Do you support direct military intervention into Ukraine by NATO immediately?

[ColinC]

Last edited Sat Jul 30, 2022, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Russia has likely just murdered a fair amount of POWs after they have bragged of likely torturing and killing Ukrainian POWs. Is the line still the NATO border?

(This poll only pertains to the first question)

63 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	20 (32%)
	No
	40 (63%)
	Something else/other
	3 (5%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cutroot]

1. The Russians would back down immediately if the world unified against them

Just like any bully

[ColinC]

2. Yep

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. You prefer a faster end to life on the planet than climate change is bringing?

Where is this unified world you imagine?

[cutroot]

6. They are already over extended

Just allowing them to proceed is a greater danger. NATO is the world unified against imperialism

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. There are approximately 13000 nukes in the world

An exchange of around 100 nukes, say between India and Pakistan, would likely be enough to bring on nuclear winter.
https://fas.org/pir-pubs/risk-nuclear-winter/

NATO directly engaged with Russian troops = World War III. That means somebody launches a nuke and somebody responds with a nuke and nobody knows how many would be exchanged before all are incapable of launching another.

[cutroot]

10. they are not going to take on the world for this

they will continue until someone says no. it's time we say no otherwise it could continue until it does escalate

[former9thward]

11. NATO is not the world.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. You're willing to chance the destruction of the entire human race?

Here's how you can really help, go down to the nearest Ukr. embassy and volunteer for combat duty, then you get to fight the Russians, otherwise, stop wanting to risk the world, if Russia is backed into a corner by the NATO alliance, I'm pretty confident that Putin will say "fuck it, if Russia is going down, I'll just take the rest of the world with me."

[cutroot]

16. seems a bit paranoid why would Putin want to destroy himself?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

19. You sure don't understand the Russian mind do you?

You're thinking like a westerner, whole different culture, I know, I spent significant time interacting with the Russian military.

So, how about volunteering for combat duty in the Ukr, if you're so bent on fighting the Russians?

[cutroot]

21. you seem so anxious for everyone to fight the russians

we are talking about deterrence

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. No, you're not talking deterrence, you're talking about directly engaging Russian

forces in combat with the distinct possibility of nuclear exchange with the resulting destruction of civilization and the human race.

One more time, if you're so eager to engage Russian forces in Ukr. then haul ass down to the nearest Ukr. embassy and sign up for combat duty, then you get to fight all the Russians you want without destroying the world.

[cutroot]

36. just repeating the same old premise does not prove your point

Neville Chamberlain said that hitler would just stop once they let them have Poland i had two uncles come home with severe PTSD from that mistake. They did'nt even try to stop them

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. This ain't 1939 and Pres. Biden is no Chamberlain.

Why won't you answer?
Are you going to sign up for combat duty in Ukraine?

[cutroot]

43. again, the same worn out premise

[MarineCombatEngineer]

47. Have a great weekend and think about what you're actually proposing and the consequences

of it.

[cutroot]

51. i'll be too busy signing up at the Ukranian embassy

In the meantime the people there will be dying needlessly because no one will take steps to stop this madman

[MarineCombatEngineer]

53. Well, good luck with that and I hope you come home safe and not fucked up in the head. nt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. No, Chamberlain did not say that about Poland

Chamberlain declared war on Germany because Hitler invaded Poland. If you're going to invoke history, at least learn it first. Chamberlain said that about the Sudetenland (part of Czechoslovakia) at the end of 1938 (and it was handed over without a fight), not Poland in 1939.

[Mariana]

122. I like how they also leave out the fact

that Chamberlain went home after that meeting and promptly began to prepare the country for war. He wasn't fooled by Hitler, he knew the war was inevitable, but he did the right thing for his country and bought them some time.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

123. So, I guess in a way, Pres. Biden is like Chamberlain,

he's bought enough time to get NATO up to speed and strengthen the alliance defensively while helping Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

Gotta hand it to Pres. Biden and the NATO member leaders, Russia badly miscalculated the resolve of the US and NATO.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

83. This, exactly this

Too many people are viewing this from a western viewpoint and are wholly uninformed on Russian military doctrine.

"This would never escalate to a nuclear exchange. They aren't that crazy."

Bullshit. They don't view nuclear weapons in the same way that the west does. They don't view war the same way the west does. They don't have the same outlook on nearly everything like the west does.

The Russian military DOES NOT believe that a nuclear exchange is certain doom for Russia or even the world. They believe that one can "win' a nuclear war. They don't view tactical and strategic nuclear weapons as one in the same.

Their military doctrine explicitly believes in the theory of "escalation for de-escalation" in which they believe they can escalate to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in order to get concessions from the opposition.

They believe this because they feel the West would not have the spine to escalate to the use of strategic nuclear weapons. And the western view that makes people incapable of accepting that a country(Russia) would actually use them only confirms their belief.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

97. Thank You!!!!

I really wish more westerners would learn this, my time spent with the Russian military training with them really opened my eyes on the differences in western military doctrine as compared to Russian military doctrine.

Semper Fi Army.

[thomski64]

14. ..attack with Cruise missiles and drones..

...hit all bridges leading to the front,
in Belarus, Donbas and Russia. Hit
ammunition dumps and fuel depots in all
these areas. Should have been done when
they annexed Crimea. Should have been
done when they went into Georgia. Call
Putins bluff.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. Ohhh, another one willing to chance the destruction of civilization.

Why don't you just skedaddle down to the nearest Ukr. embassy and volunteer for combat duty?
That way you get to fight the Russians.
Oh, BTW, you have no way to know if Putin is bluffing or not.

Thank god we have a level headed Pres. in the Oval Office.

[ripcord]

22. If Russia were to threaten to use nukes on a NATO member would you expect us to back down?

Are we going to give in to every nuclear threat Russia or any other nation makes?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

24. Threatening to use nukes and attacking a NATO member are 2 entirely different things.

[ripcord]

27. So you would be fine with the US fully suppoting a NATO member against Russia

Even if Russia threatens the use of nukes? Funny that not having the proper signatures on a piece of paper makes it easier to ignore what is morally right.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. You read stuff funny. We need a common language.

[ColinC]

32. It seems they got it right. Basically you are okay with risking the destruction of civilization

If Russia attacks a NATO member. But attacking a NATO partner, massacring civilians and POWs somehow just isn't worth it. But hey, a stray bullet hitting a barn in eastern Poland is definitely grounds to intervene and risk the collapse of civilization! Human lives matter little when the line between action and inaction is literally an invisible one.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

33. There's a fly in the kitchen.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. Is Ukraine a signatory member of NATO or not?

[ColinC]

42. No. But basing action on the intangible line of "attacking a NATO member" while disregarding

the tangible lives lost en masse and the increasing risk it poses to European security seems silly.

We are willing to risk civilization and nuclear war over a paper agreement even when few lives -or even no lives, are lost. But when the death toll reaches the hundred thousands and thousands of miles of infrastructure leveled, the response is, "there is no piece of paper that authorizes us to get involved, so we shouldn't."

Makes no sense to me, and kudos to anybody who seems to understand such logic.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

44. NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance,

you seem to want NATO to go on the offensive.

Again, I'm glad someone with your mindset is not in charge, the world would be a charred wrecked.

[ColinC]

46. NATO is far from just a defensive alliance if Iraq and Afghanistan mean anything

...or Libya, or Kosovo, the list goes on.

They have made it clear they are a moral authority as well as a defensive one.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

49. There is nothing "intangible" about "attacking a NATO member".

[ColinC]

50. Except for the lines that define a NATO member

Can you see borders outside of a map?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

54. You have crossed the intangerine line. I am sending a squadron of nuclear carp after you.

[ColinC]

55. ....

[LudwigPastorius]

98. Time to deploy the tactical trout brigade.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

100. Oh man, that's going to leave a mark.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

108. Now, see, that is a very tangible attack.

Don't think that warrants a nuclear response, but a good cod would be proper.

[ColinC]

113. Why use nukes when there are laser sharks??

[Hermit-The-Prog]

115. Those are so obsolete.

"If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!" ), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind."

Linus Torvalds, the register

[MarineCombatEngineer]

28. Nobody is fucking backing down, where do you come up with this?

Who has backed down when Russia threatens to use nukes?

[ripcord]

30. We are staying out of this conflict because Russia is threatening to use nukes

Helping defend Ukraine against an unprovoked invasion by people who commit war crimes for fun is the morally correct thing to do but we aren't doing it out of fear.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

31. We're not staying out of this war, we're providing billions of dollars of weaponry, training

and equipment to Ukraine, we're not providing troops because Ukr is not a member of NATO, but the alliance is significantly strengthening their defensive posture to deter Russia from actually attacking a NATO member.

I don't understand the eagerness of some here who want to get into a shooting war with Russia and all that entails.

[ripcord]

38. Because we are tired of the atrocities

We only became involved in WW2 in Europe because it was the humanitarian thing to do, seems some of the countries we helped have forgotten that and couldn't be bothered to admit Ukraine despite numerous promises over a decade.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Ok, now I get it,

you want to engage Russian forces in open combat to prevent atrocities by creating more destruction?

Thanks, but no thanks, if you're so eager to fight the Russians, then go sign up for combat duty.

[ripcord]

45. I did my time and they don't want a 60 year old

Did you enjoy that?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

48. I did my time also,

and I know first hand........well, never mind, you have your opinion and I have mine, and it seems the majority of DU and NATO feels the same way.

Thank you for your service and have a wonderful weekend.

Semper Fi.

[spanone]

40. ...and if they don't?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

52. Exactly!!!!

He/she is thinking like a westerner, not a Russian, they think that the Russians will act like a westerner would, but that's completely untrue.

[Trueblue1968]

96. i say, send in a secret Assasination force to destroy Putin and his allies

[Elessar Zappa]

3. No.

[J_William_Ryan]

5. Of course not.

That would be madness.

[48656c6c6f20]

7. Today is Saturday and Putin has threatened to use nukes

If someone posted a poll on a Saturday on DU. Better take this down before we have to cower under a table from the big scary shrimp.

[rso]

9. Ukraine

I would not support any direct NATO action just yet, but would support it if the Ukranian military ran into any major difficulty containing the Russian hordes.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. NATO should escort ships with Ukrainian wheat through the Black Sea.

As Ukraine gets more HIMARS units, they should use a few to launch strikes against Russian military on Russian soil.

[Beastly Boy]

17. Stopping war crimes is the job for UN and International Court, not NATO.

If the world can't unite in punishing the guilty, leveling Moscow is not the solution.

[ripcord]

20. The UN is a paper tiger

With Russia on the Security Council the UN has been effectively neutered, again.

[Beastly Boy]

23. It is. Still, not a reason to dump their responsibilities on NATO.

[ripcord]

25. No one is dumping anything on NATO if they act it will be in their own self interest

[Beastly Boy]

102. Nato's self-interest is spelled out in its charter.

It doesn't include responding to war crimes outside the territories of its member states.

[EX500rider]

114. And yet they did just that in Libya nt

[Beastly Boy]

116. The UN Security Council was the organization that authorised the use of force in Libya.

Seventeen nations, many of them non-NATO members, initially responded. NATO took over the command and control of the military operations 17 independent states several weeks into the conflict. It was never conducted under the NATO flag - it was always the UN member states responding to the UN resolution and agreeing to delegate command and control to NATO.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Russia should be ejected from the UNSC.

[ripcord]

18. Ukraine should have been a NATO member before the war started

NATO members with weak knees and self interests killed their chances at membership their inaction saw a lot of Ukrainians killed too, I'm looking at you Germany and France.

[brooklynite]

37. And you'd be wrong...

NATO will not admit nations with unresolved territorial conflicts. That's been the policy for decades.

[ColinC]

72. They were up to be a NATO member in 2008

No territorial disputes then when Germany blocked the action.

[brooklynite]

35. You'll be enlisting?

[ColinC]

61. Already have.

[Mariana]

84. In Ukraine?

[ColinC]

85. That would be illegal

In my current situation

[BannonsLiver]

93. Well good luck and don't forget to write!

[ColinC]

103. Thanks!

I'll send you liver!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

56. It's a trap. The 2 questions do not necessarily share 1 answer.

"Do you support direct military intervention into Ukraine by NATO immediately?"
"Is the line still the NATO border?"

[DashOneBravo]

57. Based on NATO's performance in Lybia

I voted no. Also just so you know, I’m going to post this and then run some errands. It will be later this evening before I’m back.

Libya became independent as a kingdom in 1951. A bloodless military coup in 1969, initiated by a coalition led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, overthrew King Idris I and created a republic.[14] Gaddafi was often described by critics as a dictator, and was one of the world's longest serving non-royal leaders, ruling for 42 years.

NATO Intervened 2011. It was a disaster, they started up slave auctions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Still problems today.

https://www.politico.eu/article/time-europe-pay-attention-libya/amp/

.

[ColinC]

59. FWIW NATO was defending a disorganized coalition of opposition militias

With barely no institutional foundation Libya. Ukraine is an established state able to defend itself independently of NATO direct intervention, with a fairly strong democratic foundation.

If NATO intervenes, it will just hasten the inevitable Ukrainian victory minus hundreds of thousands of unneeded deaths.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

62. Or so you think. nt.

If NATO intervenes, it will just hasten the inevitable Ukrainian victory minus hundreds of thousands of unneeded deaths.

Oh, BTW, the US/NATO are intervening, we're just not sending combat troops nor initiating a CAP.

[ColinC]

63. Yeah the latter is what I meant.

"Direct intervention" is what was said in first paragraph

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. I know, I read it.

Good luck fighting the Russians in Ukraine, I truly hope you make it home alive in one piece, body and mind.

Let us know how it went and have a great weekend.

[ColinC]

69. Did my time in the US Army

No longer eligible, unfortunately

[MarineCombatEngineer]

70. ....

Semper Fi Army.

[ColinC]

71. Hoooah Marines!!

And Semper Fi!

[Emile]

58. Hell no!

And that's coming from a Vietnam era vet.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

60. Welcome home brother.

Semper Fi.

USMC
1964-1999.

[sarisataka]

64. Hard to answer a poll

That asks multiple questions.

Will anyone in favor of intervention show their commitment by following up with action?

[ColinC]

67. Poll question is the first one.

The second is rhetorical. Sorry for the confusion

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. I suggest setting the hunters loose. n/t

[Kaleva]

73. NATO doesn't intervene when blacks in Africa are massacred.

[ColinC]

74. NATO has ignored most massacres.

[Kaleva]

75. History this suggests then that NATO will not get directly involved

Although they may increase military and civilian aid.

[ColinC]

80. Ukraine has been on a path to join NATO since 2008

And has been officially a NATO partner even though they aren't a member. It has had close ties with western Europe for more than decade, so this situation is certainly more unique than many others.

Already in how NATO has been indirectly intervening through military aid in a way they wouldn't in most situations like this (ie Hungary in the 1950s).

[Kaleva]

82. Also, the victims are white. This attracts the attention of Western nations.

[ColinC]

86. That may be the case, but Ukraine has been a heavy national security partner

For enough time that makes the entire situation within the scope of our national interest.

[Kaleva]

89. It didn't take long for us to be involved in the Balkans

Even though we didn't have a long standing relationship with any Balkan states or ethnic groups therin

[ColinC]

90. ...and probably a better example than Ukraine for racially prejudiced military intervention

Although the proximity of the war to NATO members and partners at the time could also make a a decent case for being within the scope of our national interests.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

76. You may want to review the membership and purpose of NATO ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

[Kaleva]

77. A massacre in a non-NATO nation thus doesn't trigger a response

It's outside the scope of Nato's charter.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

79. Exactly. I was reading your comment as a call to arms, rather than a plain statement of fact.

I was reading your comment as a call to arms, rather than a plain statement of fact.

[Kaleva]

131. I didn't make myself clear.in that post

[ColinC]

87. And when a NATO partner is attacked, it also doesn't necessarily warrant an attack

But it does place an obligation upon NATO members to not completely ignore it. An obligation which NATO is definitely honoring.

[Dysfunctional]

78. NATO should have gone in when Russia attacked. I do not believe Putin will start WWIII.

And before you tell me to enlist in the Ukrainian army, I am a 79-year-old 100% service-connected disabled veteran, with Parkinson's Disease, who is receiving SMC - L for A&A.

[robodruid1]

88. War is still a racket

It keeps us from caring for our poor and indigent.

[Celerity]

106. +1

[MarineCombatEngineer]

110. No bout adoubt it. nt

[Celerity]

91. hard pass on WWIII

[mvd]

92. No.

Although I feel greatly that Russia is guilty of war crimes and want to bring them to justice. I also feel crazy Putin would use nukes. Russia must not be able to extend the war into any NATO area.

[mike_c]

94. I believe that would escalate into a nuclear conflict pretty fast.

The first bomb that lands in Russia will start WWIII unless Putin is removed from power first, which has a snowball's chance in hell. Given the current state of Russian forces, Putin would not be likely to send his infantry to subdue NATO.

[BannonsLiver]

95. But the OP has assured us that won't be the case, that it won't happen

[ColinC]

112. Nobody assured anybody of anything.

The LIKELIHOOD however, based on history, is quite slim. Truth is, Putin can launch a nuke at us now out frustration if he wanted to -because quite frankly, our weapons are a main reason he has not been able to take Ukraine. But for some reason that hasn't happened despite many threats of that nature.

[BannonsLiver]

119. LOL

[Crunchy Frog]

99. Other. Stop drip feeding them weapons and give them EVERYTHING.

The russians aren't going to nuke anything. They enjoy their comfortable lives too much.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

101. You're thinking like a westerner,

read post 83 please to get an idea of the Russian military doctrine as compared to western military doctrine.

[Crunchy Frog]

104. I've been reading your posts and have decided to put you on ignore.

Thank you.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

105. Wow!!!!

Well, I guess you showed me.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

111. It's the wheels.

You don't have to worry about scratches or smudges with old milk-run painted wheels.

[DickKessler]

107. No. Send more weapons and take in more refugees.

If Putin wants to escalate by directly fighting NATO, let him be the one to start the fight. He won't win.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. +100. nt

[roamer65]

118. Send Ukraine everything they need except nuclear weapons.

No troops.

The minute Putler uses a nuke in Ukraine, then we give them tactical nuclear weapons.

[ColinC]

121. I could get on board with this.

[lunatica]

124. Nip this damn war in the bud!

Putin is like an unruly teenager thinking he has to prove his manhood! The world needs to ground him! Severely!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

125. I think the Ukrainian Army is doing a pretty good job on Russia's military.

We just need to keep the flow of weapons, training and equipment going.

[lunatica]

127. Yet it seems war crimes are proliferating daily

Evidently for the same reason.

But I also think the Ukrainians are awesome!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

128. True, but I'm still dead set against US/NATO direct military intervention,

we're already indirectly involved by sending them the tools they need to fight the Russians, so far, they've shown just how inept the Russian Army actually is, we've learned the western weapons technology is far superior to the Russian's technology.

IMO, Pres. Biden and the NATO alliance is handling this correctly.

[Polybius]

126. Hell no

Thankfully, support here has dropped for US military intervention.

[BootinUp]

129. I'm not sure what you think can happen

there is a rule book that has to be followed if you are talking about NATO.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

132. Hoping the Russian people will fix their Putin problem,

before he kills and maims many more of them.