4 ms·

This is it. Ironic considering that EU/US is unwilling to fight a war that will benefit them the most. Ukraine is fighting this war for their country but they a

by lvl100 5y ago

This is it. Ironic considering that EU/US is unwilling to fight a war that will benefit them the most. Ukraine is fighting this war for their country but they are also fighting to save the world from a very possible WWIII.

swimminginlove 5y ago
The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII.
- adventured 5y ago
  > The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII. There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true. Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war. Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers). Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?
  - graeme 5y ago
    The nukes are WWIII. That’s why a direct war is a massive risk.
  - pizza234 5y ago
    > There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true. WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it. On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced: > Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports. Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Europe is not sending a lot of weapons instead of soldiers for a single reason: nukes. Nobody wants to contribute to the end of this Earth and although Putin seems to be playing Nixon's "the president is crazy" card well, you can never be sure how far from reality he is. Edit: well, that escalated quickly: https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html 'As stated in the directory on the website of the Ministry of Defense, the strategic forces "are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor (inflicting defeat on him), including in a war with the use of nuclear weapons."'
- amcoastal 5y ago
  We have a much more recent example of a crazy president that would threaten nuclear war than Nixon.
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    You mean the recent president that signed more peace deals in the Middle East in recent history and was the only president who also hasn’t started a war since probably I’ve been alive? That guy?
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      ...by selling out the Palestinians? And dependent on a fantasy (a demilitarized Israel?!) They were an election-year stunt. Not a real effort at diplomacy.
    - amcoastal 5y ago
      Yeah the one that would tweet fire and fury and randomly blow up generals on airstrips.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  There is no real fear of nuclear apocalypse when a nuclear power attacks a non-nuclear power (especially one that doesn’t have a binding defense agreement automatically activated upon attack/invasion w/ a nuclear power); we’ve seen the US do that with impunity and no repercussions. Risk of nuclear annihilation only comes when one nuclear power attacks another.
dgellow 5y ago
Nuclear weapons are really a horrible curse, in every single ways possible. You can see the bully coming after your neighbors and you know, they know, everybody knows you won’t do anything to defend yourself to avoid a nuclear conflict. If we wouldn’t have nukes we would join our neighbors and fight but the real risk of a complete nuclear annihilation freezes all our moves. Ukrainians and Georgians are indeed fighting our war, defending the European cause, while we are bystanders. The entire situation makes me feel sick.
- lvl100 5y ago
  I agree 100%. Ukraine deserves all the money that will go toward building back their economy when they finally win this war.
- musha68k 5y ago
  I’m still wondering at which point diplomacy started to fail so spectacularly?
  - jounker 5y ago
    When Ukrainians overthrew Putin’s puppet Yanukovych back in 2014? My personal opinion is that Putin was never negotiating in good faith. He was negotiating as a stalling tactic while prepared and/or waited for the most opportune time to invade.
    - lvl100 5y ago
      I think it’s 2011 when NATO flipped on Libya. That’s the exact moment Putin stopped being friendly to the West.
      - musha68k 5y ago
        So basically he is afraid. Dangerous.
    - dgellow 5y ago
      Yes, I agree, it has never been in good faith. Putin is a fascist, in the true sense of the world. His ideology is based on a "natural order" in which the strong dominate the weak and a past dream of lost glory. When he's using the "blood and soil" argument or he's talking about fighting against degeneracy it's not by mistake. If you look a bit at the ideology popular among high-ranked Russian, their behavior for the past 15-20 years make more sense. For example, you can check: - the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics - its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin Putin has a long-term vision and strategy to build a fascist empire, he has been working on this for decades.

by lvl100 5y ago

swimminginlove 5y ago

The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII.

adventured 5y ago
> The EU/US joining would be what causes WWIII. There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true. Russia's military is weak, their economy is extremely weak, their manufacturing base is extremely weak, and their only defensive fall-back is nuclear weapons and masses of bodies to throw at an invading force (it would be very unwise for anybody to bother invading Russia, there's no point to that). The use of nuclear weapons doesn't equate to a world war. Where would WW3 come from? Russia has very few allies and China isn't joining WW3 on their side (China would stay out of it unless attacked, they'd strategically position themselves to benefit from the damage to their peers). Belarus is a joke (and that regime would be quickly broken in a conflict). Syria is destroyed. Iran is a non-threat. What else has Russia got on their side?
- graeme 5y ago
  The nukes are WWIII. That’s why a direct war is a massive risk.
- pizza234 5y ago
  > There's absolutely no reason to believe that is true. WWIII, in a literal sense (that is, between world-wide alliances), won't happen, since certainly China/India have not reason to enter it. On the other hand though, Russia vs. the West is not so far fetched. Keep in mind that Putimir announced: > Russian president Vladimir Putin has ordered military command to put nuclear deterrence forces on high alert after aggressive statements by Nato countries, Reuters reports. Whether this is a bluff or not, it shows a clearly deranged personality. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a matter of principle, he'd initiate a nuclear war rather than losing Ukraine. After all, invading Ukraine has been motivated entirely by principle.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

Europe is not sending a lot of weapons instead of soldiers for a single reason: nukes. Nobody wants to contribute to the end of this Earth and although Putin seems to be playing Nixon's "the president is crazy" card well, you can never be sure how far from reality he is. Edit: well, that escalated quickly: https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html https://ria.ru/20220227/putin-1775389742.html 'As stated in the directory on the website of the Ministry of Defense, the strategic forces "are designed to deter aggression against Russia and its allies, as well as to defeat the aggressor (inflicting defeat on him), including in a war with the use of nuclear weapons."'

amcoastal 5y ago
We have a much more recent example of a crazy president that would threaten nuclear war than Nixon.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  You mean the recent president that signed more peace deals in the Middle East in recent history and was the only president who also hasn’t started a war since probably I’ve been alive? That guy?
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    ...by selling out the Palestinians? And dependent on a fantasy (a demilitarized Israel?!) They were an election-year stunt. Not a real effort at diplomacy.
  - amcoastal 5y ago
    Yeah the one that would tweet fire and fury and randomly blow up generals on airstrips.
ComputerGuru 5y ago
There is no real fear of nuclear apocalypse when a nuclear power attacks a non-nuclear power (especially one that doesn’t have a binding defense agreement automatically activated upon attack/invasion w/ a nuclear power); we’ve seen the US do that with impunity and no repercussions. Risk of nuclear annihilation only comes when one nuclear power attacks another.

dgellow 5y ago

Nuclear weapons are really a horrible curse, in every single ways possible. You can see the bully coming after your neighbors and you know, they know, everybody knows you won’t do anything to defend yourself to avoid a nuclear conflict. If we wouldn’t have nukes we would join our neighbors and fight but the real risk of a complete nuclear annihilation freezes all our moves. Ukrainians and Georgians are indeed fighting our war, defending the European cause, while we are bystanders. The entire situation makes me feel sick.

lvl100 5y ago
I agree 100%. Ukraine deserves all the money that will go toward building back their economy when they finally win this war.
musha68k 5y ago
I’m still wondering at which point diplomacy started to fail so spectacularly?
- jounker 5y ago
  When Ukrainians overthrew Putin’s puppet Yanukovych back in 2014? My personal opinion is that Putin was never negotiating in good faith. He was negotiating as a stalling tactic while prepared and/or waited for the most opportune time to invade.
  - lvl100 5y ago
    I think it’s 2011 when NATO flipped on Libya. That’s the exact moment Putin stopped being friendly to the West.
    - musha68k 5y ago
      So basically he is afraid. Dangerous.
  - dgellow 5y ago
    Yes, I agree, it has never been in good faith. Putin is a fascist, in the true sense of the world. His ideology is based on a "natural order" in which the strong dominate the weak and a past dream of lost glory. When he's using the "blood and soil" argument or he's talking about fighting against degeneracy it's not by mistake. If you look a bit at the ideology popular among high-ranked Russian, their behavior for the past 15-20 years make more sense. For example, you can check: - the book "Foundations of Geopolitics ": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics - its author and "philosopher" Aleksandr Dugin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin Putin has a long-term vision and strategy to build a fascist empire, he has been working on this for decades.