3 ms·
Not saying that it should be done, let me state it before. But the obvious solution to the current crisis would be actually to stop arming Ukraine... It might j
by gitanovic 4y ago
Not saying that it should be done, let me state it before.
But the obvious solution to the current crisis would be actually to stop arming Ukraine...
It might just cause a larger more serious crisis later though
Also european living in Europe
- Invictus0 4y agoIt's like saying the solution to climate change is to turn on the air conditioning. Why even say something so stupid.
- gitanovic 4y agoWhy is it stupid? Please I am too stupid to understand why what I said is stupid Russia doesn't give gas to Europe as retaliation for arming Ukraine, stop arming Ukraine and they will give gas to Europe. I also said that this is not what I would do, because I think you should stand up to bullies. Now, please enlighten me with all your wisdom, why what I said is stupid? And what does it have to do with climate change? That comparison IS stupid
- hnbad 4y agoIt's stupid because the justifications Russia has named for its "special military operation" could easily apply to many other neighboring countries, including NATO members. The best course of action would probably have been trying to bring Russia into NATO in the 1990s or very early 2000s, but that ship has long sailed. In order to stop Russian expansionism we either need Russia to wear itself out to the point of declaring the war in Ukraine over in order to cut their losses, or to directly attack Russia and force it to surrender. Given the existence of nuclear weapons, I'm sure you agree the latter option is off the table. I'm not a fan of NATO and I don't like the US military. My country has historically been an economic ally to Russia and is not at direct risk of invasion if Russia were to take Ukraine and insist on expanding beyond that. But in this conflict, we need to have Ukraine's back. You can say this is a proxy war between Russia and NATO or the EU, but then it has always been one and a Russian victory would mean a defeat for all of NATO and the EU.
- gitanovic 4y agoPlease, read again what i said, and my other comments you inferred wrong conclusions about my position
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoYou're also volunteering to live in Ukraine for the next decade of reconstruction?
- gitanovic 4y agoNope, I volunteer for nothing, and maybe I didn't state it clearly enough: I think that arming Ukraine is the right thing to do. What I cannot stand is that from given premises, one goes to the completely opposite implication. I was just pointing that out. Let me state it again, I am in favor of trying to support Ukraine in current conflict in any possible way (I hope I said it clearly enough now)
- sergiosgc 4y agoThat is an option that regularly pops up but, as you say, it will cause a more serious crisis later on. Russia is very clearly an expansionist state. If allowed to expand to Ukraine, it will expand further. The Baltic states would be next on the slate, and on a two-decade horizon consolidation over the Black Sea (Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria). Much much better to avoid that timeline altogether and stop Russia now.
- shaboinkin 4y agoUnchecked aggression tends to lead to more aggression if you just glance at history. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Spanish invading the Americas, US pushing out the Natives, Roman Empire into Europe, Genghis Khan. It stands to reason that if there was an equal or greater opposing force for the acts of aggression and expansion all throughout history, the rate of expansion would be severely limited. I don’t know much about the Crusades but that seems like a candidate for a stronger force stopping a weaker force from invading parts of the Middle East.