• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So, WW3?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_tajmahal said:
Once they were in the possession of the Ukraine, they'll be used as the Ukrainians want them to be used. Which is why the Russians are having a much harder time of it than they anticipated.
Click to expand...
Why did your guy Trump attach the conditions that they be stored on the western border so they "couldn't" be used against Russia? Why did your guy Trump fight so hard not to send them in the first place? Why are you now giving your guy Trump credit for something your guy Trump clearly did not want to do? Is it because you can't reconcile your hatred for Putin with your guy Trump's love of Putin?
 
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi :

"Given five consecutive rounds of NATO's eastward expansion, Russia's legitimate security demands should be taken seriously and properly addressed,"
Click to expand...

Someone needs to explain to him that NATO didn’t push eastward; it was pulled eastward.

It was pulled eastward because the countries in eastern Europe saw Russia as an ongoing threat and wanted to get under the NATO umbrella for their own self-interest. And what we’re seeing this week is that that was a realistic assessment of the situation.
 
VRAMdemon said:
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi :



Someone needs to explain to him that NATO didn’t push eastward; it was pulled eastward.

It was pulled eastward because the countries in eastern Europe saw Russia as an ongoing threat and wanted to get under the NATO umbrella for their own self-interest. And what we’re seeing this week is that that was a realistic assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...

And they can't really go west ...
 
I think its funny that the US (russia and UK) forced ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons in a 1994 peace agreement where the US (and UK) agreed to protect Ukraine from aggressors.
This conflict
1) is a complete violation of that treaty by multiple parties
2) is a death knell to any attempt to get north korea to denuclearize. They'll just point to what is happening to Ukraine with the US/UK basically twidling their thumbs

Actually maybe its not so funny
 
@fskimospy pointed out that protecting Ukraine was never the agreement. Just that WE wouldn't attack them. You know, like we promise not to grow a third arm.

I was incorrect in the assessment that all nations now need to choose between West and East, and sign up accordingly. There is a third option, and that is mass production of WMDs. If Ukraine was actually a threat, this would not have happened.
 
mikeymikec said:
Trump spent time undermining America's relationship with NATO and I think he did it to appease Putin for whatever reasons (admiration, debt with Russian banks
Click to expand...

I think you hit on something.
We have no idea to how "financially entwined" Donald Trump and TRUMP INC is to the Soviets and personally to Putin.

We will know more of the answer to this as Biden furthers his financial sanctions against Russia and against Putin, because eventually this could involve the financial health of Donald Trump Inc. If the red money is frozen and sanctioned, does that affect Donald Trump? Can it affect Donald Trump?
Should Donald Trump become even more hysterical over the Biden sanctions then we will know that for Donald Trump.... it is the money.

If Donald Trump has ties with the Soviets financially, then what Biden does will hurt Trump as well as Putin. And we know how Donald Trump feels about money.
Consider Donald Trump as just another Russian oligarch. One of many. Putin screws his people, and Donald Trump screws the American people.
 
Jaskalas said:
@fskimospy pointed out that protecting Ukraine was never the agreement. Just that WE wouldn't attack them. You know, like we promise not to grow a third arm.

I was incorrect in the assessment that all nations now need to choose between West and East, and sign up accordingly. There is a third option, and that is mass production of WMDs. If Ukraine was actually a threat, this would not have happened.
Click to expand...
Hmm I don't think that was accurate at all.
There's a segment out there with the current sec of state asking whether the agreement meant the US would need to send troops to Ukraine's defense and he basically squirmed and left it vague. The commitment was for security "assurances" not "security guarantees". Guarantees means troops apparently. It's vague but far beyond the idea that "we wouldn't attack them".

Either way what's happening is basically killing any chance N. Korea will ever give up their weapons. I wouldn't if I ran the country. Zero chance.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Either way what's happening is basically killing any chance N. Korea will ever give up their weapons. I wouldn't if I ran the country. Zero chance.
Click to expand...
Also the Libya example, where they voluntarily gave up their nuke and WMD programs - and helped reveal the expansive and previously secret Pakistani nuke export program - which let a later USA administration choose to execute Libya’s leadership and destroy their government risk free, setting another horrid precedent on disarmament.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Hmm I don't think that was accurate at all.
There's a segment out there with the current sec of state asking whether the agreement meant the US would need to send troops to Ukraine's defense and he basically squirmed and left it vague. The commitment was for security "assurances" not "security guarantees". Guarantees means troops apparently. It's vague but far beyond the idea that "we wouldn't attack them".

Either way what's happening is basically killing any chance N. Korea will ever give up their weapons. I wouldn't if I ran the country. Zero chance.
Click to expand...
Really don't see the connection. You think NK is worried about China invading?
 
SinfulWeeper said:
WW3 is premature.... the way public is going.... be CW2
Click to expand...

I would agree. The way right wingers in the US have been talking is exactly how talk goes before attempted genocide happens.

baydude said:
Will China defend Russia if NATO attacks?
Click to expand...

No. And because of what it will take to make that happen (Russia start committing war crimes impossible to ignore), doubly so since it will be indefensible behavior.
 
Belarus openly joining Russia in war against Ukraine with troops deployed tonight.
Putin putting strategic nuclear forces on heightened alert and explicitly threatening use of his 500 SSBN missiles against US and Western Europe as response to the economic sanctions.

Europe providing and funding arms supplies to Ukraine, escalating up to now include (reportedly) fighter jets, and giving permission for nationals to join fight in Ukraine against Russian invasion. French foreign legion allowed release of Ukrainians, with gear (possibly), to join fight.

While this ain't WW3 quite yet, things are heading that way, with Putin continuing to escalate and showing no signs of backing down.

Not impossible that Putin tonight starts massive bombardment of civilians in Kiev or another smaller Ukrainian city to try to force Ukrainian surrender, if that happens, West is running out of options now - short of direct military intervention.
 
baydude said:
Will China defend Russia if NATO attacks?
Click to expand...


NATO has no intention of attacking Russia.

However, Russia could possibly attack Poland, which has been a NATO member since 1999. Poland has been crucial in helping Ukraine civilians flee the war.
 
ultimatebob said:
Click to expand...

They got the sudden nature of the reveal right, but this isn't the USSR - there's not a trace of internationalist ideology about it. There's nothing of Lenin in Putin. One of the biggest differences between Lenin and Stalin was on the question of the rights of national minorities. Whatever else Lenin was, he wasn't a Russian nationalist - communism was more important to him than Russia itself (something current Russian nationalists, including Putin, have criticised him for).

Stalin put the Russian nationalism back in, creating a Russian-nationalism/communism composite, and Putin appears to be a pure successor to Stalin, just with the communism left out.

I think it's more the return of pre-Bolshevik Czarist Russia. Seems as if that's the geographical boundaries Putin is dreaming of.
 
Last edited:
We toy with the idea of a WW3. Putin toys with the idea of nukes. If it came down to the real possibility of WW3 with nukes and US troops and the military draft of American men and women, then I wonder if THAT might finally unite Americans? Nothing else has. Insurrections have not united Americans nor did Putin invading Ukraine. Nothing has worked and instead we become more and more divided. One side encourage insurrections while the other side is outraged. One side praises Vladimir Putin while the other side is outraged.
And so.... would a WW3 do it? Maybe? Unite Americans as one?
Well, maybe we'll find out the hard way.
Maybe Putin killing American men and women, nuking American cities, maybe that would make Putin less desirable to those Trump supporters. And to Fox News.

I'd kind of like to see just how the Trump crowd would react to the idea of reinstating the draft? For the US government to call up the sons and daughters of those staunch Trump supporters. Would they consider it a patriotic duty? Or resist? Trump's people claim to be the ultimate patriots, so lets see if they really are....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top