Certainly. It's why I'm not optimistic at all about any effects. It's become clear, however, that Putin has gone completely rogue, looking for regional Soviet domination and if the world doesn't do more to put an end to it, then it's our failing.
WaPo’s push alert said Russia is still insisting on the “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine as a condition for any peace agreement, so this seems to just be their absurd “if you’ll get rid of your government we will stop attacking you” stance.
That excuses the role of NATO expansionism and its own antagonism toward Russia, moving troops ever closer to their borders. Of course, there is never any introspection in our own role in fueling Putin's choices. Which isnt to excuse his choices either, but the idea that there is only one bad actor in what has led to this is a little convenient. There is no coherent way to oppose Russian imperialism without opposing American imperialism (in this case vis a vis NATO).
Chances of NATO launching unprovoked attack against Russia: 0.0%. This is a Russian talking point. Basically the “she asked for it” defense a rapist would use because an attractive woman wore a miniskirt. An American politician using this talking point makes me wonder if they were a Russian asset (looking at Tulsi Gabbard, since this was basically the language she used). A fairly absurd take at this stage, as Russia’s actions clearly demonstrate the need for a NATO type defense alliance in the first place.
So if one vetoes then it's a no go? At the very least the US should make a motion to show they held up to the "bring it up with the UN" portion that was referenced. Russia vetoes it then they have to go on record with their made up reasons.
If that spreads would it trigger NATO to act since it's basically an attack on the surrounding countries?
SIAP IMO, the real sticking point in "teaching Putin a lesson" is Russia/Siberia has vast reserves of natural gas and a good supply of oil. All the west is doing is making a bunch of loud noise. They can "do things" but when the cameras aren't running they are definitely going to vote to keep the energy flowing. I don't see a Germany shooting itself in the foot in an attempt to cripple Russia/Putin. And to that, Putin really isn't anything. He gets his marching orders (or at least his permissions) from his oligarchs. If they were truly concerned he would NOT have been given permission to proceed. And to those of us who are inclined to stock up on tin foil, the driving up of prices and limiting supplies fits quite nicely in the Globalist's agenda. Gotta keep the folks all driven to wanting a great authority in charge of it all.
The only reason the UN was able to be involved in the Korean War was that the USSR walked out of the Security Council meeting before the vote. They won't make that mistake again.
Oh good call! Never even thought of that. The USSR has a vote, not "Russia". Holy technicalities! That would really make Putin's head explode.
It’s a means to an end for China to achieve nearer-term objectives in Taiwan and SE Asia. In the long-term China and Russia have territorial ambitions that are in conflict with each other, and they will certainly have those out once the U.S. is out of the way.
Right now there need not be "introspection." We can't ignore this war of choice that has not a shred of legitimacy. However, it's not NATO's fault that Putin seeks much more control over the region, which he doesn't have any right to.
I get your point, an analogy isn’t really an example though. I don’t think it’s quite apples to apples.
That would be epic! Imagine Putin's reaction to pulling this stunt and the consequence being a more united NATO and a successful challenge/removal of Russia from the Security Council.
Ok, check out this op ed from 1997! From George F. Kennan no less, no pie in the sky leftist, but the architect of our Cold War policy. Opinion | A Fateful Error (Published 1997) I mean, talk about prescient. There's no doubt NATO expansion was a grave error, and led to the conditions we face today. ANd now all people can say is the conditions we aided in creating now justify that expansion (and even more expansion). I suppose we can just keep digging the hole. That's usually what we do.
Did not know that. At this point I don’t understand why clear bad actors are allowed in the U.N., or at the very least this “veto power” is nonsensical.
