Did I say it wasn’t a big deal for those people? I said it’s not worth waging WW3 over.
Are you arguing the West should have tried to liberate those countries from the USSR pre 1991, risking WW3 then?
I think there just as strong an argument that the Obama years enabled it
Seems like 50 years of status quo is quite significant then, and reversion to it not something we should be risking nuclear holocaust in trying to prevent.
As framed by you
30 years of independence not long enough to count? How many years does a country have to be an independent nation before their invasion matters?
I’m not eager to go to war either, but if you don’t help protect your allies from being invaded, what is even the point? Might as well let whatever strongman dictator wants control of your country just have it.
That’s not going to happen but hypothetically it’s a very different situation isn’t it?
There’s a reason why Ukraine wanted to join NATO and a reason why all this is happening now and not after it might have joined.
This is all sounding close to the US wanting to fight a war against Russia in Europe and hoping no nukes find their way over to USA#1. If a few smaller European countries take a nuke, so be it.
The reason NATO exists is to prevent exactly what you’re describing (dictators seizing control of countries). The larger NATO is the safer everyone is.
Russian nukes are a HOAX. And whaddabout natural immunity? YOU DON’T KNOW MY BODY BETTER THAN I DO!
Zara wears it better.
2 Likes
What do you propose though? I personally am stumped but nuclear weapons makes all this analysis so difficult. I mean the thread does need to debate what they think the extent of action that can be taken to defend national sovereignty in this region without bringing a realistic chance of Russia threatening nuclear action!
Edit: I suppose that’s the point of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction, to make debates of this nature complex and impossibly difficult!
1 Like
Where did he say that?
1 Like
Probably what the US is planning on doing: sanctions and shipping Ukraine weapons.
Well yeah sanctions is what I’m in favour of, I abhor any weaponry but I definitely see the point of those actions. It’s just what happens if Russia goes further (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc.) despite this that I guess is an interesting topic of debate and I feel like there are some hawkish posters in this thread who would have differing opinions to that.
Correct, no.
This Putin guy seems like a real jerk.
8 Likes
the rest of the free world has a volunteer professional contract army. yes, those who sign up are willing. only russia still has compulsory military service.
actually israel might still have it too.
and Switzerland and South Korea…
My bad. Putin isn’t going to invade any NATO state. If he did try (which he isn’t stupid enough to) he knows what the consequences will be.
Hard questions aren’t they? What do you think about New York getting nuked? Worth it to save Lithuania?
In for a penny in for a pound, me.
Someone posted a poll in here that only 20% of ukrainians thought putin was going to invade from a few days ago even after it was clear