Renew Fighting Breaks Out in Ukraine


Fighting breaks out again between Pro Russian Rebels and Ukrainian Forces


Trump is deploying tanks to Estonia. That’s six or seven hundred miles away from Ukraine, but the fact that he’s broken his campaign promises in such a flagrant way, suggests that more U.S. dirty tricks in Ukraine are in store. As in Obama’s reign, it would be wise for all eyes to stay focused intently on the Russian border.


That link does not support this assertion. These are moves that were months (years?) in the making/planning by NATO. To attribute them to a presidency less than two weeks old is not accurate.


I’m not surprised since we now have a president who is in Russia’s pocket. I’ll be highly surprised if the Ukrainians aren’t completely on their own…and they’ll lose and Trump could care less…


This has literally nothing to do with Trump. NATO troop movements into eastern Europe have been happening for months.


Yep but now we have a prez who has warm fuzzy feelings for Russia…and green monetary ties with them and Saudi Arabia… what’s that smell?


There are very few other options here.

1.) Send troops into Ukraine to help them gain control of Luhansk and Donetsk. This is the most directly confrontational and utterly stupid. Ukraine is not strategically important for the US. Getting into a war with Russia over it is absurd.

2.) Send lethal aid to Ukraine. This is effectually a proxy war with Russia over non-strategic territory and goals. Worse, Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than we do. We send 10 tanks, they’ll send 20. We send 100 M4s, they’ll send 200 AKs. It just won’t work unless we’re more dedicated than they, and we aren’t.

3.) Continue with or ramp up sanctions. This is pointless. They aren’t working. Russia has been sanctioned for years and still holds Crimea and is still in eastern Ukraine. The only thing sanctions are doing is pushing Russia into closer cooperation with China, which *is *a strategic problem for the US.

4.) Give up on Ukraine and convince them to let go of Donbass, while negotiating a deal with Russia to end sanctions in return for no further territory in Ukraine, and no accession of Ukraine into NATO. This is the most sensible option. First, Donbass is destroyed. It will take a huge effort to rebuild it and Ukraine can’t afford it. Donbass was already rife with corruption and its mining industry needed modernization badly before the war. Ukraine gains little by actually controlling it. It’s unlikely that Ukraine would actually be able to control it without there being a long term, low intensity insurgency that would sap the country of resources and which Russia could ramp up or down as a lever against Ukrainian politics. Letting it go solves this issue.

Russia also gains a buffer vs NATO, a lack of NATO expansion, and Crimea. Ending sanctions ceases pushing them towards China and allows the US to get closer to them than China is, which is a sound strategy.


This is bad.
And we have man-child in the White House.


10th Mountain Division was supposed to already be there.


Thanks, I didn’t know that about the 10th Mountain. I know the 173rd Airborne has been there to train Ukrainian troops. Nobody is being used in combat though.


So what happens if some of our guys get caught in the hairball?

I don’t believe for a second that this president has the stones to do anything that will jeopardize his business interests in Russia (or Saudi Arabia). So far he’s all talk and penmanship. And he certainly doesn’t inspire self sacrifice or even real American patriotism.


I think it is more than “and”.
Putin talks to Trump:

  1. Action increases in Ukraine
  2. US sources in Russian cyberworld are murdered or arrested.



Providing lethal aid, some training and money to Ukraine is probably the best we can do at this point. Russia is much larger than Ukraine, but there are, nevertheless, a lot of Ukrainians, with a population that can muster a lot of fighters if they’re supported. Even in post-WWII Ukraine, the Soviets had a lot of trouble with far fewer and very poorly armed and supplied insurgents in a country that was then totally occupied.

If Ukraine doesn’t succeed in driving the Russians out of eastern Ukraine, then that’s a done deal that will probably include some elements of internal dissention (some lethal) for a very long time to come. Eastern Ukraine is not essentially an island like Crimea. It has a long border with Ukraine. Eventually, Putin will have to decide how many body bags the Russian people are going to put up with for the sake of reconstituting the former body of the Soviet Union (or Russian Empire, for that matter).

But I don’t think the U.S. really has a greater role than that to play. Nor do I believe Russia actually feels threatened by NATO.


The troops know the President has their collective backs. So does the Sec of Def and Congress.


Very possibly…Trump wouldn’t want to jeopardize his business interests in Russia would he?

You believe that? That’s pretty naive at best.

Soldiers really only know that their fellow troopers “have their backs” all that confidence in politicians and their appointees means exactly squat when the shooting starts. Do you really believe that this president will put troops on the ground in support of Ukraine or even any other NATO ally after all the trash he’s talked about them? Hell, they don’t even think so.



In Ukraine, absolutely not.

If a Nato nation came under attack. He’d have no choice.


Ukraine isn’t in NATO so it would be incredibly stupid to do so.

Frankly, the US ought to leave NATO. It served its purpose well, but now it’s time for Europe to defend itself. In 1949 this was not the case. Europe was ruined by war, the Soviet threat was right next door, and the US was the only superpower. We didn’t want Europe to have to spend a lot on defense in the 50s. Now things are different. Europe has very strong economies. Right now NATO is just a US security umbrella that prevents them from needing to get serious about their own defense and attempts to spread liberal democracy indiscriminately. The US under Obama and Bush barely even thought of it as a military alliance because they saw it as a tool of their Wilsonian ideas. That’s why both administrations were utterly shocked when Russia, which *did *see it as a military alliance, reacted so forcefully in Georgia and Ukraine to preempt any moves towards NATO.

However, as long as we are a part of NATO, we have no choice but to defend a NATO country. Although, I do not see an invasion of a NATO member as likely as long as the US is a part of it.


NATO still serves a purpose for stability in Europe and with cooperation in Asia it has value. Though, the lack of contributions by most NATO members makes it a burden for the United States. IMO, it needs to be remodeled.

There is wide held support for the institution of NATO by both Houses, Sec of Defense and the Pentagon; yet, there also is clear frustration that many of the Allies are using US military resources at the expense of their own economic projects. Things will change, to some degree.


NATO can still do that without the US or without a heavy US presence though. For example, the SACEUR can be a European, we can stop trying to expand it, we can get rid of our forward deployed forces and bases, etc. If we were leaving, we could give them a timeline of about 10-15 years to ramp up defense spending to fill in the hole.


Without the deterrent of US mobility and technology, I’m not sure an adversary would even listen to Europe as they swallowed territory, shut down electric power or hacked IP into oblivion.

The Ukrainian forces in Eastern and SE Ukraine are going it alone in some sort of effort to keep the West pressuring Russia. This is what a NATO without the US may look like. Europeans are at a disadvantage.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit