Putin's Counter Revolution

[Joseph Tracy]

The agreement was made with an elected government that is gone. What they have there in Ukraine was made up last week.  Your theory is nutty anyway , just utterly paranoid true believer armageddon stuff . You sound like Rush Limbaugh or Curtis LeMay. 
On Mar 16, 2014, at 12:23 PM, alice malice wrote:

> They will. Of course they will. The spread can't be stopped. Brasil is
> deep into it. Who or what wil threaten there interests and security
> in the future is hard to say, but we can be sure that it will happen.
> 
> The logic is supported by history. Read that chapter from M-D. Loose
> fish will be made fast.
> 
> Land, like the islands off Argentina (remember that?), resources,
> fishing rights, water...air space....
> 
> 
> Ukraine agreed to give them up and look  what happened there. Even
> Putin would have to think twice if all those nukes were still in
> Ukraine.
> 
> It's expensive. The American Empire will make them pay dearly for it,
> but, as you say, logic, ego-politics, will drive the spread of nukes
> on a global scale.
> 
> The anti-proliferation objective may continue a pace, as weapons are
> dismantled, bu the spread of weapons, of nukes, can't be stopped.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 AM,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> And by that logic, Venezuela, and most of Latin America, for that matter,
>> should nuke up to defend themselves against the US tendency to depose and/or
>> murder elected presidents.
>> 
>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/17/usa.venezuela
>> 
>> LK
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Morris
>> Sent: Mar 16, 2014 10:45 AM
>> To: alice malice
>> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org"
>> Subject: Re: Putin's Counter Revolution
>> 
>> You think if Ukrane had nukes that would have changed the current situation
>> in Ukraines favor? So a new government in Kiev would have threatened to
>> launch the Big Ones if Russia stepped into Crimea?  That sounds like crazy
>> talk. Nukes versus boots on ground? God save us from that equation.
>> 
>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What's was needed, as Mearsheimer argued convincingly only a few years
>>> ago, was a greater nuclear deterrent; he was right that Ukraine needed a
>>> nuclear arsenal to defend itself against Russia's superior conventional
>>> army. Water under the bridge.  But the west has to punish Putin now. Punish
>>> his markets and economy. Let him have the mess in Syria. Iran won't turn
>>> back now. Move to defend and strengthen NATO, and punish that murdering
>>> thug.
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> With regard to the geopolitical aspects of the crisis, this may be of
>>>> interest:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/getting-ukraine-wrong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1
>>>> 
>>>> Thomas
>> 
>> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l