Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky
-
I’ve completely lost the plot on what we’re trying to do in Ukraine now.
Do we just want our money back? (I don’t think so)
Do we want the war to end for humanitarian reasons? (We don’t care about all wars in the world, so this can’t be the only thing)
Do we think we there’s a risk of nuclear escalation with Russia? (Sure, but they did support the opposite side as us when the Syria war was going on)
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
I don’t understand what the current goal is. I’m not even debating what’s right or wrong. I really don’t get the objective.
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
Except we were letting Russia capture land through conquest. Not letting them, would have required military escalation.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
Education is extremely important.
-
He has. But I don’t know why. Money? It might goad Russia into attacking us? Humanitarian/moral aversion to war? The world is not our problem?
If it’s the last one - we should drastically remake our military.
-
@xenon said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
I could understand the old stance - don’t appease Russia, don’t let countries capture land through conquest.
Except we were letting Russia capture land through conquest. Not letting them, would have required military escalation.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
Maybe such escalation could exist without any threat of nuclear war. Doesn't seem like that's a provable claim either way, though.
You’re right. It’s not. However the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) backed up with a reciprocal policy of maintaining a credible deterrence has kept any use of nukes in check between nuclear powers. Both Russia and the US adhere to the principles of nuclear deterrence developed in the Cold War. Crossing the nuclear threshold is always regarded as a last resort deployment. We used to call it thinking the unthinkable.
-
Not even allowed to plan. This isn’t appeasement, it’s straight up surrender.
Unless that stand down order extends to NSA and SIGINT I don’t think it is at all significant in terms of security. From what I can tell as is, it only eliminates a level of unnecessary redundancy more than adequately covered by the other two.
-
I’m wondering if his plan to end the war is by invading Ukraine, ourselves?
-
I’m wondering if his plan to end the war is by invading Ukraine, ourselves?
I’m wondering if his plan to end the war is by invading Ukraine, ourselves?
Interesting question. It could very well be since Trump speaks of sending American miners and oil patch roughnecks to Ukraine ostensibly as human shields against future aggression from Russia. If true, both the logic and morality seem strange and borne of a bygone era. It suggests that Ukrainian and Russian lives are of little or no value to him but American material interests on Ukraine’s territory in the form of natural resources are of great value and worth to defend militarily.
-
Ukraine could still become our 51st state.
-
If Russia took Ukraine, the EU would probably really appreciate having a strong US military based in Greenland… Just saying…
The Brad
-
@kluurs said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Ukraine could still become our 51st state.
And as a bonus, it wouldn’t be a part of NATO…
-
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
@Jolly said in Gifts for Putin, Demands for Zelensky:
Are there any Trump opponents, on this board or in public, that have a workable plan to end the Ukraine War?
Remember when we conservatives used to look for answers on winning the war?
The Brad
