WW3 Please SAY NO!

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

These guys:

Ah, I see you stayed up almost an hour trying to come up with something!

Since you're college educated, maybe you'll understand that context has a bearing on the answer to your question. What I was trying to say was that the present conflict could have been avoided and right now the U.S. and NATO are fighting a proxy war down to the last Ukranian. If I were a citizen of Ukraine, I would be angry at Putin, but I would also be angry at my government for getting my country into an unnecessary conflict. Putin pulled the trigger, but the U.S. and Ukraine did everything they could to goad him. The Charter on Strategic Partnership which was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine on Nov. 10th of last year, which reiterated U.S. support Ukraine's right to join NATO, was the last straw for Putin who had been sternly warning both parties of the unacceptability Ukranian membership for years.

Does Putin have the right to keep Ukraine or any other nation out of NATO? The more accurate question would be, why was NATO not disbanded after Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union dissolved? You might say, because of exactly what is happening right now. But the early 90s were an opportunity for unprecedented cooperation and amity between the U.S. and Russia. Russia even wanted to join NATO for a time. The other question is, does Russia have a right to feel threatened as 14 of it's neighbors have been armed over the years, with some of those countries pointing missiles at them? Does allowing Ukraine which sits right on it's doorstep worsen that situation in Russia's eyes?

Did the United States have a responsibility to read the geopolitical tea leaves more accurately instead of pushing the little fella to wake the sleeping giant? There are some far-right ultra nationalists in Ukraine, who incidentally are part of the armed forces there who were also committing atrocities such as burning some Ukraninans alive in the east, who might be ecstatic about the situation. But of course, there are a lot of innocent people who are being victimized and dying because of the absolute fecklessness of the U.S. and the Ukrainian government.

So again, if I were a politically aware citizen living in Ukraine, I would be mad as hell at Russia, as well as mad as hell at my government for blundering into this. And the answer is, that I would not be ecstatic about fighting as a result of other people's absolute stupidity.

The idea of fighting for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq was also repugnant to me.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ah, I see you stayed up almost an hour trying to come up with something!

Since you're college educated, maybe you'll understand that context has a bearing on the answer to your question. What I was trying to say was that the present conflict could have been avoided and right now the U.S. and NATO are fighting a proxy war down to the last Ukranian. If I were a citizen of Ukraine, I would be angry at Putin, but I would also be angry at my government for getting my country into an unnecessary conflict. Putin pulled the trigger, but the U.S. and Ukraine did everything they could to goad him. The Charter on Strategic Partnership which was signed between the U.S. and Ukraine on Nov. 10th of last year, which reiterated U.S. support Ukraine's right to join NATO, was the last straw for Putin who had been sternly warning both parties of the unacceptability Ukranian membership for years.

Does Putin have the right to keep Ukraine or any other nation out of NATO? The more accurate question would be, why was NATO not disbanded after Germany was reunified and the Soviet Union dissolved? You might say, because of exactly what is happening right now. But the early 90s were an opportunity for unprecedented cooperation and amity between the U.S. and Russia. Russia even wanted to join NATO for a time. The other question is, does Russia have a right to feel threatened as 14 of it's neighbors have been armed over the years, with some of those countries pointing missiles at them? Does allowing Ukraine which sits right on it's doorstep worsen that situation in Russia's eyes?

Did the United States have a responsibility to read the geopolitical tea leaves more accurately instead of pushing the little fella to wake the sleeping giant? There are some far-right ultra nationalists in Ukraine, who incidentally are part of the armed forces there who were also committing atrocities such as burning some Ukraninans alive in the east, who might be ecstatic about the situation. But of course, there are a lot of innocent people who are being victimized and dying because of the absolute fecklessness foreign of the U.S. and the Ukrainian government.

So again, if I were a politically aware citizen living in Ukraine, I would be mad as hell at Russia, as well as mad as hell at my government for blundering into this. And the answer is, that I would not be ecstatic about fighting as a result of other people's absolute stupidity.

The idea of fighting for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq was also repugnant to me.

Didn’t realize Net54 was still reachable in Moscow.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Didn’t realize Net54 was still reachable in Moscow.

Let the eagle soar!!

[Smarti5051]

I don't understand what the end goal here is for Putin and Russia. Let's assume that the stated reason for the attacks is true and that it is to prevent the Ukraine from joining NATO, creating an alliance sitting right on Russia's border to defend. Now, let's say Ukraine welcomed Russia in with open arms and flowers at soldiers' feet two weeks. Wouldn't that create the exact situation where NATO is right on Russia's new border? Does Putin plan on using Ukraine to create the world's largest moat or work with China to build a modern Great Wall? If not, then what good does usurping Ukraine do to release the perceived NATO threat to Russia? It is not like if the US just took over Mexico, where at least the new US border to defend would shrink by 80%.

At this stage, I worry about what graceful exit exists for Russia. If Russia just "gives up," it is a major embarrassment to a country who identifies itself by its military supremacy. Putin does not seem like someone willing to leave without a clear "win." But, it is going to be nearly impossible for him to take over, occupy and convert a country with 40 million people that seemingly are not excited to welcome Russian overlords. So, the past two weeks will drag on for months or years.

Call me short-sighted, but I don't know why we don't just create the Keystone pipeline as a public entity that the government can just tap whenever there is energy unrest in the world. Appease the environmentalists by shuddering the Pipeline when the world energy situation is in equilibrium (or at the point where natural energy eliminates the need for fossil fuels), and then fire it up when Russia and/or OPEC try a power play. The fear of energy supply disruption is having a far larger disruptive impact on NATO operations than the actual attack on Ukraine. If the US had the ability to flip a switch for a year to ramp up oil supply, OPEC countries still need to feed their citizens and create man-made islands in the desert. So, you could literally tell Putin, "one more bomb, bullet or dirty look on Ukrainian soil, and you will never live to see a drop of energy sold to the Western world." It sure seems cheaper to build the pipeline and not operate it than gifting untrained Ukranian military billions in defensive weapons, including back-door Polish warplanes (most of which will become Russian weapons as they overwhelm the Ukranian resistance).