Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
If these are the stakes, then it's an insane thing to risk. You want to be sure the Ukrainians are okay with it. How about the other 8 billion people on the planet whose lives would be dramatically changed by a local war suddenly turning into a global catastrophe?
Either Biden is being dishonest, or he believes it's a situation where failure to de-escalate risks immense, life-altering consequences for everyone. The moral imperative in a situation like that should be obvious.
|
As pointed out, appeasing Putin in this situation open the door for future nuclear engagements in other regions if they know the US/NATO is simply going to ##### out if you toss out a nuke threat. Can't have that.
If that's your train of thought, what are you thoughts if Russia attacks a NATO member like say, Latvia? A country with not even 2 million people that has a significantly smaller area than Ukraine, way less people have heard about, let alone could point it out on a map. If Russia were to attack them and then throw out nuclear threats if NATO arrives, should Latvia be handed over to Russia because we're afraid of a nuclear war?
In fact, might as well get rid of NATO all together. Because apparently the second NATO engages directly with Russia, according to some we are all instantly in a nuclear conflict. So then why the F do we need NATO if it apparently leads to nuclear holocaust? If we are to think about the remaining 8 billion people, then why have an organization such as NATO that could lead us all to dying?
Nobody likes this situation, but it's ridiculous to put this on Biden. That plays right into Russian talking points.