It seems apparent that Putin has no want of ending this invasion. My question is, what do we do next in order for him to fall in line? We have supposedly sanctioned them to the hilt. Do we continue with things as they are and hope after a few more years Russia's population kicks him to the curb? I'm just curious what else there is left to throw at him to make him tuck tail and get his troops out of Ukraine. I want the Russians out of Ukraine, but I do not want our troops over there other than a supporting role keeping the peace. It's a true double-edged sword.
Not to be contrary but anytime there is a war it's the world's problem. Economies are very intertwined, refugees have to go somewhere, and what is destroyed has to be rebuilt. It does not matter if it is Gaza, Ukraine, or Somalia. The world as a whole will always be affected.
No, that's not my logic. In fact, you seem to not understand what I have stated quite clearly. Ukraine giving up nukes was a GOOD thing. The U.S. being unreliable and causing others to NOW consider nukes is a BAD thing. Ukraine used to be an unreliable, unstable, and unknown government - which is why the U.S., U.K., and Russia assuring them in exchange for giving up nukes was a GREAT thing. Too bad Russia went back on that. Today, Ukraine is much more stable and unified.
That's a silly excuse to be involved in everything. No, it's not really the people in Peru's problem if there is a war in Ukraine. No, it's not really the people in the United States problem if there is a war in Ukraine.
Everyone for themselves (pure isolationism) sounds fine until you realize... they all want nukes, and suddenly we’re a million times more likely to face the catastrophic consequences of nuclear winter. The reality is we are interconnected and dependent, and choosing an isolationist-only path ignores that simple, fundamental fact. If the U.S. truly wants to pull back, fine, but at least be responsible and push for non-proliferation and denuclearization globally. Keep that leadership. It’s highly irresponsible to advocate for a path that essentially encourages others to acquire nukes.
If Peru purchases grain from Ukraine, it does become a problem. For Peru. All those that depend on Peru to use the grains to make bread for their local markets, they get effected. All those needing those grains to feed their cattle, they get effected. All those that are dependent upon Peruvian Beef, they are affected. I never mentioned anything about getting involved with such things. Just pointing out that our planets economies are very intertwined and regardless of who is in conflict the effects ripple across the globe.
I think non-proliferation is a lost cause given that any actor that wants to do it has a great chance of getting it. Iran has been "months away" from getting them since Obama where the biggest roadblock for them is ostracization after a successful detonation. After Dub**** invaded Iraq again, the game theory dynamics almost skewed towards making nukes by any means necessary if you were in Uncle Sam's naughty list. With Oppenheimer hitting the rounds a few years ago, anyone who was interested at that time period would come to realize that it isn't hard to design an atomic bomb. The main difficulty was enriching enough uranium or plutonium to detonate. I just listened to an interview with right leaning Niall Ferguson and he's painting the picture that the admin is more Nixonian in their thinking with the main anxiety is China and how we're underequipped to take them on if they did invade Taiwan. I strongly doubt Trump's courting of Putin would make them join hands. China's support is a big reason why our sanctions hasn't made Russia grovel at the negotiation table. It's an interesting take, but I don't think Nixon burned bridges with our allies even when he kicked Taiwan to the curb by vacating their permanent UN seat or when he ditched the gold standard.
Fear of Isolationism is an excuse to be involved. When I say this is not our problem, I am also stating this is Europe's problem. The multiple tangents include nukes has little to do with the conversation. Either Europe is too incompetent to figure this out themselves (which I agree with) or they are simply grifting off the Americans. (Also true). Europe needs to pull their heads out of their asses and stop acting like a bunch of spoiled entitled children. Injecting American interest directly compounds the problem. The continent has been embroiled in war since the beginning of time and these morons have been so incompetent and lazy they can not defend themselves from Russia w/out American tech.
Again - this narrative is wrong. Biden didn't want war - Zelenskyy doesn't want war and the Europeans don't want war. The only person that wants war is the aggressor - Vladamir Putin. Russia has had a very unstable government and is very divided. Indeed, Russia is nothing but a patchwork of different groups.
There are several scenarios - and none of them involve US boots on the ground in a time of war. The US can continue selling weapons to Ukraine. The US can sell weapons to Ukraine with an agreement that the EU will have to either match what the US provides or begin their own ramp up on their borders. The US can just stop sending aid to Ukraine and wait and see how much of Ukraine that Russia takes - and then wait and see if Putin is satisfied with just Ukraine.
I prefer we simply keep helping them, they get our equipment, and we make more for ourselves. But now that were a transactional country, and trump likes putin over Zelensky were going to put Ukraine in a tough spot, they either give up more than they wanted to or keep fighting and possibly losing even more. Ukraine is decimated and I hope that since Russia started this, they have to pick up the bulk of the tab to rebuild it. I do believe trump will bend towards putin and will end up looking like a horrible "negotiator" ...........The EU needs to spend the next few years building their arsenal as if you look to us for help, you may or may not get it depending if you have displeased king trump. If you are a dictator or fascist he will bend over backwards, but if you're a sovereign country trying to get your democracy on, they you better have something to barter with as were out of the beating back the bully stance for the sake of DEMOCRACY, it's all about the highest bidder now
Let's review my point. I referred to pure isolationism. While there are issues in which we might not need to be involved, my argument is not based on a fear of isolation but on the fact that pure isolationism is unrealistic in an interdependent world. Our involvement should be based on our values, our ability to influence outcomes, and the benefits we share with others. Regarding the bolded part, that is largely accurate. Thanks to NATO, Europe has avoided widespread war for 80 years. If the U.S. were to leave NATO - which, btw, is the only NATO country that has ever invoked collective defense - it risks sparking a broader conflict. Although war is not inevitable and European nations can form their own collective defense, a rash U.S. move toward isolation could eventually prove regrettable.
With today's humans, it is a lost cause. We need to be much more evolved, or be taken over by a higher being. AI? Joking aside, you never know. It takes just a few right leaders at the right time to do something great. With the likes of Putin, that won't ever happen. Maybe one of these days. In the meantime, keep a lid on it - don’t proliferate.
No, I posited an intelligible comparison. You couldn't push back on it or draw a distinction and decided to just use insults and throw your toys like a child.
Thanks to the United States, Europe has avoided widespread war. NATO has provided administrative support (a voice) but severely lacking in the monetization and enforcement. This is similar to one hard working adult in the family when the rest of the lazy ass family chooses how to spend their money. If the US leaves NATO, war will be inevitable because Europe lacks European developed weapon systems. China and Russia are superior in this arena. It has served America well to essentially control Europe and use them as a client state, however it is becoming a significant problem when it comes to trade. We shouldn't be unilaterally defending Europe because its the home to white people. I am perfectly happy having a positive trade relation with Russia or China and I would absolutely trade Europe's fealty for peaceful and prosperous trade with both China and Russia. Ultimately European countries are too small to maintain a weak central European government. It needs to consolidate into a couple strong central governments. We are already witnessing Europe becoming weaker and weaker as the countries continue to switch back and forth between ultra left and ultra right governments.
You see this excuse brought up all the time to justify involvement in this conflict. It's disingenuous and asinine. Of course we live in a global economy, one in which Ukraine plays a small part, there maybe economic ripple effects from this conflict but none serious enough for most any country to justify itself getting involved in the conflict.
We'll probably vote in AI by 2040, even if it's only a man hiding behind a curtain. Eeeeeeeellllooooonnnnn!!! I'm just saying that pushing for non-proliferation is kinda moot. You should feed the history of Gadaffi WMD into slop generator for a good diversion. Hillary is a real piece of work. No one is crying for him, but it was a lesson for his colleagues.
