• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Ukrainian Conflict - Donetsk Boogaloo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roland Gunner said:
Putin's invasion of the Ukraine has been shameful but I wouldn't use the US treatment of Cuba as an example of a power accepting the public's will. We tried to overthrow Castro by arming a group of rebels, tried to kill him several times, and then spent decades trying to starve the country into submission.
Click to expand...
Yes, the US government was unhappy about Castro's takeover,but they didn't go in occupy an area. Guantanamo was already under US control. As of now, most Americans probably don't care about Cuba.

dapperbandit said:
The US tried to invade Cuba, failed then blockaded and embargoed Cuba for decades, it's not like the US paid it no mind.
Click to expand...
As noted above, no successful invasion occurred.

Korea and Vietnam were both in China's sphere of influence, China sent millions of troops to fight in the Korean War and is only starting to relax its backing of North Korea now. China heavily supported the North Vietnamese.
Click to expand...
Korea and Vietnam were once vassal states. They are no longer.

The French took over Vietnam without much Chinese resistance, and the Japanese took over Korea without any major Chinese opposition as far as I know.

China may support North Korea, but it's not like they are in active war with South Korea either. China may have supported the North Vietnamese. However, relatively soon after the Vietnam war, Vietnam and China fought the Sino-Vietnamese War.
 
Madness said:
Would the Ukrainians be fine with Crimea gone but the rest of their borders unmolested? Meaning Ukraine stays intact from East to West and that because of this war, UN observers stay in place to monitor the situation after?

If the goal is Ukraine into EU, possibly NATO, I think many would tolerate losing the Crimea if it meant the end of Russian involvement and influence into their country.

Ideally though, you want Ukraine territorial integrity to be sound, and the end goal should be Crimea staying with the Ukraine, but I just don't see it after this. I see it as another Abkhazia/South Ossetia
Click to expand...

See my post above. It would actually be good for Ukraine.
 
Y2Kev said:
The NYT ran a fantastic editorial today that was a bit of mind reading but totally changed my perspective on this.

Putin shouldn't want Crimea as part of Russia proper. Doing so removes a huge swath of pro-Russia voters from Ukraine and ensures Ukraine will flip to the west sooner rather than later, provided there is no mass fraud and scheming (poor assumption?).

He wants to support or foment a desire for greater autonomy but leave it a apart of Ukraine. It can be a "thorn in ukraine's side" for generations to come.

It's silly to me to think of this as being about Sevastopol. Russia had it leased until the freaking 2040s.

Tymoshenko is bad news.
Click to expand...

For this to be an issue for generations to come, he'll have to make them produce massive amount of babies. What is far more likely to happen is that Russia would lose influence over time as Ukraine becomes more European and less Russian. That is what Putin wants to prevent from happening, and that is why he had his man in charge of Ukraine. That's the only way; control Ukraine through a fake democracy of officials supported by corruption and propaganda.

And if he thinks that western Ukraine will never be easy to manipulate as it was before, he'll want to split Ukraine, not annex part of the territory, and create a buffer zone that is basically a vassal state.
 
Resident_UA said:
Yes, that's why the whole thing is so confusing!

If Crimea goes away:
1. Ukrainian economy is not affected (maybe even improved a bit because we can sell electricity and water to them)
2. Ukraine is more united than ever
3. EU speeds up union talks
4. EU + US give financial support to Ukraine
5. Ukraine will probably join NATO
6. Putin has LESS influence on Ukrainian politics

The question is WHY?! Why would he want this? Does he want more?!
Click to expand...

he's on that Sochi high!!
 
Could anyone ever envisage a time when Ukraine joins the EU and potentially even NATO with the Russian Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol, or is that a complete non-starter? Either way, Russian influence in Ukraine is waning, and I'm not just talking about the last 48 hours, but Ukraine is clearly headed towards the EU in the long term. Ukraine - Crimea just accelerates this,

There now seems to be a much smaller chance of a proper war or conflict. This is the way Putin works. He doesn't formally annex or even conquer territory, he just steals, intimidates and loiters, like in Georgia. But as long as Crimea remains part of Ukraine, there is a much smaller chance of Ukraine gaining entry to the EU or NATO. So how does he go about maintaining Russian influence in Crimea without sparking a formal breakup that would clear the route for Ukraine to cosy up to the EU and NATO? He seems to have backed himself into a corner.
 
China supported North Korea because they didn't want the US on their border, not because they like them. Same reason they would not want the US to have a base in SK if SK and NK reunited, and probably why the US doesn't really want to solve the NK situation.

Bo-Locks said:
Could anyone ever envisage a time when Ukraine joins the EU and potentially even NATO with the Russian Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol, or is that a complete non-starter? Either way, Russian influence in Ukraine is waning, and I'm not just talking about the last 48 hours, but Ukraine is clearly headed towards the EU in the long term. Ukraine - Crimea just accelerates this,

There now seems to be a much smaller chance of a proper war or conflict. This is the way Putin works. He doesn't formally annex or even conquer territory, he just steals, intimidates and loiters, like in Georgia. But as long as Crimea remains part of Ukraine, there is a much smaller chance of Ukraine gaining entry to the EU or NATO. So how does he go about maintaining Russian influence in Crimea without sparking a formal breakup that would clear the route for Ukraine to cosy up to the EU and NATO? He seems to have backed himself into a corner.
Click to expand...

His government will finance instability in the country to make joining the EU take longer/forever. Russia could invade a non-EU-integrated Ukraine at any time again. As long as Ukraine isn't part of the EU or NATO, he will consider Russia to be better off than otherwise. He doesn't Crimea unless he gives up on that, but Russia will have a lot of trouble keeping up this game forever. So worst scenario for Putin is probably having to help Crimea become independent. Best scenario is to just make Ukraine endlessly unstable to prevent EU-integration, but even that would be difficult.
 
Bo-Locks said:
Could anyone ever envisage a time when Ukraine joins the EU and potentially even NATO with the Russian Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol, or is that a complete non-starter? Either way, Russian influence in Ukraine is waning, and I'm not just talking about the last 48 hours, but Ukraine is clearly headed towards the EU in the long term. Ukraine - Crimea just accelerates this,

There now seems to be a much smaller chance of a proper war or conflict. This is the way Putin works. He doesn't formally annex or even conquer territory, he just steals, intimidates and loiters, like in Georgia. But as long as Crimea remains part of Ukraine, there is a much smaller chance of Ukraine gaining entry to the EU or NATO. So how does he go about maintaining Russian influence in Crimea without sparking a formal breakup that would clear the route for Ukraine to cosy up to the EU and NATO? He seems to have backed himself into a corner.
Click to expand...

I think this might be an area he overstepped. The Diehard Pro Russians are adamant for Annexation. Crimea could become a hot zone if Putin backs off and doesn't take them with him.
 
TBH the black sea fleet being in Sevastopol seems like a sitting duck anyway. NATO has had Turkey for decades and now it has Romania too. What's the range on Anti-shipping missiles again?
 
Bo-Locks said:
Could anyone ever envisage a time when Ukraine joins the EU and potentially even NATO with the Russian Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol, or is that a complete non-starter? Either way, Russian influence in Ukraine is waning, and I'm not just talking about the last 48 hours, but Ukraine is clearly headed towards the EU in the long term. Ukraine - Crimea just accelerates this,

There now seems to be a much smaller chance of a proper war or conflict. This is the way Putin works. He doesn't formally annex or even conquer territory, he just steals, intimidates and loiters, like in Georgia. But as long as Crimea remains part of Ukraine, there is a much smaller chance of Ukraine gaining entry to the EU or NATO. So how does he go about maintaining Russian influence in Crimea without sparking a formal breakup that would clear the route for Ukraine to cosy up to the EU and NATO? He seems to have backed himself into a corner.
Click to expand...

I think Ukraine has other problems besides Russia hampering it's entry into the EU and NATO. It's one of the more corrupt nations in eastern Europe. There are also tons of human rights issues, racism, xenophobia, homophobia. Ukraine as a society would need to change quite a hit before the EU would even attempt to get them in. NATO is another issue. You'd have a powerful military right next to Ukraine, one that can easily monitor and intercept a lot of Ukrainian intelligence. Pro-Russian influence and the spectre of poor relations or counter attack by Russia would make them wary of allowing Ukraine to join.

Just look at how long it's taken Turkey to join, if at ever. One of the biggest issues is, would other EU nations also want a ton of Ukrainians entering their countries to work? I know the increase in the Polish population and how skilled Polish laborers, plumbers and tradesmen has caused a few issues in the UK.

Ultimately though, the Euromaidan protests, and now Russian actions ha email pretty much guaranteed Ukraine will join the EU, most likely sooner rather than later. It's bad to say, but Ukraine is also white/European, one of the big issues with Turkey whether people want to admit it or not, is the fact it would be one of the most populous nations, and Muslim, and with free travel and work, I know many like France are wary of it.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
TBH the black sea fleet being in Sevastopol seems like a sitting duck anyway. NATO has had Turkey for decades and now it has Romania too. What's the range on Anti-shipping missiles again?
Click to expand...

300 Kilometers is pretty average max range for a standard Anti-Ship weapons. most are in the 150-200km range with a few extremes that are like 370km
 
Madness said:
I think Ukraine has other problems besides Russia hampering it's entry into the EU and NATO. It's one of the more corrupt nations in eastern Europe. There are also tons of human rights issues, racism, xenophobia, homophobia. Ukraine as a society would need to change quite a hit before the EU would even attempt to get them in. NATO is another issue. You'd have a powerful military right next to Ukraine, one that can easily monitor and intercept a lot of Ukrainian intelligence. Pro-Russian influence and the spectre of poor relations or counter attack by Russia would make them wary of allowing Ukraine to join.

Just look at how long it's taken Turkey to join, if at ever. One of the biggest issues is, would other EU nations also want a ton of Ukrainians entering their countries to work? I know the increase in the Polish population and how skilled Polish laborers, plumbers and tradesmen has caused a few issues in the UK.

Ultimately though, the Euromaidan protests, and now Russian actions ha email pretty much guaranteed Ukraine will join the EU, most likely sooner rather than later. It's bad to say, but Ukraine is also white/European, one of the big issues with Turkey whether people want to admit it or not, is the fact it would be one of the most populous nations, and Muslim, and with free travel and work, I know many like France are wary of it.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!! Where did you hear about "human rights issues, racism, xenophobia, homophobia"? I mean it's impossible to say that none of those things exist in Ukraine, but they exist everywhere and they are not major at all.

From all the crap you listed the only one that is huge is corruption. That's what the revolution was about... It looks like this might change...
 
Tripon said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg&feature=youtu.be

Youtube vid of Liz Wahl resigning.
Click to expand...
This strikes me as very, very odd.

She's been working at RT for years and all of a sudden she's too patriotic to work at RT because her family was victimized by the Soviets and her husband is a physician for the military? She didn't know any of this BEFORE she started working at RT? And for her to do this on the heels of Abby Martin speaking her mind on BTS is also a little suspect.
 
FreedomFighter said:
This strikes me as very, very odd.

She's been working at RT for years and all of a sudden she's too patriotic to work at RT because her family was victimized by the Soviets and her husband is a physician for the military? She didn't know any of this BEFORE she started working at RT? And for her to do this on the heels of Abby Martin speaking her mind on BTS is also a little suspect.
Click to expand...

Freedom Fighter
IC9fWVM.jpg


She must have been a plant, waiting for the opportunity to strike!
 
videogamer said:
The French took over Vietnam without much Chinese resistance, and the Japanese took over Korea without any major Chinese opposition as far as I know.
Click to expand...
They had oppositions from Russian Empire because Russians had deals with Korean Empire, Korea was leaning towards Russian influence since Qing was knocked out of power after Sino-Japanese war, then Russo-Japanese war happened and then japan pretty much had no oppositions for Korea after that.
 
Resident_UA said:
WHAT?!! Where did you hear about "human rights issues, racism, xenophobia, homophobia"? I mean it's impossible to say that none of those things exist in Ukraine, but they exist everywhere and they are not major at all.

From all the crap you listed the only one that is huge is corruption. That's what the revolution was about... It looks like this might change...
Click to expand...

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/ukraine

Very easy to say it's "crap" because you disagree with it, and dismissing it by saying it exists everywhere, is wrong.

I didn't even know it was up for debate, or what is there to be angry about? We're talking about the EU here and membership, Ukraine has a long way to go, not just because of Russia, but Ukrainian society itself.
 
Ether_Snake said:
She must have been a plant, waiting for the opportunity to strike!
Click to expand...
Nah, I don't think it's that deep, although I know you're joking. It's just a bit weird. Doubt it would've even happened had Abby Martin got so many accolades for condemning Russian military action - despite the fact that she does the same thing of US military action ALL THE TIME. They never report on that though.

EDIT: And there's no space between "Freedom" and "Fighter". Just so you know.
 
Liha said:
Svoboda is exactly this, a neo-facism party.
Ukraine is a potential candidate in maybe 15 - 20 years, definitely not before.
Click to expand...

Fun fact - did you know that Svoboda runs the government in one part of Ukraine. That's also a part of Ukraine that has a lot of international students (medical university). Not saying that there's absolutely no racism there, but it neither decreased nor increased as Svoboda took power.

Guys, please stop painting with broad strokes. That's exactly what Putin is doing.
 
Soyongdori said:
They had oppositions from Russian Empire because Russians had deals with Korean Empire, Korea was leaning towards Russian influence since Qing was knocked out of power after Sino-Japanese war, then Russo-Japanese war happened and then japan pretty much had no oppositions for Korea after that.
Click to expand...

Yep... Korea really can't catch a break. Truly the Ireland of the East.
 
Russian Gas Can Be a Weapon for Europe

Russia's importance as a supplier of natural gas to Europe may look like an asset for Moscow, as demonstrated by Europe's inaction over Russia's occupation of Crimea. Over the long term, however, that relationship could become a significant liability, and one that Europe can try to exploit.

[...]

Russia is much more dependent on European consumers than the other way around. It sends west almost all the natural gas it doesn't use for itself. Oil and gas revenues paid for more than half of Russian government spending last year, a vulnerability that can be exploited if Europe is committed to restraining Russian adventurism. Ordinary Russians might even benefit in the long run if their economy is nudged to rebalance away from commodity extraction.

The question is whether European consumers are willing to bear the costs. Europeans have three options, although only two of them make much sense:

Replace imports of Russian natural gas with supplies from elsewhere.
Reduce total consumption of natural gas by improving energy efficiency and switching to alternative sources of power.
Build a stockpile of natural gas that could be distributed to any state endangered by the possibility of Russian supply cuts.
Click to expand...

More at the link.

tldr; Europe can start investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency for boost economic activity and reduce dependency on Russia. Win-win scenario.
 
antonz said:
300 Kilometers is pretty average max range for a standard Anti-Ship weapons. most are in the 150-200km range with a few extremes that are like 370km
Click to expand...

That would put land based missiles in range from Sinop or north-eastern Romanian cities. If you want to throw cruise missiles into the mix, even more options on the table too.
 
FreedomFighter said:
This strikes me as very, very odd.

She's been working at RT for years and all of a sudden she's too patriotic to work at RT because her family was victimized by the Soviets and her husband is a physician for the military? She didn't know any of this BEFORE she started working at RT? And for her to do this on the heels of Abby Martin speaking her mind on BTS is also a little suspect.
Click to expand...
Seems like a way to further her career tbh. Pull the patriotism angle.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
That would put land based missiles in range from Sinop or north-eastern Romanian cities. If you want to throw cruise missiles into the mix, even more options on the table too.
Click to expand...

Yeah realistically Sevastopol is not as secure as it once was due to advance weaponry. It is a matter of pride thing still. Even though its not nearly as important it would signify Russia stepping back and that isn't acceptable.

Some videos interviewing Youth of Ukraine in both kyiv and Crimea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1eSal0pfU4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3xRrOEYfn0

2nd Video is a woman who was attacked by pro-Russian men for having a sign calling for peace.
 
SymbiantXenos said:
With ICBMs around. Don't think anywhere is truely secure. Although the chance of those being used in a combat scenario would be less than zero.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I find this attitude to be incredibly naive. The cold war didn't prove MAD works we just got very lucky. Incidents like Able Archer show that armageddon won't stop leaders from doing stupid things.
 
brian577 said:
I'm sorry but I find this attitude to be incredibly naive. The cold war didn't prove MAD works we just got very lucky. Incidents like Able Archer show that armageddon won't stop leaders from doing stupid things.
Click to expand...

You do make a good point. That was the scare in 1983 wasn't it.
 
Resident_UA said:
Look up Poland there
Click to expand...

Once again you've done the same thing and deflected criticism by saying look at someone else. Poland is years ahead of Ukraine when it comes to a variety of issues as outlined above. Sure they also have their issues, and Change does take time, but it's why I said one of the pressing issues before entry into the EU, is for Ukraine to tackle a lot of those issues. You're acting like they're not that big a deal.

brian577 said:
I'm sorry but I find this attitude to be incredibly naive. The cold war didn't prove MAD works we just got very lucky. Incidents like Able Archer show that armageddon won't stop leaders from doing stupid things.
Click to expand...

Even worse when consider that when religious fundamentalists/extremists who believe in a higher power, or in the afterlife, and even justify their actions come into contact with nuclear weapons, would they hesitate to use them?
 
brian577 said:
I'm sorry but I find this attitude to be incredibly naive. The cold war didn't prove MAD works we just got very lucky. Incidents like Able Archer show that armageddon won't stop leaders from doing stupid things.
Click to expand...

It's the irony of nuclear weapons. Most destructive weapons man has ever created has prevented major wars from breaking out and forced a "peace".
 
brian577 said:
Doesn't stop people with the right mindset from thinking they can "win"
Click to expand...

Maybe they can 25 years from now. First deployment of a killin' laser on a US warship scheduled for this year. When the tech matures much futher, a high-altitute heavy-lift aircraft body modified to zap missiles out of the sky will be a highly disruptive technology in the missile defense space. ATL got scrapped but budgets will rise again in the future and this is one of those no-brainer projects that will get the funding as soon as the tech is there.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Maybe they can 25 years from now. First deployment of a killin' laser on a US warship scheduled for this year. When the tech matures much futher, a high-altitute heavy-lift aircraft body modified to zap missiles out of the sky will be a highly disruptive technology in the missile defense space. ATL got scrapped but budgets will rise again in the future and this is one of those no-brainer projects that will get the funding as soon as the tech is there.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more likely to see satellites with lasers? Current treaties only forbid nukes in space or am I mistaken?
 
Ether_Snake said:
Wouldn't it be more likely to see satellites with lasers? Current treaties only forbid nukes in space or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

Eh, if I remember correctly, the atmosphere on the planet refracts the light of the laser so the target might be on point in the satellite's guidance systems, but in actual usage the laser may be off by kilometers.

Now of course, the guidance system might take that into account, so who knows?
 
TacticalFox88 said:
It's the irony of nuclear weapons. Most destructive weapons man has ever created has prevented major wars from breaking out and forced a "peace".
Click to expand...

Don't discount what others feel, I think is a good rule of thumb. There is no peace for those who end up in inescapable hell. If they convince themselves or others help re-enforce that reality--bad things can still happen.


Imagine two massive gangs thinking they are safe in their respective niches(ignore the splinters which rigidity causes or not).

If the truce fails, it fails spectacularly. Things fall or spin apart until stable again.
 
Okay so far my only sources on this have been CBS, USA Today, NPR, and the Washington Post. Where is all that considered in the bias scale?
 
Ether_Snake said:
Wouldn't it be more likely to see satellites with lasers? Current treaties only forbid nukes in space or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

There might be some, but satellites are fragile and expensive. If you're imagining a war with advanced missile defense, satellites are sitting ducks by comparison to things on balistic trajectories around the world because their position is predictable, they can't manuever quickly and they cost so much to put into space per unit of mass. Things in the atmosphere, on the ground and in the water have huge advantages in cooling compared to something in space, and can have much bigger weapons. A Destroyer isn't that big by naval standards, but could still house an enormous laser powered by an advanced nuclear reactor. The downside of that platform is that it has to go through the whole atmosphere to reach space. That doesn't mean it's infeasible necessarily, but a high altitute aircraft avoids the thickest parts of the atmosphere. OTOH, it won't be as powerful overall...
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Eh, if I remember correctly, the atmosphere on the planet refracts the light of the laser so the target might be on point in the satellite's guidance systems, but in actual usage the laser may be off by kilometers.

Now of course, the guidance system might take that into account, so who knows?
Click to expand...

ThoseDeafMutes said:
There might be some, but satellites are fragile and expensive. If you're imagining a war with advanced missile defense, satellites are sitting ducks by comparison to things on balistic trajectories around the world because their position is predictable, they can't manuever quickly and they cost so much to put into space per unit of mass. Things in the atmosphere, on the ground and in the water have huge advantages in cooling compared to something in space, and can have much bigger weapons. A Destroyer isn't that big by naval standards, but could still house an enormous laser powered by an advanced nuclear reactor. The downside of that platform is that it has to go through the whole atmosphere to reach space. That doesn't mean it's infeasible necessarily, but a high altitute aircraft avoids the thickest parts of the atmosphere. OTOH, it won't be as powerful overall...
Click to expand...

I see. I guess it's more likely for them to be on ships and airplanes. But I'm curious about the implications of space lasers, could be used against other satellites.

Kind of not cool, nukes were not the end of the line. War is getting a bit silly considering the stakes.

RedSwirl said:
Okay so far my only sources on this have been CBS, USA Today, NPR, and the Washington Post. Where is all that considered in the bias scale?
Click to expand...

The Guardian is pretty good.
 
antonz said:
300 Kilometers is pretty average max range for a standard Anti-Ship weapons. most are in the 150-200km range with a few extremes that are like 370km
Click to expand...

If there was any hint of war with NATO coming, the Black Fleet likely wouldn't be anchored in Sevastapol. Nobody is that stupid.
 
Ether_Snake said:
I see. I guess it's more likely for them to be on ships and airplanes. But I'm curious about the implications of space lasers, could be used against other satellites.

Kind of not cool, nukes were not the end of the line. War is getting a bit silly considering the stakes.
Click to expand...

You can do cheap ASAT weapons just by launching a bundle of micro-satellites that steer into collision courses with your targets. If you're "stationary" and the other satellite is coming at a relative speed of 6 kilometers per second, a small pebble is enough to cause major damage and possibly destroy you.

Atmospheric laser weapons would be able to destroy or cripple satellites anyway though, assuming it's already engaging missiles in the upper atmosphere / low orbits. Fry their optics at a minimum, and just outright destroy them by dwelling on the satellite for 20-30 seconds.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
You can do cheap ASAT weapons just by launching a bundle of micro-satellites that steer into collision courses with your targets. If you're "stationary" and the other satellite is coming at a relative speed of 6 kilometers per second, a small pebble is enough to cause major damage and possibly destroy you.

Atmospheric laser weapons would be able to destroy or cripple satellites anyway though, assuming it's already engaging missiles in the upper atmosphere / low orbits. Fry their optics at a minimum, and just outright destroy them by dwelling on the satellite for 20-30 seconds.
Click to expand...

Brilliant Pebbles even.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Brilliant_Pebbles
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
You can do cheap ASAT weapons just by launching a bundle of micro-satellites that steer into collision courses with your targets. If you're "stationary" and the other satellite is coming at a relative speed of 6 kilometers per second, a small pebble is enough to cause major damage and possibly destroy you.

Atmospheric laser weapons would be able to destroy or cripple satellites anyway though, assuming it's already engaging missiles in the upper atmosphere / low orbits. Fry their optics at a minimum, and just outright destroy them by dwelling on the satellite for 20-30 seconds.
Click to expand...

Crazy, I bet the US had been testing space defense stuff, but I'm guessing it must be pretty difficult to be able to defend against something coming at a high speed or even stationary. I would think the best defense for a satellite at the moment would be simply maneuverability; being able to slow down and then speed up at least, and then later being outright able to change direction. You could have a fuel reserve for it, and eventually high capacity batteries to store energy for such rare maneuvers.
 
brian577 said:
Doesn't stop people with the right mindset from thinking they can "win", those kind of people scare the crap out of me.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of win. I remember when I did some research on the Cold War in the past, someone said that if even 1 person was left alive in the US and none in the Soviet Union, they still won.

Nuclear war is winnable, but at what cost? Especially with regards to the rest of the planet. But still, people have to test and train for all possible scenarios.
 
Madness said:
Once again you've done the same thing and deflected criticism by saying look at someone else. Poland is years ahead of Ukraine when it comes to a variety of issues as outlined above. Sure they also have their issues, and Change does take time, but it's why I said one of the pressing issues before entry into the EU, is for Ukraine to tackle a lot of those issues. You're acting like they're not that big a deal.
Click to expand...

I'm also not saying that it's NOT an issue. Just not huge and not something that would be impossible to overcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How did you get better at handling conflict?
2
60
2K
kpopSuperstar replied
Rogue Squadron Delayed Due to 'Scheduling Conflicts'
45
2K
ManaByte replied
NYT: 1st Amendment No Longer Bipartisan, Now Weaponized for Civil Conflict
36
3K
iconmaster replied
LTTP: The Dress of Conflicting Colors
8
1K
Gavin Stevens replied
NYT: NK Missile Success Is Linked to Ukrainian Plant
2
56
11K
Dingens replied
Top Bottom