• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World War 3 possible Ukraine-Russia?

WW III. Hardly. I doubt a shot will ever be fired. The Europeans are doing nothing about it and it isn't really any of our business. Things will eventually calm down and Crimea will be part of Russia again.
 
I don't see this escalating to WW3...as long as we don't let the war addicted hawks in Congress push the President to actually thinking we need to shoot Russians over this. The Ukrainians aren't shooting Russians, other Europeans aren't shooting Russians, so we shouldn't be thinking about shooting Russians. Ultimately I think this will back fire on Putin both in the Ukraine and at home.
 
Krauthammer's okay. War is just an extension of diplomacy, remember.

Anyway, I guess lots of things could possibly start World War III. I would say this probably won't, though.
 
solletica said:
What's shocking is that this was not written by the chief warmonger editorialist--charles krauthammer.
Click to expand...

So true, as war should be the end and last resort of literally failed diplomacy. The warmongers though see things differently.
 
I believe it was the Swedish Ambassador on NPR today who said that Sweden, and other European nations, are convinced that this is just the beginning of a campaign on the part of Putin to stitch the Soviet Union back together and that they have reason to believe the Baltic States would probably be next. Whether or not this could be the start to WWIII depends on whether or not this true, how far Putin is willing to go to achieve the restoration of the Soviet Union, and how far everyone else is willing to go to stop it.
 
I doubt i will ever see the WW3 till i die.

WW2 happen because of Hitler.

You can't entirely blame Hitler for WWII either. There were millions of people who put him into office, and a government full of bureaucrats and officials who enthusiastically enabled him. At any point during his rise to power they could have pulled the plug.
Hitler didn't happen in a vacuum. He didn't seize control overnight. He was enormously popular, and he embodied the will of his people at the time.

I do not see any leader/country today to have the balls to start the WW3.
 
solletica said:
What's shocking is that this was not written by the chief warmonger editorialist--charles krauthammer.
Click to expand...



What's shocking is that the real moral of this story is completely missed. In 1994, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the word of the USA and Britain that we would defend it's territorial rights.

Now, abandoned by the feckless Obama, the Nuke-less Ukraine is low hanging fruit for the Russians to pluck.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes there is. If you have nukes, you have territorial integrity. If you don't, you have a welcome mat on your border.

What do you think this will guide Iran to do?

When the Russians conducted the excursion into Georgia, the rest of the former Soviet Block Countries must have started calculating the exchange rate for their currency into Rubles.
 
Montecresto said:
So true, as war should be the end and last resort of literally failed diplomacy. The warmongers though see things differently.
Click to expand...



What part of our diplomacy would you say has not failed? A weakened USA, the goal of the Obama Administration, is the opening to those that covet more land and power.

It's amusing that Kerry lectures the Putin regime on the idea that the aggressive exploits are a relic of the 19th Century. The reason for this is that the USA's military dominance, the thing that Obama industriously strives to end, kept the world in order.

This whole gang of numb skulls is a blight on the world and history. The only thing greater than their hubris is their idiocy.
 
solletica said:
What's shocking is that this was not written by the chief warmonger editorialist--charles krauthammer.
Click to expand...



When has Krauthammer endorsed war and why?
 
Lerxst said:
I don't see this escalating to WW3...as long as we don't let the war addicted hawks in Congress push the President to actually thinking we need to shoot Russians over this. The Ukrainians aren't shooting Russians, other Europeans aren't shooting Russians, so we shouldn't be thinking about shooting Russians. Ultimately I think this will back fire on Putin both in the Ukraine and at home.
Click to expand...



In what way?
 
Anything could happen, of course. But I'd be surprised to see any real war between the Ukraine and Russia. And I'd be flabbergasted to see a war that involves anyone else.

But one reality that has made itself apparent is the establishment of what I might call the Putin doctrine. Namely that the former Soviet republics will be and must be Moscow-friendly. And that Russia will put up a fight with anyone who says otherwise. One might call them buffer states. It's not so different from the rationale for the iron curtain nations.

Though I can see one difference. I doubt if Putin seriously fears an invasion from, say, Germany. It's obvious, in fact, that he need not fear that. But he could allude to something like that in order to avoid saying the real reason; he's keeping his ability to restore the Soviet Union (though it would probably have a different name. Such as the Eurasian Union) from being ruined.

We might as well take it as if it were an official statement; Russia will fight rather than see former Soviet republics join the west.

I don't see our leaders rising to that challenge. And they probably shouldn't. I disapprove of Putin's stance for a number of reasons. But looking at it from his point of view, I can understand why even if I disapprove.

This crisis will likely be resolved pretty quickly, if 'unofficially'. Ukraine will be a dismembered and partly occupied state. Nominally independent, but not daring to get too close to the west. Just like Georgia.
 
code1211 said:
What part of our diplomacy would you say has not failed? A weakened USA, the goal of the Obama Administration, is the opening to those that covet more land and power.

It's amusing that Kerry lectures the Putin regime on the idea that the aggressive exploits are a relic of the 19th Century. The reason for this is that the USA's military dominance, the thing that Obama industriously strives to end, kept the world in order.

This whole gang of numb skulls is a blight on the world and history. The only thing greater than their hubris is their idiocy.
Click to expand...

We don't disagree?? Although, I don't know that a weakened USA is Obama's "goal".
 
code1211 said:
What's shocking is that the real moral of this story is completely missed. In 1994, the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the word of the USA and Britain that we would defend it's territorial rights.
Click to expand...

Even if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have used them in this crisis, so it's irrelevant.
 
code1211 said:
What part of our diplomacy would you say has not failed? A weakened USA,
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: the USA, i. e. the people, have always been weak, because they don't have any $$ to participate in their govt.

Now, if you're talking about the US government, it is also weak because it's military is obviously inept (after more than 10 years, it has failed to accomplish any of its long-term objectives against a primitive fighting force in Afghanistan), and it's a plutocracy--to defeat the US govt., one simply has to threaten one of the rich private influential individuals and/or corporations that sponsor its members of Congress, and voila.
 
solletica said:
Even if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have used them in this crisis, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Additionally, the Ukraine's "territorial rights" haven't been compromised. It's hilarious that people think the Ukrainians would have nuked Putins security forces.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
oh lol
Click to expand...



If he's been working toward a strengthened economy, enhanced international standing, increased rights for individuals, even handed enforcement of the laws and a solid economic foundation o0n which future generations may build and he is failing miserably in all of these areas.

Word on the Liberal street is that this guy is the most intelligent and capable president we've ever had.

Are you saying he is succeeding or failing in achieving his goals?
 
Montecresto said:
We don't disagree?? Although, I don't know that a weakened USA is Obama's "goal".
Click to expand...



If it's not his goal, somebody better let him know that everything he is doing is leading to that singular end.

If it's not his goal, you'll have to tell me what his actions indicate he is striving to achieve.

Words are cheap. Deeds are precious.
 
solletica said:
Even if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have used them in this crisis, so it's irrelevant.
Click to expand...



North Korea has Nukes and we don't invade. If you have Nukes, you have territorial integrity. If you don't have nukes, you don't have territorial integrity.
 
solletica said:
When has krauthammer not endorsed war?
Click to expand...


Lately.

He sees that the current international situation is beyond our ability to interfere. He has said repeatedly of late that we don't have the capability of using military force effectively.

You will have to link to Dr. K saying that he endorses war. I don't recall the last time he did so. How long ago was it?
 
solletica said:
:rolleyes: the USA, i. e. the people, have always been weak, because they don't have any $$ to participate in their govt.

Now, if you're talking about the US government, it is also weak because it's military is obviously inept (after more than 10 years, it has failed to accomplish any of its long-term objectives against a primitive fighting force in Afghanistan), and it's a plutocracy--to defeat the US govt., one simply has to threaten one of the rich private influential individuals and/or corporations that sponsor its members of Congress, and voila.
Click to expand...



"We the people" stopped being the government with the rise of the two party system. We no longer have any say whatsoever over what happens in Washington DC. The lying thieves who people the elected offices are the tools of the money they crave.

If we ever intend to have a representative Republic again, it will require the dissolution of the Washington DC Oligarchy.

Right now we are a mob of subjects who are controlled by the lying thieves that steal our money and pretend to disagree.

Obama, as an example sees no enemies outside the borders. The only enemies he recognizes are the Republicans.

This coming election is the most important one in the history of the republic and every election after this one is either another brick in the dam against the rising tide of authority controlling us or additional links in the chains that are eliminating individual liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom