Well, Trump was supposed to sell the 30-day ceasefire to Putin yesterday - and it appears Putin politely told him to have intercourse with himself. Today he's on Fox bragging about how he has "good relations" with Russia and how Putin called him "his friend". No word of the "massive sanctions" that were supposed to happen if Russia refused.
So I guess "shut up" it is.
There is a point where the "peace at all costs" approach becomes tantamount to capitulation.
Well of course there is and I know some like to claim we’re well past that with the new administration. We’re not there yet, approaching yes.
So we will see.
There is also the converse argument to be made. Victory at all cost. What cost and lengths do you suppose nato capitals and the US are prepared to go to?
And what is the potential result of that.
Do you support spinning this up to the brink of Nuclear confrontation?
If we do it will be very likely be the single most consequential standoff between nuclear powers ever.
I argued there was a time to do this earlier when it would have been less riskier, at least as I see it. We can still do this but the risk are higher now I also believe.
I’m game to march us right up to that line, are you? Time for political criticism and blame shifting is over. This is perhaps the single most consequential risk to thermo nuclear war we have faced since the Cuban missile crisis if we continue with course of victory at all cost. Are you willing to march us up to that line?
Of course will western leadership respond that way? Past performance of them all is they will not.
Your question might be better framed as.
At what cost peace or open war between four possibly more nuclear powers and which leader will be balking then.
Trump still might be on that list, but it will be a long list of Europeans leaders as well. Putin might be on that list as welI don’t know. My concern at this stage in this political calculus is Putin has more to lose “personally” than western leaders do and he might be the frog that jumps.
t.me
