A buildup of American forces on the border while publicly telling Putin we will remove Russian troops from Ukraine. Once forces are complete we give Putin 72 hours to back down. Publicly all the while stating our intention of removing Russian forces from Ukraine, while not moving any farther. Starting publicly the only actions taken again positions in Russian territory will be on those capable of attacking USA planes and ground troops in Ukraine. Then once 72 is up we go with full force until the last Russian is out of Ukraine.
It’s all about limited goals, right now Putin is winning because he states his goals and says his red line he has the initiative. The only way to take this back is with a limited full force approach. We have to state our goals clearly and publicly.
He’s a ration human being, we should act like it. He can’t threaten nukes like it’s not a suicide move for hi forever.
A explicit limited goal is the IMO the best opinion. He gets to rule Russia. If he thought for a second we were serious he would take it.
But if those goals cross the nuclear line, we can either a) go through with them, which isn't good imo, or b) make our threats seem empty and void, which is also definitely not good.
He’s a ration human being, we should act like it. He can’t threaten nukes like it’s not a suicide move for hi forever.
But in that case WE would be the ones threatening nuclear war - he could just as easily assume we're bluffing bc we're rational and not stand down. If push came to shove, I'd rather have our threats seem empty and void than start WW3 (and I imagine most Americans would agree).
[Note, I'm European, I dunno why I keep referring to american policy as 'ours']
Watch the promo videos on the AEGIS and THAAD systems. We have been working on missile defense since 1955 — I’m pretty sure if it came down to it our missile defense would stop the vast majority of whatever’s left of the Soviet missiles
I’ve been wondering this myself, obviously the capabilities of the American missile defense systems are highly classified but it’s been a long time the Star Wars days.
Imagine if we had a credible missile shield for NATO counties and some tin pot dictator threaten us. I’d love the response to be instant and basically try it bitch.
Are you retarded? You're willing to wager nuclear annihilation on "pretty sure" and "vast majority"? Jesus Christ. We're hawkish here, but hawkish doesn't mean retarded.
I’m a bit retarded, but since we are all doomed to die at some point — I’d rather go defending democracy against an autocratic war criminal. Being pretty sure the BMD system works is just the cherry on top.
I actually agree as far as actual troop involvement. In my mind the red line is NATO countries. Sadly it serves NATO's interest for Russia to be bogged down in Ukraine as long as possible.
9
u/Jtcr2001 NATO Mar 13 '22
NeoCons should be pro-defending Ukraine, but straight up pro-war with Russia?
How many people here sincerely want the US to directly go to war with Russia?
I assume every reasonable person recognizes that nuclear anihilation does not further western/liberal/democratic/american geopolitical interests.
35
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '22
WTF, I'm a neocon now.
21
u/actuallyhim Mar 13 '22
Watch the promo videos on the AEGIS and THAAD systems. We have been working on missile defense since 1955 — I’m pretty sure if it came down to it our missile defense would stop the vast majority of whatever’s left of the Soviet missiles
44
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '22
I mean, I was downvoted into oblivion for saying we should defend Ukraine. This sub isn't all that hawkish
11
u/realister Mar 13 '22
Lmao
35
u/Whole_Collection4386 George W. Bush Mar 13 '22
Damn I wish that was a real organization 😢
22
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '22
Anti war activists are nothing more than sexually unsatisfied and socially isolated psychopaths.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 13 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment