headhunter15
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,610
- Likes
- 30,582
Putin is basically daring other countries to intervene, threatening to resort to nukes. He has to know that no one wins if nukes come into play. His country will not survive. In some ways, I wish someone would call his bluff, in others, I of course worry he just might be serious. But I do think he's bluffing, feigning strength for his people. The last thing he wants is to look weak.
I just said to my dad something is weird about this. Russia by all accounts is getting their ass kicked, but you look at why and it's just total incompetence. Are they that incompetent or is there something else going on here?
I have to imagine Putin didn't think it would be this difficult to take Ukraine. That, or he truly has gone mad.This has turned into a major wake-up call for Europe and I hope America. I don’t think Europe actually thought he would go through with this, and I don’t believe Putin expected the backlash from the world.
Germany and Japan were the aggressors in WWII. That changes the story quite a bit IMO.
I guess my point is Germany and Japan weren't "conquered", just defeated. Putin is looking to conquer Ukraine. If they want to remain a country, demilitarization is clearly not an option.Germany and Japan's status as agressors certainly made the victorious Allies' demand that they be demilitarized a just one, but my point is that their continued existence as nations was benefited by -- indeed contingent upon -- their demilitarization. I was responding to the assertion that "demilitarization should NEVER be an option of a country wanting to stay a country." I'm not saying it's a good option for most countries in most circumstances.
I guess my point is Germany and Japan weren't "conquered", just defeated. Putin is looking to conquer Ukraine. If they want to remain a country, demilitarization is clearly not an option.
Good point. Russia should disarm.Germany and Japan's status as agressors certainly made the victorious Allies' demand that they be demilitarized a just one, but my point is that their continued existence as nations was benefited by -- indeed contingent upon -- their demilitarization. I was responding to the assertion that "demilitarization should NEVER be an option of a country wanting to stay a country." I'm not saying it's a good option for most countries in most circumstances.