Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Again, false dichotomy. These are not actually related issues.
Russians already said they might consider a nuclear response if Sweden and Finland applied. All the same reasoning about spheres of influence applied, even more so in fact. Finland joining NATO is a much bigger security threat to Russia than Ukraine would be, since our border is so close to St. Petersburg.
This just isn't a real thing.
There's a ton of crazy crap coming out of Kremlin. Putin changes his justifications for the war in Ukraine constantly, and he keeps saying all sorts of other crazy stuff. We can't start living our lives based on what Putin says, because down that path is just insanity.
The only rational way to deal with Russia is to ignore the posturing and focus on things that are real.
I also want to remind you that the most likely endstate for this war is still Putin being removed from power, something which he's not likely to survive.
|
I do see where you and Street Pharmacist are coming from. You are starting to convince me. It is a tough call. But I still think that we unfortunately are in a situation where Putins reality is our reality. So this is merely a conversation about how much risk you want to take avoiding nuclear war,
based on Putin’s reality. Putin’s reality is the one we need to worry about, because Putin is the decision maker.
Also no, not Chamberlain. That implies you’re all Churchills but if you were all Churchills you’d have us fighting in Ukraine right now. Which leads me to my next question. If your contention is that we need to govern ourselves by what we think is rational and just, why are we not in Ukraine today fighting rather than just supplying arms? After all, Russia is probably just bluffing on the nuke front right?