Russia, Ukraine and World War III

emotutu · 03-01-2022, 08:35 AM

**Exo** · 03-01-2022, 09:17 AM

That's some pseudo intellectual bullsh*t. Taking out tanks is much harder.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

the distinction between sending weapons and, for example, establishing a no fly zone seems kinda arbitrary and one would think Putin would take this much more seriously , if he thought it would make any difference

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here, but I also don't think Putin is a rational actor.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

arming a country but not officially being part of a war is the "I'm not touching you" loophole

seems kinda silly, so Putin/Russia probably calculated that it won't make a difference, yeah?

What won't make a difference? Us proving weapons or us "not being involved?"

I mean pretending you're not doing something when you are is how Russia gets most of what it wants, and Iran to a large degree. The reason for it is to hold up appearances and let other countries pretend there's no crisis.

But again, Putin never thought it would take this long to overthrown Ukraine. This reads like a major miscalculation on any number of fronts.

The people of Russia are pissed
International banks are freezing out Russian money
Ukraine is fighting back a lot harder than they expected
NATO unified a lot more vocally than anyone expected

The problem is NATO is an unwilling coalition. We tried to cancel NATO in 1991/1992 but since only the UK and the US were interested in stopping Russian expansion, and Europe wasn't, it remains in place.

That said, iirc NATO effed up by telling Ukraine to disarm its nukes.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

I think the NATO thing is super complicated

I'm just saying if Putin thought weapons being sent to Ukraine would prevent him from winning the war he'd be really threatening to blow us all to hell

Maybe, it's hard to know how he sees things. The only thing I feel comfortable in saying is: He wants to reestablish the Soviet Empire; he won't go after NATO countries. The Baltics should be easier to take than Ukraine.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

you want to be on The West's side because they're more powerful

If Russia was more powerful, you'd feel better about being affiliated with the country that has had the same leader since 2000, when the US has had

Clinton
Bush
Obama
Trump
Biden

?

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 02:25 PM

Alright. You're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like, I just wanted to ask.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

on the contrary, the only reason you'd want to be allied with a country capable of electing Donald Trump might be because there's economic consequences otherwise

Maybe, but it's slightly more complicated than that. The only way it wouldn't be is if you think there's no difference between those candidates I listed. Not in general, but as a rational actor on the international stage.

If you're the Ukraine, I think there's a major difference from Bush to Biden.

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

there is but I think the deciding factor is just that The West is rich

and we're rich because our own historical acts of violence

How is China rich?

TheBig3 · 03-01-2022, 05:15 PM

in 1880 China was the global powerhouse of economic prosperity. Did they get there by acts of violence?

Looking at this chart, China has a $14.34T GDP. Britain has a $2.83T GDP. Assuming your statement about acts of violence gets people wealth, that assumes China's atrocities are 7x greater than that of the UK.

My point in all of this is to say that violence is a hallmark of all great nations. it might be fair to say violence made the US wealthy, but I would argue in the league of nations, America has some catching up to do in terms of global violence.

03-01-2022, 09:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Exo All day jazz and biscuits Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,354	That's some pseudo intellectual bullsht. Taking out tanks is much harder. __________________ LastFM SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE*

03-01-2022, 02:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,246	Alright. You're entitled to whatever opinion you'd like, I just wanted to ask. __________________ I've moved to a new address

03-01-2022, 05:15 PM	#10 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,246	in 1880 China was the global powerhouse of economic prosperity. Did they get there by acts of violence? Looking at this chart, China has a $14.34T GDP. Britain has a $2.83T GDP. Assuming your statement about acts of violence gets people wealth, that assumes China's atrocities are 7x greater than that of the UK. My point in all of this is to say that violence is a hallmark of all great nations. it might be fair to say violence made the US wealthy, but I would argue in the league of nations, America has some catching up to do in terms of global violence. __________________ I've moved to a new address

03-01-2022, 08:35 AM	#1 (permalink)
emotutu Groupie Join Date: Mar 2022 Location: Florida Posts: 3