ChatterBank0 min ago
The War In Ukraine
116 Answers
'Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will cost the global economy $2.8 trillion in lost output by the end of next year—and even more if a severe winter leads to energy rationing in Europe.'
With the outlook to be a continued process of slaughter for months, maybe years to come of life (human & animal) & destruction of habitation & infrastructure at a rate not seen since WW2. Is the loss of a small region of the extreme west Donbass regions of Ukraine (plus the Crimea, which has been Russian for 300 years) worth the prolongation, & possible risks of the use of nuclear & chemical weapons ?
With the outlook to be a continued process of slaughter for months, maybe years to come of life (human & animal) & destruction of habitation & infrastructure at a rate not seen since WW2. Is the loss of a small region of the extreme west Donbass regions of Ukraine (plus the Crimea, which has been Russian for 300 years) worth the prolongation, & possible risks of the use of nuclear & chemical weapons ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
i am not sure russia has the resources to extend the war beyond ukraine even if it wanted to... and it cannot realistically hold what it does take
unfortunately i do think there is merit in khandro's suggestion... it's very well making comparisons with 1938/9 but neither Hitler nor his opponents had nukes. If they did then that period would have played out very differently...
it all comes down to whether or not you think the russian leadership is likely to use the bomb. I sincerely hope not but if there's a credible threat of nuclear armageddon what are we supposed to do?
unfortunately i do think there is merit in khandro's suggestion... it's very well making comparisons with 1938/9 but neither Hitler nor his opponents had nukes. If they did then that period would have played out very differently...
it all comes down to whether or not you think the russian leadership is likely to use the bomb. I sincerely hope not but if there's a credible threat of nuclear armageddon what are we supposed to do?
Indeed dave.
The "but he has nukes" is not irrelevant but what you are actually saying is you give in to nuclear blackmail.
The "nuclear blackmail" being partially in the monds of the people giving in.
Putin will not use nuclear weapons unless we back down: that may see counterintuitive, but feed the beast once and he'll come back for more.
Again and again. And the more the threats the more likely things are to escalate.
Show Putin strength and he back down,
It is quite funny in a way to see how the energy blackmail has not worked: Europe is awash with the stuff: the spot price actually feel below zero the other day, LNG container ships are backed in in European ports, and Germany, ironically, basks in summerlike sunshine, Ok, it's only October, but the stocks are there for a harsh winter, should that happen.
The "but he has nukes" is not irrelevant but what you are actually saying is you give in to nuclear blackmail.
The "nuclear blackmail" being partially in the monds of the people giving in.
Putin will not use nuclear weapons unless we back down: that may see counterintuitive, but feed the beast once and he'll come back for more.
Again and again. And the more the threats the more likely things are to escalate.
Show Putin strength and he back down,
It is quite funny in a way to see how the energy blackmail has not worked: Europe is awash with the stuff: the spot price actually feel below zero the other day, LNG container ships are backed in in European ports, and Germany, ironically, basks in summerlike sunshine, Ok, it's only October, but the stocks are there for a harsh winter, should that happen.
Latest Posts
Civil0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
