• 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!

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

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

  • Total voters
    29
Fleming said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fleming said:
For your information, that Russian base in the Crimea has been there throughout these last 20 years.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Montecresto said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That is where we stand today.
 
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.
 
Fenton said:
You've seen one too many movies.
Click to expand...

What? Do you even understand the point? Maybe your problem is you look at too much TV. They dumb that stuff down you know.
 
MildSteel said:
What? Do you even understand the point? Maybe your problem is you look at too much TV. They dumb that stuff down you know.
Click to expand...

Nothing is dumber than justifying Foreign Policy decisions based on irrational and exagerated fears and hyperbole.
 
toles09032014.jpg
 
Fenton said:
Nothing is dumber than justifying Foreign Policy decisions based on irrational and exagerated fears and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Actually you have a point, and this is a good example of it. Very, very stupid, irrational and based on the exaggerated fear that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet Union.

2013-12-11t100513z_430869593_lr1e9cb0s.jpg


If our leaders did not do such stupid, irrational things, there would be no need to pose questions such as this. But since they do such stupid, irrational things based on exaggerated fears, this question becomes relevant.
 
Fenton said:
Nothing is dumber than justifying Foreign Policy decisions based on irrational and exagerated fears and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Here is another example of irrational, exaggerated fear

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” the US secretary of state told a news conference in Dublin hours before going into a meeting with her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.

“It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,” she said, referring to various iterations of a Moscow-backed plan to deepen economic ties with its neighbours.

“But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty dumb, stupid, irrational and based on exaggerated fear.
 
s
Simpleχity;1064308342 said:
.....
Click to expand...

Here ya go

Germany, France, and Italy do not want to sacrifice their close economic relations with Russia for Ukrainian security and the nation’s full European integration. Western European countries’ de facto veto of Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership and lukewarm response to Russia’s heavy handedness in the 2008 Georgian War also reflect a lack of European resolve.

Furthermore, Yanukovych has repeatedly declared that Ukraine should stay politically neutral and may be unlikely to bring Ukraine into NATO. With 51 percent of Ukrainians viewing NATO unfavorably, the country’s path to NATO membership is unclear.

The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at a naval base in Sevastopol (in the Crimea, which has been Ukrainian territory since 1954) until 2017 also impedes Ukraine’s accession to NATO. There is no precedent for a NATO member hosting a non-NATO member military base.
Click to expand...

Like I said foreign policy based on exaggerated threat and irrational fear.
 
MildSteel said:
s

Here ya go



Like I said foreign policy based on exaggerated threat and irrational fear.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that over 8% of voters have voted for Nuclear War. I bet they'd try
to be first in line at the German Crematoriums. Me first! Me First! The krispy critter
campaign format.
 
DaveFagan said:
I find it amazing that over 8% of voters have voted for Nuclear War. I bet they'd try
to be first in line at the German Crematoriums. Me first! Me First! The krispy critter
campaign format.
Click to expand...

Well if you believed Hillary Clinton's BS propaganda that Putin is Hitler then you might vote that way.
 
And talk about exaggerated threat and irrational fear, here's a gem:

The Obama Administration should advise Russia to distance itself from the likes of Hugo Chavez
Click to expand...

Dang!!! Hugo Chavez. Well I guess saying that the government should spend money to educate and feed poor people is a threat to that paradigm that says give the rich all the money and let them trickle it back down.
 
The German said:
What a stupid question!

"Hey! Who here wants to see mankind wiped from the face of earth?!"

I doubt this forum has any ISIS members.
Click to expand...

True .. I too doubt if we have any ISIS members .. a shame in a way ..quite the compliment if we did ..Even ISIS seeks out knowledge ...BUT , I am certain that we have "unwitting" ISIS sympathizers . A sample .. 8 who would favor nuclear war ..
 
So let's see what we have

Germany, France, and Italy do not want to sacrifice their close economic relations with Russia for Ukrainian security and the nation’s full European integration. Western European countries’ de facto veto of Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership and lukewarm response to Russia’s heavy handedness in the 2008 Georgian War also reflect a lack of European resolve.

Furthermore, Yanukovych has repeatedly declared that Ukraine should stay politically neutral and may be unlikely to bring Ukraine into NATO. With 51 percent of Ukrainians viewing NATO unfavorably, the country’s path to NATO membership is unclear.

The presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at a naval base in Sevastopol (in the Crimea, which has been Ukrainian territory since 1954) until 2017 also impedes Ukraine’s accession to NATO. There is no precedent for a NATO member hosting a non-NATO member military base.
Click to expand...

This from the Secretary of State of the United States

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” the US secretary of state told a news conference in Dublin hours before going into a meeting with her Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.

“It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,” she said, referring to various iterations of a Moscow-backed plan to deepen economic ties with its neighbours.

“But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.
Click to expand...

Then this from the Assistant Secretary of State

Nuland-Pyatt-Ukraine-neo-nazis.jpg

This from the Assistant Secretary of State

I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience.
.....
He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, **** the EU.
Click to expand...

Here's the Assistant Secretary of State with good old "Yats" BEFORE he was prime minister.

victoria_nuland-in-ukraine_with_neo_nazi_svoboda_leader_oleh_tyahnybok.jpg

And this from the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States

Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals.
Click to expand...

The result? Now there is a brutal civil war in Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev said this

Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, has warned that the world is at risk of a “nuclear war” because of the tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine.

In an interview with the German magazine Spiegel, Mr Gorbachev said that if either side lost its nerve in the current stand-off, it could lead to nuclear war, and spoke of his fears that the world “will not survive the next few years”.

“I actually see all the signs of a new Cold War,” Mr Gorbachev said. “It could all blow up at any moment if we don’t take action. The loss of confidence is catastrophic. Moscow does not believe the West, and the West does not believe Moscow.”

Asked if he thought the situation could lead to a war, Mr Gorbachev said: “Don’t even think of it. Such a war today would probably lead inevitably to nuclear war. But the statements and propaganda on both sides make me fear the worst. If anyone loses their nerve in this charged atmosphere, we will not survive the next few years.”

Such a stark warning from the former Soviet leader who brought about the end of the Cold War will raise concerns.

“I do not say such things lightly,” Mr Gorbachev said. “I am a man with a conscience. But that’s how it is. I’m really extremely worried.”

The 83-year-old has spoken out about the current stand-off between Russia and the West before. Last year he used a speech in Berlin on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to warn: “The world is on the brink of a new Cold War”.

Mr Gorbachev has been critical of his successor, Vladimir Putin, accusing him in a recent book of overconfidence and believing himself to be “second only to God”.

But he has laid the blame for the current crisis with the West, for encroaching on what Russia sees as its spehere of influence.

“Nato’s eastward expansion has destroyed the European security order,” he told Spiegel. “A dangerous winning mentality has taken hold in America.”
Click to expand...

Crisis in Ukraine could trigger nuclear war, warns Gorbachev - Telegraph
 
Gorbachev, candidly admitting that there's propaganda on both sides, nice. Not that what he said is the least bit profound, it's just that I thought only Moscow was disseminating propaganda.
 
Montecresto said:
Gorbachev, candidly admitting that there's propaganda on both sides, nice. Not that what he said is the least bit profound, it's just that I thought only Moscow was disseminating propaganda.
Click to expand...

The problem is that these people were crazy enough to do something like go into Iraq on a wild goose chase for WMDs. They keep putting up these exaggerated threats. It's no telling where we might end up as a result.
 
MildSteel said:
The problem is that these people were crazy enough to do something like go into Iraq on a wild goose chase for WMDs. They keep putting up these exaggerated threats. It's no telling where we might end up as a result.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with that, I was just pointing out the freshness of the former statesman being willing to acknowledge that both sides have served up propaganda. Wouldn't it be nice if the patronising posters on this board do the same instead of playing that adolescent game they play. Oh, and lets hope there's a resolve to this, that things settle down and by way of compromise, on BOTH sides, everyone walks away with something and that Gorbachev's concerns don't materialise.
 
MildSteel said:
Seriously I'm saying that although some appear to be willing to risk a nuclear war to maintain U.S. hegemony in the world, it would be better to live in a multi-polar world than to have a nuclear war.

It's not a joke and there is nothing funny about it.
Click to expand...
Our political philosophies are probably quite similar, Mild Steel . On the surface, without thought , the question is , IMO, silly/stupid ; but, in truth, NO question is "stupid" as the self-righteous seem to think. I feel that it is absolutely impossible for us to remain as the ONLY world power ..To have this POWER , its possible (short term), but then we would have to dominate ALL other nations .. subjugate and control ..neither economically nor psychologically feasible , IMO .. Others have tried this .. with limited success .. China for one ..
As for a nuclear war "alternative" ..Even if we are the "winners" .. still a horrible thought ..we would actually be the losers .. Intelligent, sensible people know this .. Russians for one ..
 
Montecresto said:
Oh, I agree with that, I was just pointing out the freshness of the former statesman being willing to acknowledge that both sides have served up propaganda. Wouldn't it be nice if the patronising posters on this board do the same instead of playing that adolescent game they play. Oh, and lets hope there's a resolve to this, that things settle down and by way of compromise, on BOTH sides, everyone walks away with something and that Gorbachev's concerns don't materialise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom