Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If we wanted to fight WWIII over Ukrainian independence the time to do it was the late 1940's when we had an absolute monopoly on atomic weapons. 

There is a MUCH better example.  In 1945-1949 when we had an absolute monopoly on Atomic weapons we didn't even fight WWIII over Polish independence.  The supreme irony of that is that for the United Kingdom, their "casus belli" for getting involved in WWII was . . . Polish independence.  Did the United Kingdom "win" WWII?  There is a pretty strong argument that they didn't:
On September 3, 1939:

• The Royal Navy was BY FAR the most powerful navy afloat. 
• The United Kingdom was arguably the most powerful nation in the world.  There were arguments for Nazi Germany based on built-out existing weapons and for the US and/or the USSR based on potential but the UK was, at an absolute minimum, in the discussion. 
• The British Empire spanned the globe. 
• The UK declared war on Germany (it was a war of choice) over the issue of Polish Sovereignty. 

On January 1, 1946:

• The Royal Navy was the second most powerful navy afloat and it was such a distant second that the largest (the USN) was larger not only than the RN but actually larger than the RN and EVERY other navy in the world combined. 
• The UK wasn't even remotely in the conversation about "most powerful nation".  They had become a distinctly junior partner to their former colonies in the Western portion of the Alliance against Hitler and were obviously weaker than the USSR as well. 
• The British Empire still spanned the globe in theory but in practice Independence for the bulk of the dominions was imminent. 
• Poland was occupied by a foreign power and would remain so for the next 40+ years and portions of prewar Poland are STILL occupied. 

My point here is that Poland is much more plausibly a "vital strategic interest" of the United States than Ukraine and we weren't willing to fight WWIII over Polish Sovereignty when we had Millions of soldiers in Europe and an absolute monopoly on Atomic weapons. 

I think that letting Poland fall under Soviet occupation was terrible.  The Soviets literally were allies of the Nazis when they invaded Poland, the Poles suffered grievously in WWII at the hands of both the Nazis and the Communists, and they deserved to be free.  We chose not to fight over it.  I don't think that was the wrong decision.  I think it was a terrible thing that we did, but I think we realistically had to do it.  Poland was simply more important to Stalin than it was to FDR/Churchill/Truman/Atlee. 

The situation in Ukraine today is similar.  It sucks for the Ukrainians but we had a hand in kicking off this war and we should NEVER have emboldened the weasels that run that country to pick a fight they couldn't possibly win without our help. 

Next I'll move to the idea of getting the Ukrainians to fight a proxy war on our behalf.  I just think this is a massively risky gamble.  Those weapons we are giving to the Ukrainians are killing actual Russian people.  This isn't a video game, real flesh and blood people are dying.  That makes lifelong enemies and we don't need lifelong enemies. 

I've always argued that the lesson of Vietnam is that you simply can't half-ass a war.  Any war worth getting involved in is worth winning.  By extension, if it is NOT worth doing what it takes to win then it isn't worth getting involved.  Ukraine CLEARLY isn't worth doing what is necessary to win therefore, we shouldn't get involved. 

On China:
China not Russia is our modern geopolitical rival.  List of Global economies:

• $28.79 Trillion GDP, $85k/capita:  USA
• $18.54 Trillion, $13k/capita:  China
• $4.59 Trillion, $54k/capita:  Germany
• $4.11 Trillion, $33k/capita:  Japan
• $3.94 Trillion, $3k/capita:  India
• $3.50 Trillion, $51k/capita:  United Kingdom
• $3.13 Trillion, $47k/capita:  France
• $2.33 Trillion, $11k/capita:  Brazil
• $2.33 Trillion, $40k/capita:  Italy
• $2.24 Trillion, $55k/capita:  Canada

Do you see who is NOT on that list?  I'll give you a hint, they are led by a thug named Putin. 

I'm ok with bringing Poland into NATO but we should have stopped there.  Beyond that it simply isn't our neighborhood.  That sucked when we (US and UK) did it to Poland in 1945 and it sucks today too but that is how the world works.  We shouldn't get involved in something that isn't in our interests.  Also note that while Russia is NOT on that list of the 10 largest economies in the world, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy are.  All four of them are European countries MUCH closer to Ukraine and Russia than we are.  If they want to send arms to Ukraine I wouldn't stop them but I wouldn't get involved either.  Not our circus, not our monkeys. 

Beyond that, antagonizing Putin is just plain stupid.  There isn't any good reason why the Russians should be allied with the Chinese.  You commented on:Maybe if we weren't supplying a country they are at war with they wouldn't feel the need to align closer with the Chinese on the geopolitical chess board.  In the long run we need allies against China.  China's economy is already 2/3 the size of ours despite their per capita GDP being only 15% of ours.  If their per capita GDP increases to the size of Japan's, Italy's, France's, UK's, Germany's, or Canada's they'll have a MUCH larger economy than we do.  Economics is ultimately what determines these things.  We won WWII because we built more weapons than the Germans and Japanese could destroy.  We won the cold war because we could afford to spend a lot more on weapons than the USSR could.  We surpassed Britain as the world's preeminent power because we had the bigger economy.  The same thing will happen to us as China overtakes us economically.  Then what?

• Is Taiwan a vital strategic interest of the United States?
• Is South Korea?
• Is Japan?
• Are the Philippines?
• Is Malaya? 

I DO think that lines need to be drawn.  I just think that Ukraine is clearly and obviously not inside those lines.  There are rumors of Russian subs basing in Cuba.  IMHO, we should tell Putin (quietly) that this is completely unacceptable to us.  Cuba is 90 miles from Key West and, IMHO, it IS a vital strategic interest of the United States.  We should never have backed down there in 1961.  Khrushcehv wouldn't have fought WWIII over Cuba for the same reason we shouldn't fight it over Ukraine, it isn't in his neighborhood and  isn't a vital strategic interest of Russia/USSR. 

When we tell Putin to get his subs out of Cuba, if he says "I'll get my nose out of your neighborhood if you'll get your nose out of mine" we should say "deal" and be done with it. 

And that is exactly where it will end up.

It depends on if he is thinking short-term or long-term:

Short term he needs money, tech, weapons, and friends in his war against Ukraine. 

Long term it is much more sensible for him to be aligned with us against China than with China against us. 

We should be cultivating his long-term interest in being aligned with us, not pushing him away by proxy fighting against him over something that is clearly and obviously a LOT more important to him than it is to us. 

Bulljive.  Coddling a petty tryant like dickface putin only serves to bolster his bravado.  There's no working with him, ever.  After he dies, there might be a chance at a progressive relationship with Russia, depending of course on his successor.  But as long as he's in power, appeasement is nothing more than a sign of weakness and he'll eat it up.

Not ones in command of Russia's resources and arsenal.

We work with petty tyrants all the time. That is just how foreign relations work.