• 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!

‘Massive obliteration’ if Russia fails to take Ukraine’s east

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,358
Reaction score
82,736
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
‘Massive obliteration’ if Russia fails to take Ukraine’s east




The stakes couldn't be higher. The choices are for Ukraine boil down to victory or obliteration.

For Putin the choices boil down to palpable victory or a coup.
 
However, if even partition fails, he said he believes the war could become one of complete annihilation.
At that point you have to wonder what the NATO response should be. Hopefully the weapons given to Ukraine will be enough for Ukraine to protect itself, unless Russia goes nuclear of course.
 
‘Massive obliteration’ if Russia fails to take Ukraine’s east





The stakes couldn't be higher. The choices are for Ukraine boil down to victory or obliteration.

For Putin the choices boil down to palpable victory or a coup.
I think Putin is living on borrowed time. The sanctions are going to debilitate the Russian economy. And we all knows who gets the blame of a bad economy.

Putin will be lucky if he merely gets voted out.

More likely is that he will 'get KGB'd.'
 
I think Putin is living on borrowed time. The sanctions are going to debilitate the Russian economy. And we all knows who gets the blame of a bad economy.

The problem is countries like India, China, and Brazil are more than happy to take advantage of the situation and buy cheap oil from the Russians. I hear India is getting its oil from the Russians at 1/2 price right now. That's a very sweet deal.
 
At that point you have to wonder what the NATO response should be. Hopefully the weapons given to Ukraine will be enough for Ukraine to protect itself, unless Russia goes nuclear of course.
This really is a precarious position. There are 'easy' answers to this. For example..."Hey..>Russia...look...we have NO INTEREST in going to war with you...but any enemy troops or equipment that is in Ukraine after the next 48 hours will be obliterated. Nothing but love for you...have a super day".

No war...just supporting a sovereign nation under attack.

But its never that easy. And if that is the action, does that then become the standard? Do we do the same thing the next time some tin pot dictator moves in on a country in Africa for example...or Taiwan?
 
The problem is countries like India, China, and Brazil are more than happy to take advantage of the situation and buy cheap oil from the Russians. I hear India is getting its oil from the Russians at 1/2 price right now. That's a very sweet deal.
Then we need to place sanctions on those nations for doing that. Putin can not be allowed to just get away with this and then we go right back to business as usual. That would be unacceptable.

Nations choosing to side with Russia should be isolated from the greater world economy.
 
I do not think NATO will allow Ukraine to be wiped off the map as a political entity, as long as NATO holds. If the French elections come out as now expected, Macron winning over Le Pen, NATO should hold.
 

But we are putting sanctions on everybody already now: Russia, Iran, N. Korea.... and now you are talking India, China, Brazil, etc, etc... That's over half the world. Basically then you are going to have 2 parallel world economies: one led by the US, the other by China.

Basically at some point we are going to be isolating and sanctioning ourselves.

I am not saying I have the answers- just pointing out the problem I see.
 
No. We need to stay out of wars.

It would have been one thing if the UN declared the Russian force build up to be a prelude to war and then took aggressive action, meaning every other nation on Earth contributes troops to a matching build up on the Ukraine side. That would have shown Russia that the world has no taste for war and is willing to do whatever is needed to prevent it.

But that sort of stand off with all those troops and weapons aimed at one another would have been a very scary situation, capable of quickly devolving once any shooting began. Or it would have sent the message to Putin that he was not about to get away with an easy time of attacking Ukraine. It could have ended things before they got started.

But that didn't happen and we certainly didn't want to contribute American troops to it unless the rest of the world was in on it. So we let Ukraine fight their own battles and we support them.

There is no 'explaining' a direct US involvement in the defense of Ukraine and expecting Russia to draw a line at retaliating directly on the USA, nor refrain from using nukes and ending the world as we know it.

We have to move carefully. I am impressed by our handling of the situation thus far. I think Biden and the State Department are doing an excellent job. It is a very high stakes endeavor. It needs to be handled very carefully by highly experienced professionals who understand all the risks. That probably leaves most of us armchair diplomats out.
 
Yes, no easy solution. But those nations supporting Russia should face some kind of repercussions from doing that.
 
Yes, no easy solution. But those nations supporting Russia should face some kind of repercussions from doing that.

Washington said yesterday it is looking into that.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…