dasein and thermo-nuclear war?

Social Forums Current Events
1

You tell me how far this might go…

nytimes.com/2022/01/14/us/p … itary.html

[b]"WASHINGTON — For years, U.S. officials have tiptoed around the question of how much military support to provide to Ukraine, for fear of provoking Russia.

Now, in what would be a major turnaround, senior Biden administration officials are warning that the United States could throw its weight behind a Ukrainian insurgency should President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invade Ukraine.

How the United States, which just exited two decades of war in Afghanistan, might pivot to funding and supporting an insurgency from fighting one is still being worked out. But even a conversation about how far the United States would go to subvert Russian aims in the event of an invasion has revived the specter of a new Cold War and suddenly made real the prospect of the beginnings of a so-called great power conflict."[/b]

All the way?

Think about it. There is what is inside Biden’s head and what is inside Putin’s head. And how much of that is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein?

Really, if one of them said “fuck it” and ordered the nukes to fly, what becomes of all the rest of us?

Back to Kennedy and Khrushchev. Suppose the deal had broken down then and one of them went “all the way”?

Trust me: for those of us who lived through it, it was scary as shit.

Or are there “safeguards” in place “behind the curtains” that make nuclear war extremely unlikely?

Same with China and Taiwan.

To what extent does the fate of the world come down to how each of these men as individuals come subjectively to think these things through?

2

therein lay the rub… how much does our own individual “dasein” play
a role in our decisions? having studied history as I have, I have learned
that the most successful politicians are the most practical ones…

the least successful politicians are the ones who are married to their
principles…one of the reasons for the failures of IQ45 and Bush Jr…
they held to principles, before practical results leading to a failure of
policy…if IQ45 had even the slightest bit of understanding of the “art of
compromise”, he would be president today…and most likely the dictator
he always dreamed of being… anyway, Kennedy is a good example of
one who didn’t let his principles get in the way of a deal… but he knew,
as all good leaders do, when to push and when to bend and when to
be as still as a rock… both Clinton and Obama knew the “art of the compromise”
the art of bending when bending was necessary… One person, whose name I can’t
remember said this,: as long as you don’t care who gets the credit, then you can get
a whole lot done"

the act of being, of “desein” is also partly knowing when to be and when to act
and when to bend and when to push… hard…in a lot of ways, leadership and being/desein,
is also “The way of Tao”… those who are good at leadership and tao are also good
at reading people… Kennedy knew, instinctual, how far he could push Khrushchev…
Kru. similarly, couldn’t read people quite as well…and that is why he folded before
Kennedy did…

whereas IQ45 had no clue how to read people… to save his life, he couldn’t read
a room or people… whereas every other politician including Nixon, could read a room…
and read people…except maybe Ted cruz… what an idiot…
anyway… as being/dasein seems to be an individual trait, and one
that we individually have, it seems that we cannot, perhaps, generalize as
to what it means to us individually, to have/be dasein… My own “brand”
of Dasein is found within my own upbringing, my own education, my own
personal travels that have led me to the here and now…
a personal journey that few if any can relate to because of its
individual nature… I didn’t go to college thus I form a subset
of that group, I have worked since I was 17, another subset,
I have been hearing impaired since birth another subset
and am now, for all intents and purposes, deaf, that leads me
to another subset… and in the middle of these subsets, is me.
and virtually no one in the universe can or should exists within that
particular subset that is me, Kropotkin…and my Dasein is found within
all those subsets of what makes us human…and in that one subset of
Kropotkin…to share my Dasein with someone means that someone else
has to engage with my life enough to be me… and that isn’t possible…
there can only be one me and thus there can only be one Kropotkin,
Dasein… and that Dasein is ineffable which is why Heidegger can use
Dasein as he does because, for him, Dasein as being is really just another word
for god… so when he says, “Being and Time” it really means “God and Time”
and thus becomes ineffable…
so being/Dasein is and as it probably should be, is ineffable…

Kropotkin

3

This is why, an advanced AI is most probably taking up the slack, way different from 1962 's crisis over the Cuban crisis, when computetd were merely in the early development stage.

Early warning has most probably gone beyond the inaccuracy and lack of fail safe of those times.

But desperadoes , new members of the nuclear club and terrorists are more of a threat then Q45 or Putin , but ard more likely to be exposed to nuclear blackmail.

I may appear to wag a rusty 2 edged sword here, but Q45 did probably the right thing to go to North Korea and play David and Goliath there with Kim , an ego maniac who had no understanding if the meaning of the real relationship between dasein and Das Sein.

Remember way back in Stalin’s time of political purges, when that dictator would?execute any intellectual who held contrary views to his revisions, while he also executed those writers who claimed that they ghost wrote the revisions penned with Stalin’s name?

Those days have hopefully disappeared from any such political reality, with some noteably excepted countries.

4

The two edged sword is not a particularly well received too here. but many times it’s used to play devils advocate, in order to relieve apparent contradictions into being perceived as such, rather, it is fallacious to say one thing, and then show that appearance by the same token.

This is a test for dasein, and heidegger saw the need to correct that, which he did.
Nierzche was misquoted as well on purpose by his sister, who used him for her own political purposes.

That said, I want to correct myself for saying in one forum that there is a anger for nuclear war, as it does relate to the firmer definitive view of dasein, but the afterthought really sets it in the different direction.

5

nytimes.com/2022/01/16/worl … asion.html

[b]"Russia Issues Subtle Threats More Far-Reaching Than a Ukraine Invasion

If the West fails to meet its security demands, Moscow could take measures like placing nuclear missiles close to the U.S. coastline, Russian officials have hinted.

VIENNA — No one expected much progress from this past week’s diplomatic marathon to defuse the security crisis Russia has ignited in Eastern Europe by surrounding Ukraine on three sides with 100,000 troops and then, by the White House’s accounting, sending in saboteurs to create a pretext for invasion.

But as the Biden administration and NATO conduct tabletop simulations about how the next few months could unfold, they are increasingly wary of another set of options for President Vladimir V. Putin, steps that are more far-reaching than simply rolling his troops and armor over Ukraine’s border.

Mr. Putin wants to extend Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and secure written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge. If he is frustrated in reaching that goal, some of his aides suggested on the sidelines of the negotiations last week, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States."[/b]

Again, how potentially ominous is this?

Are there “fail safe” agendas in place that make an actual nuclear war very, very unlikely.

Or not.

Here’s the thing.

There is what is inside Putin’s head and inside Biden’s head that only they are fully aware of.

Then the part where for one or another “personal reason” beyond that which any of us can grasp, they actually do push the buttons.

Indeed, I’ve often imagined one or another autocrat in power in a nation in possession of a nuclear arsenal, just going off the deep end, cracking up and ordering the bombs to fly for reasons that are basically “personal and private”. Someone who, say, is close to death and decides, “fuck it, I’ll take millions of others with me”, and starts the dreaded “nuclear winter”.

Here we go…

phys.org/news/2021-11-doomsday- … night.html

6

Sure, psycho-philosophically that does make sense from the point of view of echoes enamating out of the long gone defacto reemergence of the kgb’s desire to re establish the USSR.

The thing is, that de-jure means to them like the co
nstitution to the US. and certainly they can’t desire the whole of Eastern Europe in flames, in addition the unimaginable world public opinion going against them.

Putin is no Communist, he is a wealthy gulash communist, meaning a pragmatist.

He couldn’t afford it.!

The internal political landscape of Hungary also reflects these power plays, whereas before Trump, liberals and moderates ruled, with Trump they kicked out Szoros, and now the president is in crossroads, pussyfooting with the hardolined idea that reactionaries will come back on top.

Orban, the current president is becoming perceived.similarly to an oligarc, and he’s recent reelection points to a newly resegence to isolationism, not literally restricted to covid.

7

washingtonpost.com/opinions … r-ukraine/

[b]"Biden has been caught in an uproar since suggesting a “minor incursion” by Russian President Vladimir Putin into Ukraine might not invite full-scale U.S. pushback. The White House moved quickly to walk back the comment, but for Biden’s critics, it seemed to confirm their preconceptions: Biden is a weak leader who can’t stand up to a crafty authoritarian such as Putin.

It’s certainly true that the president has been unenthusiastic about conflict with Russia. Last year, Biden pushed back on members of the press corps egging him into a more aggressive posture, while postponing military aid to Ukraine and waiving sanctions on Moscow’s pivotal natural gas pipeline. Since the outbreak of this latest crisis, he has been similarly cautious, initially dragging his feet on sending military assistance to Kyiv and threatening sanctions only should a Russian invasion materialize.

Look around, and Biden seems increasingly isolated. Republicans are pushing him to escalate tensions, with one senator putting a ground war and nuclear strikes on the table. Democrats such as Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas want him to, respectively, “impose military costs” on Moscow and “use our military to roll back Russians.” Usually level-headed NATO allies like Britain and Canada are making similar noises. Even the press corps is back at it, with a Fox News reporter demanding to know why Biden was “waiting on Putin to make the first move.” The fact that Biden is reportedly mulling sending thousands of troops, plus warships and aircraft, to Eastern Europe suggests this pressure is already having an effect.

Any hostilities with Russia have to be weighed against the potentially catastrophic outcome of the world’s two leading nuclear powers going to war. Accidents and misunderstandings have nearly triggered nuclear exchanges between the two in peacetime, so it’s not hard to imagine how full-on war, with all its escalations and movements of troops and aircraft, would heighten this risk. It’s why the two mortal enemies did everything possible throughout the Cold War to prevent direct armed conflict.

If U.S.-Russian hostilities led to the use of nukes, it wouldn’t end well." [/b]

Anyone here think it might end well? Cue Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper or Major T. J. “King” Kong?

Ever and always there is what we read in a newspaper that will makes things seem more ominous than they actually are “behind the curtains”. You know, to boost circulation.

None of us here knows what the hell is really going on. And it’s always the part about “accidents and misunderstandings” that involve the arguments I make. The particularly problematic subjective take on “the situation” inside Biden’s and Putin’s head.

8

There is every reason for concern:

"MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin said on Tuesday that the United States was trying to pull Russia into armed conflict over Ukraine that Russia did not want, saying that the West had not yet satisfied Russia’s demands for a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe but that he hoped “dialogue will be continued.”

Mr. Putin has massed more than 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, in what American officials have warned could be a prelude to an invasion. But Mr. Putin accused the United States of trying to goad his government into launching a conflict to create a pretext for tougher Western sanctions against Russia.

“Their most important task is to contain Russia’s development,” he said. “Ukraine is just an instrument of achieving this goal.”

In Washington, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, reacted derisively to Mr. Putin’s comments, comparing them to “when the fox is screaming from the top of the henhouse that he’s scared of the chickens.”

A State Department spokesman, Ned Price, declined to respond directly to Mr. Putin’s statements, saying, “I will leave it to the Kremlinologists out there — budding, professional, amateur or otherwise — to read the tea leaves and try to interpret the significance of those remarks.”

Mr. Putin’s comments, at a news conference in Moscow with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, marked the first time since December that he had spoken publicly about the crisis.

The Kremlin has demanded in writing that NATO not expand eastward and that NATO draw down forces in Eastern European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union or part of its orbit.

Mr. Putin described the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as a threat to world peace. He said that a Western-allied Ukraine strengthened with NATO weapons could launch a war against Russia to recapture Crimea, leading to war between Russia and the NATO bloc. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was not recognized as legitimate by the international community.

The United States and NATO delivered written responses to Russia’s demands last week. Russia has not yet responded formally, but Mr. Putin said it was clear “that the principal Russian concerns turned out to be ignored.”

Mr. Putin threatened in December that Russia would take unspecified “military-technical” measures if the West did not meet its demands. He did not repeat the threat on Tuesday, instead sounding a somewhat optimistic note, describing the diplomacy that has been underway.

“I hope that eventually we will find this solution though it’s not easy, we understand that,” Mr. Putin said. “But to talk today about what that will be — I am, of course, not ready to do that.”

Jason Horowitz contributed reporting from Rome and David E. Sanger from Washington."

— Anton Troianovski and Ivan Nechepurenko

9

And now the meeting between Putin and Xi. Agreement perhaps to come to each other’s assistance in regard to an invasion of Ukraine or Taiwan?

But, again, for me it’s what is going on inside their heads. The part that revolves around dasein.

It’s that as individuals they [and Biden] have the power to bring the world to a nuclear war.

Happening not as a result of “policy” so much as “psychology”.

10

I think significance could be alluded from Orban’s changing attitude, echoing an ironic reactive shift toward views that supported the Trump administration’s dalliance with Moscow, if thT is the case, even in a repeat of WW2’s ‘Phony War’ the similarity of prelude could be made of underlying dialectical fossils, maybe going as far as to test nerves and strengths via Allen tupe hypothetical.

Such test, may, then again, self destruct, via a mission possible scenario, if the rhetoric proves ineffective as a psychological premise.

11

Oh, well, you would have to spoil it. :sunglasses:

12

That psychological premise may signify Orban’s ironic dalliance with Moscow, reacting toward a renewal between the last administration’s supposed arrangement with same.

The politically loaded dialogue may shadow the withstanding dialectical one, so a choral heart of Europe, may echo such an unexpected intent from an ex-KGB figure, who would have more than his accumulated wealth to loose, if thatmpsychology could not correspind to a pre existent ideology that held social dissatisfaction at bay for almost a century.

13

Sorry about that, but read the edited version above and then comment on the question : spoiled what?

Incidentally, as recalling Armenius’ comment on this same issue, he concurred, not that it makes all that difference.
But then again, what of that?

14

And the beat goes on:

AP NEWS

Russia-Ukraine

EXPLAINER: Ukraine not joining NATO so why does Putin worry?

By ROBERT BURNS

2 hours ago

Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a ceremony to present the highest state awards in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2022. At the core of the Ukraine crisis is a puzzle. Why would Putin push Europe to the brink of war to demand the West not do something that it has no plan to do anyway? Russia says NATO, the American-led alliance that has on its hands the biggest European crisis in decades, must never offer membership to Ukraine, which gained independence as the Soviet Union broke apart about 30 years ago.(Sergei Karpukhin, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) — At the core of the Ukraine crisis is a puzzle: Why would Russian President Vladimir Putin push Europe to the brink of war to demand the West not do something that it has no plan to do anyway?

Russia says NATO, the American-led alliance that has on its hands the biggest European crisis in decades, must never offer membership to Ukraine, which gained independence as the Soviet Union broke apart about 30 years ago. Ukraine has long aspired to join NATO, but the alliance is not about to offer an invitation, due in part to Ukraine’s official corruption, shortcomings in its defense establishment, and its lack of control over its international borders.

Putin’s demands go beyond the question of Ukraine’s association with NATO, but that link is central to his complaint that the West has pushed him to the limits of his patience by edging closer to Russian borders. He asserts that NATO expansion years ago has enhanced its security at the expense of Russia’s.

The Russians demand a legal guarantee that Ukraine be denied NATO membership, knowing that NATO as a matter of principle has never excluded potential membership for any European country — even Russia — but has no plan to start Ukraine down the road toward membership in the foreseeable future. The principle cited by NATO is that all nations should be free to choose whom they align with.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE

AP Top News at 12:56 p.m. EST
Russian bombers fly over Belarus amid Ukraine tensions
EXPLAINER: Ukraine not joining NATO so why does Putin worry?
Gas prices rise in NJ, around nation amid crude price hike
Why, then, is Moscow making an issue of Ukraine’s relationship with NATO now? The answer is complicated.

WHY IS PUTIN WORRIED ABOUT UKRAINE JOINING NATO?

The stated reason is that a further eastward expansion of NATO would pose a security threat to Russia. Washington and its allies deny this is a valid worry, since no NATO country is threatening to use force against Russia.

More broadly, Putin wants NATO to pull back its existing military presence in Eastern Europe, which includes a regularly rotating series of exercises in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all former Soviet states. There are no U.S. troops based permanently in those three Baltic countries; currently there are about 100 serving a rotational tour in Lithuania and about 60 in Estonia and Latvia combined, the Pentagon says.

Putin also opposes NATO’s missile defense presence in Romania, a former Soviet satellite state, and a similar base under development in Poland, saying they could be converted to offensive weapons capable of threatening Russia. President Joe Biden this week approved sending an additional 2,700 American troops to Eastern Europe — 1,700 to Poland and 1,000 to Romania — plus 300 to Germany.

Ukraine has deep historical and cultural ties to Russia, and Putin has repeatedly asserted that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” He has said that large chunks of Ukrainian territory are historical parts of Russia that were arbitrarily granted to Ukraine by communist leaders under the Soviet Union.

Putin’s own actions, however, have served to strengthen Ukrainians’ sense of national identity. After Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula and instigated a rebellion in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine’s desire to align itself with the West and join NATO only grew.

Putin recently described his Ukraine concern more specifically. He sketched out a scenario in which Ukraine might use military force to reclaim the Crimean Peninsula or to recapture areas in eastern Ukraine that are now effectively controlled by Russian-backed separatists.

“Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations,” Putin said. “Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it?”

Indeed, some in NATO have thought about the prospect of an expanded war with Russia inside Ukraine. It is a reminder of what NATO membership means — an attack on one is an attack on all, which in the theoretical case of Ukraine being attacked by Russia would mean a legal commitment by every NATO member to come to its defense.

WHAT ARE UKRAINE’S PROSPECTS FOR JOINING NATO?

The prospects are extremely unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Although Ukraine has no membership offer from NATO, it has drawn closer to the alliance over time, starting with the establishment in 1997 of a NATO-Ukraine Charter to further develop cooperation.

NATO heads of government did publicly declare in 2008 that Ukraine, and its fellow former Soviet republic Georgia, “will become members of NATO.” They did not say when or how, but the statement could be seen as explaining Moscow’s concern that Kyiv eventually will join the alliance.

On the other hand, the U.S. and other NATO leaders who signed the 2008 statement about Ukraine and Georgia decided against giving them what is known as a Membership Action Plan — a pathway to eventual membership. Germany and France strongly opposed moving Ukraine toward membership and the broader view within NATO was that Ukraine would have to complete far-reaching government reforms before becoming a candidate for membership.

This seeming contradiction has never been resolved, which means that while NATO’s door is open, Ukraine won’t fit through anytime soon.

HOW IS PUTIN PRESSURING UKRAINE?

Moscow says it has no intention of invading Ukraine, yet over the past several months it has assembled a robust array of combat forces along Ukraine’s borders and has implied it will take action of some kind if its demands of Washington and NATO are not met. The Biden administration says Russia is now capable of a wide range of actions, including a full-scale invasion to capture Kyiv.

Putin says NATO has gone too far not only by providing Ukraine with weaponry and military training but also by stationing forces in other Eastern European countries that compromise Russian security.

It’s also true that increases over the past decade in the U.S. and NATO military presence in Eastern Europe were triggered by Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and its incursion into eastern Ukraine in 2014. Those Russian actions prompted NATO to redouble its focus on collective security. In September 2014, NATO leaders established a new rapid-response force capable of deploying within days, and they reaffirmed pledges to boost their defense spending."

15

On an on :

"YAVORIV, Ukraine — With television cameras rolling, a Ukrainian soldier heaved an America-made missile launcher onto his shoulder and pressed a red button. The missile streaked out and blew a target — a pile of tires — to smithereens.

For the more than two months after Russia began its military buildup near Ukraine last fall, the United States was quiet about its military aid to Kyiv, merely acknowledging sending arms that had been scheduled for delivery long ago.

That has changed now. American cargo planes bringing weaponry and ammunition are arriving openly at Kyiv’s Borispol airport. And the Ukrainian army is making a point of showing media these newly delivered weapons at a military training area.

In the last two weeks, seven U.S. cargo planes carrying a total of about 585 tons of military assistance have landed in Kyiv. After the latest plane arrived, on Thursday, Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, posted on Twitter, “this is not the end! To be continued!”

Along with ammunition for small arms, the planes also delivered a significant number of missiles to Ukraine. These include Javelin anti-tank missiles, which the United States has been providing to Ukraine since 2018.

It also included a type of American-made, shoulder-launched missile that can blow up sandbagged fortifications and destroy partially buried bunkers. On Friday, Ukrainian soldiers fired 10 of the so-called “bunker busters” for international media, including a Japanese television crew.

To critics of the policy of arming Ukraine, this weapon seems provocative. Within Ukraine, nearly half the respondents to an opinion poll published on Wednesday said they believed Western weaponry will deter Russia, but a third said they thought it would do the opposite — provoke an attack. The Russian government has objected to the weapons transfers, and Germany is staunchly opposed to them.

“I do not think it’s realistic to believe such weapons exports could turn around the military imbalance,” Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, said on a visit to Kyiv on Monday.

Ukraine’s policy of publicly displaying the new weaponry adds to their value as a deterrent, said Maria Zolkina, a political analyst at Democratic Initiatives Foundation. The media events, she said, will help “destroy the myth that an unprotected Ukraine as an easy catch for Russia.”

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, has said the weapons airlifts strengthen Ukraine’s hand in dealing with Russia.

“The stronger Ukraine is the lower are the risks of further Russian aggression,” he said in a video conference with journalists this week. “The more defensive weapons we get today the less likely we will need to use them.”

The United States is not the only country that has been arming Ukraine in the airlifts that began last month. The United Kingdom sent about 2,000 light anti-tank missiles. With approval from the United States, the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia said they would transfer Stinger antiaircraft missiles, filling gaps in Ukraine’s weak air defenses. Poland has also said it will send antiaircraft missiles.

At the demonstration firing of the American bunker busters, only Ukrainian soldiers handled the weapon. They had been through a three-day course taught by instructors from the 53d Infantry Brigade of the Florida National Guard. The Americans stood aside, declining to appear on camera.

The launching tube and missile weigh about 15 pounds and look like a small, green log. When a missile was fired, the whooshing noise rattled dishes on a picnic table set up to provide snacks for the visiting journalists. Ukrainian soldiers cheered when missiles hit the targets of tires and exploded in a red flash.

“It’s very simple, just a gadget,” said Ivan, a 25-year-old Ukrainian senior sergeant, now trained in firing the new missile, who declined to give his last name for security reasons. The soldiers also covered their faces with balaclavas to protect their identities.

But the training itself was simple, Ivan said. “A boy or a girl of any age can fire it. It’s like an

Ukraine-Russia Standoff
Russia and China join in opposing any expansion of NATO.

A Ukrainian assessment says that Russia’s military is nearly ready for a full invasion.

Analysis: China and Russia find common ground in confronting the U.S.

As diplomatic push continues, Macron will travel to Russia and Ukraine next week.

A Ukraine conflict could embolden China as it contemplates Taiwan.

Belarus, a Russian ally bordering Ukraine, may host nuclear arms again.

16

And here is Germany’s problem:

Like maybe her plight echoes her before and after iron curtain fragmentation:

“Ukraine Crisis Puts Germany’s Cautious Leader on the Spot
Olaf Scholz is struggling to balance Germany’s U.S. alliance and its reliance on Russian gas”

17

Here we go?

From NYT:

[b]"In Phone Call, Biden Warns Putin of ‘Severe’ Costs of Invading Ukraine

The one-hour call came hours after the State Department ordered all but a “core team” of American diplomats to leave the embassy in Kyiv amid concerns of an imminent Russian attack. An aide to Putin dismissed such worries as “hysteria.”[/b]

Again, the part where it’s not two nations dealing with the “severe costs” of an invasion but what that means “in the heads” of the two men who have the literal power to take the conflict all the way out to the end of the limb.

For most in the West, Putin in particular. What is really known about just how far he would take this conflict? How far might he be willing to go to bring Russia back to the old USSR. Those 15 “post-Soviet” states.

18

Just a prima facial headline :

“Can European shuttle diplomacy avert war in Ukraine?”

Another head line:

“Tripwire for real war? Cyber’s fuzzy rules of engagement”

Recent headline - CBS

“Kyiv stresses calm even as U.S. warns Russian invasion could be imminent”

19

Madness-rewarding-system.

In real life, war is not profitable.
It produces zero true profit.

True profit comes from investment in stable growth.

20

Ukraine-Russia crisis: Biden, Putin to speak as White House says ‘credible prospect’ of imminent Russian invasion