their country.

Who's arguing that point? No-one!!

As for how we support or don't support their effort....their government deserves to define what peace means...not Russia.

And no-one is arguing that point either! That doesn't mean we should just march forward with our heads up our ass, especially with a possible conflict with China looming in the future.