• 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!

Putin knows he gets annihilated in a conventional war with the West and he's not one to admit defeat...

Exquisitor said:
Just bomb your targets and establish no fly, what's he going to do, strike NATO?
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree. It's time we stopped cowering in terror. If he so much as blinks at a NATO country it's on and it will be his death sentence.
 
Shrink726 said:
I pretty much agree. It's time we stopped cowering in terror. If he so much as blinks at a NATO country it's on and it will be his death sentence.
Click to expand...
One way or another Putin will be dead.

And society may have given its life.
 
Shrink726 said:
I pretty much agree. It's time we stopped cowering in terror.
Click to expand...
What a great line to be found in the rubble after nuclear war, with no one left to read it.
 
jnug said:
No, you have lost politically and strategically. Your military victory has been nullified.
Click to expand...
You said he couldn't hold it. That's military, not political. If he can't hold it then he will have lost militarily. You can take ground, but holding it is really the important part.
jnug said:
It has not arisen in the US militarily. However actual war is 'nothing but the continuation of policy with other means' according to Carl von Clausewitz in the most respected tome regarding war strategy ever written, "On War". It is in fact already an issue for the United States. Putin is just using means other than military means with the United States at present.
Click to expand...
Nope...it's really effected the US only so much as we've decided to get involved. After that, it effects us about as much as outrage effects everyone.
 
Cardinal said:
That conclusion is not a logical outcome of my post.
Click to expand...
It's perfectly logical. It will wrap itself up by your own words.
Cardinal said:
What we've seen since the end of WWII are wars of narrow goals, such as preventing an invasion, stopping genocide, taking out terrorists, preventing the spread of communism, etc. Wars have been fought just to irritate other major world powers (proxy warfare). Sometimes, they've achieved their goals, other times have been disastrous. But wars of imperialism? No, those ended with WWII. The problem is that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is specifically this, and it's part of only a known, broader aim.
Click to expand...
Lol...what? You write that after what I wrote? We supported genocide to protect banana companies. We put a dictator in Iran to protect a British oil company, we supported Syrian rebels that committed genocide. We implemented sanctions on Iraq that killed 500K children. None of our wars that were claimed for humanitarian needs were actually for that. They were strategic wars for influence or resources. Afghanistan might be the only one that wasn't for such reasons and that was a direct result of us being attacked.
 
Fishking said:
It's perfectly logical. It will wrap itself up by your own words.

Lol...what? You write that after what I wrote? We supported genocide to protect banana companies. We put a dictator in Iran to protect a British oil company, we supported Syrian rebels that committed genocide. We implemented sanctions on Iraq that killed 500K children. None of our wars that were claimed for humanitarian needs were actually for that. They were strategic wars for influence or resources. Afghanistan might be the only one that wasn't for such reasons and that was a direct result of us being attacked.
Click to expand...

Not wars of imperialism.
 
Craig234 said:
My opinion: Putin doesn't need to use nukes to accomplish his military goals in Ukraine. He has overwhelming advantage and the west has stories of heroism as people are slaughtered.

The west does not have reason to use nuclear weapons, as it could do anything it wanted militarily with conventional forces; the pont is they don't want to get into a war escalating to nuclear weapons.

So all of this leaves one very dangerous risk of nuclear weapons. The west is determined to pressure Putin so much that his life is threatened, which for him means not staying in office. And he has only one tool to use to demand the west end that pressure: nuclear blackmail.

The details of how it happens aren't as important; I've suggested it could start with one bomb in an unpopulated area; it could be a threat. But we're in world-threatening danger as we try to threaten a cornered animal who has nuclear weapons and everything says no compunctions about using them as leverage. We're making him feel he has little to lose.
Click to expand...

It seems more likely we're making him feel that he is not opposed.
 
Craig234 said:
What a great line to be found in the rubble after nuclear war, with no one left to read it.
Click to expand...
Our decades long passivity in our dealings with Putin got us to where we are now.

You think we should double down on what's obviously a failed policy?
 
Shrink726 said:
Our decades long passivity in our dealings with Putin got us to where we are now.
Click to expand...

Alive. In fact, western power has been growing while Putin's has been shrinking. I'd say it's more than successful by a lot of measures.

Shrink726 said:
You think we should double down on what's obviously a failed policy?
Click to expand...

Why, yes. Bad guy has nuclear bombs and can destroy the world. I'd say not destroying the world is better. Don't like it? How about getting rid of nuclear weapons? Maybe make more effort at diplomacy? Would not expanding NATO help? Maybe maybe not. But we need to not destroy the world while finding ways to deal with the threat. That's what we're doing, and it's seeming less likely Putin can continue in power long.
 
jnug said:
No its not. You think it is because you think aggressor states start wars for other reasons than taking territory and assets that they want but have not been able to take with other means. If you take them and despoil them in the process, you have not accomplished much now have you. Russia cares not about cleaning up after its nuclear messes hence it would simply have gone through a bunch of effort for nothing. I am not convinced that they would even know how.

Tactical nukes would have use in a very narrow field of operations.....far out at sea where one might want to take out a whole fleet or over vast plains of already unusable terrain. Those represent a pretty narrow field of operations.
Click to expand...

You need to do some serious reading on the subject as I did. Your post makes clear for are posting opinion which is unacceptable as fact on the subject is readily available.
 
Shrink726 said:
Do we appease or do we say we're not going to allow this; you can do what you want, but if you make the wrong choice, we'll vaporize you.
Click to expand...
Why is it some people can't explain what they are saying?

Are you saying the U.S. and its allies should go to war against Russia.
Shrink726 said:
The world simply cannot sit by idly while Putin slaughters the Ukrainian people while committing one after another war crimes.
Click to expand...
So, what do you suggest the world do about it? You didn't say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom