You don't have to clarify anything. As far as I am concerned this so called war between Russia and Ukraine is complete bullshit. We are being schmooed by the media. I absolutely refuse to take sides in this latest world wide propaganda war. Nothing more than a convenient diversion for the failing world governments of the so called G20. As far as I am concerned you have a much better grasp of world events than many of the comments I read on your earlier post. Apparently we have managed to transfer our politically correct response from covid to Ukraine. Hell will freeze over before I contribute anything to this latest traversity of world events.
Well said. Why should we believe the Gov'ts when they have lied to us for the past 2 years? Surely people can see how contrivied this situation is? Covid measures start to be eased and they introduce a more powerful fear - war/nuclear war.
I refuse to even watch or read the news/propoganda. Every time I catch any of the news I get a strong feeling I am in George Orwell's 1984 with the perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia.
So which country is worth going into a thermonuclear war over?
If you state Ukraine isn't, there needs must be a cut-off as to which country is. I'm not being facetious here, just curious if you actually have thought about where your line is, and how much you are willing to sacrifice befor getting there.
Having been in at the sharp end, though on a much more smaller scale, I now where my lines are. Most people don't because either they lack lines they won't cross, or they have never been forced to push up against them and make that choice where all the options aren't only bad but also wrong.
(And I must say, it is very much preferable to never have to make such choices. If you are very cloes friends with a doctor or nurse having worked in a war one, ask them about doing triage on children after an artillery strike or an air raid on a civilian target. Bring a gallon of scotch.)
From a practical standpoint, in order to prevent things going nuclear, you incinerate anything that crosses the polish border (the statute of limitations for Russia to complain about Poland joining NATO is about 25 years overdue) on foot or vehicle. I'd give a little leeway to shooting at military supplies that will cross the border at this point similar to how Israel manages deterrence because the west has been so brazen. In terms of non-member countries worth defending, I would say Finland would be a red line. Otherwise, let the oligarchies sort themselves out.
That's the non-nuclear option, which I'm certain our polish and finnish cousins would grudgingly accept if it was directed at russian invaders.
I'm just curious as to where the line is for launching nuclear weapons at russian (or other) military targets is. As we now full well, militaries such as the russian (or the US or the chinese) only stops of their own volition, or when they are stopped by (credible threat of) greater force. And the EU blather is neither.
How much damage do we think mr Biden and his coterie is willing to accept befor the nuclear option is on the table? Becuse if it's n+1, well those nukes may as well be firecrackers.
As it stands right now, Russia has threatened both Sweden and Finalnd with war if either apply for NATO membership (never mind that Sweden in practicality being an ally of the US since 1947 is about as secret as Superman's civil identity...).
Looking at post-Soviet history, the US line is, unfortunately for its allies, quite obvious: if and when, and only then, US financial and military interests and assets are directly attacked. Which is as it should be, if it wasn't for all those pesky promises of alliances and assurances. And going back on a promise of protection or a red line in the sand /when/ the heat is on is kind of the worst way of doing it.
I much preferred mr Trump's attitude re: defence of Euorpe, EU and individual nations; it's our job, and the US isn't going to do it for us or come for a third time.
Tit for tat. Killing everything that comes over the border and daring Russia to use the nuclear option is the only way. I don't think nukes should be fired first and still think the 2 that have been used were tragic even though their use may have prevented nukes from being used since... Doing so without creating an existential threat to Russia is important though. A coalition of the willing type scenario in Ukraine may create such a threat.
As far as what Biden will accept without using nukes... Well, he and his handlers have proven themselves erratic. I don't think he has red lines, or is playing tit for tat. I honestly don't think he knows what year it is. So I don't want to speculate on when/if he would go down that path. Having weak US leadership is another reason not to get involved in Ukraine. They couldn't even pull out of Afghanistan without messing it up.
Agree wholeheartedly on the US red lines.. One of the many problems I had with Obama's mess of a foreign policy is he kept redrawing his red lines. Ie., in Syria. Trump didn't even bother. Alleged chemical attack in Syria? Instant missile response from Trump with no questions asked. Iirc the chemical attack later turned out to be fake which, ironically, only adds to US credibility.
But he was also right, Europe needs to look after Europe if only because the US tends to be an unreliable playmate. Add in the fact that wars in the middle east and insane uniparty policies have realistically bankrupted the country, and it is only a matter of time before their global influence wanes. Like with the Roman empire, one day Europe will wake up to the military bases abandoned, and enemies at the gates.
You don't have to clarify anything. As far as I am concerned this so called war between Russia and Ukraine is complete bullshit. We are being schmooed by the media. I absolutely refuse to take sides in this latest world wide propaganda war. Nothing more than a convenient diversion for the failing world governments of the so called G20. As far as I am concerned you have a much better grasp of world events than many of the comments I read on your earlier post. Apparently we have managed to transfer our politically correct response from covid to Ukraine. Hell will freeze over before I contribute anything to this latest traversity of world events.
Well said. Why should we believe the Gov'ts when they have lied to us for the past 2 years? Surely people can see how contrivied this situation is? Covid measures start to be eased and they introduce a more powerful fear - war/nuclear war.
I refuse to even watch or read the news/propoganda. Every time I catch any of the news I get a strong feeling I am in George Orwell's 1984 with the perpetual war between Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia.
In a rational country, Ukraine paying off the President's son would raise serious red flags.
Ya think?
100% what Helen said!
Who would believe we are at a point in history where that is actually a possibility!
Again, yes?
Ok, yes but a few years ago I certainly didn't
Repeat from last post:
So which country is worth going into a thermonuclear war over?
If you state Ukraine isn't, there needs must be a cut-off as to which country is. I'm not being facetious here, just curious if you actually have thought about where your line is, and how much you are willing to sacrifice befor getting there.
Having been in at the sharp end, though on a much more smaller scale, I now where my lines are. Most people don't because either they lack lines they won't cross, or they have never been forced to push up against them and make that choice where all the options aren't only bad but also wrong.
(And I must say, it is very much preferable to never have to make such choices. If you are very cloes friends with a doctor or nurse having worked in a war one, ask them about doing triage on children after an artillery strike or an air raid on a civilian target. Bring a gallon of scotch.)
From a practical standpoint, in order to prevent things going nuclear, you incinerate anything that crosses the polish border (the statute of limitations for Russia to complain about Poland joining NATO is about 25 years overdue) on foot or vehicle. I'd give a little leeway to shooting at military supplies that will cross the border at this point similar to how Israel manages deterrence because the west has been so brazen. In terms of non-member countries worth defending, I would say Finland would be a red line. Otherwise, let the oligarchies sort themselves out.
That's the non-nuclear option, which I'm certain our polish and finnish cousins would grudgingly accept if it was directed at russian invaders.
I'm just curious as to where the line is for launching nuclear weapons at russian (or other) military targets is. As we now full well, militaries such as the russian (or the US or the chinese) only stops of their own volition, or when they are stopped by (credible threat of) greater force. And the EU blather is neither.
How much damage do we think mr Biden and his coterie is willing to accept befor the nuclear option is on the table? Becuse if it's n+1, well those nukes may as well be firecrackers.
As it stands right now, Russia has threatened both Sweden and Finalnd with war if either apply for NATO membership (never mind that Sweden in practicality being an ally of the US since 1947 is about as secret as Superman's civil identity...).
Looking at post-Soviet history, the US line is, unfortunately for its allies, quite obvious: if and when, and only then, US financial and military interests and assets are directly attacked. Which is as it should be, if it wasn't for all those pesky promises of alliances and assurances. And going back on a promise of protection or a red line in the sand /when/ the heat is on is kind of the worst way of doing it.
I much preferred mr Trump's attitude re: defence of Euorpe, EU and individual nations; it's our job, and the US isn't going to do it for us or come for a third time.
Tit for tat. Killing everything that comes over the border and daring Russia to use the nuclear option is the only way. I don't think nukes should be fired first and still think the 2 that have been used were tragic even though their use may have prevented nukes from being used since... Doing so without creating an existential threat to Russia is important though. A coalition of the willing type scenario in Ukraine may create such a threat.
As far as what Biden will accept without using nukes... Well, he and his handlers have proven themselves erratic. I don't think he has red lines, or is playing tit for tat. I honestly don't think he knows what year it is. So I don't want to speculate on when/if he would go down that path. Having weak US leadership is another reason not to get involved in Ukraine. They couldn't even pull out of Afghanistan without messing it up.
Agree wholeheartedly on the US red lines.. One of the many problems I had with Obama's mess of a foreign policy is he kept redrawing his red lines. Ie., in Syria. Trump didn't even bother. Alleged chemical attack in Syria? Instant missile response from Trump with no questions asked. Iirc the chemical attack later turned out to be fake which, ironically, only adds to US credibility.
But he was also right, Europe needs to look after Europe if only because the US tends to be an unreliable playmate. Add in the fact that wars in the middle east and insane uniparty policies have realistically bankrupted the country, and it is only a matter of time before their global influence wanes. Like with the Roman empire, one day Europe will wake up to the military bases abandoned, and enemies at the gates.
Love the meme ☺☺