Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Ooch!! !
Long time no see
That three points in the paragraph should not be read as one before the other, but equally important. To make them having orders, there need be words like "首先，而且，还要"/"first of all, but also", something like this. Political statement are very strictly formulated. Not a word too many, not a word too less.
Because of the first two points China will not recognize the two Donbass republics' independence. But a Russian annexation like Crimea would actually save China's trouble, because China won't talk about where the Russian border is in Europe.
So many of its neighbours really, really hate Russia:
Still, Putin's war has managed to unify NATO for another 50 years, probably expand it to include Sweden and Finland, and caused Germany to re-arm. On top of demolishing Russia's own economy. So great job all round!
Still, Putin's war has managed to unify NATO for another 50 years, probably expand it to include Sweden and Finland, and caused Germany to re-arm. On top of demolishing Russia's own economy. So great job all round!
Hysteria that is reaching new heights:
“Come on Putin surrender to God” - John Elleson
“Come on Putin surrender to God” - John Elleson
Yeah. it's kind of ridiculous if one look at it, especially if Article 5 is brought in.
Since article 5 clearly states that attack on 1 NATO allies means attack on all NATO allies including the US. it's esentially a WWIII Anyway Which Putin may not want to risk, thus logically Poland can just give the MiG's directly to Ukraine.
Giving it to US means stalled delivery, like, who knows what bureaucratic snags or inspections they would do, and Ukraine kinda need an airforce quick. Unless Poland doesn't really believe article 5 and NATO will protect them.
In the longer run, it will be clear that the threat from russia resulted from repeatedly breaking treaties with russia and ignoring russian warning about pushing rough russia’s security perimeter. The US can freely try to kill russia through death of a thousand cuts so long as it makes certain each cut is below the threshold of all out nuclear exchange. But the price Europe, particularly western europe, must pay for such a course will be much higher. There is also no real interest in western europe outside britain for it. it could be said that the US covered itself with a human shield made up of EU members and ukraine while jabbing at russia repeatedly hoping to inflict a lethal blow.
So i think the assessment that putin’s war will unify NATO for 50 years is superficial and emotion clouded.
I think in the long run Putin’s war will highlight fundamental divergence of interest between western Europe on the one hand, and the US and eastern europe on the other, and in 5-10 years stress internal unity of EU and NATO well beyond foreign policy issue since the start of the 2001 Iraq war.
This whole performative bs by western corporations stopping operations in Russia might have the opposite effect and actually convince the average Russian that they are indeed under siege, instead of what they expect.
Also, stopping the export of raw materials is going to play a number on western industry and econmy as well, particularly if they decide to sanction China too. Is like the west is being run by a bunch of bumbling baboons who forgot the global neoliberal order they pushed for is a two way street...
Also, stopping the export of raw materials is going to play a number on western industry and econmy as well, particularly if they decide to sanction China too. Is like the west is being run by a bunch of bumbling baboons who forgot the global neoliberal order they pushed for is a two way street...
- Status