luka
Well-known member
he got it off of you. it's catching.What's all this "we'?
he got it off of you. it's catching.What's all this "we'?
In retrospect, the smart thing for Western leaders to have done in 91 would have been to recognise Ukraine as the successor state to the USSR and politely asked Yeltsin to send thr Ukrainian government all the nukes stationed in Russia.they were on record saying that they didn't want to see the fall of the ussr. which was overtaken by the resurgence of russian nationalism which precipitated its collapse. which then places the newly independent state of ukraine (after it gave up its nuclear weapons, and with its proximity to Russian gas pipelines and control over the black sea and strategically important sevastopol port) front and centre in a geopolitical struggle between europe and russia.
But then Putin would have just been President of Ukraine.In retrospect, the smart thing for Western leaders to have done in 91 would have been to recognise Ukraine as the successor state to the USSR and politely asked Yeltsin to send thr Ukrainian government all the nukes stationed in Russia.
I'm not sure you've really thought this through, you know.But then Putin would have just been President of Ukraine.
Yeah Vim, have u even read Fukuyama?What's all this "we'?
The scum rises to the top. If you make Ukraine more powerful than Russia, both having been part of the USSR, all the top Soviet boys will set up in Ukraine.I'm not sure you've really thought this through, you know.
not you, of course, craner. I mean people with less foresight - policy makers, think tankers, "normal" peopleWhat's all this "we'?
Yeah Vim, have u even read Fukuyama?
read the original paperYeah Vim, have u even read Fukuyama?
"Bother The Flip Out (of)"?btfo
This I think I'll actually do, even though the pursuit of Craner's respect I suspect is also a "pointless endeavor"
I agree completely with this. I don't know about nukes (I assume we have a functional deterrent) but Russia is an aggressive expansionist power and a huge threat to the peace and prosperity of its neighbours. It's psychopathy writ large and the only thing it responds to is force, not diplomacy. Maybe all states are psychopathic in a way, but it's very clear with Russia if you look at its actions in this war and in other theatres.I can only keep repeating my Eastern Euro spiel that English really, really do underestimate the Russian threat. I mean, I get it in a way, since England has been blessed with geographical location it has and it hasn't come under much outside pressure in a long, long time, but those stated facts have lead to all kinds of delusions.
Ok, maybe it's better to put it this way - if Putin's stratagem works, I can easily imagine Russian nukes raining down on London; some of my English friends have thought me crazy for saying that, but when you go through the present situation step by step, when you consider final Russian ambitions, it does make complete sense.
I mean, again, I get it why on a purly empirical level people don't see it in that light, because you have to go bit mad to consider that, but that's essentially the reality of the situation.
Peter Zeihan, who's been very far sighted when it comes to this particular conflict, even said that Russian nukes obliterating major US cities is not a far-off possibility.
I find this Western Euoropean blidness and glibness concerning, because, to press a bit on where it hurts, history won't be decided by analyzing rave records and movies, that's the kind of luxury what you get after oceans of blood been spilled.
I agree completely with this. I don't know about nukes (I assume we have a functional deterrent) but Russia is an aggressive expansionist power and a huge threat to the peace and prosperity of its neighbours. It's psychopathy writ large and the only thing it responds to is force, not diplomacy. Maybe all states are psychopathic in a way, but it's very clear with Russia if you look at its actions in this war and in other theatres.
Wasn't joking above when I said it's reasonably likely that Starmer will be a wartime leader. That's where this is heading in the next few years.
Not rn, in a few years time, if they win in Ukraine and have the opportunity to rearm and consolidate (incorporating the profits from Ukrainian agriculture, providing they don't just destory everything. Especially if Trump quits NATO.What are you two talking about? They have an economy smaller than Canada, their military spend is around $66 billion compared to NATO's $363 billion and they cant even win a proxy war against Ukraine FFS.