posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:43 AM
originally posted by: VirusGuard
"Targeting Putin's Personal Wealth"
Tony Blair used that excuse when sadams wealth was stolen but the facts are that it was not his personal money and belonged to the people of Libya and
this excuse allowed Blair to get away with it but he did need to go into hiding for about a year afterwards.
I think you're getting your military endeavors mixed up. Blair was in power when we went into Iraq, and Saddam Hussein was the one we targeted. Libya
was under Cameron and Obama, and their despotic leader was Gaddafi.
Aside from that, the "nuclear" we are talking about here has nothing to do with weaponry, this is just a turn of phrase meaning the "nuclear
option", denoting the significance of the impact such a move would have. This has nothing to do with weapons being used and everything to do with
this being the ultimate method of getting to Putin with sanctions.
Personally, I believe that if Putin visibly sends his military into Ukraine all bets are off. There are far too many other nations in that region who
are NATO allies, and there would be massive demand to act militarily to defend them. I foresee a battle on the ground, in and around Ukraine and their
neighbors (much like the Georgian war), but making it a direct war between the US and Russia/UK/Nato etc would be avoided by all sides.
This will likely be a proxy war, but there will be a deterioration of relations further, and potentially with such considerable sanctions too. We'll
have to feel very bad for the people in the region for a long time to come, but when there is a direct threat to either Europe, the UK or the USA
things will have to change.
Other actors in this should not be underestimated either. If a nation becomes so desperate for American support, they could act to draw in other
countries and make this far more significant. If Ukraine is overpowered, their neighbors might just "create" something to draw America in.