Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

How close are we to war breaking out in Europe?

Aladdin said:
Maybe Ukraine will decide to just walk away from conflict and the republics will be independent... once the undispited areas are left alone?
Click to expand...

They will not be independent, it would be de facto annexation by Russia, and with Russian troops on the ground.
 
Ukraine apparently used to have nuclear weapons on their territory - they gave them up. I wonder what they gave them up for? because now a few battlefield nukes would change the calculations of massing forces a great deal.
 
weltweit said:
Ukraine apparently used to have nuclear weapons on their territory - they gave them up. I wonder what they gave them up for? because now a few battlefield nukes would change the calculations of massing forces a great deal.
Click to expand...

I'm sure North Korea and Iran are paying close attention.
 
weltweit said:
Ukraine apparently used to have nuclear weapons on their territory - they gave them up. I wonder what they gave them up for? because now a few battlefield nukes would change the calculations of massing forces a great deal.
Click to expand...

They were the former Soviet Union's weapons. Not Ukraine's. Ukraine never had a nuclear programme. The Soviets destroyed or disabled many when things broke down. But still left a lot.

The USA gave Ukraine a lot of financial compensation for eventually decommissioning the weapons.
 
planetgeli said:
They were the former Soviet Union's weapons. Not Ukraine's. Ukraine never had a nuclear programme. The Soviets destroyed or disabled many when things broke down. But still left a lot.

The USA gave Ukraine a lot of financial compensation for eventually decommissioning the weapons.
Click to expand...
Yes, but had they kept them (some of them) the situation today would be rather different.
 
As expected Putin wants all of Donetsk and Luhansk, not the just the rebel held areas.



And, no doubt another land grab to have a land corridor between those regions and Crimea, is also on his wish list.
 
weltweit said:
Yes, but had they kept them (some of them) the situation today would be rather different.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting it would be better, because it strikes me that however bad the current situation is, the danger of it escalating to the use of nuclear weapons by either Ukraine or Russia (far more likely the former, IMO) would be significantly worse.
 
weltweit said:
Yes, but had they kept them (some of them) the situation today would be rather different.
Click to expand...

They were never going to be allowed to keep them (either by Russia OR America). And even if somehow they had there is a large argument it would not have been any deterrent. The West would have withdrawn any help and probably put sanctions in and Russia could have still crushed Ukraine regardless. Having no nuclear programme up and running would have left Ukraine having to replace nuclear missiles past their sell by date without knowing how to.
 
andysays said:
Are you suggesting it would be better, because it strikes me that however bad the current situation is, the danger of it escalating to the use of nuclear weapons by either Ukraine or Russia (far more likely the former, IMO) would be significantly worse.
Click to expand...
I am just noting that it seems Ukraine had access to the ultimate deterrent at one point in time and they were persuaded by fair means or foul to give it up.

One of the significant deterrents short range nuclear weapons afford is that if an enemy were to amass their forces, in the way that Russia is doing right now, these forces are vulnerable to being incinerated by just one battlefield nuclear weapon.

So my argument is, had Ukraine kept and cared for their nukes, Putin might not have dared to amass his forces in apparent preparation for an invasion.
 
weltweit said:
I am just noting that it seems Ukraine had access to the ultimate deterrent at one point in time and they were persuaded by fair means or foul to give it up.

One of the significant deterrents short range nuclear weapons afford is that if an enemy were to amass their forces, in the way that Russia is doing right now, these forces are vulnerable to being incinerated by just one battlefield nuclear weapon.

So my argument is, had Ukraine kept and cared for their nukes, Putin might not have dared to amass his forces in apparent preparation for an invasion.
Click to expand...
You haven't been following russian doctrine, where they would be quite happy to use battlefield nuclear weapons. Plus the west would shy away from supporting a first use like that.
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
We're all energy junkies. How much stupid shit has the US done over its addiction to fossil fuels?
Click to expand...

Sure, modern civilisation has a ravenous demand for energy. There are still choices that can be made in satisfying those demands, and I firmly believe that the German government has made the wrong choices in this matter. Not just because it's left them in hock to Russia.
 
platinumsage said:
It's not just (or mainly) gas. There are lots of tentacles of business relationships between SPD-supporters and Russia, plus some people mention the supposed historical guilt from WW2, though I'm not sure what role if any that plays.
Click to expand...
I'd say it plays a great role. Two (three?) generations of Jerries have been taught from the age of six about what Grandfather really did in the war. . . And that has had an effect, especially now that there's no call-up, and the Bundeswehr has been found to have a serious Neo-Nazi problem in its ranks. . .
 
Looks like Putin is doing exactly what Hitler did with annexing former German territories just before ww2.

Didnt think he was that much of a fucking nutcase.
 
Chomsky been blaming NATO (mostly the US) for surrounding Russia with NATO's offensive weapons, and saying no Russian leader could tolerate that.
 
i am almost completely ignorant on this whole subject but can someone explain the reasoning behind the argument that nato should have refused membership to the former eastern block countries?
I mean they wanted to join, understandably, and they are countries, so what is the idea? Is it that they should have been refused membership so as to not piss off Putin?
 
bimble said:
i am almost completely ignorant on this whole subject but can someone explain the reasoning behind the argument that nato should have refused membership to the former eastern block countries?
I mean they wanted to join, understandably, and they are countries, so what is the idea? Is it that they should have been refused membership so as to not piss off Putin?
Click to expand...
Would the US accept say Mexico joining a security pact with Russia and having arms sent there by the latter?
 
bimble said:
i am almost completely ignorant on this whole subject but can someone explain the reasoning behind the argument that nato should have refused membership to the former eastern block countries?
I mean they wanted to join, understandably, and they are countries, so what is the idea? Is it that they should have been refused membership so as to not piss off Putin?
Click to expand...
truthout.org

Chomsky: US Approach to Ukraine Has “Left the Domain of Rational Discourse”

Noam Chomsky outlines the deadly dangers of U.S. intransigence over Ukrainian membership in NATO.
truthout.org truthout.org

Might help..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Why Europe and NATO ignores Zelensky's requests and offers? [LOL Bot]
Replies
13
Views
712
editor
editor
hash tag
War is a crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
A380
A380
PTK
Anti-War Songs
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
hash tag
hash tag
Yuwipi Woman
The Republican War on Children
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Ax^
Ax^
PTK
  • Poll
Do You Agree that the USA should Reduce its Military Expenditure and Close its Overseas Bases?
2 3
Replies
82
Views
3K
likesfish
likesfish
Back
Top Bottom