Yea… as if they don’t enjoy their strategic advantage to have bases and drone relays in all their “befriended” countries. Their global power relies in the ability to project military power in a fast manner.
Good luck doing that without strategic bases and pre distributed resources and local enablers.
And just out of plain stupidity they’ve decided to reject the overwhelming consensus of US foreign policy for decades? Colour me sceptical. Where do the stupid people get those ideas from?
Looking at Ukraine: not having nukes does not guarantee peace, rather the contrary. Meanwhile, there haven’t been that many foreign tanks attacking in those countries that live under the protection of nukes. It’s ok to be hopeful, but let’s also stay realistic.
Okay apples and pears aside. Maybe not nukes, but lots of yummy Uranium deposits, only a third less than China has. Then for the rest of the basket, Ukraine and specifically the Donbas is chock full of Lithium. Some of the largest deposits. Reason A doesn’t oppose reason B.
The point is: had Ukraine kept its nukes in the 90s instead of giving them away for a security treaty with Russia that Russia decided to just break, it wouldn’t have to defend against the Russian war of aggression right now.
So while you think of nukes as a threat, keep in mind there’s people in a war right now and not far away that wished they had kept theirs.
Yea… as if they don’t enjoy their strategic advantage to have bases and drone relays in all their “befriended” countries. Their global power relies in the ability to project military power in a fast manner.
Good luck doing that without strategic bases and pre distributed resources and local enablers.
This is not about the geostrategic interests of the US. Where do you think these ideas come from?
I don’t think they come from where you think, it is just plain stupidity from people thinking that US could go better alone.
And just out of plain stupidity they’ve decided to reject the overwhelming consensus of US foreign policy for decades? Colour me sceptical. Where do the stupid people get those ideas from?
Obviously. They are stupid, they cannot understand, or don’t care about, the consequences of their actions.
These ideas were always there, they think they are special. It is just that this time they elected the worst people possible.
Your point being?
My point being that the US serve Russian geostrategic interests these days instead of their own.
Doesn’t mean, a whole dysfunctional government goes along with such a deep cut in their own flesh.
That’s exactly what they’ve been doing for the past year.
Yes time to go home boys. Can you take your shitty nukes too so we’re no longer a target for your stupid war games?
Sorry, but to think Europe will no longer be threatened by nuclear weapons if the US will remove theirs is a bit naïve.
Naive, hope. What ever you want to call it. I just don’t want to live in FallOut, sorry.
Looking at Ukraine: not having nukes does not guarantee peace, rather the contrary. Meanwhile, there haven’t been that many foreign tanks attacking in those countries that live under the protection of nukes. It’s ok to be hopeful, but let’s also stay realistic.
Okay apples and pears aside. Maybe not nukes, but lots of yummy Uranium deposits, only a third less than China has. Then for the rest of the basket, Ukraine and specifically the Donbas is chock full of Lithium. Some of the largest deposits. Reason A doesn’t oppose reason B.
The point is: had Ukraine kept its nukes in the 90s instead of giving them away for a security treaty with Russia that Russia decided to just break, it wouldn’t have to defend against the Russian war of aggression right now.
So while you think of nukes as a threat, keep in mind there’s people in a war right now and not far away that wished they had kept theirs.
That’s not a point at all. Ignoring the facts doesn’t make mutually assured destruction a valid tactic.
How would Russia have invaded a Ukraine with nukes?