@no1marauder saidThe alternative being let Putin take over a big chunk of Ukraine and make it a puppet state of Russia so he can have a new base to attack say Moldovia or Poland.
Yeah, that might solve all the world's problems.
If we were willing to risk WWIII for Ukraine, we should have let them in NATO a long time ago. Since we didn't, your proposal is incredibly reckless; I'd like my grandkids to avoid living in a post-apocalypse movie.
He is determined to rebuild the Soviet Empire no matter the cost, and that cost so far has killed close to a MILLION Russian soldiers. He wouldn't care if it took killing TWENTY million soldiers, he could give a rats ass about human costs.
@sonhouse saidSo you want the US to go to war with Russia? Or what exactly?
The alternative being let Putin take over a big chunk of Ukraine and make it a puppet state of Russia so he can have a new base to attack say Moldovia or Poland.
He is determined to rebuild the Soviet Empire no matter the cost, and that cost so far has killed close to a MILLION Russian soldiers. He wouldn't care if it took killing TWENTY million soldiers, he could give a rats ass about human costs.
Putin sure is going about this "rebuilding the Soviet Empire" awfully slowly; he's been in office for almost 25 years.
@no1marauder saidDo you seriously think he attacked Ukraine because he said there were Nazi's in high office there?
So you want the US to go to war with Russia? Or what exactly?
Putin sure is going about this "rebuilding the Soviet Empire" awfully slowly; he's been in office for almost 25 years.
@no1marauder said1) The whole world should eventually be in NATO - including Russia. That will end wars forever. [The UN has proved useless in the task of ending wars. NATO works.]
Yeah, that might solve all the world's problems.
If we were willing to risk WWIII for Ukraine, we should have let them in NATO a long time ago. Since we didn't, your proposal is incredibly reckless; I'd like my grandkids to avoid living in a post-apocalypse movie.
2) The much bigger risk is demonstrating that wars of conquest can be won with the threat of nuclear strikes. That is TRULY dangerous.
So we should call Russia's bluff NOW and put that risk to bed for good. 😆
@spruce112358 saidNATO doesn't end wars; it intervened in Yugoslavia, sent troops to Afghanistan to back the US invasion and occupation and bombed Libya into submission.
1) The whole world should eventually be in NATO - including Russia. That will end wars forever. [The UN has proved useless in the task of ending wars. NATO works.]
2) The much bigger risk is demonstrating that wars of conquest can be won with the threat of nuclear strikes. That is TRULY dangerous.
So we should call Russia's bluff NOW and put that risk to bed for good. 😆
I don't like "whataboutisms" but NATO has been a tool of Western militarism, not a force for peace. It should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union.
@sonhouse saidNo. He certainly wanted to install an agreeable government in Kyiv, like he has in Belarus. But again, not to rely on "whataboutisms", the West has done that often and in areas far away from the countries intervening.
Do you seriously think he attacked Ukraine because he said there were Nazi's in high office there?
His military misadventure has largely failed and showed the weakness of Russia's forces, but NATO engaging in full scale combat with them with the high risk of nuclear escalation isn't worth it. Best to try to leverage a peace though Trump's "plan" of putting all the pressure on Ukraine and virtually none on Russia is insane.
@no1marauder saidWhich is inevitable when our POTUS turns full traitor.
No. He certainly wanted to install an agreeable government in Kyiv, like he has in Belarus. But again, not to rely on "whataboutisms", the West has done that often and in areas far away from the countries intervening.
His military misadventure has largely failed and showed the weakness of Russia's forces, but NATO engaging in full scale combat with them with the high ...[text shortened]... though Trump's "plan" of putting all the pressure on Ukraine and virtually none on Russia is insane.
@no1marauder saidI agree that NATO should never have taken on a 'police' role as it did in the cases you mention. NATO is far more effective acting as a strictly defensive alliance. But that's not an argument against expansion, even in time of war. 😆
NATO doesn't end wars; it intervened in Yugoslavia, sent troops to Afghanistan to back the US invasion and occupation and bombed Libya into submission.
I don't like "whataboutisms" but NATO has been a tool of Western militarism, not a force for peace. It should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union.
But there IS no global police force (i.e. it is not the UN!) so there is no formal way to restrain rogue and oppressive governments.
We need something... 😆