O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[drillerpie]

I think the best way forward is to find a solution for both parties that's better than either a perpetual war of attrition or a major global conflict. That means both sides will have to concede something they want, but it's better than the alternatives. There's no easy way out of this, so I prefer the one that ends it sooner, with the least loss of life.

As the great Tony Benn said, war is the ultimate failure of diplomacy. The way forward is more diplomacy, more talks, and hopefully some kind of agreement. Controversial, I know, but I think that's better than launching missiles into Russian territory at this point.

Ok sure, war is bad and things are better when there isn't any war. No argument there.

Question was, in your opinion, to get to that point should the US equip the Ukrainians, should someone else equip the Ukrainians, or should nobody equip the Ukrainians?

[slack_pie]

Ok sure, war is bad and things are better when there isn't any war. No argument there.

Question was, in your opinion, to get to that point should the US equip the Ukrainians, should someone else equip the Ukrainians, or should nobody equip the Ukrainians?

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

[i961pie]

It appears that the US weapons can only be used in the Kursk region where Ukraine holds land, hoping that this gives Ukraine some leverage in any peace talks. As for this escalating the war Putin is using troops from that Nutter in North Korea that's not an escalation??????
The only way this war will stop is by Ukraine giving up land and not being allowed to join NATO or the EU which will be a total victory for Putin. This will cause a resistance movement in Ukraine similar to what happened in France and Ireland and give Putin the excuse to invade Ukraine again. The man won't be happy until the USSR Is formed once again.

[BigFatPie]

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

AFAIK these missiles will be used to reduce Russian capability to attack Ukrainian infrastructure and utilities from Russian territory.

[Lullapie]

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

Great points SP.

The point many are missing, is that it's not about keeping Ukraine independent. That's what the peasants are told to keep them quiet and keep contributing their taxes. There are plenty of big US corporations making billions out of the war in Ukraine at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Those in power keep everyone focused on the minutia, while they get richer on the back of human misery.

[SmiffyPie]

Well, there's a difference between equipping Ukraine with the ability to defend its territory and equipping them with long-range precision weapons to fire deep into Russian territory. My point is the latter seems like a dangerous escalation, and I don't understand the timing or benefit of it - unless it's to cause as big a mess as possible for the new president to clear up.

If you disagree then fine.

A bit like Russia using Iranian drones and North Korean ammunition then? (not on the same size scale agreed but the hypocrisy from Vlad the Invader is staggering). And the recent escalation by both sides is to give a stronger hand in any negotiations, you always negotiate from a position of strength.

[Lullapie]

A bit like Russia using Iranian drones and North Korean ammunition then? (not on the same size scale agreed but the hypocrisy from Vlad the Invader is staggering). And the recent escalation by both sides is to give a stronger hand in any negotiations, you always negotiate from a position of strength.

When you have strength, you don't have conflict. Russia has done what is has done because the US and its leaders are weak.

When nuclear weapons were a big thing and 'threatened world peace', the NATO countries didn't start firing them at the Warsaw Pact countries and vice versa to show how powerful they were. They were a deterrent - never used.

[SmiffyPie]

When you have strength, you don't have conflict.

When you have strength and instigate conflict going against treaties and agreements you have previously made you are an aggressor. VP banked on your weak West and got a shock when they weren't as weak as he thought.

[Lullapie]

When you have strength and instigate conflict going against treaties and agreements you have previously made you are an aggressor. VP banked on your weak West and got a shock when they weren't as weak as he thought.

Possibly, but the 'threat' is the deterrent. Treaties are sometimes a bad thing. They brings other countries into conflict and escalates something that could have been negotiated.

During the Cold War, there was no direct conflict between the Superpowers. The fear of the two sides obliterating each other, prevented global annihilation.

[applepie2]

When you have strength, you don't have conflict. Russia has done what is has done because the US and its leaders are weak.

When nuclear weapons were a big thing and 'threatened world peace', the NATO countries didn't start firing them at the Warsaw Pact countries and vice versa to show how powerful they were. They were a deterrent - never used.

Do you think Russia is strong in their dealings with Ukraine? They certainly seem to have conflict, possibly because people don't like being bullied by their bigger neighbour.