3 ms·

He's very good at stirring the pot, but I wonder if he has our best interest in mind making these claims. I still don't think any country in the world is keen o

He's very good at stirring the pot, but I wonder if he has our best interest in mind making these claims. I still don't think any country in the world is keen on nuclear warfare, at least not yet, because not even Putin is that much of a fanatic. Xi definitely isn't.

dathinab 5y ago
But exactly this is also why the NATO can intervene. As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory). NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. Then it wouldn't be the NATOs choice weather or not to start a nuclear war, but Russias like it already is. Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. At the same time while thinks are not looking good, they also make it increasingly harder for China to take action against Taiwan... China might already be quite annoyed with Russia by now tbh. (If the war would have been over in a day it would have been a complete different matter.)
- macintux 5y ago
  > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. Not true.
- throwaway4aday 5y ago
  > As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory) You think Putin will just roll over and allow NATO to kill Russian soldiers? We've almost gone to war for a lot less than that, doing so would be an egregious act of war. > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. This means absolutely nothing, they also promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards and look what happened. > I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII > Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. I'm sorry, this is just so incredibly foolish. Do you honestly think nuclear war is not a big deal? All sides lose in a nuclear exchange, not just from the cities that will burn but from all of the ensuing fallout and climate effects. If you think CO2 is bad for the atmosphere just take a peek at what ash and dust clouds can do.
  - dathinab 5y ago
    > That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII Only if Russia doesn't drawback, Article 5 in _no way_ requires an all out war instantaneous actions, revenge attacks or anything like this. > promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards Which was an informal promise between Politicians, which btw. did not had the authority to deny a sovereign state access to NATO. In difference to the written Agreement Russia had with Ukrain to not attack them if they remove their Nukes... Not that it matter. > nuclear war is not a big deal It is a big deal, the biggest. That's the point.

dathinab 5y ago

But exactly this is also why the NATO can intervene. As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory). NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. Then it wouldn't be the NATOs choice weather or not to start a nuclear war, but Russias like it already is. Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. At the same time while thinks are not looking good, they also make it increasingly harder for China to take action against Taiwan... China might already be quite annoyed with Russia by now tbh. (If the war would have been over in a day it would have been a complete different matter.)

macintux 5y ago
> NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. Not true.
throwaway4aday 5y ago
> As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory) You think Putin will just roll over and allow NATO to kill Russian soldiers? We've almost gone to war for a lot less than that, doing so would be an egregious act of war. > NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past. This means absolutely nothing, they also promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards and look what happened. > I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_. That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII > Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support. I'm sorry, this is just so incredibly foolish. Do you honestly think nuclear war is not a big deal? All sides lose in a nuclear exchange, not just from the cities that will burn but from all of the ensuing fallout and climate effects. If you think CO2 is bad for the atmosphere just take a peek at what ash and dust clouds can do.
- dathinab 5y ago
  > That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII Only if Russia doesn't drawback, Article 5 in _no way_ requires an all out war instantaneous actions, revenge attacks or anything like this. > promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards Which was an informal promise between Politicians, which btw. did not had the authority to deny a sovereign state access to NATO. In difference to the written Agreement Russia had with Ukrain to not attack them if they remove their Nukes... Not that it matter. > nuclear war is not a big deal It is a big deal, the biggest. That's the point.