|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 20 2022 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy.
So it should be abundantly obvious that the US isn't acting out of some principle about not killing people and stealing their land.
|
United States42753 Posts
On February 20 2022 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy. So it should be abundantly obvious that the US isn't acting out of some principle about not killing people and stealing their land.
You can have multiple principles that don’t always line up and compromise some in favour of others when forced to choose.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today.
I'd better say: If its non-violent and all people will be happy let them form, reform or connect themself to any country they want, because borders really doesn't matter, its just lines on maps thats divide, but everyone should unite. (pretty much utopic, but its truth)
|
|
|
On February 20 2022 06:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy. So it should be abundantly obvious that the US isn't acting out of some principle about not killing people and stealing their land. You can have multiple principles that don’t always line up and compromise some in favour of others when forced to choose.
This is true but maybe a little overgeneralized.
In the specific situation of this possible annexation vs Israel's annexation, it makes the conversations about whether the US 'should' use force against the Russians seem pretty ridiculous.
It doesn't matter what they 'should' do. It only matters what the people in charge want to do.
|
On February 20 2022 06:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy. So it should be abundantly obvious that the US isn't acting out of some principle about not killing people and stealing their land. You can have multiple principles that don’t always line up and compromise some in favour of others when forced to choose.
Apparently all the way up to and past the point of training and arming Nazis in the Azov Battalion.
|
Russian Federation370 Posts
On February 20 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Curious to hear what the guy in this thread who actually lives in Eastern Ukraine has to say about the situation. Reports are that shelling and evacuations are occurring.
People just forced to leave dnr and lnr with civil defense system and tv announcement of head state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Pushilin where he say that ukraine plan to invade.
They say it was unexpected (evacuation), but decided to urgently leave, because the fear of events in 2014 could repeat. (but actually there are too many people and all places already unavailable due to overflow.)
Did they hear shelling? Yes.
All men forced to stay. head of dnr started mobilization.
(source tvrain interviews with donbass people in russian city taganrog)
|
On February 20 2022 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 06:03 KwarK wrote:On February 20 2022 06:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:
[quote]
Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country?
Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation. And they have been condemned for it by people in this thread on multiple occasions. But the TL.net US politics Megathread does not dictate US policy. So it should be abundantly obvious that the US isn't acting out of some principle about not killing people and stealing their land. You can have multiple principles that don’t always line up and compromise some in favour of others when forced to choose. Apparently all the way up to and past the point of training and arming Nazis in the Azov Battalion.
Ethnic cleansing in China: I sleep
Bunch of Ukrainians brandishing swastikas: real shit
|
United States42753 Posts
Ukraine can’t invade Ukraine for obvious reasons.
|
On February 20 2022 07:23 KwarK wrote:
Ukraine can’t invade Ukraine for obvious reasons.
For now...
|
On February 20 2022 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:35 Gorsameth wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 04:30 JimmiC wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? We have had areas want to separate, when it close to enough they had a referendum. None of it took a massive army on the border. Thoughts on if the US had a giant army on the boarders of Chechen, Ingushetia and Dagestan? It is pretty clear those people want to leave Russia more than the Ukrainians want to join it. US nowhere near with Chechnya, im not sure how its related to my question. But you said its is pretty clear they want to leave. Can you share a proof of that? On February 20 2022 04:49 LegalLord wrote:On February 20 2022 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:On February 19 2022 23:48 iFU.spx wrote:On February 19 2022 23:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Are we really trying to justify that a country being annexed against its will - a people being taken over against their will - is good as long as there's no violence? Ofc not, against the will = violence. But the will of whom: whole country or the will of the region willing to disconnect itsleft from the country? Imagine region with 2 000 000 people willing to disconnect, but 200 000 000 people from the rest of the country is against it. What to do? In how many situations should 1% of a population dictate what happens? If 1% of Texas wanted to secede, should Texas secede? If 100% of Texas (or an alternative state of 1% population, say New Mexico) wanted to secede, but 100% of everyone else in the US outside of Texas wanted them not to secede, should Texas secede? Won't weigh in on the answer myself but that's what he's actually asking. Thanks for elucidation! --- btw speaking of Texas, didn't know it was annexed by USA in 1845 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation (Almost) every country in existence was formed by wars at one point or another. Doesn't mean we should still be doing that today. Yet Israel continues to annex Palestinian land in what is globally recognized as a criminal occupation with indispensable and unrelenting US support. EDIT: Like democracies vs dictatorships the US interest isn't in upholding lofty ideals, it's about hegemonic power and exploitation.
Is this to say Russia should be able to invade whoever, or do you mean the US should stop supporting Israel?
|
|
|
|
|
On February 20 2022 06:50 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Curious to hear what the guy in this thread who actually lives in Eastern Ukraine has to say about the situation. Reports are that shelling and evacuations are occurring. People just forced to leave dnr and lnr with civil defense system and tv announcement of head state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Pushilin where he say that ukraine plan to invade. They say it was unexpected (evacuation), but decided to urgently leave, because the fear of events in 2014 could repeat. (but actually there are too many people and all places already unavailable due to overflow.) Did they hear shelling? Yes. All men forced to stay. head of dnr started mobilization. (source tvrain interviews with donbass people in russian city taganrog)
Dont believe idiotic propaganda.
There is no way Ukraine will attack DNR/LNR in the southeast with the most massive russian buildup of forces in recent years all along their northern border. That is called suicide.
Any of those reports will be false flag operations to justify an invasion/to paint your Ukrainian friends as evil people who want to kill your citizens, they do not want that.
The Ukrainian people are your friendly neighbours, the problem is in your lying, corrupt, criminal oligarchs. We in the west have them too, here we call them rightwing politicians/republicans/liberals etc. These people are out for their own backpocket and will abuse citizens to get their way. If and when the order is given to invade Ukraine, the correct response is revolution. Kick out the criminal oligarchs and generals and have a drink with your friends across the Ukrainian border after you are done.
|
Feels like Jan 2020 again. Something is coming, everyone's just holding their breaths.
I'm worried Putin's just been waiting till the end of the Olympics. We'll find out in a couple days I guess.
|
On February 20 2022 20:53 Oleo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2022 06:50 iFU.spx wrote:On February 20 2022 05:28 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Curious to hear what the guy in this thread who actually lives in Eastern Ukraine has to say about the situation. Reports are that shelling and evacuations are occurring. People just forced to leave dnr and lnr with civil defense system and tv announcement of head state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Pushilin where he say that ukraine plan to invade. They say it was unexpected (evacuation), but decided to urgently leave, because the fear of events in 2014 could repeat. (but actually there are too many people and all places already unavailable due to overflow.) Did they hear shelling? Yes. All men forced to stay. head of dnr started mobilization. (source tvrain interviews with donbass people in russian city taganrog) Dont believe idiotic propaganda. There is no way Ukraine will attack DNR/LNR in the southeast with the most massive russian buildup of forces in recent years all along their northern border. That is called suicide. Any of those reports will be false flag operations to justify an invasion/to paint your Ukrainian friends as evil people who want to kill your citizens, they do not want that. The Ukrainian people are your friendly neighbours, the problem is in your lying, corrupt, criminal oligarchs. We in the west have them too, here we call them rightwing politicians/republicans/liberals etc. These people are out for their own backpocket and will abuse citizens to get their way. If and when the order is given to invade Ukraine, the correct response is revolution. Kick out the criminal oligarchs and generals and have a drink with your friends across the Ukrainian border after you are done.
That's a good take, and objective one in my opinion, can confirm a bunch of aspects! Not many "cares" about L/DNR short terms here as we understand what kind of economic/social dumpster it became, how much it will cost to restore everything regionally, even less reasons to be offensive considered all with russia. We are not interested in a war, we have our economy to worry about, while L/DNR is a massive burden at the moment, we all remember it was created artificially by the kremlin in 2014
Based on the recent news feed narrative: Zelensky during his last official meeting with the West leaders told that since Budapest Memorandum does not work on paper - Ukraine has no reasons not to get involved in the nuclear weapon tech. This is an interesting move, from security perspective - very good one and I support it, but investing in a such tech requires much money and we don't have an unlimited sources
|
That's a terrible idea. It would force the West to choose between having to border an unstable country with nuclear weapons and allowing Russia to forcefully get that country back in its sphere of influence. Don't think there's a single NATO member that would prefer the former.
|
On February 20 2022 23:09 Sent. wrote:
That's a terrible idea. It would force the West to choose between having to border an unstable country with nuclear weapons and allowing Russia to forcefully get that country back in its sphere of influence. Don't think there's a single NATO member that would prefer the former.
Yea, in case of nukes it looks more like an escalation rather than de-escalation. Even though nukes are expensive - such tech prevents full scale war possibility, in other words by paying for nukes we won't have to eventually pay for deaths of many military/civillians from both sides and will prevent huge social crisis. On paper it does not look like a bad thing to do (very expensive insurance), on the other hand it's better not to have a war, thus not having a need to develop a nuke purely for economic/social-development/political reasons. I'm not an expert on the topic, so no idea what is the correct answer, plus it's just some reports on the initial speech, nothing complicated so far it seems
Crossing my fingers for the best and peace
|
Its something the rest of the world probably doesn't want but from Ukraine's point of view what other option is there?
Either they join NATO, which Russia really doesn't want, NATO might not really want and I think is not even possible while regions of Ukraine are in dispute.
They have a way to deter Russia from invading on their own, which is nukes.
Or this shit keeps happening and the one time the West doesn't react in force their country is gone.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe the Ukraine should start negotiations with Iran to sell them those nukes posthaste. Iran will certainly need the money after this JCPOA-redux negotiation fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
