[roenxi]

Been my policy since Iraq. Let the bullies bully.

For all the horrors in the Middle East, the Iraq war was less damaging locally than Ukraine will be for Europe.

This one war could easily accomplish what took decades of coups and army movements over in the ruins of the Ottoman empire.

[_kbh_]

> Been my policy since Iraq. Let the bullies bully.

lets call it what it is, its not bullies, in the case of Ukraine its a concerted effort by Russia to wipe a country out of existence, including the use of rape and torture.

But your policy doesn't sound so benign when its "let rapists rape and torturers torture" does it.

[EnragedParrot]

It's a terrible policy. Not all conflicts are identical to Iraq. What will be the most damaging for Europe is if Russia is permitted to violently invade and annex neighboring sovereign nations. It's insane that you would think otherwise.

[pjc50]

.. how?

[roenxi]

Around 8 million Ukraine refugees to 4 million Iraqis, and we could reasonably see the collapse of Russia, Ukraine & Belarus after the dust settles. There is a lot of pressure being bought to a point here. Not to mention a shit-tonne of weapons were just dumped into one of the world's more corrupt countries, we don't really know where they will end up.

And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".

[_kbh_]

> Not to mention a shit-tonne of weapons were just dumped into one of the world's more corrupt countries, we don't really know where they will end up.

It's evident they end up killing Russians, we even get videos of it!.

> And that is assuming the reasonably optimistic outcomes where Russia avoids launching a volley of nukes east or west as a final "screw you all we're not going out alone".

You're telling me that the entire chair command, when faced with losing an external war to Ukraine is going to all the way down make the decision to launch and nuke and kill everyone last of themselves?.

I think thats unlikely to happen.

[tsimionescu]

The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.

Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.

[_kbh_]

> The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.

I really hope that nuke works and that not one person in that command chain has reservations about ending the country he lives in existence in its entirety.

Make no mistake, detonating a nuke will not only bring a response from NATO, it would bring a response from the world. Russia is done for if they do that.

> Having Ukraine become an official NATO base of operations is that dangerous to Russia, especially if it happens after they were just conclusively beaten in a war. It would obviously soon mean NATO support for separatists in Russian states directly, and the end of the federation.

How is having Ukraine become a NATO member anymore dangerous then Finland?, who literally just joined NATO.

[EnragedParrot]

> The more likely scenario is that Russia would rather detonate a nuke in Ukraine than lose the war, regardless of what NATO's response would be.

Based on literally nothing but your own fantasies.