Not under any circumstances. Ever. Period.

Piss on the MIC and their wars for fun and profit.

And we should get out of Cuba, too.

Not saying that is what it is now, I have no idea what is going on there, but I wouldn't be shocked if there are plans to install some leaders like that by the CIA.

When it comes to foreign governments suddenly changing hands, I can't trust our media or our government to give me the truth about it. And we do have a sad history of clandestine involvement in hand-changing.

I don't know what to think about these current events, at least not at this moment. But I do know I'm against any military action on our part.

and hope for international pressure to stop Russia's advance at Crimea.

Russia isn't that strong military. Years of cuts after cold war. Plus, Russia would be invading.

Russia already has operational control over Crimea.

or get killed when someone fires the first shot. It's just a fact. They are brave people, though. I wish we could do more, but at least we're pledged to help them financially.

It's pretty evident that - arguments of legitimacy aside - plenty of Ukranians are aligned with Russia, just as plenty are aligned with the new government. It's not sp much a case of Russia invading a resistant country, it's a case of Russia getting involved in one side of a developing civil war.

History shows that getting sucked into other peoples' civil wars is unhealthy for the US. Especially as in the case with Ukraine, the nation in question has fuck-all to do with us beyond some Truman-era interest in "containing the ruskies" in the first goddamned place.

"Can we just go double dog dare em, I swear that is all we wanna do and only if someone asks".

Batshit motherfucking crazy. Let somebody try to put a no fly zone at our borders! What the hell are you thinking?

Oh that seems dubious, too bad.

It's none of our business.

What a foolish troll question, OP.

Russia may want the Crimean peninsula, but I seriously doubt they have any intention of a major military incursion into all of Ukraine. And even if they did, it's not our problem.

nt

Utterly insane.

Jesus, what the hell are you trying to start?

The OP is just itchin' to get a war on!

Trying to find a reasonable response to aggression. THis seems pretty reasonable to me.

......really?

Just debate, honestly. And of all the military options, this one might have some chance of becoming a reality.

..... against the Russian Air Force? Why? How?

More and better plans. Money to maintain and fly them. Spare parts, etc.

..... I just retired a few years ago from 40 years with the military. One of my jobs a few years ago was doing weapons testing and evaluation and comparisons with likely adversaries in war games. Yes, we have better systems, more training, more parts, etc. The Russians however, would be right near their bases, their supply lines, and their other support. More importantly, they have the advantage of numbers of aircraft. As we used to say in the biz, quantity has a quality all its own.

And as some of our hotshot "Top Gun" pilots found out in some war games in the Indian Ocean a few years ago, the Mig-29s (though flown by Indian pilots) were able to more than hold their own against the current fleet operational US aircraft.

So, no, I don't think the US would have an easy time trying to enforce a no-fly zone against the Russians. I wouldn't try it. Too much risk of either embarrassment or escalation.

Russia has violated airspace in the last year? They're running mock bombing raids in the middle of the night over Sweden, doing six aircraft bombing runs over bases in Guam. They even violated the airspace in Colombia for goodness sake. You don't see that in the papers too often. (probably getting some intel for their friends in Nicaragua). Only a couple of years ago there was a several hour stand off over the UK somewhere.


I'd support a UN or NATO led coalition to protect airspace with American pilots taking their turns. A lot of the Air Forces need the experience.

And ....

On Feb. 24, 2014 Estonia:
U.S. F-15s scheduled to perform a flyover in Estonia, intercepted a Russian spyplane then took part to the parade.

http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/26/estonia-flyby-delayed/

From the same source:


However, on Mar. 29, the two Tu-22M3 Backfire heavy bombers, capable to carry cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, and their four Su-27 Flanker fighter jets escort got dangerously close to the Swedish airspace and, at 2 AM local time, they skirted Gotland island, some 30-40 kilometers off the Swedish territorial waters.


After they carried out their mock attacks (on targets in the Stockholm area and Southern Sweden, according to Swedish military sources who talked to Svenska Dagbladet) they turned back and returned towards Russia.









On Feb. 26 and 27, after Russian Tu-95 had skirted Guam airbase, Tu-22M Backfires simulated strikes on a U.S. Aegis cruiser in the Pacific and ground-based radar station in Japan.

And, in the future, Russian could detach its advanced, stealth PAK-DA, destined to replace the current aging fleet of 63 Tu-95 Bear and 13 Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers.

It's actually lunacy, and I really hope Obama has no intentions of going there.

That does not equal the debate being "over".

the way, and stay out of the way.

All in the valley of Death,
Rode the six hundred.

integrity and the US and UK don't seem do be living up to that bargain, Ukraine should be able to rearm if they wish and defend themselves. But no, we should not establish a no fly zone over Ukraine.

And ready to move further into the country.

if we/uk still have any that they gave up due to our promise that we are not keeping we should ship them back.

But you would not support a no fly zone? Seems an awkward position.

in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons. What could Russia say? They are the Ukraine's weapons right? They gave them up in exchange for certain promises which are not being kept. Thus, they get to renege on their side of the bargain as well, IMO.

guaranteed territorial integrity to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving to Russia all the Soviet-era nukes that were still on Ukrainian territory.

Later, according to Wiki, France and China announced that they, too, would guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity.

I don't think that this rises to the level of the treaty, but it is a real commitment. And no, Ukraine is not in NATO.

And the Ukrainian government has called on us and the Brits to honor their commitment since Russia has invaded.

We have mutual defense treaties with many countries, not only in Europe.

If we do nothing here, we have to understand that our commitments elsewhere will be devalued.

I am thinking in part about the new NATO countries in Eastern Europe that were once part of the Warsaw Pact. It has been posted here on DU that Poland is sending its forces to its border with Ukraine. The Czechs are openly equating Putin's moves into Crimea with Hitler's attack on Czech Sudentenland, which was a major factor in the run up to WWII.

In the Pacific, we are obligated to defend South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. If we do nothing against Russia in any way, North Korea and China may continue their recent provocations against our allies.

In the long term, things may be a bit more complicated for us than they seem today.

if we meddle any more than we already have in this business. I can't speak to the details on the commitments, but I dare say, anything leading to WWIII is not likely a part of that, but you know. maybe I'm wrong,

Did the US talk to the protesters on the Maidon. Yes.

Has the US recognized the new government. Yes.

Has the US occupied Ukrainian territory. No.

I don't want to start WWIII and neither does Obama, but I have to wonder about Putin. He took a huge gamble, and may win in the short run, which will only encourage him.

A lot of people here are not up on our commitments, but it might not be a bad idea to do a little studying.

We are stepping back; there's no question about that. But there will be consequences. I think that Kerry understands, but our President hasn't been on the foreign policy stage for as long and I don't think that foreign policy is something that the President followed. He obviously has been more interested in domestic issues--nothing wrong with that.

But I've noticed that presidents who come in thinking that they will be foreign policy presidents get bogged down in domestic situations, like the first Bush in the 1990-92 recession, and some presidents come in thinking domestic policy and end up with a huge helping of foreign policies issues, like the second Bush and perhaps Obama. It doesn't always work out that well, but I'm sure Obama will do much, much better than little Bush. How could it be worse.

Well, let's hope that things calm down in Ukraine and Putin doesn't go any further.

Should we start launching our ICBMS then, or just bring in boots on ground?

I never had the impression that Obama went into office thinking he was going to be a foreign policy president. Where did you get that idea?

One more point, it doesn't matter what "commitment" we've might have made on paper or agreements in treaties.

I don't need to read the details to know that under no circumstances would any U.S president sign an agreement which would force us into our own demise, self destruction vis a vis nuclear warfare.

The very definition of insanity.

Remind me never to do business with you, though, since your apparently don't take commitments seriously, whether you intend to follow up on them or not.

ever, whatever the circumstances, so nobody should ever even bother to ask.

Such a statement would greatly please a great many DUers.

Well said, but I wonder how many MORE times this has to be repeated, here of all places?

Bad Smirnoff one night?

I scroll down the reponses and....

No intervention! I'm tired of shedding American blood.

Are you on the wrong site?

WTF... never seen you until the last 36 or so hours, and now you are all over the place.

Snowden may not have the up-to-date files on that, but he has the history...... which seems to keep repeating itself over and over and over........

I post when I am interested in something.

I have to construct payoff matrix for the situation before I decide. Don't know that I have enough information.

If we can draw Putin into a conflict that drains his resources and that he cannot win with minimal effort on our part then yes.

Otherwise, not worth it.

Sorry, but NO.

The chart doesn't address equipment status either, and from all I've read, the Ukraine has problems with equipment readiness, availability, spare parts, and things of that nature, to say nothing of personnel readiness--their military is not well trained.

That said, I don't think we're best situated to take the lead in any evolution involving air power. I certainly think we can help in a coalition effort. More to the point, why would they even ask "us," and not "NATO?" After all, their goal is to get closer to their European neighbors, not us.

We may do a lot of the heavy lifting in some NATO evolutions, but there's absolutely no reason why the folks who are closest to the fire shouldn't avail themselves of the warmth, if you know what I am saying. They will be the principal beneficiaries of closer ties, after all, not us.

If we participate, our best contribution is coordination/logistics/resupply, leadership/guidance/advisory assistance, training (which we excel at), some security aspects, and a back seat when it comes to bodies in cockpits. Since we're ahead of most--naaah, all-- when it comes to drone technology, we could help in that regard in a big way, around the clock, putting eyes where needs must, without having to put too much actual (and by that I mean physical) skin in the game.

Now's the time for those potential European partners to step up and stand by...IMO.

That said, that whole idea should be a VERY last resort--a "when deterrence fails" option. I prefer, as a first step, international expressions of strong disapproval, a quick agreement by Group members to turn the G8 back into a G7, and an unwillingness to renew trade agreements with the Russians as they come up for renewal/review ACROSS THE BOARD. Let 'em know that the bear riding shirtless wonder has created consequences; maybe that will dampen the enthusiasm amongst the rank and file for that tyrant. He needs to be afraid to go out in the street, he needs to get hard looks from people whose lives he's altered with his heavy-handedness.

Any logistical support would be considered a direct affront by Russia. I'm not interested in seeing us going down that road and I really urge others to reconsider normalizing the beating of war drums in such a casual manner.

Cossacks, Goths, Sarmatians, Huns, Khazars, Varangians, Kipchaks, Ottoman Turks, Golden Horde Tatars, Mongols, etc.

Stay out of their clusterfuck.

Going into the Crimea is simply protecting ethnic Russians from the Ukranians to the far west in the Svoboda party who think they're going to do ethnic cleansing. A show of force is to disabuse them of that particular fantasy.

against the Russian Air Force, would be sheer unadulterated madness.

Hell no!