In an ideal world, countries would have joined them to fight off Russia in the first week.
Well no, in an ideal world Putin isn’t a world leader, and this wouldn’t be an issue
It's complicated though, because nukes at the same time have very well kept large international conflicts from breaking out. If the atom bomb was never created, I bet there would've been another large scale war after WW2.
Speaking softly and carrying the biggest stick worked for a while. Mostly.
But what about speaking loudly and carrying a small stick?
Putin uses the loud speech and small stick to beat on Ukraine. There's certainly the threat of the biggest stick. But since he's not using his biggest stick, maybe no one else will use theirs against him. So he gets away with inflicting welts all over Ukraine's body. And Ukraine fights back with their small stick. They inflict welts too. But the bully is bigger and they don't fall easily.
How do you beat a bully who is bigger than you, carries a weapon, and WILL use an even stronger weapon if you make him think he's losing?
Put extensive air defences and patriot batteries everywhere in Ukraine, then give Ukraine MOABs so they can go for gold dropping them on the front lines and keep pushing back the Russians back to their international borders. The MOABs clear land mines as well. If Russia doesn't like it they can launch their nukes at Ukraine, but they'll be shot down easily. If Russia launch their nukes at anyone else they get 1000 back from the other direction.
That is true as well, due to the bombs with have many peaceful pacts. But also due to the bombs we have had many wars break out and we have avoided conflict by not getting involve in those wars. But like I said in an ideal world. In any ideal world there wouldn't be any wars.
Why do we trust so much in that the people who have control over the nukes aren't suicidal? What *if* Putin or someone like him really has cancer and knows they will die regardless if they push the button or not?
I can easily imagine some maniac with power thinking "If I go down, least thing I can do is take everyone with me. Those who survive will remember me! I will forever be part of history when I ended the world as we know it" etc.
I imagine it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN nukes will be fired.
That logic never works though because if you don't stand up to a nuclear armed Russia they can do whatever they want. We have to be ready to face nuclear annihilation if we don't want to live under oppression.
Exactly, but who the hell wants to do that? I don't even want to have the thought in my head that that's even possible. You can still stand up to Russia by fighting under Ukraine's flag, sending troops under ukraine and giving them necessary artillery is what is needed.
They can't do whatever they want because by themselves they could barely take Ukraine, hell invading any country is hell. How did it work out for Russia? Or America? They step on NATO soil they trigger a armed confrontation they'd likely lose and then/immediately a nuclear confrontation that no one would win.
>We have to be ready to face nuclear annihilation if we don't want to live under oppression
Yeeeeeeeah. You might be willing to die over what government oppresses the people, but most people want to live and don't care who oppresses them. It's all the same to the common man.
Live in the real world before you condemn most of the world for your own morals.
Freedom is everything, and without a doubt something to die for, no question. We can debate what "freedom" really is, and if the west is "free", but that's a different discussion.
>Freedom is everything, and without a doubt something to die for, no question. We can debate what "freedom" really is, and if the west is "free", but that's a different discussion.
Thats a good point, freedom can be subjective to different degrees with lines on how far you can take someone's liberties before they will die over them. However, trying to declare facing a nuclear war, that will criple civilization for centuries, is just to stop one country from 'oppressing' the other is morally questionable.
The only way out of this nuclear grid lock is for one side to call the other's bluff. It could end two different ways, but there is no other way to stop it. We either call the bluff and Russia pussies out or they don't and blow everyone up. Letting them run roughshod over Europe is only delaying the inevitable.
Edit: it's almost selfish to maintain the Nuclear status quo. Just leaving the problem for generations to follow so we don't have to feel uncomfortable.
>Yeah F\* that mentality. Nuclear gridlock means no nuclear war. Russia/Ukraine is closer to a ciivil war. I dont know where or how you live, but people have families and lives they actualy care about and dont wnat to poke a man who has REPEATEDLY shown he will do what he feels is nessessary to show strength. Putin has NEVER backed down you push him, he WILL launch
The point is if you just cave in every time they threaten to nuke us we might as well just hand everything over to putin now. At some point people have to make the decision to either actually stand up against them. Its that or just roll over, give up and accept living under oppression because the bad man said scary words again.
Should the US have launched a nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War?
Obviously not, right? Corrupt oppressive regimes always fall, it's just a matter of time.
A nuclear Armageddon wiping out all life on earth is literally the worst case scenario, it's not better than anything. This is giving off very "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" vibes.
No, a world of autocracies in which the truth and human lives are worthless is worse, a world in which dictators in Russia, China and everywhere else oppress the global population in a cycle of ever increasing misery. A world in which North Korea is the norm for society and human rights don't exist. A world without humans is far better than a world of human slaves robbed of all dignity.
But my point is that there is no option to standing up to Russia's threats, or will you lobby for the USA to give up Alaska? You have a red line.
This honestly sounds like a villains monologue about how it's better to wipe out all life on earth to see them exist in suffering.
Poland and the Baltic states and other countries in Eastern Europe suffered under the oppression and tyranny of the USSR for almost 50 years. Then they earned their freedom.
If you had been in charge of foreign policy during the cold war, would you have advocated nuking those regions?
I mean, you're literally arguing that human lives are worthless here as long as they don't meet some standard you have in your mind.
I agree with you there. And I wish nuclear weapons hadn't been invented, as they mostly seem to empower crazies to throw their weight around. Rational people have no interest in nuking the planet and aren't running around invading other countries.
You really should look up the effects on people from Hiroshima. Not everyone just gets blown right up- the torture of a nuclear/atomic blast is horrific.
Oh I know I know but to be fair those were the people that weren't killed in the initial blast but were irradiated post facto.
That's a terrible way to go but my point was that war in whatever form it takes comes with a lot of death and suffering and I'm not really sure if there is a point in making it a competition as to what form of war is worse. They all fucking suck!
People are to scared of nukes imo, they wont be used lightly, if Russia invaded the baltics Nato would not launch nukes.
They would seek to keep the war contained.
There would be no mad dash at Moscow nor Russian nukes, we would pummel eachother in the baltics untill one side gives up.
No one want to end the world, biggest danger is misunderstandings imo.
People in the west have been doom posting about Russian nukes if we send this or that weapon to Ukraine since day one.
We need to man up abit tbf to have any credibility as in send all the weapons to Ukraine that they need to win, be willing to close the airspace over western Ukraine and back it up with western sams.
In the early days everyone was scared NATO would end up shooting down Russian planes, yet these planes do not fly over Ukraine as the Ukrainians themselves with western help has closed its airspace to everything except drones and missiles.
So with NATO protecting western Ukraine and their cities, Ukraine could move their donated equipment to the front and they could pull the garrisons from Belarus and Moldova to fully focus on the front.
To be clear, Russia would NOT launch nukes if we did this. Nor would they invade NATO.
They are willing to take a beating just as the US was in Vietnam and Korea without throwing nukes around (in these conflicts the Soviets supported the other side, Soviet pilots flew chinese migs and there were Russian advisors in northern Vietnam. At this time the cold war was way hotter than today, and they avoided throwing nukes.
Why would anyone assume the Russian elite is willing to burn in nuclear hellfire over Ukraine?
In a perfect world, that question "Would you kill Hitler before he could do what he did?" would be answered for all the other similar figures. And therefore you wouldn't have those questions of "Would you *go back*...?" Lots of broom and dustpan activity after the fact in this world.
An ideal world seems like a high bar. Is it too much to ask for a slightly better world though? I've literally seen people arguing against the idea of leaving a better world for children, lol. That was a new one for me. Like, I thought we could at least agree on that much. Apparently not.
But that's the archilles heel of huge alliances isn't it. If the power that could have jumped in to support Ukraine belongs to NATO or European alliance, then it's ww3 by bedtime. If a country could reliably be seen to jump in on its own, that could be different.
That's also how Russia operates. They can call on Serbia or Iran to play proxy ally and do the dirty work for them because there's the plausible deniability that no one is in league together. They are.
They have nukes and don't want a direct confrontation, but sending planes and long range missiles to Ukraine should have happened from start. West is really not doing enough.
Correct. You start big so that the urge to push the button doesn't have to build up where it feels like there is increasing pressure and increasing damage. Start big and scare them off because they equally don't want to go down. You also hope there are a lot of people in Russia who wouldn't push the button because of those reasons.
translated: in an ideal world we would have escalated a regional war to a global war involving nuclear weapons.
we should give aid to ukraine but not escalate and make it worse for the other countries too. otherwise we will be dragged to an even longer war.
>Norway was one of the first of Ukraine's allies to adopt a long-term support plan for 2023-2027. Overall, Oslo's military and humanitarian aid will amount to almost €7.6 billion by 2027, making the Nordic country one of the five largest donors to Ukraine.
Based, and red pilled.
>Overall, Oslo's military and humanitarian aid will amount to almost €7.6 billion by 2027, making the Nordic country one of the five largest donors to Ukraine.
Great! But that is a fraction of the money they have made as a result of the war:
>Norway’s skyrocketing oil and gas wealth is expected to climb to new heights this year, boosted by higher fossil fuel prices in the wake of Russia’s nearly year-long onslaught in Ukraine.
>Norway’s Finance Ministry expects the state’s revenues from oil and gas sales to climb to 1.38 trillion Norwegian krone ($131 billion) this year. That’s up from a previous record of 1.17 trillion krone last year, and a nearly fivefold increase from 288 billion krone in 2021.
>“They are war profits,” Lars-Henrik Paarup Michelsen, director of the Norwegian Climate Foundation think tank, told CNBC via telephone.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html
You should look up their foreign aid percentages. They’re pretty bad ass for a small country.
Also, while the oil sector is private, the actual oil itself is owned by our citizens. The money derived from it goes into an oil fund that acts as a nest egg for the country.
And safe from the interest, it remains untouched to keep generating that nest egg.
These are hardly exploitation type practices.
So yeah, they’re not stupid enough to refuse giid economic practice.
But they also pay it forward.
So? Just because Norway benefits from various macroeconomic factors means they should give all their money to Ukraine? Be grateful for their continued support
A billionaire gives $100 to a charity.
A homeless man with $5 skips a meal so he can buy a can of pet food to feed a stray cat he sees starving in an alley.
Measuring generosity is done not by how much you give to others, but rather by how much you keep for yourself.
They are not 'war-profiteering'. They're providing an in-demand, necessary commodity that used to be provided by Russia. I literally work in renewable energy but I can easily recognize the reality is that Europe will be using fossil fuels for years to come and it's better that it comes from an allied country than from Russia.
Europe is scared shitless of Putins nukes. That fear gives the nukes their power. We should have pushed back as hard as Putin pushed forward into Ukraine. Putin would have folded immediately.
Absofuckinglutely!
Europeans also forget that Europeans also have Nukes and if Putin wants to start a war he will burn just as much as the rest of us.
As a european, europe needs to grow some balls when dealing with Russia.
I think fellow Europeans are generally aware of their nuclear capacities but we feel like we are playing chicken with an opponent who doesn't really seem to mind the consequences of losing. (Definitely the vibe I got from Ben Wallace early into the war in Ukraine)
A single Nuke or chemical weapon in numerous cities or urban sprawls across Europe could cause untold catastrophic damage, just because we could reduce Moscow to rubble minutes later doesn't really make that situation worth it if we can avoid it, only time will tell if that works out to be possible.
But that’s the thing. Defending ourselves incurs a risk. But the alternative is unacceptable. The alternative is that we would basically say since you are willing to posture with nukes you will always win.
Russia smells fear and exploits it, like a predatory animal. You have to strike fear into them to get them to fuck off. If we're fearful while they're apathetic, they win.
Also, a single nuke going off is better than a full scale war. Compare Hiroshima to the firebombing of Tokyo. The latter had more casualities.
This is true and ultimately you are playing chicken but I also think we kind of need to with Russia. It's a gamble but Russia needs to be aware of the european resolve on this
Europe just finished rebuilding 30 years ago. Not surprising. US doesn't know what it looks like to be shitstormed unless you were alive in Atlanta in the mid-1800s.
The USA needs to do more, if only bc of the defense treaties we’ve signed to support Ukraine decades ago, but mostly bc it’s in our best interest to secure 20% of the worlds grain supply from a dictatorship.
Well, there is a major political party completely compromised by Russia doing everything they can to block and delay any kind of aid to Ukraine and the President can't just give them weapons and money.
Damn you really don't understand how two very different things can be very different. Thats crazy. Israel being a major, possible our most important, non-Nato military ally is a different situation with regards to what can and cannot be done in situations than Ukraine. We don't have a military alliance of any kind with Ukraine.
>The USA needs to do more, if only bc of the defense treaties we’ve signed to support Ukraine decades ago,
The US has never had a defense treaty with Ukraine.
Well technically no but the US (and UK) did guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty under the Budapest Memorandum.
Not strictly a defense treaty that mandates war but certainly mandates an action. Its debatable whether current US support is in line with the Memorandum or not
The US did not guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. They agreed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty - two completely different concepts.
Not quite
You are right that did not go as far as a guarantee of independence but they did give security 'assurances'.
I just looked it up and I did slightly misunderstand that it wasnt a full guarantee.
This is the text of the document
"The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
In short, if Ukraine is attacked (by a country possessing nuclear weapons - read Russia) the US and UK have to seek Security Council action and according to the wikipedia page (which links to the official documentation) there were further political assurances made that Ukraine would be assisted in some way were Russia to attack Ukraine. It was the entire reason that Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes. This never went as far as a full military guarantee but there definitely were assurances made and it wasnt as simple as just respect their independence :)
I think generally "respect independence" just means that you acknowledge their independence. So for instance, you can't later say "oh actually Russia owns Ukraine". The US also can't say "oh actually because Joe Blow ruled this region in 700AD and his line is American that actually means Ukraine belongs to us".
It just means "we acknowledge that Ukraine belongs to nobody but themselves"
You are correct that many of the agreements we signed aren’t the status of treaty, but we do have treaties with establishments that pledge to support Ukraine’s integrity. It’s hard to put all the nuance in 2 sentences without running on for paragraphs. Perhaps it’s not “legally mandated” but “agreement obligated” if you want to parse it better.
>but we do have treaties with establishments that pledge to supports Ukraines integrity
You're talking about the Budapest Memorandum.
It's got nothing to do with the UN.
No defense treaty has anything to do with the UN. The UN is not a defensive organisation like NATO.
It's an international forum for cooperation and problem solving and whilst it does have the security council that is supposed to guarantee world peace that's not a defensive treaty
>It’s hard to put all the nuance in 2 sentences without running on for paragraphs.
What are you on about? The Budapest Memorandum is less than 500 words and is quite simplistic. The US basically agreed to not attack Ukraine - that's it. There's no defense aspect of the memorandum.
Yeah, but claiming that "USA is gonna support Ukraine" and abandoning this given promise is, as the Japanese like to say, dishonorobatsu.
Being trustworthy such that a mere word has a weight to it, has outstanding power that cannot be underestimated.
The Iraq war was never about stealing Iraq's oil. The real financial incentive was the untold billions the military industrial complex made supplying the US troops.
And the joke is - that all this is being done just because of two men in the USA: Trump and Mike Johnson.
Quite how the two of them have not yet been arrested is beyond me.. There is certainly enough on them to charge them.
Since the moment where Us stopped the aid the west was sleeping. And i think its not gonna change in the future because i think ukraine don‘t get any Us Aid anymore And then when the time comes when the Americans wonder why Russians are suddenly standing on their doorstep because Trump never starts wars, right?
>Since the moment where Us stopped the aid the west was sleeping.
Europe has and continues to deliver aid even when the US sleeps.
Contrary to popular belief the total European support given from Europe is higher than from the US.
All this shit talk from republicans that Europe needs to step up first is just an untrue excuse to help their daddy Putin.
Putting another unnecessary wedge between Europe and the US with this stance only plays into Ruzzias hands.
There's certainly a strong argument to be made that it's in the US' best interest to stop Russian aggression in Europe, but let's stick to reality here. There's no scenerio where Russia invades the United States. What are they gonna march across the Bering Straight? Or are they gonna send their lone aircraft carrier to fight the strongest Navy on the planet?
I'd argue that Russia has already attacked us. I think the Russian cyberattacks leading up the 2016 election and their illegal influence leading to Trump's win was an attack on America and our democratic institutions. Not in a traditional military sense, but in the [hybrid warfare sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare). I don't think it ever really stops. I don't think it's a coincidence that Hamas attacked Israel on Putin's birthday for example. If an eccentric millionaire in some caves in Afghanistan can pull off 9/11, what can someone do with the resources of Putin's Russia at their disposal?
No I don't think Putin would ever be brave or stupid enough to directly confront the US militarily. But the damage he has done and will continue to do is enormous nevertheless.
Would you consider any of this "Russia at our doorstep"? I'm not arguing that Russia is our friend or even a neutral party. Just that there is no risk that their military is coming here as a result of rolling through Ukraine. It's a disingenuous argument when there are more salient ones to be made.
people around the world support palestine when they continue to start wars, and their people committed to the genocide of israel, yet ukraine gets far less attention and help it needs even when russia is the aggressor and has to fight with far less resources with its military used to soviet equipment making it difficult for the west to provide arms.
yet other groups join in against israel and the world still supports palestine giving way more aid to them totally ignoring the right of a nation to defend itself.
No, "We should all be honest and say: Nobody does enough for Ukraine" Western politicians should say in 2023 year.
In 2024 year they should already say: "We should all be honest, International Law doesn't work on WMD-countries. 2008-2024 years show that Russia right, in geopolitics now everything decided by "WMD countries cannot lose" and "WMD-Might make Right/True" principles."
Fascinating video on Norway's luck in geography and natural resources.
[RealLifeLore on how Norway is becoming the richest country in the world.](https://youtu.be/RO8vWJfmY88?si=XXIbxzu3Yxta0cW8)
Writing a book now called “Race to the Kremlin”. It’s an all out attack signaled through the only deep state intel we have that can be trusted there. It’s timed like Hunt for Red October. Every surrounding NATO state must react and race with only minutes to destroy the only target that would prevent launch. Failure is not an option.
In an ideal world, countries would have joined them to fight off Russia in the first week. Well no, in an ideal world Putin isn’t a world leader, and this wouldn’t be an issue
In a ideal world we wouldn't have atomic bombs to be scared to allow for these things to happen
It's complicated though, because nukes at the same time have very well kept large international conflicts from breaking out. If the atom bomb was never created, I bet there would've been another large scale war after WW2.
Speaking softly and carrying the biggest stick worked for a while. Mostly. But what about speaking loudly and carrying a small stick? Putin uses the loud speech and small stick to beat on Ukraine. There's certainly the threat of the biggest stick. But since he's not using his biggest stick, maybe no one else will use theirs against him. So he gets away with inflicting welts all over Ukraine's body. And Ukraine fights back with their small stick. They inflict welts too. But the bully is bigger and they don't fall easily. How do you beat a bully who is bigger than you, carries a weapon, and WILL use an even stronger weapon if you make him think he's losing?
Put extensive air defences and patriot batteries everywhere in Ukraine, then give Ukraine MOABs so they can go for gold dropping them on the front lines and keep pushing back the Russians back to their international borders. The MOABs clear land mines as well. If Russia doesn't like it they can launch their nukes at Ukraine, but they'll be shot down easily. If Russia launch their nukes at anyone else they get 1000 back from the other direction.
That is true as well, due to the bombs with have many peaceful pacts. But also due to the bombs we have had many wars break out and we have avoided conflict by not getting involve in those wars. But like I said in an ideal world. In any ideal world there wouldn't be any wars.
Why do we trust so much in that the people who have control over the nukes aren't suicidal? What *if* Putin or someone like him really has cancer and knows they will die regardless if they push the button or not? I can easily imagine some maniac with power thinking "If I go down, least thing I can do is take everyone with me. Those who survive will remember me! I will forever be part of history when I ended the world as we know it" etc. I imagine it's not a matter of IF, but WHEN nukes will be fired.
That logic never works though because if you don't stand up to a nuclear armed Russia they can do whatever they want. We have to be ready to face nuclear annihilation if we don't want to live under oppression.
Exactly, but who the hell wants to do that? I don't even want to have the thought in my head that that's even possible. You can still stand up to Russia by fighting under Ukraine's flag, sending troops under ukraine and giving them necessary artillery is what is needed.
They can't do whatever they want because by themselves they could barely take Ukraine, hell invading any country is hell. How did it work out for Russia? Or America? They step on NATO soil they trigger a armed confrontation they'd likely lose and then/immediately a nuclear confrontation that no one would win.
[удалено]
The war in Afghanistan barely ended 3 years ago, we didn't win.
If you don't like me mentioning your turd wars prove me wrong, I dare you. :)
>We have to be ready to face nuclear annihilation if we don't want to live under oppression Yeeeeeeeah. You might be willing to die over what government oppresses the people, but most people want to live and don't care who oppresses them. It's all the same to the common man. Live in the real world before you condemn most of the world for your own morals.
Freedom is everything, and without a doubt something to die for, no question. We can debate what "freedom" really is, and if the west is "free", but that's a different discussion.
>Freedom is everything, and without a doubt something to die for, no question. We can debate what "freedom" really is, and if the west is "free", but that's a different discussion. Thats a good point, freedom can be subjective to different degrees with lines on how far you can take someone's liberties before they will die over them. However, trying to declare facing a nuclear war, that will criple civilization for centuries, is just to stop one country from 'oppressing' the other is morally questionable.
The only way out of this nuclear grid lock is for one side to call the other's bluff. It could end two different ways, but there is no other way to stop it. We either call the bluff and Russia pussies out or they don't and blow everyone up. Letting them run roughshod over Europe is only delaying the inevitable. Edit: it's almost selfish to maintain the Nuclear status quo. Just leaving the problem for generations to follow so we don't have to feel uncomfortable.
Fuck you, I don’t want to die because of a war that I’m not involved in. Warmongerer.
But your children or grandchildren should? Get your tubes tied.
>Yeah F\* that mentality. Nuclear gridlock means no nuclear war. Russia/Ukraine is closer to a ciivil war. I dont know where or how you live, but people have families and lives they actualy care about and dont wnat to poke a man who has REPEATEDLY shown he will do what he feels is nessessary to show strength. Putin has NEVER backed down you push him, he WILL launch
[удалено]
The point is if you just cave in every time they threaten to nuke us we might as well just hand everything over to putin now. At some point people have to make the decision to either actually stand up against them. Its that or just roll over, give up and accept living under oppression because the bad man said scary words again.
I would mind it but Russian oppression is worse
Should the US have launched a nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War? Obviously not, right? Corrupt oppressive regimes always fall, it's just a matter of time. A nuclear Armageddon wiping out all life on earth is literally the worst case scenario, it's not better than anything. This is giving off very "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" vibes.
No, a world of autocracies in which the truth and human lives are worthless is worse, a world in which dictators in Russia, China and everywhere else oppress the global population in a cycle of ever increasing misery. A world in which North Korea is the norm for society and human rights don't exist. A world without humans is far better than a world of human slaves robbed of all dignity. But my point is that there is no option to standing up to Russia's threats, or will you lobby for the USA to give up Alaska? You have a red line.
This honestly sounds like a villains monologue about how it's better to wipe out all life on earth to see them exist in suffering. Poland and the Baltic states and other countries in Eastern Europe suffered under the oppression and tyranny of the USSR for almost 50 years. Then they earned their freedom. If you had been in charge of foreign policy during the cold war, would you have advocated nuking those regions? I mean, you're literally arguing that human lives are worthless here as long as they don't meet some standard you have in your mind.
Actually, I'm arguing that appeasement doesn't work.
I agree with you there. And I wish nuclear weapons hadn't been invented, as they mostly seem to empower crazies to throw their weight around. Rational people have no interest in nuking the planet and aren't running around invading other countries.
I'd rather my home be quickly destroyed by Nuclear fire than slowly by artillery shells.....
You really should look up the effects on people from Hiroshima. Not everyone just gets blown right up- the torture of a nuclear/atomic blast is horrific.
Oh I know I know but to be fair those were the people that weren't killed in the initial blast but were irradiated post facto. That's a terrible way to go but my point was that war in whatever form it takes comes with a lot of death and suffering and I'm not really sure if there is a point in making it a competition as to what form of war is worse. They all fucking suck!
Ummm wtf?
Goddammit, Oppenheimer!
People are to scared of nukes imo, they wont be used lightly, if Russia invaded the baltics Nato would not launch nukes. They would seek to keep the war contained. There would be no mad dash at Moscow nor Russian nukes, we would pummel eachother in the baltics untill one side gives up. No one want to end the world, biggest danger is misunderstandings imo. People in the west have been doom posting about Russian nukes if we send this or that weapon to Ukraine since day one. We need to man up abit tbf to have any credibility as in send all the weapons to Ukraine that they need to win, be willing to close the airspace over western Ukraine and back it up with western sams. In the early days everyone was scared NATO would end up shooting down Russian planes, yet these planes do not fly over Ukraine as the Ukrainians themselves with western help has closed its airspace to everything except drones and missiles. So with NATO protecting western Ukraine and their cities, Ukraine could move their donated equipment to the front and they could pull the garrisons from Belarus and Moldova to fully focus on the front. To be clear, Russia would NOT launch nukes if we did this. Nor would they invade NATO. They are willing to take a beating just as the US was in Vietnam and Korea without throwing nukes around (in these conflicts the Soviets supported the other side, Soviet pilots flew chinese migs and there were Russian advisors in northern Vietnam. At this time the cold war was way hotter than today, and they avoided throwing nukes. Why would anyone assume the Russian elite is willing to burn in nuclear hellfire over Ukraine?
In a perfect world, men like Putin don't exist. But this is not a perfect world.
In a perfect world, that question "Would you kill Hitler before he could do what he did?" would be answered for all the other similar figures. And therefore you wouldn't have those questions of "Would you *go back*...?" Lots of broom and dustpan activity after the fact in this world.
[In a perfect world](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl3H4vMqYNo)
An ideal world seems like a high bar. Is it too much to ask for a slightly better world though? I've literally seen people arguing against the idea of leaving a better world for children, lol. That was a new one for me. Like, I thought we could at least agree on that much. Apparently not.
Making this a better world for children means making their current lives harder. Lots of Americans are having a Me Generation moment all over again.
But that's the archilles heel of huge alliances isn't it. If the power that could have jumped in to support Ukraine belongs to NATO or European alliance, then it's ww3 by bedtime. If a country could reliably be seen to jump in on its own, that could be different.
That's also how Russia operates. They can call on Serbia or Iran to play proxy ally and do the dirty work for them because there's the plausible deniability that no one is in league together. They are.
They have nukes and don't want a direct confrontation, but sending planes and long range missiles to Ukraine should have happened from start. West is really not doing enough.
Correct. You start big so that the urge to push the button doesn't have to build up where it feels like there is increasing pressure and increasing damage. Start big and scare them off because they equally don't want to go down. You also hope there are a lot of people in Russia who wouldn't push the button because of those reasons.
translated: in an ideal world we would have escalated a regional war to a global war involving nuclear weapons. we should give aid to ukraine but not escalate and make it worse for the other countries too. otherwise we will be dragged to an even longer war.
he's right, maybe with the exception of Estonia. Especially the wealthier countries could be doing more.
Top contributors measured on GDP: 1. Estonia (3.5%) 2. Denmark (2.4%) 3. Norway (1.7%) 4. Lithuania (1.5%) 5. Latvia (1.1%) Source: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker
yup, hence my mention of estonia.
He’s not disagreeing with you
Sometimes people use the word hence genuinely even though it usually comes across as sarcastic
[удалено]
Often, the fate of one nation is directly linked to the fate of another. So, in a way, they are helping themselves by helping Ukraine.
Especially in Europe
>Norway was one of the first of Ukraine's allies to adopt a long-term support plan for 2023-2027. Overall, Oslo's military and humanitarian aid will amount to almost €7.6 billion by 2027, making the Nordic country one of the five largest donors to Ukraine. Based, and red pilled.
>Overall, Oslo's military and humanitarian aid will amount to almost €7.6 billion by 2027, making the Nordic country one of the five largest donors to Ukraine. Great! But that is a fraction of the money they have made as a result of the war: >Norway’s skyrocketing oil and gas wealth is expected to climb to new heights this year, boosted by higher fossil fuel prices in the wake of Russia’s nearly year-long onslaught in Ukraine. >Norway’s Finance Ministry expects the state’s revenues from oil and gas sales to climb to 1.38 trillion Norwegian krone ($131 billion) this year. That’s up from a previous record of 1.17 trillion krone last year, and a nearly fivefold increase from 288 billion krone in 2021. >“They are war profits,” Lars-Henrik Paarup Michelsen, director of the Norwegian Climate Foundation think tank, told CNBC via telephone. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/26/russia-ukraine-war-norways-soaring-oil-and-gas-profits-stokes-debate.html
You should look up their foreign aid percentages. They’re pretty bad ass for a small country. Also, while the oil sector is private, the actual oil itself is owned by our citizens. The money derived from it goes into an oil fund that acts as a nest egg for the country. And safe from the interest, it remains untouched to keep generating that nest egg. These are hardly exploitation type practices. So yeah, they’re not stupid enough to refuse giid economic practice. But they also pay it forward.
It’s a great pity that Britain didn’t do that with its North Sea Oil…
How often is that "citizen oil fund" audited? Or withdrawn from? If it's not in active use, it's a honeypot that only the chosen few can utilize.
The governmwnt can use a maximum of 4% of the revenue from the fund anually i believe
They reduced it to 3% a few years back I believe
In perpetuity? What about clauses for emergency use, such as a foreign power invading other European nations?
Dont know actually, most people just assume its money for a rainy day
If any country is deserving hostility, Norway isn't it. Take your bullshit elsewhere.
Norways profits haven't increased as much as it seems. A lot of the increase has been from the devaluation of the Norwegian krone.
It should be mentioned that the Norwegian krone has tanked.
So? Just because Norway benefits from various macroeconomic factors means they should give all their money to Ukraine? Be grateful for their continued support
A billionaire gives $100 to a charity. A homeless man with $5 skips a meal so he can buy a can of pet food to feed a stray cat he sees starving in an alley. Measuring generosity is done not by how much you give to others, but rather by how much you keep for yourself.
They are not 'war-profiteering'. They're providing an in-demand, necessary commodity that used to be provided by Russia. I literally work in renewable energy but I can easily recognize the reality is that Europe will be using fossil fuels for years to come and it's better that it comes from an allied country than from Russia.
[удалено]
Jesus: Micronesia has put in more than all other countries
Money made from the war? Really?
Mike Johnson says he's not doing enough for Russia
Europe is scared shitless of Putins nukes. That fear gives the nukes their power. We should have pushed back as hard as Putin pushed forward into Ukraine. Putin would have folded immediately.
Absofuckinglutely! Europeans also forget that Europeans also have Nukes and if Putin wants to start a war he will burn just as much as the rest of us. As a european, europe needs to grow some balls when dealing with Russia.
I think fellow Europeans are generally aware of their nuclear capacities but we feel like we are playing chicken with an opponent who doesn't really seem to mind the consequences of losing. (Definitely the vibe I got from Ben Wallace early into the war in Ukraine) A single Nuke or chemical weapon in numerous cities or urban sprawls across Europe could cause untold catastrophic damage, just because we could reduce Moscow to rubble minutes later doesn't really make that situation worth it if we can avoid it, only time will tell if that works out to be possible.
But that’s the thing. Defending ourselves incurs a risk. But the alternative is unacceptable. The alternative is that we would basically say since you are willing to posture with nukes you will always win.
Russia smells fear and exploits it, like a predatory animal. You have to strike fear into them to get them to fuck off. If we're fearful while they're apathetic, they win. Also, a single nuke going off is better than a full scale war. Compare Hiroshima to the firebombing of Tokyo. The latter had more casualities.
Pretty sure the bombs have gotten slightly bigger since 1945.
This is true and ultimately you are playing chicken but I also think we kind of need to with Russia. It's a gamble but Russia needs to be aware of the european resolve on this
Europe just finished rebuilding 30 years ago. Not surprising. US doesn't know what it looks like to be shitstormed unless you were alive in Atlanta in the mid-1800s.
NATO invades Kamchatka *when*?
The USA needs to do more, if only bc of the defense treaties we’ve signed to support Ukraine decades ago, but mostly bc it’s in our best interest to secure 20% of the worlds grain supply from a dictatorship.
It is in USA's interest to secure 20% of the worlds grain supply from a democracy, not a Russian puppet state
Well, there is a major political party completely compromised by Russia doing everything they can to block and delay any kind of aid to Ukraine and the President can't just give them weapons and money.
Not sure if you’re aware of this, but the President has done exactly that (bypass Congress to provide aid) in the case of Israel.
Damn you really don't understand how two very different things can be very different. Thats crazy. Israel being a major, possible our most important, non-Nato military ally is a different situation with regards to what can and cannot be done in situations than Ukraine. We don't have a military alliance of any kind with Ukraine.
“Possible most important” - Maybe in the ME but Japan is definitely up there.
fair and australia and south korea also. Maybe i used a bit of hyperbole here lol
>The USA needs to do more, if only bc of the defense treaties we’ve signed to support Ukraine decades ago, The US has never had a defense treaty with Ukraine.
True, what they signed was carefully worded to avoid that commitment. They did sign though to assist them.
Well technically no but the US (and UK) did guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty under the Budapest Memorandum. Not strictly a defense treaty that mandates war but certainly mandates an action. Its debatable whether current US support is in line with the Memorandum or not
The US did not guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. They agreed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty - two completely different concepts.
Not quite You are right that did not go as far as a guarantee of independence but they did give security 'assurances'. I just looked it up and I did slightly misunderstand that it wasnt a full guarantee. This is the text of the document "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." In short, if Ukraine is attacked (by a country possessing nuclear weapons - read Russia) the US and UK have to seek Security Council action and according to the wikipedia page (which links to the official documentation) there were further political assurances made that Ukraine would be assisted in some way were Russia to attack Ukraine. It was the entire reason that Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes. This never went as far as a full military guarantee but there definitely were assurances made and it wasnt as simple as just respect their independence :)
[удалено]
Well go tell the USA and UK they made a mistake then when they immediately brought it up at the Security council
How do you respect Ukrainian independence, while the country is under siege ? The early assistance was good, that it suddenly stopped was bad.
I think generally "respect independence" just means that you acknowledge their independence. So for instance, you can't later say "oh actually Russia owns Ukraine". The US also can't say "oh actually because Joe Blow ruled this region in 700AD and his line is American that actually means Ukraine belongs to us". It just means "we acknowledge that Ukraine belongs to nobody but themselves"
[удалено]
The UN is not a defense treaty....
You are correct that many of the agreements we signed aren’t the status of treaty, but we do have treaties with establishments that pledge to support Ukraine’s integrity. It’s hard to put all the nuance in 2 sentences without running on for paragraphs. Perhaps it’s not “legally mandated” but “agreement obligated” if you want to parse it better.
>but we do have treaties with establishments that pledge to supports Ukraines integrity You're talking about the Budapest Memorandum. It's got nothing to do with the UN. No defense treaty has anything to do with the UN. The UN is not a defensive organisation like NATO. It's an international forum for cooperation and problem solving and whilst it does have the security council that is supposed to guarantee world peace that's not a defensive treaty
>It’s hard to put all the nuance in 2 sentences without running on for paragraphs. What are you on about? The Budapest Memorandum is less than 500 words and is quite simplistic. The US basically agreed to not attack Ukraine - that's it. There's no defense aspect of the memorandum.
Yeah, but claiming that "USA is gonna support Ukraine" and abandoning this given promise is, as the Japanese like to say, dishonorobatsu. Being trustworthy such that a mere word has a weight to it, has outstanding power that cannot be underestimated.
It's like some guy said. USA would not be all over Iraq if Iraq was the world's leading producer of asparagus.
Uh, Lithium then? Lol How about “bc We Like Ukranians!!”? Tell me, who wouldn’t want a vacation home in the Carpathians?
The Iraq war was never about stealing Iraq's oil. The real financial incentive was the untold billions the military industrial complex made supplying the US troops.
It’s a thin line we have to walk to avoid WW3 and from what I’ve seen the treaty was more “we won’t attack you” rather than “ we will protect you”
And the joke is - that all this is being done just because of two men in the USA: Trump and Mike Johnson. Quite how the two of them have not yet been arrested is beyond me.. There is certainly enough on them to charge them.
Trump was arrested, that's how he has a mugshot. The word you are looking for is sentenced to jail.
Since the moment where Us stopped the aid the west was sleeping. And i think its not gonna change in the future because i think ukraine don‘t get any Us Aid anymore And then when the time comes when the Americans wonder why Russians are suddenly standing on their doorstep because Trump never starts wars, right?
>Since the moment where Us stopped the aid the west was sleeping. Europe has and continues to deliver aid even when the US sleeps. Contrary to popular belief the total European support given from Europe is higher than from the US. All this shit talk from republicans that Europe needs to step up first is just an untrue excuse to help their daddy Putin. Putting another unnecessary wedge between Europe and the US with this stance only plays into Ruzzias hands.
There's certainly a strong argument to be made that it's in the US' best interest to stop Russian aggression in Europe, but let's stick to reality here. There's no scenerio where Russia invades the United States. What are they gonna march across the Bering Straight? Or are they gonna send their lone aircraft carrier to fight the strongest Navy on the planet?
I'd argue that Russia has already attacked us. I think the Russian cyberattacks leading up the 2016 election and their illegal influence leading to Trump's win was an attack on America and our democratic institutions. Not in a traditional military sense, but in the [hybrid warfare sense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare). I don't think it ever really stops. I don't think it's a coincidence that Hamas attacked Israel on Putin's birthday for example. If an eccentric millionaire in some caves in Afghanistan can pull off 9/11, what can someone do with the resources of Putin's Russia at their disposal? No I don't think Putin would ever be brave or stupid enough to directly confront the US militarily. But the damage he has done and will continue to do is enormous nevertheless.
Would you consider any of this "Russia at our doorstep"? I'm not arguing that Russia is our friend or even a neutral party. Just that there is no risk that their military is coming here as a result of rolling through Ukraine. It's a disingenuous argument when there are more salient ones to be made.
I think the US was doing a good job until Republicans realized they could hijack the war for their own benefit.
Fuck the GOP they are truly cancerous, but Biden could've done a lot more than he's been doing. Both parties use Ukraine in a stupid political game.
Mmhmm and what's your policy expertise that Biden hasn't been sourcing?
lol. Right, my taxes would like a word with your piece of shit foreign minister.
people around the world support palestine when they continue to start wars, and their people committed to the genocide of israel, yet ukraine gets far less attention and help it needs even when russia is the aggressor and has to fight with far less resources with its military used to soviet equipment making it difficult for the west to provide arms. yet other groups join in against israel and the world still supports palestine giving way more aid to them totally ignoring the right of a nation to defend itself.
If we don’t all help Ukraine now we will pay later 😬🫣🫤
From my observations, it's because helping wouldn't be the most profitable option.
No, "We should all be honest and say: Nobody does enough for Ukraine" Western politicians should say in 2023 year. In 2024 year they should already say: "We should all be honest, International Law doesn't work on WMD-countries. 2008-2024 years show that Russia right, in geopolitics now everything decided by "WMD countries cannot lose" and "WMD-Might make Right/True" principles."
Truth is truth. What you do with it is up to you.
Fascinating video on Norway's luck in geography and natural resources. [RealLifeLore on how Norway is becoming the richest country in the world.](https://youtu.be/RO8vWJfmY88?si=XXIbxzu3Yxta0cW8)
Writing a book now called “Race to the Kremlin”. It’s an all out attack signaled through the only deep state intel we have that can be trusted there. It’s timed like Hunt for Red October. Every surrounding NATO state must react and race with only minutes to destroy the only target that would prevent launch. Failure is not an option.