Assuming both of those points are right the conclusion is still wrong.wjfox wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:46 amWhat makes you think:erowind wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:21 am Can we all at least agree that Ukraine isn't worth nuclear war? That it would be better to reach a diplomatic solution and deescalate than continue to push a government that clearly doesn't have regard for the lives of its own people or that of others even farther? On those grounds alone shouldn't we oppose greater escalation on the behalf of our countries? The Biden Administration has made it clear at this point that the American strategy is to pressure for Russian regime change.
Say that all the propaganda and points made by people here are correct. Putin isn't willing to backdown and will escalate because he's a sociopath and the Russian government will back him in this decision. Shouldn't we be trying to avoid pushing him that far?
(a) Putin is even interested in diplomacy
(b) Putin will be satisfied with a small sliver of Ukraine, and will stop at that, given everything that's happened since 2014 (and further back)
?
Would you rather everyone die and or be maimed except people outside of the fallout windpaths like in New Zealand and Fiji or Ukraine and maybe Moldova fall into the Russian sphere in a worst case scenario?
How does NATO responding militarily actually solve the problem. Nowhere has anyone here rooting for NATO actually explained how this strategy will work if Russia went nuclear. If Russia used nuclear weapons how would the plan work? How would more war make it better? What is the point of any of this if there isn't any infrastructure left to even run a civilization with?
I don't want involved in imperial wars and sincerely hate this rhetoric that is leading to the conclusion that this war is worth atomizing the planet for. You should all be ashamed, to be willing to throw away your own lives and the lives of everyone you've ever cared about over this.
Point (a) is blatantly false. Russia isn't Putin. That's a gross failure to understand the political science and governance of the Russian state and any political scientist who isn't a pundit would quickly disperse with it. I'm sure if NATO agreed to back away from the Russian border, stop installing new missle strike systems on the border, and offered a mutual nuclear disarmament agreement alongside normalized trade relations Russia would be more than willing to work with us. Russia in turn would also likely be willing to mutually disarm on the border. Instead NATO has crept towards the Russian border for the past 30 years with the policy conclusion that it plans to completely overthrow the country which has now been blatantly admitted in the form of "regime" change.
Russian policy has actually be consistent with this. The country tried to join NATO before and was denied, (this was during the Putin Administration) probably because NATO isn't a defensive organization. But y'know, Libya was planning to invade Italy so what do I know¿
(b) Russia might actually be fine with a few territories alongside a comprehensive peace agreement and a politically neutral Ukraine. And even if it weren't I don't care. Ukraine and Moldova aren't worth atomizing the planet for.