Putin is a problem for the West beyond this war and the criminal annexations of Ukrainian territories. The authoritarian turn of his regime to grant concentration of power in his hands, the Russian growing military presence in the Mediterranean area (also through the Black Sea), in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Baltic sea (encircling Europe), Russian attempts to corrupt the democratic life in Western countries (from state cyberwar to financing western politicians), Russian attempts to economically blackmail the West by compromising the trade of critical commodities (e.g. gas and wheat), Putin's nuclear threats, Putin's declared goal to challenge Western hegemony and his attempts to build an alliance with other countries to antagonise the West, all these facts justify the Western intervention in Ukraine. — neomac
We, Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia, can't have weapons of mass destruction pointed our way sitting on our doorstep. Should actions toward that come to pass, we'd have to take counter-measures. And in case of threats from non-democratic regimes, more decisive measures.
You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe. — ssu
Funny how this has all of a sudden become a rallying cry. — Isaac
the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine
Does that disturb you? — jorndoe
Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion? — jorndoe
The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea." — Olivier5
No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."
You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language. — Olivier5
In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation through the possession of an ability and intent to exterminate the U.S. population, presumably via the use of highly lethal nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. Any threats that fall below these two definitions do not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.
I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard — Tzeentch
Just because some journalists made a click bait out of the concept, doesn't mean it's right. — Olivier5
In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.
fall below these two definitions [and] not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/
To my mind, existential means: relative to existence. — Olivier5
"Nobody wants a World War, but dictators can only be stopped with weapons." — jorndoe
Always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse. — Hilaire Belloc
The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them. — ssu
Let's remember that Russia has a long history of liberalization of the system after disastrous lost wars.That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks. — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.