Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
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?
|
Well, IMO not using NATO airpower to deliver a quick and decisive defeat to Russia in Ukraine was a mistake. A quick shock would have been less risky than the slow descent into madness that we're witnessing.
And now that Russia has fully committed to the war, NATO airstrikes would feel very different to Russia, while increased Russian engagement also means that the risk of something forcing NATO to step in also goes up.
So each day we're more and more dependent on an internal Russian uprising to save us all, which doesn't look like it's ever going to happen. Not unless Russian children start to starve at least, or just a total Russian economic collapse, which also doesn't seem to be happening. Just in general I feel like the West isn't pushing hard enough towards any goal that would actually end the war.
Now, MAYBE Ukraine can deliver a decisive battlefield victory, but those are rare, and possibly impossible without crossing the Russian border.