I've also heard that the troops are rookies and not well trained.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/v...t5sY&sh=33c9df5d14fb

The first part of the article sounds encouraging but the second, less so.

It concerns the likelihood of Putin's resorting to a nuclear reprisal - and not just on Ukraine (their short range missiles) but against the US. Apparently, the US radically cut back (basically dismantled) our missile defense system starting with Obama and continuing with Trump (despite his claims to the contrary).

The article following this one is also dismaying - concerning the long odds of a Ukrainian insurgency's succeeding (and the terrible costs of it's trying). Blood-curdling.

Personally,, I can see all too well. Putin's resorting to use of his nuclear arsenal though more likely in the Ukraine. Like Trump, he's not a person who takes kindly to losing nor is he characterized by caution.

It's all the worse to consider that popular opinion in China strongly supports Putin as a fellow adversary of the US and our alleged strong-arm tactics around the world which they believe justifies the Russian invasion. Our news stresses European opposition to Russian, as if China were not a player in this power struggle.

China is a terrifying adversary too even if for the time being, they are just acting as cheer-leaders and even if eventually Russia and China would be apt to end up as enemies in the struggle for world dominance.

Starting to remind me of 1984's never-ending three part war - including the prescient hint of its being waged by drones (perhaps the primary survivor of human armies).

Re problem # 1:

quote:

If [only] we could be sure deterrence would last forever and we would never encounter an adversary undeterred by our nuclear arsenal.[..]

Unfortunately, no such assurance is possible, and Vladimir Putin is just one among several global leaders who might, in a severe crisis, be inclined to “go nuclear.”

It’s time to start thinking in less ideological and more concrete terms about how the West might defend itself in such circumstances.

The current Missile Defense Review being conducted by the Biden administration won’t do that; like its companion Nuclear Posture Review, it will simply ratify the status quo.

The strategic posture it envisions will offer no solution to the possibility of an irrational adversary, or an accidental launch, or an unauthorized nuclear attack.

I get the global implications, but is there a reason why we should care enough about Ukraine enough to commit American soldiers?

Bonus points if you can answer the same question about Afghanistan.

How to Make Russia Bleed

Nothing particularly new here.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
I get the global implications, but is there a reason why we should care enough about Ukraine enough to commit American soldiers?

Bonus points if you can answer the same question about Afghanistan.

Ukraine borders NATO states. Ukraine wasn’t invaded by a scary megalomaniac.

Those differences are relevant.

quote:

Ukraine borders NATO states.

Vietnam was sold that way and it didn’t end well. I’m not sure it’s a valid reason to get involved, never mind nukes. You might be able to talk me out of this position but I’m skeptical.

quote:

Ukraine wasn’t invaded by a scary megalomaniac.

I think you mean Afghanistan. The way Afghanistan was sold, which turned out to be BS, was that we were fighting OBL and Muslims in general. Seemed scary at the time, but it didn’t end well either.

Odd that Putin didn’t pull this stunt when TFG was President.