571–580 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next up is Finland. Also not a NATO member.
I believe Finland has a compulsory conscription system for all males over 18: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/en/finnish-conscription-system Therefore I do not think Finland would be a walk-over for the Russians...not to mention what happened last time Russia fought Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many NATO members have strong enconomic links with Russia. For example Russia is building nuclear power plants in Turkey and Hungary, which are in very advanced state of construction for example.
The condemnation by Turkey sounded very diplomatic.
They'll lean on NATO when they need to, but they also live next to Russia and don't want to pick fights if they don't need to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then he will rule the world and nuke regardless because you are weak.
Why would he nuke if he ruled? That has no benefit to him.
No rational agent is going to use nukes. And no diplomacy and leniency towards tyranny will save us from the crazy ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Next up is Finland. Also not a NATO member.
I believe Finland has a compulsory conscription system for all males over 18: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/en/finnish-conscription-system Therefore I do not think Finland would be a walk-over for the Russians...not to mention what happened last time Russia fought Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
The modern Russian army has experience in several different theaters, has experienced and professional leadership, and rocks a small but highly modernized kit backed by copious amounts of older Soviet-era gear.
The Ukranians just got slammed with huge cruse missile attacks -- how will the Fins neutralize that with conscripts carrying skis and rifles?
I respect their bravery, but boldness doesn't stop JDAMs -- they need NATO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The west has been giving up stuff since Putin gained power. Nothing has been claimed back yet. And he won’t be gone any time soon. He has plenty of targets after Ukraine too, for example Moldova which already has a separatist Russian mole region inside. We are watching Hitler raising, not Stalin dying here.
I don't hope for war over Ukraine. I hope for the end of oil purchases from Europe. Total economic sanctions.
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.
"showing force" is such a light way to describe it, this is full scale invasion into Europe, with the target to annihilate whole country while impotent civilized west watches it unfold in the fears that they may be next.
Dutch national news channel NOS had a historian and journalist called Hubert Smeets on. I'm Dutch, and will paraphrase what he said: Interviewer: "What can the west do, what can the NATO do? It's said that military action is not going to happen, why?" Smeets: "Very little. The consequences would be very large. This night, in his speech, Putin insinuated how Russia is a global nuclear superpower, and he said that the…
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.
In the United States alone we would have to *sextuple* our renewable energy sources just to make up for our usage of fossil fuels. That is not something any country can do "rapidly", and even if it became a primary focus it would consume a significant portion of our GDP for years on end and be the largest infrastructure project the US has ever engaged in.
It seems almost ludicrous to categorize such a reaction as a "retaliation".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So.... Afghanistan? How many soldiers from several Western nations died there, and of the US in particular? Only to recently withdraw unconditionally and even hand over lots of military equipment to the enemy they had been fighting for decades? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...
"fighting for decades" is not shipping some people over to die and then walking away, as was proposed upthread.
Eh??? This is exactly what happened. Soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. Thousands died. The US left, and the enemy took over, both government and equipment.
Also, the parent had said
> Yeah, and send a message that says "you can kill American troops without consequences"?
and again this is what happened. No consequences for the Taliban for killing American soldiers, just as the parent wrote.
It will probably get even better. Just wait until something really ugly happens. Such as the 'accidental' shooting down of aircraft over Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory... https://flightaware.com/live/flight/PBD948
MH17 shoot down didn't trigger worse things than were already happening.
This is just in your head, not mine.
For me, it's all about the sheer fun of the coming horror and dangers of foreseeable Russian hybrid warfare without any caution or limitations. That nobody has expected to ever return to Europe.