Ukraine (49 Viewers)

My deal offer would be Putin orders his troops out of Ukraine to including Crimea, Donbas, & Luhansk. He surrenders to the Hague along with any other war criminals and all FSB agents.

An international coalition would provide free fair elections until order can be established. They would only be allowed to develop and maintain defensive forces similar to Japan to end WW2.


LOL

And i LOL because a) im in total agreement and b) know that will never ever be agreed upon.

But i think as we continue down this path of conflict, each day NOW brings more "questions" for Putin

There are still some who think he is blissfully unaware of the true nature of the conflict ( being lied to by his closest advisors because well, he Putin and they are scared ) and has no intentions of any negotiations because he "thinks" he operates from a position of leverage based on the false info.
 
My deal offer would be Putin orders his troops out of Ukraine to including Crimea, Donbas, & Luhansk. He surrenders to the Hague along with any other war criminals and all FSB agents.

An international coalition would provide free fair elections until order can be established. They would only be allowed to develop and maintain defensive forces similar to Japan to end WW2.
Your counter-offer would never happen because Putin would more then likely, end up being killed while being overthrown by his Kremlin enemies, or high-ranking military officials, who'd probably either withdraw Russian forces from perhaps Luhansk, and maybe parts of the Donbas regions, but not the Crimean because they, as ultranationalists, likely still support the idea or notion of it belonging to RF. A few Western nations might insist on Russian generals and FSB agents turn themselves into the Hague, but that issue might eventually be overlooked due to the man who started the conflict itself, Putin, is dead, and they'll accept this new fata accompli reluctantly with reservations because it represents the best possible outcome that possibly exists in ending a bloody, violent and extremely costly war. I can't see Putin being taken hostage and then turned over by his own regime like Milosevic and then sentenced to death or life in prison at a war crimes tribunal at the Hague. He'd commit suicide or be murdered more then likely by his enemies then be put on any trial on the international stage.

It's difficult for me to see your second paragraph really occuring, either since many Russians experienced a type of democracy in the 90's under Yeltsin and for many Russians, unfortunately, it formed an impression that democracy didnt work in Russia because so many Russians suffered under economic stagnation, hardship, severe economic downturns as they tried to transition from a former Soviet command/control economy to something resembling a free-market economy. I'm afraid that even if Putin were to be overthrown or killed, his replacement would end up just being another Russian ultranationalist and who knows how effective, deranged, or cooperative he'd be on the international stage with the G-7, IMF, UN, dealing with NATO, and Russian people would still end up being in a less-than-desirable circumstances, situation living under another authoritian regime.

As far as Japan goes, don't be surprised if Japan begins adopting a more stronger, larger military force that isn't just for self-defense. Their post-WWII pacifist constitution, and Article 9, which forbids a standing army, has been slowly and gradually been ebbed away over the past two decades due to the rise of Chinese military and economic power. Japan's Self-Defense Force has always been sort of predicated on American military supremacy in the Far East and while its still a potent, strong force, it's not the all-pervasive, determinate force it was 30-40 years ago. Plus, Japan has more then its fair share of regional, geopoliitical issues with North Korea and maybe even Russia, too. Japan could easily develop a strong nuclear deterrent of its own, but due to widespread anti-nuclear sentiment, it would be political suicide even for any right-leaning politician to even suggest it.
 
Their wouldn't be enough arable, sustainable farming land to grow, herd animals, and livestock and live much less survive in any post-apocalyptic world-wide nuclear hellscape where most, if not all the Earth's rivers, streams, soil,.and remaining vegetation would be poisoned and radioactive for generations to come in an environment infinitely more polluted than that Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine/Belarus which forbids large amounts of people even living their or walking around like in places like the "Red Forest", for long amounts of time.

Carl Sagan famously predicted that human extinction under any worldwide thermonuclear, chemical, biological warfare couldn't be ruled out as a possibility in a famous PBS mid-80's documentary hypothetical "what-if" set of scenarios during the Cold War.
Speaking to the Chernobyl exclusion zone, you might enjoy this video song, Dirge for the Planet:

 
Their wouldn't be enough arable, sustainable farming land to grow, herd animals, and livestock and live much less survive in any post-apocalyptic world-wide nuclear hellscape where most, if not all the Earth's rivers, streams, soil,.and remaining vegetation would be poisoned and radioactive for generations to come in an environment infinitely more polluted than that Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine/Belarus which forbids large amounts of people even living their or walking around like in places like the "Red Forest", for long amounts of time.

Carl Sagan famously predicted that human extinction under any worldwide thermonuclear, chemical, biological warfare couldn't be ruled out as a possibility in a famous PBS mid-80's documentary hypothetical "what-if" set of scenarios during the Cold War.
Airbursts of nuclear weapons don't irradiate soil much at all. Ground bursts do, but there's not going to be too many of those - mostly against our silos and bunkers of which there are few and aren't going to spread to that much arrable land.

The bigger environmental problem causing crop failure would be nuclear winter. This is due to uncontrolled burns causing soot to be lifted high into the stratosphere. Which increases the albedo (reflects the sun), cooling the planet. There's debate amongst the scientific community to what extent it happens in the event of a full nuclear exchange, and how long it lasts. Some think it would cause an ice age for 7-8 years.

But the almost certain issue is that modern agriculture and food transport is now so heavily depend on industrial inputs and infrastructure . Fertilizers, pesticides, mechanical harvestors, etc. Then the storage / refrigeration / transport over large distances. In the event of collapse of industrial civizliation, that all goes away, and we're back to early 19th century of subsistence farming. And there's not many people with the skills necessary.
 
Airbursts of nuclear weapons don't irradiate soil much at all. Ground bursts do, but there's not going to be too many of those - mostly against our silos and bunkers of which there are few and aren't going to spread to that much arrable land.

The bigger environmental problem causing crop failure would be nuclear winter. This is due to uncontrolled burns causing soot to be lifted high into the stratosphere. Which increases the albedo (reflects the sun), cooling the planet. There's debate amongst the scientific community to what extent it happens in the event of a full nuclear exchange, and how long it lasts. Some think it would cause an ice age for 7-8 years.

But the almost certain issue is that modern agriculture and food transport is now so heavily depend on industrial inputs and infrastructure . Fertilizers, pesticides, mechanical harvestors, etc. Then the storage / refrigeration / transport over large distances. In the event of collapse of industrial civizliation, that all goes away, and we're back to early 19th century of subsistence farming. And there's not many people with the skills necessary.
Good news! Scientists used 150 AI models and every one of them came to the conclusion that humans will solve climate change inadvertently through nuclear war.
 
Good news! Scientists used 150 AI models and every one of them came to the conclusion that humans will solve climate change inadvertently through nuclear war.
Did this study happen to mention if AI was going to help down this path?!......
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom