Should we let Putin have Europe?

[Ariesman81]

I'm torn on this one. We've seen Putin's endgame. We know his intent is expansion. Should we keep intervening in countries that logistically are better served by Russia?

[lightbulb27]

the endgame is security, just like everyone elses. he can't get into nato, ukraine was moving towards nato and away from russia. when that happened in 2014, many russians paid the price.

he won't try to take poland, france, germany... that be a loser and he knows it.

lets hope he knows it...

but how much is enough, that is a question.

[puurikke]

Logistically better served by Russia? I don’t get what you are trying to say.
The answer to your question: no. The USA is as rich and powerful because it has friends around the world. Letting your best friends be destroyed by one of your enemies is just bad politics. Furthermore letting a nuclear power attack a nuclear power is always a bad idea.

[Ariesman81]

The Russian/European pipeline for instance. From a logistics standpoint... it makes more sense than shipping energy across oceans. I'm playing devil's advocate here... so bare with me.

[puurikke]

That’s why Europe bought a lot of gas from Russia. When he started using the money against Europe, it wasn’t such a great deal.
Logistics don’t really matter, energy is more expensive which is why the EU is ramping up its green energy solutions.
Logistically no one would be trading with the US except Canada and Mexico. It’s locked between two oceans and almost all countries are logistically better linked to a country closer by. But, that’s not how trade or even the world works.

[Syntosi]

@ariesman81
If we are going to think about things from a logistics standpoint then America is fucked. Europe, Asia and Africa is connected and has close proximity where as South and North America is isolated by themselves. From the viewpoint of America the worst case scenario would be the rest of the world uniting between themselves while leaving America on the outside.

[Ariesman81]

I agree. But what the U. S. is doing is intervening. I get that this is how the world is currently setup. We exchange protection for money. I'm just arguing whether it's how it should be. I actually think it's the direction Trump is going to take us. Drill baby drill is an attempt to remove the U. S. from the chains of foreign oil. Rightly so in my opinion. A self sufficient country is a power no one can fuck with.

[Syntosi]

USA is a free market. The price of oil is dependent on international supply and demand. Without changing the laws the US can't become oil independent in the way you are thinking and USA already produces more than it consumes.

[Ariesman81]

@Syntosi Ahh... but we can change the rules. Which is what Trump is attempting to do. We're gonna flood the market! Or at least say we're going to. Guess what that does to the price of energy? It's all about leverage.

[Syntosi]

If you flood the market you do not change the rules. Also, OPEC has a history of lowering their production when USA increases its own to keep up the price and Russia is also having problems maintaining their own production with the war. In other words, USAs increase in production would probably just offset other parts lowering theirs and maintain the current price.

[Ariesman81]

@Syntosi Possibly. But then we end up selling our oil rather than buying. I've heard it said that U. S. oil isn't as profitable as say Saudi oil. But it still means we're selling and not buying.

[Syntosi]

USA dont buy oil to use it. Corporations in USA buy oil to refine it and sell it for higher cost.

[puurikke]

Autarky and being a country you want to live in is impossible. The USA has a great starting position compared to many countries, but you can’t produce everything you need, let alone want.

[Anonymous]

Putin can't even take Ukraine let alone Europe. Russia is weak. We should stop funding the Ukrainians and stop expanding nato

[Alexandrubaschet08]

If you do that Ukrain will not stand Russia and fall just in a couple of days and by not extending NATO you let all the countrys out of NATO to Russia and China influence witch mean poverty and deaths for many people.
NATO should some time in the future take over the world under its protection and power where no contry had suffer war afther they join the alliance!

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 nah Russia has run out of soldiers, plenty of conscripts but no soldiers. Russia wants an out.
Tye us needs to bring jobs home and rdky less on China.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

The worst and most dangerous move against Russia is to underestimate it.
Russia is not like any conventional Western country. Russia is willing to sacrifice its own population to achieve its goals, but two hands and a leg to achieve its goals.
Russia does not run out of soldiers. Recruits are the soldiers.
For Russia and Russian co-educators there is no difference between a soldier with years of experience and training in special forces and an 18-year-old recruit from mommy and daddy.
The logic is simple and primitive and as real as can be!!!
"How many people do we have? 100 million people.
How many people does our enemy have? 40 million people.
So we have to kill them all and in the end we are left with 60 million people, so we have lost nothing!
We are left with a huge population in the region and atomic bombs and we make women give birth to 6-8 children per family and so in 20 years we can have an even larger population."

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Russia does not consider the economy, logistics, social influences that can arise from precarious living conditions.
For Russia, it is the cruel logic of a 5-year-old child. "I am Russian, I am the strongest, no one beats me and I always do what I want." Until the opposite happens and he can no longer understand reality and becomes completely recalcitrant. (Like a nervous child who receives a slap to calm down and starts to react even worse, until he receives his first serious beating and starts to cry because now he considers himself a victim).
This is the mentality of Russia, cold, toxic and fatal.
Russia has not done anything good for any of the countries that were under its occupation. None of them have progressed under Russian influence, none of them are today an economic or military power, not even a regional one.

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 Russia has had falling birth rates and is avoiding full conscription. They've dugbin and donbass. For Russia there is a difference between special forces and professional and conscripts as they've lost so many professional soldiers that will take years to replace. Conscripts are just cannon fodder.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

They never sent qualified personnel to Ukraine, they only sent prisoners and young people, dissidents and opponents of the regime. This is one of the reasons why they are losing so many people.
The birth rate is indeed decreasing, that's why if you follow Russian propaganda you will find out that they have illegalized any attempted abortion. Abortion being legal (for the moment) only and only at the express desire of the girl.
If the girl is influenced in any way or >educated< that it is a better decision to have an abortion, she will be forced to continue the pregnancy and her relatives will be imprisoned or sent to the front.
So that we can return to the Soviet times when abortion was illegal.
The government also aggressively advertises the idea of ​​having children, lying to young girls about how beautiful it is to give birth and have children in Russia, but without telling them that you can die from the lack of doctors and sterile equipment and even because your turn comes. In a former communist country, a pregnant mother gave birth on the steps of a hospital and died there, and yet it's an EU country. In Russia, it's the Middle Ages, sometimes getting to a hospital is not even a problem in certain regions.

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 in the initial invasion they sent their best and the casualties quickly mounted.
Russia is not an EU country.
Russia banning abortion is desperation. The birth rate is falling because russian women don't want to have babies.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

At first they didn't send their best troops, they sent their young recruits and border guards who were immediately captured and denounced the actions of their superiors, also in the first year the action was not even recognized as a war and a special military operation "a kind of training". After almost 2 and a half years Putin verbally recognizes that it is a war and after 1 year he was already recruiting due to the military capabilities of Ukraine, capabilities that were available due to Western aid.
Even if they sent elite troops to Ukraine it wouldn't make much difference anyway, but it would be an additional pressure for Ukraine.
And in terms of birth rate, women and men are no longer having children due to poverty. The same situation in my country, raising a child in Eastern Europe is totally different from raising a child in the West, there are other humanitarian and social aids in the West.
While in the East you have to rely on 4 other salaries from relatives and 4 pensions from the child's grandparents to cope properly, and this doesn't always happen.

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 no they sent their best soldiers and now are struggling for recruits. They are conscripting from outlying provinces so the general Russian population in the big cities dont see all the death notices. They are also bringing in north Korean troops and probably Iranians.
Women have always lived on poverty in Russia. It's not poverty, impoverished people tend to have more kids. In the west the wealthier and better educated someone is the less kids they have.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Girl, they tell themselves how it is in the East.
It doesn't matter what the West is like and how it is with education and money there.
In the East, if you don't have money, you don't have children.
Families that have 6-8 children and are impoverished HAVE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO WORK and they also practice begging or the children find a job in the villages and communes. And this way the family can afford to educate 1 or 2 who later can seriously help the rest of the family.
Believe me, I'm not lying. You can search more, but this is the situation in the whole East and in all of Russia.
It's been like this since the Second World War and until now and not much has changed, because in the Eastern Bloc there are the same former communist leaders as before 89

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 I know exactly how it is. My father left Russia in 2000 and was a paratrooper.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

What ever your dad was in Russia army, it can't do a S.
In all wars Russia had lost more peoples then the enemy.
THE EVEN ASK IN HISTORY HELP FROM SMALL NATIONS IN THEYR BIG WARS.
Your dad had no reson to be proud of been "paratooper" in the Russian army.
Russia start this invasion and keep it with teenagers and criminals and people who are against the sistem and there are no elite trups

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 in all wars Russia lost more people than the enemy did, that is why historically most of their invasions ended in defeat. On the past Russia as the empire and Soviet Union had the manpower and resources to defeat any would be invader but no longer, when a military loses its best trained professionals and is forced to rely on conscripts it becomes weak. Russia has largely avoided mass conscriptions and has run out of mercenaries and convicts. Truthfully manpower matters less than ever before, what matters on the battlefield is technology. For instance in iraq, the ex republican guards and Islamic insurgents in fallujah thought the marines had deployed snipers everywhere because of all the headshots, in truth the marines were using the m16A4 with an acog scope and had night vision whereas they had the standard ak with ironsights, that was 20 years ago.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

Russia win wars only when the west was suporting it. If USA was not in war USSR will had die 100%

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 this is true. You ever watch that documentary ww2 from space?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

My grandfather and his brother told me the true reality when one fight against USSR and the other against Germany.
USSR till USA come in the war was only losing!!!

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 true. The British were choking the German economy and supplying the Russians.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

This prove that Russia didn't have a chance against AXA if USA was not part of war.
Same happen in Napoleonian war, if UK didn't invest in Russia as well they couldn't push France all the way back.
Same happen in a couple of Crimea Wars before.
In WW1 when Russia didn't recive so many supply and money they lose.
In history they lost against Poland as well in 1610 Poland succesfull taking even Moscow.
Russia is not invincible

[Opinion Owner]

@Alexandrubaschet08 the problem the Germans had in ww2 was they lacked strategic resources and Britain was blockading them from getting them, their economy was about to collapse and their industries were inefficient so they had to go east but when they attacked the Soviet Union they ran out of oil and other resources. If the British weren't blockading German trade they could have traded for the resources they needed. They also weren't fighting alone, there was Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Romania, Finland and vichy france.
Napoleon's invasion of Russia faltered because the way the French fought was March divided with as small of a logistics train as possible pillaging whatever they needed on the way, this way they moved faster. But when Napoleon got to Moscow after wiping the floor with the Russian army he found that Russians had burned all the crops and ruined all the food supplies everywhere for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Basically the Russians starved Napoleon's army which was huge and they were forced to retreat in the winter. The British were at the time pushing the French army out of Spain. Napoleon's army in Russia was made up of French, Germans, Dutch, Austrians, Polish and Italians.
In WW1 the Russians received a lot of supplies from the US but we're a poor conscript army with bad leadership and it was a death nail for the Russian aristocracy to conscript poor peasents with no stake in the country and having endured much oppression. Of course they rebelled and took over most of the Russian empire. The Soviet Union lost Poland, Finland but kept Ukraine and Georgia and successfully fought off invasion from allied powers. Also worth pointing out that Russia in ww1 defeated Austria-Hungary and the ottoman empire multiple times.

[DryGermanGuy]

Clearly there is something torn in you. We will never accept the Russian yoke and neither does Ukraine. Who buys what energy from Russia is completely unrelated to that. We don't turn into Hello Kitty furries just because we buy a lot of tunafish from Japan.

[Ariesman81]

@DryGermanGuy 🤣 Hello kitty furries... that's good!

[NathanDavis]

Putin is an oligarch... his use for the people who sponsor his stay, is to keep them in control at their own yard

they would put him off to sleep before TRULY risking AND losing what they already control at their own yard, lol

[Ariesman81]

@NathanDavis Woah man! I have no idea what you just said

[NathanDavis]

as one would expect, yeah...

[Syntosi]

Putin can't even invade Ukraine properly, what the hell is he supposed to do against France or Germany?

[Alexandrubaschet08]

against Germany he can do stuffs, but not against France who truly have better army then Germany and nuks as well UK.

[Notherndude84]

Fuck off you Russian troll. Tell your master in the Kremlin to get out of Ukraine. 🇺🇦

[zombiewoof]

trump will end all suppport to Ukraine

[Alexandrubaschet08]

then in a couple of decade we will face the first ever invasion of USA with all Russian pupet states and Chines one and all the BRICS alliance.

[Anonymous]

Yes.