Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The War in Europe
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 810 of 995 (894280)
05-10-2022 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by AnswersInGenitals
05-10-2022 7:01 PM


Re: We’re Still Scared of Putin
The problem with using information obtained from human assets is that they can easily be found out by making different information (including false information) available to different people and see what information the Ukraine acts on.
One possibility is that US intelligence has learned the characteristics of the entourages of various Russian generals.
During WWII there were a number of times when the allies didn't act on information obtained from Enigma machines, including information that would have saved lives, because they didn't want the Nazis to know the Enigma code had been broken.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-10-2022 7:01 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 813 of 995 (894344)
05-13-2022 7:27 AM


How Effective Are Sanctions Really?
Briefly, my position on sanctions is that they're like beating a country with a pillow where the pillow gets weaker with time. Sanctions are never 100%, not even close. (Are they even 20%?) We hear reports daily of countries considering another round of sanctions on Russia, which would only be possible if significant sanction options remained on the table. And then there's that the target country finds alternative trading partners. Some European countries are pledging to stop purchasing Russian fossil fuels by the end of the summer. Anyone want to lay money that'll happen?
Here's a report from the NYT about how active Russian shipping is: Russian Shipping Traffic Remains Strong as Sanctions Take Time to Bite
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 815 of 995 (894379)
05-14-2022 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 814 by Theodoric
05-13-2022 10:08 AM


Re: Finnish leadership calls for NATO membership
Theodoric writes:
Turkey is going to veto it.
I wonder if there's a process for removing a country from NATO.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2022 10:08 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 820 of 995 (894996)
06-05-2022 9:28 AM


Thoughts on the Current State of the War
I hope military support for Ukraine no longer includes expressions of concern that aid be restrained in terms of effectiveness and lethality so as not to provoke Russia.
I hope Russia's nuclear capabilities are no longer being used as an excuse for moderating military aid for Ukraine.
I hope the importance of a free Ukraine as a buffer against Russian aggression and expansionism is now understood as essential to western security. Our military aid and assistance has to rise to levels beyond just slowing Russian progress in the war to a crawl. It has to rise to a level that insures Ukraine's victory.
Counterattacks on Russia seem to be off limits. This make no sense. The concerns appear to be of provoking Russia and of turning Russian public opinion. But Russia is a dictatorship. Public opinion doesn't matter, and war protesters are routinely arrested. And nothing Ukraine did provoked Russia. Russia merely invented an excuse to invade (Nazi oppression of Russian ethnics? Really? Can they have found a more absurd excuse?). If it is militarily advantageous for Ukraine to conduct military operations in Russia then they should do so.
I wish we were paying less attention to what Putin says. For example, why is the western news media reporting that Putin blames the west for for food and energy crises. His intentions are not to provide the west accurate information but to spread lies and propaganda, and the western media is helping him do it.
The reality is that Russia is stealing Ukrainian wheat. Ukraine plays a significant role in the world's wheat supplies (20% of the world's high grade wheat, and 7% of all wheat). Famines will result from Russia's wheat heists.
I hope the west gets serious about sanctions. I've always called sanctions a blunt sword that becomes less and less effective with time as those imposing the sanctions become less and less diligent about enforcing them, and as the sanctioned country becomes more and more effective at circumventing them. Sanctions are not going to bring Russia to it's knees, nor even to the bargaining table, but if we're going to oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and if we truly understand the importance of a free Ukraine to the west, then all avenues must be employed and that includes sanctions.
And if we're going to do sanctions then we should do them right. It is long past the time when it should be possible for the media to report, "The West Considers Additional Sanctions." By this time there should be no additional sanctions left to consider. By this time every possible sanction should have already been employed.
What we mustn't do is continue limiting our military aid and assistance to levels that only guarantee a long slog before Ukraine is forced to capitulate. Current Ukrainian casualties are estimated at between 60-100 per day. That's not sustainable. The population of Ukraine is 41 million, of Russia 145 million. The area of Ukraine is 233,000 square miles, of Russia 6.6 million square miles. If Ukraine is to prevail it will only come at great cost to the west in terms of both men and materiel (yes, both men and materiel). Ukraine doesn't have enough men to employ all the weaponry we'd have to send them to insure victory.
Our leaders have to stand up and squarely declare our truth, not mumble it out with heads turned aside. Yes, some high level officials have done so, but not national leaders. These leaders must shout from the rooftops (i.e., declare in major speeches) that we want a free Ukraine, we want Ukraine to join Nato, we want Russia to lose, be severely weakened, and to face a strengthened, expanded and remotivated NATO able to hold Russian aggression and expansionism in check. They must not make noises, as Macron did recently, that the US is too aggressive toward Russia. He also said:
quote
We must, together, never cede to the temptation of humiliation, nor to a spirit of revenge. We are not at war with Russia. We are working in Europe for the preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for the return of peace on our continent.
  —French President Emmanuel Macron
How can we be too aggressive toward an extreme and ruthless belligerent? Does Macron somehow believe that if the Ukraine war can be ended while treating Russia with respect that Russian expansionism and aggression will end? Is he a fool?
We also have to make serious efforts at undermining Belarus's current status as a Russian satellite, to somehow pry it away from Russia and put it on a path toward rejoining Europe as an ally and partner.
And we should have the same goal for Russia itself. That was once the plan back when Boris Yeltsin was in charge, and it should be again. There's no reason European nations shouldn't be one large community, the efforts of one man to restore the glories of the Soviet Union notwithstanding.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 821 of 995 (895022)
06-06-2022 9:36 AM


How seriously are we taking what Putin says these days?
How seriously we're taking what Putin says these days is an important question. For instance most recently Putin said he'd bomb and shell more widely if longer-range missiles were sent to Ukraine. Are we taking this threat seriously?
I am, of course, sure the US State Department and Department of defense and Britain's Home Department and Ministry of Defence (yes, they have a spelling problem, but they're an ally and they mostly speak English, so we should just let it go) deeply consider and analyze everything Putin says, but I hope they don't conclude that they must in any way take his threats into account as they consider how we should assist Ukraine.
What great power we would cede to Putin if he could just say, "If you escalate your assistance you'll be sorry," and we would back off. Which seemed to be the case early in the conflict. I hope everyone remembers our refusal to send aircraft because it would escalate the conflict. So we didn't send aircraft, but Putin laid ruin to a number of Ukrainian cities and towns anyway, and still is.
So I hope no one in officialdom is arguing, "We better not send those long-range rockets or things will get worse." Does Putin really have the ability to make things any worse? And maybe, if we're lucky, some of the long-range rockets will land in Russian cities and towns.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by Phat, posted 06-06-2022 9:58 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 832 by Tangle, posted 06-08-2022 1:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 828 of 995 (895067)
06-07-2022 11:40 AM


What the hell kind of crazy war is this?
We've been hearing this for a few days, but I finally have to comment. This is from today's Washington Post:
quote
The Kremlin has warned against equipping Kyiv with long-range weapons. Over the weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened a wider campaign of shelling in response, even as he dismissed their efficacy. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov alleged that Ukraine would use the systems to strike targets inside Russia, though the Biden administration has said Kyiv agreed to use the weapons only within its territory.
What kind of crazy war is it where the attackee is not allowed to attack the attacker? This is insane. How can a country deter a belligerent if the belligerent never has to worry about suffering the same consequences of war as the country they're attacking?
We're just not serious about this war. We're not listening to the late Colin Powell who declared that in any war you must go in with overwhelming force to win as quickly as possible, because war is hell, and prolonging it into a long painful slog of daily death and destruction for years is evil. What we're doing is evil.
We should immediately send the 60 requested launchers to Ukraine and begin to end this thing. And Ukraine, with both our blessing and encouragement (as opposed to the incredibly wimpy "don't make Russia mad" approach), should start attacking Russian production facilities, supply lines, troop movements, and yes, cities.
I don't understand the reluctance to send the requested rocket launchers. What if Ukraine is wrong or lying and they don't really need that many launchers. What is the worst that could happen? Are any of the negative consequences worse than Ukraine falling to Russia?
But what if Ukraine is right that they need those launchers else they'll lose the war. The negative consequences of Ukraine losing the war are severe. Even if they just lose their eastern half, the consequences are still severe because the east is resource rich and will make Russia more powerful, which is the opposite of our stated goal to make Russia weaker. And Russia will continue through both political intrigue and military force to try to take over Ukraine.
Putin must get a real kick out of how he hardly has to do anything to get the west to tie its own hands behind its back. I haven't said this in a while in this thread, but it's time to say it again. This is appeasement just like before WWII where no one wanted to rile Hitler for fear he might start a war.
--Percy
PS: I don't think I've mentioned this yet, but we're moving to a new server soon because the OS on the current one is being EOL'd. I'm still on the shake down cruise, and this message is the first posted from the new server. If anyone would like to try it, the IP address is 66.148.122.44. It's http, not https, because I haven't added the SSL/TLS certificates yet.
Of course, if this doesn't work no one will see this.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 839 of 995 (895600)
07-07-2022 2:00 PM


The War Drags On
This thread hasn't been active in a while, so I thought I'd post a short note on the status of the war in Ukraine.
Sanctions have not yet brought Russia to its knees, but any minute now.
Russian military incompetence has not yet ended the war, but their luck can't hold out much longer.
The West continues to ignore the Russian nuclear threat by providing increasing amounts of aid and assistance to Ukraine, but they've got to come to their senses soon.
Russia knows that invading a NATO country would mean its end, so the panicked alarms of bordering NATO countries can be ignored.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by Tangle, posted 07-07-2022 5:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 843 of 995 (895613)
07-08-2022 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by Tangle
07-07-2022 5:05 PM


Re: The War Drags On
Given the way you responded it seems possible that it may not have come across that I was just using sarcasm to poke fun at some positions expressed in this thread that have already been proven wrong.
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
Sanctions have not yet brought Russia to its knees, but any minute now.
Sanctions take years.
This was a reference to earlier claims about how effective the sanctions already were. And sanctions do not take years. They effectively take forever. Countries inevitably find ways around them, they find other trading partners, they find ways to live with them. And the sanctioners gradually lose discipline and interest, not to mention finance the sanctioned country by continuing to do business with them for essential goods. Isn't the ruble worth more today than before the sanctions?
Sanctions have the best chance of a serious impact in their early stages because the sudden changes are disruptive and destabilizing. After that their impact wanes.
...[Russia's] economy is being comprehensively trashed...
Since you now think that sanctions take a long time, what is it you think is trashing the Russian economy? Typically wartime spending (any deficit spending, really) is stimulative to an economy, so since it's only been months and not the years you say sanctions require, what is doing it?
The West continues to ignore the Russian nuclear threat by providing increasing amounts of aid and assistance to Ukraine, but they've got to come to their senses soon.
No idea what this means, the nuclear threat has always been there and still is.
Someone here was arguing that the nuclear threat meant we couldn't meaningfully help Ukraine.
Russia knows that invading a NATO country would mean its end, so the panicked alarms of bordering NATO countries can be ignored.
Ditto above.
Someone here was arguing that invading a NATO country would be suicide, so I merely pointed out that some NATO countries are very alarmed about the Russian threat, e.g.
quote
Lithuania's decision to ban the transit of certain goods between Russia and its isolated exclave of Kaliningrad has provoked wrath among top officials in Moscow, and even a threat of retaliation against the European nation.
Moscow threatens NATO member Lithuania over transit ban on goods to Russia's European exclave Kaliningrad
Fears grow among Russia's neighbors that Putin might not stop at Ukraine
Lithuanians fear the Ukraine war | DW | 28.04.2022
What else were you expecting? Realpolitik tends be tricky.
I don't think you get it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by Tangle, posted 07-07-2022 5:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2022 11:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 845 of 995 (895619)
07-08-2022 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 844 by Tangle
07-08-2022 11:53 AM


Re: The War Drags On
Tangle writes:
Us Brits invented sarcasm, we can detect it even when the author doesn't know it's there, so yeh, I did twig that.
Sure you did. Are you sure you're a Brit?
Are there any examples of sanctions against a major country having immediate effect?
I didn't say anything about an immediate effect. I characterized the early stages of sanctions as being most effective, and for just one example, in the couple weeks after the announcement of sanctions the value of the ruble plunged.
But as I said earlier, the impact of sanctions tends to weaken with time, and today the ruble's value is higher than before sanctions.
I doubt Russia's economy will ever recover...
Not given to rash statements, you.
...it will sustain long term harm - it's not as if it's a wealthy country now.
How long is "ever" to you? Is that like "forever," because in the context you used it it sure sounds that way. Do you maybe want to amend this? Like maybe say, "Russia will feel the economic impact of this misguided invasion for years to come." Or maybe consider other possibilities, like maybe that Russia will win the war, annex Ukraine or turn it into a satellite or puppet state, then milk it and make it pay for it's own conquest?
Since you now think that sanctions take a long time, what is it you think is trashing the Russian economy? Typically wartime spending (any deficit spending, really) is stimulative to an economy, so since it's only been months and not the years you say sanctions require, what is doing it?
War time spending is a stimulus? Really? My parents told me that there was still food rationing in the UK up 'til 1954. We only paid off our war debt to you guys in 2006. There's a difference between participating in a foreign war as a visitor and investor, and being invaded or invading a country.
You've lost the plot here, moving on.
Russia is spending almost $1bn per day on the war and its economy is forecast to shrink between 7 and 15% next year.
Your figures for how much Russia's economy will shrink are in the same ballpark as others I've seen recently, for instance to shrink 10% this year and 1% next year, but such projections might not be worth much since they depend a great deal on the course of the war and how long it continues.
It's a rubbish economy anyway, about the size of Spain and less effective. The main issue is that Putin couldn't care less how the Russians suffer, our sanctions are more about deterring others and reducing his ability to fund his war.
You're off in left field again, moving on.
No idea who that was, as far as I remember most were saying we could give arms but not put boots on the ground. To my mind we didn't do enough fast enough and dithered over giving long range missile systems that could be argues to be attacking rather than defensive. That was nonsense.
Glad you've come around.
Someone here was arguing that invading a NATO country would be suicide,
That would be me, because it would be suicide for Putin.
If by "Putin" you mean the end of Putin's rule in Russia and not Russia itself, are you sure that's what you said? Engaging in a bit of revisionism, are we? What you actually said was:
Message 467: My position is that NATO would crush Russia in a conventional war (and a nuclear one for that matter but then no-one wins). Russia knows this so it will not set foot in any NATO country. It would be suicide, so it's not going to happen.
Message 471: Of course it doesn't - Russia attacking a NATO member before, now or in the future would be suicide. That's the entire point of NATO.
Message 474:
This is extreme exaggeration. It would not be suicide for Russia to attack a NATO member.
It would be WWIII
Message 488: If causing WW3 (oops) isn't suicide, then, well, we need a new language.
Message 502: But the very first act of any direct NATO action behalf of a NATO country under attack would be to take out Russian radar and ground to air missile sites, control centres and off-shore naval assets implicated in the Russian offences - wherever they're located. That's why Putin would never put boots in a NATO country, it would be world war and suicide.
Message 575: An attack by Russia on NATO WOULD be suicide. It would either end in Putin's defeat and many deaths or WW111/III/3 - most likely the latter, unless there was a palace coup.
Message 653: No need to paraphrase Percy, any invasion by Russia onto NATO territory would be suicidal.
At no point did you argue that a Russian attack on a NATO country would bring an end to Putin's rule in Russia. Also from Message 575:
But I'm done arguing silly word games.
Obviously not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 844 by Tangle, posted 07-08-2022 11:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2022 6:14 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 847 of 995 (895626)
07-09-2022 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 846 by Tangle
07-09-2022 6:14 AM


Re: The War Drags On
Tangle writes:
You seem to think that you can know more about what I think and who I am than I do.
I was just poking fun with more sarcasm, which if you were a true Brit you would have detected, right?
My only insights into your inner thoughts are your words here, but I do think others reflections of our external selves can offer helpful insights.
You comments about sanctions seem to reinforce their general ineffectiveness. We have an incredible number of sanctions against a long list of countries. I wonder if you added up the number of US sanctions and the number of US trade agreements which would be more.
I've tried to explain this to you several times, I'm not starting over. I'll just repeat; invading a NATO country would be suicide for both Russia and Putin. Pretty bloody obviously.
You rarely explain, and certainly not this. It seems to be anathema to you. Once you've baselessly denigrated the rebuttal you're usually done. This is just the same rash and bold declaration yet again, oh sage and soothsayer. Your opinions far outweigh their fragile foundations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2022 6:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2022 10:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 851 of 995 (895659)
07-10-2022 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 848 by Tangle
07-09-2022 10:48 AM


Re: The War Drags On
Tangle writes:
Just out of interest, what do YOU think would happen if Putin sent his tanks into a NATO country?
There'd be a response, but I know I'd only be guessing at the specifics and the scale, though I consider a full scale counter-invasion of Russia that would wipe it off the political map unlikely in the extreme. You, on the other hand, seem to know it would be suicide for Russia without explaining what that means while at the same time claiming in modus creationist that you've already explained it. You more recently said it would be suicide for Putin, but I wasn't sure if you actually meant Putin the man, in which case meaning he'd lose his leadership position, or if his name was just another way of referring to Russia.
You're remarkably reticent about explaining anything. You speak in broad ambiguities, of which "it would be suicide for Russia" is a good example, and become hostile toward anyone seeking clarification.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2022 10:48 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 07-10-2022 2:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 852 of 995 (895660)
07-10-2022 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 850 by Tangle
07-09-2022 4:23 PM


Re: The War Drags On
Tangle writes:
Phat writes:
I think it would be fair game for NATO to take them out via airpower. Russia cant match us in the skies.
Russia loses the air war. Then what does it do?
It wouldn't be a certainty that Russia would lose an air war. It has the second largest air force in the world. The size of the combined air forces of NATO countries exceeds Russia's, but Russia's sheer size in area has thwarted every invader eventually. NATO would be fighting an air force that has what would feel like infinite space in which to hide and maneuver. Such an air conflict might come to resemble punching an overstuffed down pillow.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 850 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2022 4:23 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 853 by Phat, posted 07-10-2022 2:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 855 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2022 5:08 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 856 of 995 (895689)
07-11-2022 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 854 by Tangle
07-10-2022 2:30 PM


Re: The War Drags On
Tangle writes:
Percy writes:
There'd be a response, but I know I'd only be guessing at the specifics and the scale.
Speaking of vague ambiguities...
What is wrong with you? I wasn't vague. I was admitting I don't know. You don't know either. The difference between us is that you think you know when you don't, and you abuse people who try to determine if any actual knowledge or reasoning lies behind your seeming certainty about what are at heart unknowable things full of variables and uncertainty.
But yes, there'd be a response and then a counter-response and unless Putin retreats the world trickles eventually into total war in Europe. Which would be suicide for Putin (and bad for everyone).
Can I take this pronouncement to the bank? Does it really not occur to you that this is just one of many, many, many ways things could play out?
And what does "suicide for Putin" mean? Are you using "Putin" as just another way of referring to Russia, because until these last couple posts it was Russia you said would be committing suicide, not Putin. If you do mean Putin the man, then by suicide do you mean he'd lose his position of power in Russia? Something else?
The reality is that NATO provides a deterrent for Russian aggression. The deterrent isn't because a Russian attack on NATO would result in their or their leader's suicide, whatever that means. The deterrent is because NATO power is sufficient to thwart any Russian military effort against NATO countries.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Tangle, posted 07-10-2022 2:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2022 12:17 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 857 of 995 (895690)
07-11-2022 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 855 by Tangle
07-11-2022 5:08 AM


Re: The War Drags On
You needn't quote numbers at me, I looked them up before I posted.
That post from me, like the previous, was in the context of your claim that a Russian attack on a NATO power would mean suicide for Russia, which means any air war would be over Russia. As I explained, Russia's sheer size and fighting within their own borders would make it very difficult for NATO to win that air war.
Not that it's simply numbers that matter of course and no one here has the faintest clue about how such a battle would be carried out.
Yes, precisely. Finally, a recognition that you can't know what will happen.
But it would take a new level of insanity for Putin to invade a NATO country, it would mobilise Europe and probably end in nuclear conflagration. Suicidal.
And then you revert right back to near certainty again. Inconsistent much?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 855 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2022 5:08 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by Phat, posted 07-13-2022 12:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 860 of 995 (895708)
07-11-2022 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 858 by Tangle
07-11-2022 12:17 PM


Re: The War Drags On
There's a pattern emerging where you won't explain what you mean, but if someone else puts it into words you'll often acknowledge that that's what you mean, but not without issuing some snark, like how bloody obvious it was, etc.
I still have no idea what you mean by suicide, and maybe you don't either. You call it a metaphor later in your message, but that makes no sense. If there's a way in which that makes sense then you'll have to explain. Perhaps you mean it in the exaggerated way that a losing team might say to the other, "We'll kill you in the next game."
This is becoming very boring.
But you're remaining oh so pleasant. Good show. If you're truly becoming bored then just explain what you mean instead of spending all your effort avoiding it.
Neither of us know anything about military strategy, we're both guessing about what would happen when.
This misstates the case. You don't guess but declare, often with a fair amount of certainty (and ambiguity). I haven't guessed about anything. If I don't know what will happen then I say I don't know, or maybe list some likely possibilities, or perhaps say what I think most likely. It depends on context.
My position is that Russia driving tanks into a NATO country could ultimately be the beginning of ww3. Only a mad man would do it because it would be an obviously suicidal thing to do.
This a bundle of ambiguity. What does "could ultimately be the beginning of ww3" mean? That WW3 is one of the risks, one that could be avoided if things began moving in that direction? But then your next sentence calls it suicidal, which would only make sense if WW3 were inevitable after sending in the tanks. In the end I cannot figure out what you mean with any degree of confidence.
I have no idea what you think would happen.
There's a reason for that. I don't know what would happen. I could only discuss this as an array of possibilities. But we know exactly what you think would happen because you've told us, e.g., from Message 502:
Tangle in Message 502 writes:
But the very first act of any direct NATO action behalf of a NATO country under attack would be to take out Russian radar and ground to air missile sites, control centres and off-shore naval assets implicated in the Russian offences - wherever they're located. That's why Putin would never put boots in a NATO country, it would be world war and suicide.
I sincerely hope our initial responses would be much more considered and measured than that.
quote
Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
Do you really think it would be deemed necessary that "the very first NATO act" be all the things you enumerated above? I grant it's one of the possibilities, but certainly one of the more extreme ones.
But yes, there'd be a response and then a counter-response and unless Putin retreats the world trickles eventually into total war in Europe. Which would be suicide for Putin (and bad for everyone).
Can I take this pronouncement to the bank?
I think they'd be as confused by that as you seem to be.
Yes, of course, abuse me instead of explaining why your certainty about what would happen.
Does it really not occur to you that this is just one of many, many, many ways things could play out?
Um...yes, strangely that had occurred to me.
Then why is it not reflected in anything you write?
For god's sake man, it's a metaphor, work it out. Do you think that I'm imagining Putin in the first tank across the border?
I guess no one should expect anything but mocking absurdity from you as a response to inquiries about what you actually mean. You seem to enjoy watching people struggle with your crypticness while you poke fun at them as they do.
Russia could not possibly succeed in invading a NATO country...
It does feel unlikely, but to analogize with American sports, it seemed unlikely that the Mets would beat the Orioles in 1969, or that the Patriots would beat the Rams in 2001. No doubt soccer and cricket have their long lists of unlikely victories. Saying "Russia could not possibly succeed in invading a NATO country" is typical of your kind of exaggerated overstatement. Yes it's unlikely, I agree, but "could not possibly succeed"? No.
...and in all likelihood it would result in the end of Putin one way or another too.
He *is* a dictator, you know, where job performance isn't usually the most important factor in retaining the position.
The reality is that NATO provides a deterrent for Russian aggression.
Do you really think I've missed this point?
What have you ever said that would lead me to believe that is something you grasped?
Could that be the reason that I keep saying that Putin will not drive a single tank or put a single boot in NATO territory?
Maybe you should look up deterrent.
--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2022 12:17 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024