Oh, you don't think terrorist groups think of themselves being the vanguard of a emerging resistance movement? Like the name Rote Armee Fraktion doesn't give it away? Lol.This lacks credibility. "well-known fact", "textbook strategy of a terrorist cell (did you just make that up?)" are statements that prove nothing. — CuddlyHedgehog
And yet you are hitting all the usual propaganda bullet-points. Historical claims and grievances are always brought up to justify wars and invasions. Crimea was not Russian land before it was absorbed by the Russian Empire (with help from Ukrainian Cossacks), and it was not majority Russian until Stalin's ethnic cleansings. We could go back and forth like this endlessly - but what's the point? None of this justifies Russian aggression in this particular instance. Taking advantage of the turmoil in a neighboring country to stealthily invade part of its territory with troops, special forces and civilian thugs, overthrow the local government, close down or take over non-compliant media, intimidate or kidnap dissidents, hastily stage a "referendum" with fabricated results - I say that is wrong, whatever else may have been the case historically or contemporaneously. — SophistiCat
Ukrainians do truly regret giving away there own nuclear arsenal. Even if they had kept just a few missiles and maintained them in order, a small nuclear arsenal would very likely prevented the annexation.Tough luck for Ukraine. — Benkei
See The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear DeterrentMost Western observers want Ukraine to rid itself of nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In this view, articulated recently by President Bill Clinton, Europe would be more stable if Russia were to become "the only nuclear-armed successor state to the Soviet Union." The United States and its European allies have been pressing Ukraine to transfer all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russians, who naturally think this is an excellent idea.
President Clinton is wrong. The conventional wisdom about Ukraine's nuclear weapons is wrong. In fact, as soon as it declared independence, Ukraine should have been quietly encouraged to fashion its own nuclear deterrent. Even now, pressing Ukraine to become a nonnuclear state is a mistake.
A nuclear Ukraine makes sense for two reasons. First, it is imperative to maintain peace between Russia and Ukraine. That means ensuring that the Russians, who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it. Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee. Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression. If the U.S. aim is to enhance stability in Europe, the case against a nuclear-armed Ukraine is unpersuasive.
Just how do the West's action compare here with starting wars and annexing parts of other countries is indeed important. — ssu
The West's actions are worse. — René Descartes
Would the world be better with Saddam Hussein having Kuwait? — ssu
Yes — René Descartes
But then again, I assume that's just an opinion for you. — ssu
Of course, I agree with this. It's just politics.It does not mean Russia isn't a bad country, it just means the West is also very bad. — René Descartes
Small question: are countries bad?No not in the Ukraine, but in Vietnam, in Panama, in the Falklands, at Hiroshima, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, etc.
It does not mean Russia isn't a bad country, it just means the West is also very bad. — René Descartes
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.