No-one has interest in Russia losing in a way that would cause instability within Russia up to possibly a civil war. No-one wants to see the return of the chaos of the 90s, including risk of nuclear dissemination.
The continuation of the war also suits interests, especially for the US, broadly by ensuring a continuing split between Russia and Europe and by creating headaches for China, as well as, of course, keeping Russia isolated and weakened.
I am sure plenty of expert analysts have been working on scenarios of what would happen if Putin was toppled or/and if Russia was totally humiliated in Ukraine. Maybe those in charge do not like the most likely ones.
The question isn't whether Putin will leave power someday: He will, that is indeed a fact. The question is what would happened if he did now, especially if he were to be toppled. If the US reckon that he outcome would not be good for them compared to the current situation then they won't push for it but rather wait and/or maneuver to change the conditions so that the likelihood of a better outcome increases.
> if you cut all the "moral crap" about of the war in ukraine:
> because nobody wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse!?
I actually firmly believe that leaving Ukraine on its own to be steam rolled by Russia would of increased the worlds chances of a nuclear led extinction event in the near future (10+ years) by a drastic amount.
Think about, Ukraine willing gave up their own nuclear weapons in exchange for promises/pledges/assurances whatever you want to call it really, from multiple countries including Russia that their sovereignty would be respected.
If we don't help Ukraine when that promise is being broken what we are telling all other countries is "give up your nukes and your enemies with nukes are free to invade".
No on one would ever give up there nukes willing again, and nuclear proliferation would go through the roof with every country looking to counter every other countries nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons from the USSR and then under the operational control of Russia were stationed on its territory. A lot of them.
They could probably not afford to keep them and to maintain them, they didn't have full control over them at the time, and my understanding is that most of them were ICBMs, so more useful against the US than against neighbouring countries.
Lastly, it's also most probable that no-one wanted Ukraine to have nukes so everyone 'nudged' them into the 'right' direction at a time when they were rock-bottom. Obviously promises are worthless but they can help sweeten things a bit.
Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either.
> Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either.
It's not hard to make simple fission bombs like fat man and little boy that do a lot of damage, its likely within the realm of most nation states to do so if they wished.
The hard part is the delivery mechanism.
A delivery mechanism is less hard if your looking to stave off enemies at your border though.
I guess there are deals in place which companies profit most of rebuilding Ukraine. It won’t be of countries not helping I assume.
So it could be a net positive outcome even tax wise to help as fast and good as possible for Ukraine to win the war.
22 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadbecause nobody wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse!?
The continuation of the war also suits interests, especially for the US, broadly by ensuring a continuing split between Russia and Europe and by creating headaches for China, as well as, of course, keeping Russia isolated and weakened.
Without those they cannot win. Simple as that.
Whatever country you are from, consider which parts of it you would willingly give up to make other people feel a bit safer.
I actually firmly believe that leaving Ukraine on its own to be steam rolled by Russia would of increased the worlds chances of a nuclear led extinction event in the near future (10+ years) by a drastic amount.
Think about, Ukraine willing gave up their own nuclear weapons in exchange for promises/pledges/assurances whatever you want to call it really, from multiple countries including Russia that their sovereignty would be respected.
If we don't help Ukraine when that promise is being broken what we are telling all other countries is "give up your nukes and your enemies with nukes are free to invade".
No on one would ever give up there nukes willing again, and nuclear proliferation would go through the roof with every country looking to counter every other countries nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons from the USSR and then under the operational control of Russia were stationed on its territory. A lot of them.
They could probably not afford to keep them and to maintain them, they didn't have full control over them at the time, and my understanding is that most of them were ICBMs, so more useful against the US than against neighbouring countries.
Lastly, it's also most probable that no-one wanted Ukraine to have nukes so everyone 'nudged' them into the 'right' direction at a time when they were rock-bottom. Obviously promises are worthless but they can help sweeten things a bit.
Now, countries that have nuclear weapons now know why they do and aren't going to give them up unilaterally in any case. It is not easy to develop nuclear weapons, either.
So, overall the topic is a red herring.
It's not hard to make simple fission bombs like fat man and little boy that do a lot of damage, its likely within the realm of most nation states to do so if they wished.
The hard part is the delivery mechanism.
A delivery mechanism is less hard if your looking to stave off enemies at your border though.