lol, no it’s not.
Having Russia agree to bring any nuclear threat against Ukraine to the UN Security Council, when Russia is obviously the most likely perpetrator of such a threat and can veto things brought to the Security Council, seems like a bit of a strategic error.
Seriously, can we just skip the SK is totally willing to let a genocide happen so long as it doesn’t bother him discussion?
8 Likes
I saw like 40 new posts in here in a couple hours and thought something must have happened.
1 Like
the action isn’t the assistance in that sentence. the assistance isn’t done by the sec council, its provided by the countries themselves. if anything, US is abiding by the spirit of the agreement, even if technically the sec council didn’t provide a mandate to, due to violations and vetoes by one of the guarantors, who is also the aggressor.
but also, there’s probably greater verbiage describing each of the six points.
To be fair, I think his position is more a willingness to let it happen to prevent a significant increase in the probability of nuclear war, which would bother him.
Is genocide preferable to a 25% chance of nuclear war?
- Yes
- No
- I don’t know
0 voters
It might work out different on the battlefield but it sounds good for Twitter.
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409060176949248?t=V8UrKfzduf-bCw4GzREGng&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409073128955907?t=GsaWlA0SpLnOeawrhTmzzA&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409085896466433?t=5sNAPghlTAptm5NRJQTEpw&s=19
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1577409091374227456?t=kcX_ivHDvjNMgWyUd73Dpw&s=19
1 Like
Kind of my point. He can imagine nuclear war happening to him.
keed dont give a shit about nukes, the keeds the tulsis the greenwaldolols and the tuckers of late hate us mil industry complex and for once it’s winning and on the side of good and they can’t handle it, there is nothing more to it, you don’t need to read or reply to another post of his on this topic
5 Likes
Is avoiding general thermonuclear war a desirable foreign policy goal? Opinions vary!
2 Likes
A lot is actually happening. Ukraine is making spectacular advances. There seems to be an inverse correlation to how well Ukraine is doing and how much posting is done about how actually Ukraine should be surrendering to Russia.
1 Like
This is an interesting theoretical pole I guess, but you’ve got the chance of “nuclear war” way too high.
The obvious answer is to create an incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons because, once you have the nukes, you can do anything you want so we don’t have thermonuclear war!
A lie! I was saying I don’t think the US should be supporting Ukraine. They can fight, surrender, not surrender, its up to them.
Of course this is all irrelevant – the US is supporting Ukraine massively and there’s no indication that is stopping.
Not looking to accurately gauge the true probability of nuclear war. I’m more interested in knowing what percentage makes people indifferent when given a choice of genocide or risking nuclear war.
Is it okay for the US to sell arms to both sides at a fair market price so long as it doesn’t pick a side?
It doesn’t have to involve us, but if it does what great moral imperative have we broken? It would make sense if Ukraine had no chance of winning and our involvement meant just slowing the inevitable Russian victory or if we were some how “tricking” Ukraine to accepting our help that ultimately turns out to be fickle, betraying them. But I don’t think Ukraine is naïve about the fickleness of our help and it seems like, with our help, they seem to be doing pretty well.
If we are, after all, just playing Great Game geopolitics than there’s no reason not to attempt to shrink Russia’s sphere of influence. They are, after all, attempting to expand theirs.
1 Like
Ukraine’s stated goal is to push Russia out 2014 Ukraine boundaries. My objection to supporting Ukraine in achieving those goals is that Russian escalation could be extremely dangerous. Whether or not it’s “right” for Russia to think of Donbas and Crimea as part of Russia, I think it’s clear that’s what the Russian elite think. How will they react if American-backed Ukrainian fighters liberate those regions? I don’t know. But intervening to the degree that we are seems dangerous.
I understand that people might think that the Russian view I describe is unreasonable, wrong, dumb, mistaken, whatever. To me that’s irrelevant though. The question is, is that what the Russian decision makers actually think? I think an analogy can be drawn to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think that American actions were dangerous, irresponsible, and capricious. The Soviets were just mirroring our missile deployments in Turkey but we went absolutely apeshit. Should the Soviets have dealt with the American reaction and attitude as it was, or should they have dealt with what they thought the logical and rational American reaction should have been?