521–530 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giving up everything trying to avoid a nuclear war is the surest way to get it. I know, it's counterintuitive, but if you want peace you must be willing to go to war.
The last sentence is an oxymoron. How would there be peace if you go to war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giving up everything trying to avoid a nuclear war is the surest way to get it. I know, it's counterintuitive, but if you want peace you must be willing to go to war.
> Giving up everything trying to avoid a nuclear war is the surest way to get it. Nobody is giving up everything, what is given up at the moment is a strip of land in East Europe that could be claimed back via diplomatic arrangements as soon as Putin is gone.
We are watching Hitler raising, not Stalin dying here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.
This is simply not true. And even if it was nuclear is not a viable response with new projects taking decades to develop. Todays nuclear industry is delivering warmed-up 1970s technology that is expensive, slow, and inflexible. Solar/wind/batteries with a small amount of backup capacity from hydro, power-to-gas/fuel, biofuels, or new long-duration storage is cheaper and faster to deploy.
Would be interesting to hear from any russians in here, because i can't help to think that large majority of russians are complicit to what seems to be a dictator going mad as much as the dictators in his neighborhood (aliyev, khomeini, taliban etc)
You are right about large majority of Russians being complicit, and right when saying "what seems to be a dictator going mad". Because it's not a dictator going mad, in fact Putin has quite clear goals and is quite predictable. He repeatedly was warning the West about the balance of power being skewed in their favor and Russia's interests being neglected since 2007. I'm not going to get into much details, and I feel…
Honest question. How do you know a large majority of Russian citizens are being complicit in supporting these acts of war? This is such a broad, generalizing statement. It's not like they were asked to vote on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the EU doesn't have an army. So if Finland is invaded they can send their "thoughts and prayers in these difficult times".
Doesn't the EU have a mutual defense treaty as strong as NATO? That was my understanding. They'd be obligated to help militarily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, the EU doesn't have an army. So if Finland is invaded they can send their "thoughts and prayers in these difficult times".
Germany and France have much better reason to actually defend Finland. The Euro. Basically if a Euro country gets invaded and the other countries do nothing that crashes the value of the Euro which would destroy the economies of the other Euro countries. And the non-Euro EU countries have a good reason to follow the same logic as Euro crashing would also destroy their economies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ukraine in NATO means US nukes on Russia border, tipping the balance. No, it does not. A number of Eastern European countries are in NATO and none of them have American nuclear weapons. Where does this silly idea come that after joining NATO, American missiles somehow appear in the new member? Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every…
But when a country has joined NATO, it can later declare it will host nuclear weapons loaned from other NATO countries. Russia is powerless to stop this, since any attack on a NATO country would likely trigger a counterattack. Hence, instead, Russia must prevent these countries joining if they want to ensure no nukes on their border.
There is nothing threatening about a country joining a defense alliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically Russia can't occupy any significant part of Ukraine, nor Kiev in particular - tens of millions of pissed-off resisting Ukrainians with many taking up arms (on Ukrainian TV they said that they already give arms to such civilians as former police, and Zelenskiy said that they would give arms to all "willing and capable to defend the country") would shake off any army, and any such occupation attempt would…
I don't think Russia is willing or able to occupy Ukraine. They most likely want to "poison" the region and make the country undesirable in NATO. No superpower wants the enemy right at their border. The US didn't appreciate Russian missiles being put on Cuban land 60 years ago, Russia certainly doesn't want NATO forces and weaponry being put on Ukrainian land now. It doesn't take a strategist to see that all superpow…
Phrase it right: no power wants a country it can't bully on its border.
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.
> 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. You can't exit from the oil economy with renewable such as wind or solar due to their non-predictability. If you want to stop importing Russian gaz, you need nuclear energy.