SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: skinowski who wrote (759153)3/11/2022 8:03:15 PM
From: greenspirit1 Recommendation

Recommended By
kech

   of 793843
 
To answer your question directly, risk in itself is a difficult thing to quantify.

Some view doing nothing and letting Putin conquer uninhibited from assistance as less risky, while others view the opposite. Let’s walk through both extremes.

1. We do nothing. He then invades Latvia next? Do we do something then? Then he invades Estonia. After all, the same “NATO on my border claim can be made”. He keeps going and wants Poland and Hungry back in the USSR fold.

2. We send US marines and air power in.Then Russian forces are decimated and the borders recreated with armed protection. He then launches chemical and nuclear weapons.

I think both extremes carry high risk.

So we need to thread the needle and try and end the conflict. Personally, I think Putin wants Ukraine so bad nothing short of defeat, or severely damaging his military, or an overthrow will stop him.

I could be wrong.

So we ratchet up the economic pain and hope super intelligent New Zealanders with IQ’s in the 170 range save us all and carry their plan to Odessa on one of their three sophisticated warships. Then Maurice can institute the universal pay for citizenship plan and we can put at end to military organizations planet wise. :)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext