Who says they will burn it? The ones that got burned were because active fighting was going on, the ones that are deserted seem to be taken to safe locations for possible further use, at least twitter is full of photos where Ukrainian fighters have gathered some Russian equipment in their secure fighting locations. I mean Ukraine needs any weapon they can get their hands on.Rive said:
That one is a sophisticated stuff, requires qualified crew. The list of countries who has it suggests that there will be no crew in Ukraine who could use it properly.artis said:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine.aspx
Incorporation. This is the only exit strategy he has. USSR 2.0Astronuc said:
Sure, as you did, I had heard that he reminisced on that, but as we all do, we have our wishes that are far-fetched.fresh_42 said:
It will be. Read this in 10 years from now again.256bits said:
I also don't understand but I'm thankful this discussion has been started. We need to be worried not just about the 'worst case' scenario but the disaster that's happening right now as we watch in a state of paralysed horror. Isn't there some logic somewhere that says this war must stop and it must stop right now. How can we have an entire nation of 44 million people being pulverized the way we're seeing ? I think yes, there is an element of complete craziness about it. Russians and Ukrainians are just too important a part of the world's social fabric to permit this tragedy to unfold any further. What can we do ??phinds said:
Well, yes, that part would be obvious - Ukraine would become a province of Russia.fresh_42 said:
Except, that along the actual events it's not realistic. He has completely trapped himself in a situation where he cannot advance, cannot retreat, cannot stay.fresh_42 said:
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and those who do study history are doomed to stand by while all others repeat it.Astronuc said:
Not only that. Ukraine is also Europe's granary.Astronuc said:
Sooooo true. So sadly truefresh_42 said:
Yes. This is similar ridiculous as Putin's repeated justification of denazification of Ukraine. I mean, what' next? Denazification of all regions where Russians live in Europe? Plus the now Ukrainian and then Russian refugees? As crazy as it sounds, it cannot be said what's inside the brain of a crazy (and criminal) person.Rive said:
Ukraine has always been province of Russia!Astronuc said:
Nope. It started the other way round.Vanadium 50 said:
With Putin stuck in the mud they need to find somebody with credibility towards the 'west' and determine the price they are willing to pay.fresh_42 said:
Is that suspicion just a guess or is it based on any sort of evidence? And in what way might it look different?rsk said:
Putin's propaganda is everywhere.russ_watters said:
That was my point. Ukraine has had seven years to accept the factual truth. There was no way to regain neither Crimea nor the eastern two oblasts. They should have - as painful it might have been - written them off, i.e. given them of Russia, resp. acknowledged their independence. The next day after I would have (secretly) applied for EU and NATO membership. Maybe, a year after, officially, after a massive military gear up.artis said:
Yeah, but at least from Putin's mouth it's clearer. We don't have to read between the lines of innuendo with him.fresh_42 said:
The problem with NATO is that the whole concept should have been completely re-purpoused immediately after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Who then was the 'enemy' Nato was supposed to counter - it should have been replaced with a "Pan-European" security agency. Remember at that point in time Russia itself (under Yeltsin) wanted to join the EU but (I believe) was dissuaded from doing so by the US who were a bit concerned about a rival "United States of Europe". Personally I think a huge opportunity was missed at that point in time - a complete restoration of the Western Roman Empire albeit as a grouping of autonomous countries rather than an "Empire" as such.fresh_42 said:
I disagree. NATO is obviously important in case an unpredictable idiot is in charge of one of the most powerful military strike forces. And, yes, this is equally true in the other direction as we had to learn. It makes me really worry, that there is no safety mechanism in place to stop idiots from starting a potential nuclear war.neilparker62 said:
It's tough to say. NATO let Germany in some time after WWII after the decided the threat was no longer present. Was there ever a time when we accepted the threat from the USSR->Russia was no longer present? Or could the threat have been eliminated by the act of accepting them into NATO/EU? It's difficult to know, but as we see with the UN if you let them in and you're wrong it is a nightmare having a fox in the henhouse.neilparker62 said:
They also played the "Ukraine is preparing to build nuclear weapons" card. This propaganda is so ridiculous to us, but it sells at home. You could put Lawrow directly on a stage and you would get a first-class comedy program. Unfortunately, children are dying in the meantime!russ_watters said:
artis said:
Well yes - I think that's the point of what I'm saying. Perhaps a bit over optimistic but I would hope a democratic Russia would not have ended up being a "fox in the hen-house" as you put it. We have to try and create a bigger vision (eg Mars terraforming) for all to work towards - co-operation in space endeavours with ISS etc was definitely taking us in the right direction until Mr Putin's Ukraine debacle threw a massive spanner in the works.russ_watters said: