View Poll Results: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

Voters
710. You may not vote on this poll
  • Multi-Polar World

    458 64.51%
  • Nuclear War

    252 35.49%
Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 157

Thread: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleming View Post
    Even if the US starts to ship arms to Ukraine this Will not make the Ukrainian military a match for Russia. It Will be more diffficult for the Ukranian military to learn to use this materiël ( which they are unfamiliar with) than for Russia to destroy it ( or capture Some of it). Putin doesn't need to invade and conquer all of Ukraine to actieve His aims. But even if he does, the US is not going to send in an army to fight him and start a war over Ukraine.
    Finally, Putin is NOT Hitler. Trying to turn every authoritarian and unfriendly leader into Hitler is completely ahistorical and not very smart. Putin's goals are limited, very Unlike Hitler's.
    I think that everything you have said here is correct with the exception that you rule out the possibility that this conflict could lead to Putin occupying all of Ukraine and your assertion that the U.S. would not under those conditions use some sort of military force against Russia. I don't think those things are likely but I don't think the the probability that they could happen is so remote as to say that it is impossible. While you are correct that arming Ukraine would not make it a match for Russia, it would make it considerably more difficult for Russia to bring the situation to a point in which their concerns are implemented into the final solution. Depending on how difficult the situation became for them, they might indeed feel the need to topple the government in Kiev. Then the calculus of the situation would change drastically because at that point it would be clear that Russia would have used military force against a government that had made it's intentions clear that it wanted to be more closely associated with the West. That would indeed pose some difficult problems for the U.S. There would be some serious questions raised as to whether regimes in the future could count on U.S. protection if they wanted to make such a move. The voices would become very loud that the U.S. is weak and therefore something needed to be done about Russian aggression. Although Putin is not Hitler, he would be demonized as Hitler and I think that it is likely that we would be off to war. That's how I see it.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleming View Post
    And its importance and strategie significance to the US is exactly zero.
    I don't agree. While I think it is of secondary importance, it is important because if Russia controls Ukraine they can project power into Europe. And Russia can certainly control Ukraine from it's base in Crimea.

  3. #123
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brussels
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    154

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    I think that everything you have said here is correct with the exception that you rule out the possibility that this conflict could lead to Putin occupying all of Ukraine and your assertion that the U.S. would not under those conditions use some sort of military force against Russia. I don't think those things are likely but I don't think the the probability that they could happen is so remote as to say that it is impossible. While you are correct that arming Ukraine would not make it a match for Russia, it would make it considerably more difficult for Russia to bring the situation to a point in which their concerns are implemented into the final solution. Depending on how difficult the situation became for them, they might indeed feel the need to topple the government in Kiev. Then the calculus of the situation would change drastically because at that point it would be clear that Russia would have used military force against a government that had made it's intentions clear that it wanted to be more closely associated with the West. That would indeed pose some difficult problems for the U.S. There would be some serious questions raised as to whether regimes in the future could count on U.S. protection if they wanted to make such a move. The voices would become very loud that the U.S. is weak and therefore something needed to be done about Russian aggression. Although Putin is not Hitler, he would be demonized as Hitler and I think that it is likely that we would be off to war. That's how I see it.
    When Hungary sought to move away from the Soviet Union in 1956 and appealed for Western help against the Russian invasion they got a lot of sympathy, but no intervention. Same in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Same when China invaded Tibet. And the same would be the case in the purely hypothetical case that Russia would invade Ukraine now. Ukraine is not a US ally and not a US strategic interest. You don't go to war unless your Vital strategic interests are at stake.

  4. #124
    Student
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brussels
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 11:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    154

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    I don't agree. While I think it is of secondary importance, it is important because if Russia controls Ukraine they can project power into Europe. And Russia can certainly control Ukraine from it's base in Crimea.
    For your information, that Russian base in the Crimea has been there throughout these last 20 years.

  5. #125
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,159

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?


    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #126
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    The multi-polar world is the only realistic choice. No-one would risk a nuclear war.
    I want nuke war.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleming View Post
    When Hungary sought to move away from the Soviet Union in 1956 and appealed for Western help against the Russian invasion they got a lot of sympathy, but no intervention. Same in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Same when China invaded Tibet. And the same would be the case in the purely hypothetical case that Russia would invade Ukraine now. Ukraine is not a US ally and not a US strategic interest. You don't go to war unless your Vital strategic interests are at stake.
    The situation in Ukraine is not that of Hungary or Czechoslovokia. In neither case was the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States directly fomenting protests in the streets against a government that was making it's intentions clear that it intended to side with Russia instead of Europe and the U.S. Neither had the United States government directly invested billions of dollars in those countries to create the conditions such that they could be integrated with the West. Also the President of the United States did not openly state that the U.S. might supply lethal aid to those countries to counter Russia activities. As such, there are significant differences.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fleming View Post
    For your information, that Russian base in the Crimea has been there throughout these last 20 years.
    It has been there, and it's significance has remained that it allows Russia to project power in the Black Sea region and control Ukraine if Russia deems it necessary. They will not give it up.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post

    But this grand scheme went awry in Ukraine. The crisis there shows that realpolitik remains relevant -- and states that ignore it do so at their own peril. U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. Now that the consequences have been laid bare, it would be an even greater mistake to continue this misbegotten policy.

    John J. Mearsheimer | How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis | Foreign Affairs
    I think that is the key here. What I think some fail to realize is that Russia views Ukraine as a vital interest. As such, it appears that Ukraine is where Russia has decided to draw the line. Recall this speech by Putin

    After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.
    On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.
    In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.

    After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.

    Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.
    That is where we stand today.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    While the U.S. does have the preponderance of power in the world, it does not have all of the power. It appears that the situation in Ukraine has boiled down to pure power concepts. In reality, the U.S. has reached the bounds of it's massive power in Ukraine. We need to understand that clearly and not do foolish things because of arrogance.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •