131–140 of 613 posts
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
This reminds me of each time people criticises the European Union for "condemning" something. Big organizations do things step by step. First you talk, then you act. Even Russia prepared a prerecorded pantomime of a discussion before acting. This are the gears moving and is no small thing, it sends a message and prepares for the worse.
The problem is not condemning, the problem is just condemning and not taking the next step, or making it so weak it actually emboldens tbe agressor, who thinks "oh, that's all they got? Wasn't too bad, I guess I'll just keep on"
I'm curious, do folks here think Putin would have still invaded if Ukraine didn't consider joining NATO? While yes, Putin very much wants his old USSR back, it seems he's doing this in response to potentially having more NATO missiles on his borders. He's basically been saying "fuck around and find out" since 2008 when we said Ukraine would have the option of joining NATO.
The Kremlin apologists in American politics are really disturbing.
Putin's objective is to re-integrate Ukraine into the 'Russian Empire', he's taking the 500-year view and so 'Nord Stream 2' is irrelevant.
NATO acquiescence to his demands would have just changed maybe the nature of Putins' actions, or not but he would have continued.
The big issue is obviously now Taiwan.
In hindsight, I actually kind of blame the Germans a lot for this. Germany has been very successfully sucking in business and talent from the rest of Europe, building their economy while completely avoiding the 'responsibility' that comes along with that power. Partly military, but definitely geostrategic issues of security.
Their, and European energy dependence on Europe is a giant lever that Russia has - we are talking about nulling 'Nord Stream 2' - it means nothing in the big picture. Laughably, nobody is even talking about Nord Stream 1 - i.e. the pipeline already in place.
If Merkel were to have re-invigorated in Nuclear investment with a strong commitment to both reducing dependence on Russia and ironically CO2 at the same time, and, made serious improvements to military capabilities with a keen eye to the kinds of activities necessary to actually support fledgeling Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine, and possibly better more serious coordination with UK, France, Sweden etc. then we may not be in this situation.
Ukraine may have regiments of UK, French and Germany units 'training' there at any given time, with support from the US, which really changes the equation a lot.
Putin pretty much telegraphed all of his moves years in advanced. Nobody did anything about it. The US could have done more, but this is more directly a European issue and there's a serious lack of leadership over there as well.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I am well versed in European history, thank you for your snarky comment. There's no reason to believe some local conflict will undermine "democracies" all over Europe, notwithstanding the media that is always preying on people's fears.
All conflicts start as "local". What we know today as WW2 was originally reported as the German-Polish war, for example.
https://valitsus.ee/en/news/estonian-government-requests-con... People are minimizing this, based on the word "consultation". Don't be fooled, this is grave news, even though it is not Article 5. Article 5 invocation under these circumstances have substantial risk of full scale thermonuclear exchange.
To what end?
If Russia wants more territory they presumably care about the future. Why conquer all this territory just to blow up the world? Sounds like a waste of time.
The scariest situation is one nuke. How do you respond? One nuke back or two? Then things escalate quickly.
But I don’t see either country launching their full nuke arsenal unprovoked with their homeland not under any immediate danger. That’s just a death wish. And at that point there’s no one left to brag to about how great your country is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.
The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~200k people. Any target worth nuking, (say Nato HQ) will result in millions of casualties. Urbanization & increased population density have many benefits, but they make for mind-bogglingly disastrous targets of nukes. If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nucl…
Poor Ukranians are the ones thinking they shouldn't have given up their nuclear warheads.
Am I correct in saying that Estonia is categorizing this as a threat to their security therefore requesting the rest of Nato to consider this an attack on a member?
> I assure all the people of Estonia that there is no direct military threat to Estonia and that the situation in Estonia and at our external border is calm," Kallas [Estonias PM] emphasised.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus Russia’s exports are >50% oil and gas products. The biggest retaliation the West can make right now is a commitment to a rapid exit at unprecedented speed from the oil economy, in favor of renewables.
This reminds me of each time people criticises the European Union for "condemning" something. Big organizations do things step by step. First you talk, then you act. Even Russia prepared a prerecorded pantomime of a discussion before acting. This are the gears moving and is no small thing, it sends a message and prepares for the worse.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 to "enforce peace". Same with Crimea in 2014. Then Luhansk and Donetsk a few days ago. Now the rest of Ukraine. Discussion with Putin is futile. When Russia started sending troops next to the Ukraine borders, NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev. It's too late now.
Just remember that the USA played the same kind of playbook (maybe worse) in Syria and Iraq. It's equally condamnable, but it can give you some perspective to see through media portrayal.