Global Events & Politics Überthread
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
I wonder what Russia's end game is. I can't imagine control of Ukraine is worth the beating their economy will take if they invade. Conquering it certainly wouldn't advance Putin's goal of restoring Russia's global influence.
The only thing I can think of is that it's about putting the brakes on Ukraine's membership in NATO. Stopping NATO's spread would serve Putin's goals.
There's a bigger game being played here.
The only thing I can think of is that it's about putting the brakes on Ukraine's membership in NATO. Stopping NATO's spread would serve Putin's goals.
There's a bigger game being played here.
Putin is probably wanting to keep missiles out of his back yard.
That’s the small game. The real game is if Putin invades Ukraine and the west does nothing about it. That would give China the go ahead to invade Taiwan and then the real game would start. The west needs Taiwan much more than they need Ukraine
Last edited:
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Putin knows his time is running up. He's approaching 70, probably doesn't have a super long time left to live, much less to lead. He wants to leave his legacy. As I understand he wants to reclaim "traditional russian lands" which is to say recreate the Russian Empire or USSR. He basically wants to consolidate power at all costs.
Resolution to his antics is resolved by internal strife, just like the fall of the USSR, it won't happen by Western invasion, it needs to happen by the people in side revolting against the Russians. Same with China. The people need to revolt against the Communist party, not be defeated by outside forces.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I think Ukraine is important to him due to the pipelines and Black Sea access, and their desire to join NATO is an insult he can't take. He's kept the small scale conflict going for years because NATO rules don't allow any country engaged in conflict to join.
Nordstream 2 would have given him the leverage to brink Ukraine to heel, until Germany and the EU went crazy with killing off nuclear energy. Now there's enough demand for Russian gas that the Ukraine can still maintain massive income from the pipelines going through Ukraine, despite Russia partially bypassing them with NS2. Now instead of using economics to bring about a regime change he's deciding if he wants to do it with a coup or an invasion. Regardless, he will do it, Ukraine will fall. The EU and US said as much by saying it wasn't worth starting WW3 to stop him.
According to reports video cameras were off as well. lol
I actually liked both threads a lot as well. Perhaps a bit too light on the how, given the complicated nature of geopolitics, but I think there are some fundamental issues that he has exactly right.
I’ve always held that one of the biggest reasons I’m so pro-immigration and in favor of taking in refugees is the extent to which we helped create the conditions people are fleeing. By treating SA nations as vessels for resources rather than sovereign trade partners, we’ve allowed some pretty awful **** to flourish with us pulling at least some of the strings. It’s the same issue in the Middle East. It’s amazing how the places we’ve been bombing for 30 years continue to hold negative opinions on the West.
I think ultimately that there are many on the right with some right ideas on foreign policy, though I differ with some of the conclusions drawn. I don’t think American safety is really being protected when we bomb the **** out of Syria. I also don’t think the answer is isolationism. I think we need to have a robust State Department building coalitions of nations, even if it’s a negative sum game for us. The amount of money we spend instead on bombs and other “defense” would be better served helping those in need across the world. By doing so, we not only make the world just a little bit safer for our interests but also tip the scales of America doing good instead of bad.
Last edited: