3 ms·
No. I'm claiming that a compromised peace in the Donbas with the annexation of territories of the Donbas and Crimea will further strengthen that if you have nuk
by piva00 2y ago
No. I'm claiming that a compromised peace in the Donbas with the annexation of territories of the Donbas and Crimea will further strengthen that if you have nukes you have a massive lever to use against non-nuclear nations. And Russia wants the Donbas, Crimea and the land bridge all the way around the Sea of Azov, that's a massive plot of land.
You are only considering a narrow point in time, think ahead in terms of 20-50 years the repercussions of allowing an annexation to happen uncontested.
Right now it's Ukraine, let's say next is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons over the next 20 years and moving towards Basra in Iraq + Kuwait for their oil fields, in this scenario they are a nuclear power, arming themselves for 20 years (and they already have ballistic missiles), to avoid a nuclear escalation between Iran and USA + Israel a negotiated peace happens. The Saudis see that happening and now they feel the need to arm themselves with a nuclear weapon, just in case Iran thinks of continuing this campaign.
Multiply this across many other nations under similar low-level confrontations, African nations fighting for water sources, one of them arms themselves with a nuclear weapon (let's say Sudan) to have leverage to control a massively important water source, what's going to stop others around it to not arm themselves (like Eritrea) to not get invaded?
It's a spiral, the moment you allow a nuclear power to use that status to force the hand of an opposing nation at war you open a can of worms. Since 1945 the world has been trying to control proliferation through other means, wars of annexation have been shunned, you really don't want that to come back into a world armed with nuclear weapons.
I don't have an answer, I don't think anyone does. Putin has changed the world with this invasion, you are choosing to vote for Trump on a flimsy argument, you don't even know what the fuck he will do since he's a massive liar. On top of that you're jeopardising your country's democracy based on wishful thinking of what you project Trump will do, it's all from your head, not from his words.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago> based on wishful thinking of what you project Trump will do, it's all from your head, not from his words. Since we're off-topic already can I just emphasize this point? Pretty much everybody I know who has or will vote for Trump is like this. For example, I knew one guy who voted for Trump because he thought Trump would legalize marijuana.
- philistine 2y agoTrump is all vibes, zero policy. The people working for him are zero vibes, all policy. With Trump being the complete reverse of a workaholic, his fours years in power ran on the wishes of his appointees. He was curtailed when in power. If Trump actually liked working and writing laws, he'd have probably legalized marijuana.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoTrump's first term was basically another 4 more years of Bush. Without leadership from the top, his mostly Bush-era appointees kept doing what they did before. His second term will be filled with fanatics rather than Bush-era appointees.
- seabass-labrax 2y agoI don't manage to keep up with Republican party machinations - please could you explain why the Bush-era staff won't be there if Trump is elected again?
- eropple 2y agoBecause most have left, either retired or disassociated from Trump and his movement. Trump's running as hard as he can (which isn't very, he isn't convincing) from the proudly published (and terrifying!) Project 2025 stuff, but they aren't running from him, and there are reasons for that.
- philistine 2y agoYeah, I failed to indicate the risk of a second Trump presidency.
- bonzini 2y agoBecause they had enough of Trump after 4 years. Dick Cheney is voting for Harris, that's the equivalent of Norman Osborn voting for Peter Parker.
- bonzini 2y ago> It's a spiral, the moment you allow a nuclear power to use that status to force the hand of an opposing nation at war you open a can of worms. Since 1945 the world has been trying to control proliferation through other means, wars of annexation have been shunned, you really don't want that to come back into a world armed with nuclear weapons. You also have an example of what happens when some countries are more powerful than others: the veto at the UN Security Council. The UN is essentially unable to do anything that is against the interest of US, Russia or China (it just happens that France and the United Kingdom usually agree with the US). Imagine US, Russia and China having the same power but with 1) the actual ability to wipe enemies off Earth, instead of just blocking UN processes; 2) anybody able to join the club "just" by investing into nuclear proliferation. Doesn't seem good.
- philistine 2y agoDo not discount the veto at the UN of the UK and France. Part of the current situation with Israel rests on those two countries colluding with Israel for a war the other three did not want.
- bonzini 2y agoIn the past yes, but right now UK and France have not used the veto for over 30 years; while the Biden administration (just because those are the numbers I found most easily) has already used it over ten times on Israel-Palestine relationships. China also used it a lot more sparingly than Russia and the United States, I must say, but probably that's also because some China issues don't even reach the Security Council.
- cynicalpeace 2y agoWhen did Russia withdraw from the nuclear testing treaty?
- fifilura 2y agoNovember 2nd 2023. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-revokes-russias-ratification-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-2023-11-02/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-revokes-russias-r...
- cynicalpeace 2y agoIn terms of 20-50 years where will we be if the Ukraine conflict continues? At best an entrenched, decades long conflict, where we're at odds with 2 major nuclear powers. At worst, we're all dead. Including my children. Over a bunch of neoliberal theories proposed by the architects of the last number of catastrophic wars? No thanks. The left/Democrats/progressives used to be anti-war. But they've been entirely co-opted as a result of Trump derangement syndrome.
- aguaviva 2y agoNo need to worry about 20-50 years from now. It is very unlikely the conflict will continue much longer once Putin croaks or enters his diaper stage, in a few years.