Saving UKRAINE is NOT Worth a War Between the USA and RUSSIA.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because he said so. He wants to "get the band back together", the way it was before the fall of the USSR. He's on a "mission from God".

What he wants and what he has the power to obtain are two very different things. If half the reports of failing equipment and supply chains and so on are true, then Russia's military might just ain't up to the challenge. If Putin is missing a few marbles, then he truly may not understand this, and may therefore still try. I just don't think that's a realistic possibility.

In fact, it seems to me that if he were inclined to actually do so, he would have done so a long time ago.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: carewemust

Involving the US in a war with Russia?

Are you now forgetting your own posts?


Hmmm.

You may have dementia?

Sorry. You're confusing me with someone else. You respond to many posters in a very personal way. Maybe you're getting too emotionally involved in what others think?

But if it makes you feel more self-assured, I apologize for whatever you think I may have possibly done.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: carewemust

Imagine ALL the Capitals of the EU Countries Glowing with Nuclear Radiation and MILLIONS Dead . Is This What the World Wants or just What the Globalists Want ? It's Not about Nation Against Nation Anymore when it Comes to WAR , but the Insane Leading the Gullible .....

Another area to keep an eye on is China. You can bet they want the war expand in the Ukrane with NATO, cause while the focus is over there, they are going to start their move onto Taiwan.

originally posted by: whyamIhere
If their ICBM’s work as well as their Army.

They will probably blow themselves up.

Mostly junk I would imagine.

That's positive thinking. If it happens deep enough in the silos, we might not have a nuclear winter!

a reply to: Boadicea

In fact, it seems to me that if he were inclined to actually do so, he would have done so a long time ago.

He did it in Crimea. The reality is, he's doing it some more now. Right now!

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

How does that old saying go?

[I]"The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for Good men to do Nothing."

What are "good men" to do in a situation like this? There are still those who think making Putin commit suicide, like this famous political family does so well ( thehill.com... ), would be going too far.

Sure would be a great time for ET to pull another "missile disable" demo, on a base in every nuclear capable country.

Especially since it is the only thing keeping that idiot alive.

originally posted by: nugget1
I would like to believe the polls are wrong, but after reading so many threads on ATS there does seem to be a high number of people wanting to insert themselves into A) a contrived war to further hasten the OWO or B) Putin defending Russia from Western encroachment and stop the experimenting in Ukrainian biolabs.

I don't think the US would be happy to know Russia was operating 13 biolabs just outside the border in Mexico, or if our ability to trade with the rest of the world were blocked by NATO/EU member countries.

Ukrain has a commedian leading their country while we have a clown- and not a very good one at that.

Any outrage over Russian or Ukraine "Biolabs" is probably feigned/fake. The China-Fauci biolab has led to 4.9 million global deaths since Jan 2020, and not a single politician or corporation has called for punishment, or cancelled trade with China.

originally posted by: The2Billies
Unfortunately, I agree with you.

Putin has said he is very willing to use nuclear weapons. He has always been a man of his word and I don't expect he is bluffing now.

The US getting involved would mean a nuclear war, and not just in Europe. Russia has missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads on US soil.

Nuclear war means the rapid depopulation greatly desired by TPTB. Which may be why there is a push for the US to get involved.

A nuclear war means nuclear winter in which the survivors will starve because crops can't grow during a nuclear winter, at least not enough to do anything but keep a few (the rich and powerful who want this war) from starving to death.

What TPTB haven't considered is that while they hunker down in their luxury bunkers, all the support systems for a good life will disappear and there will be no one left to keep electricity going or airplanes fixed, or their precious electric cars manufactured. For while the leftovers of technology will last, but soon die off and the earth regress to close to stone age with the "servants" of the rich abandoning them to survive on their own by scratching the ground. Leaving even the most rich and powerful families on the earth scratching the earth stone age style and barely surviving - that is if humanity doesn't go extinct entirely because the rich and powerful don't know how to live without servants.

Right. There is no one who would be able to continue their current lifestyle. Interestingly, those who live in sh'ithole nations might survive the longest, and may even rule the Earth in 500 years, because they're used to finding ways to survive.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: carewemust

Stop shouting in capitals.

While you're at it, please stop with your constant pro Putin propoganda.

In case it has escaped your attention, he's a murderous warmongering lunatic.

But carry on with your excuses and appeasement.

If you had a nuclear arsenal that could wipe out the planet, I'd try harder to carry out your wishes.

However....

originally posted by: Valhall
there's the possibility that you're about to take out the future doctor who would have cured cancer and left ALL of humanity better off

Ummm…get real…

You know as well as I do…that the cancer curing baby…was aborted long ago…

But yeah…Even Spock was in full agreement…”The needs of the many…outweigh the needs of the few”…just ask any democracy…

Sure glad we live in a former republic…here in the USSA…




YouSir

I agree so far this isn't worth a Russia/US confrontation.

I wouldn't say unilaterally that no one country isn't worth saving however, there are levels and degrees involved.

Some on here have outright said all of this is planned, I don't know about that but if it was to get extremely brutal or he starts sending civilians off in trains, Im not sure of the limit but there has to be a threshold for our involvement.

on a side, note this site is excellent to follow along

www.understandingwar.org...

originally posted by: Valhall
There's this example that is used a lot when talking about moral decisions and then trying to code those decisions into AI. So for example, you're in your autonomously driving Tesla and your brakes fail. Ahead of you is a parade with the entire high school band marching at you. The only other route you can go has a mother pushing a baby in a buggy. As the coder, are you going to code the defensive AI decision to take out the baby or the band? Of course, most people will say the baby, even though thinking about hurting a baby is terrible, but most people will go for the minimum damage to humanity, right? Now, of course, there's the possibility that you're about to take out the future doctor who would have cured cancer and left ALL of humanity better off, so you're really flipping a coin on the deal.

So the whole nuclear arms race was this big chess game between two super powers and was promoted as "a deterrent to a super power getting out of hand". It could literally bridle the war horse and ride it like a lovable donkey. What it became, as we now see, is a hobble around the ankles of the western world. Instead of preventing a superpower from bullying a sovereign nation, it is preventing those, who have the ability to do so, from stopping a superpower from bullying a sovereign nation.

It is unfortunate that the western world has gotten itself in such a terrible predicament that Ukraine is the baby in the buggy. But it indeed is.

Get in a war with Putin and we'd be taking out (killing) the baby/mother and the band.

The US arguably created this mess... And many other 'messes' that just use nations and citizens as collateral damage to expand their empire. This is a very complicated subject, and if you take on the mentality of what you just said, Russia will keep pushing, and so will other 19th century thinking leaders.
Is classical empire building back in style again?

originally posted by: JBurns
You are right

I think Ukraine is a great country. Ukrainians are warriors at heart, clearly.

Yet, because of the risk of nuclear war or large scale conventional conflict, we cannot even come close to being involved. And current involvement is already pretty darn substantial.

Arming Ukraine will only further increase the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons to achieve its objectives against Ukraine

I hope Putin loses, is overthrow and ends up in jail. But this is the real world where the bad guy not only doesn't usually get "foiled"...they're usually successful. Until we WAKE UP!!!! we will continue to navigate this issue and every other issue while being asleep at the wheel.

I hope Putin has the restraint to "lose" without taking a major potshot at Ukraine on the way out. (1 Nuke to their countryside.) But if that's what he does, there would be a lot of condemnation, but the USA would not strike him in response.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Boadicea

He did it in Crimea.

Not exactly:

Crimeans vote overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine, join Russia

The reality is, he's doing it some more now. Right now!

Meh -- he may be trying... but if he is, he's not doing very well at it. At all.

a reply to: carewemust

I didn't promote any given action. What I did was use an analogy to show that THAT'S where we're at.

a reply to: carewemust

I agree, no war with russia is the best course.

And biden sounds and acts like he is against this too.

I'm honestly not hearing what the individual congress people are pushing?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because he said so. He wants to "get the band back together", the way it was before the fall of the USSR. He's on a "mission from God".

What he wants and what he has the power to obtain are two very different things. If half the reports of failing equipment and supply chains and so on are true, then Russia's military might just ain't up to the challenge. If Putin is missing a few marbles, then he truly may not understand this, and may therefore still try. I just don't think that's a realistic possibility.

In fact, it seems to me that if he were inclined to actually do so, he would have done so a long time ago.

I imagine he's been questioned and pressured by his allies who are gradually embracing a new era of economy and national identity, they want him to retire but he's disappointed with his legacy and terrified that the motherland as he knew and loved it will end with him, so he takes out his boomer frustration on NATO for edging his empire toward "phasing out" and to set the stage for revitilization.

Or I'm totally wrong and he's just a monumental asshat.

a reply to: strongfp

I agree. The one thing our President (Biden) says accurately is, "The Buck Stops Here...With ME."

It would be better if Biden hadn't essentially rolled out the Red Carpet for Putin to Invade Ukraine, however.