5 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Emotional exaggerations. Every conflict could do this. Are you now an isolationist? You are hardly part of a select few with a clue. You are a part of the fearful mob. Anyone with a clue knows the risk is not decreased by avoidance. In fact it probably goes up when putin has time to reorganize and resupply. 

all this cowardice does is enable more aggression, even at the poker table. The only intelligent reason to invite it is to execute a trap. 

Or do you think Putin will suddenly be satisfied if he has Ukrain? Has he ever been more vulnerable than now? 

There’s nothing emotional about it. You say you want US intervention. You’re not willing to do the fighting yourself. Putin has stated he will retaliate with nukes.

No, the risk of nuclear war does not go up by avoiding direct conflict. Everyone with a clue on all sides knows this. That’s why the US and Russia never engaged each other directly over nearly a century of nuclear armament. Because direct conflict is far too risky. We’ve had multiple generations of military leaders on both sides and they all thought the same about direct conflict. But suddenly you know better? Please…

I think Putin has strategic goals and personal ambitions. I also think he doesn’t have the capital to make any further advances for a while. So we trade Ukraine for all the remaining NATO holdouts, get the world on board with sanctioning him, and avoid a nuclear war. That’s a pretty good trade off.

44 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

How am I wrong?

Politically at least here in the states the drumbeat from the right has been "Biden is seen as weak, our enemies will take advantage". We've heard similar about western liberalism in general.

Those most likely to see China trying to take advantage of this situation and invade Taiwan tend to be those who view our response as weak. This is, by and large, right wing hawks, some of whom would love to be proven correct.

You already have a bunch of Trumplicans here who blame Biden for the invasion of Ukraine. I hardly think it's crazy to be cynical about this and recognize that many right wingers are queefing about China invading Taiwan because "we're weak." 

Why the scare quotes?

We are weak relative to the past.

After seeing how hollowed out Russia's military appears to be, I would disagree.

 

11 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

After seeing how hollowed out Russia's military appears to be, I would disagree.

In absolute terms, I would disagree too, but in relative terms, I'd say we peaked in the 1990s. 

Quote

⚡️ Russia has information about an impending provocation against the gas transportation system of Ukraine, Novak said

Europe should go long on blankets. 

1 minute ago, wyote said:

In absolute terms, I would disagree too, but in relative terms, I'd say we peaked in the 1990s. 

You saying you and the US both peaked in the 90s?

Just now, DrPhilly said:

You saying you and the US both peaked in the 90s?

My personal peak was from 2002 to 2004. 

Glory days, bro. I can't even tell the stories. 

 

Let's settle down Ukraine 

2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Sure, but he'll be willing to pay any price to hold on to power. When the state's ability to ensure the adequate supply of foodstuffs to the general population collapses, the collapse of leadership usually isn't far behind, even for brutal authoritarians. Putin doesn't have the cult of personality or advanced enough of a police state to rule through power and loyalty alone like a Stalin or Kim, nor are Russians effectively isolated from the rest of the world to the extent that they accept self-sufficiency as necessary and preferable to globalism. Quite the opposite—the Russian people have more or less enjoyed 30 years of openness with the West through liberal internationalism. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. No matter how much he'd like to think otherwise, Putin doesn't have the iron fist of his forebears. He has to produce real gains for Russian society, and particularly for the big business cabal that he gave life to following the collapse of the Soviet union. Ironically, this may foretell his own demise, because he's trying to pull back from the world after moving the Russian economy forward by reaching out to it. Once the money dries up and there's no food on tables, it won't be long before people at the bottom and the top will be organizing his ouster.

It wouldn’t be the first time Putin hasn’t delivered food and gotten away with it. When Putin was working to the St. Petersburg mayor, they made a deal with businessmen to sell oil abroad in exchange for buying food for the people, as the area was experiencing drastic food shortages.

They sold the oil, but didn’t buy the food. 

53 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Outside of using Nuke's theres nothing America will do. 

America is already doing something. Supplying Ukraine and sanctioning the hell out of Russia

38 minutes ago, TEW said:

There’s nothing emotional about it. You say you want US intervention. You’re not willing to do the fighting yourself. Putin has stated he will retaliate with nukes.

No, the risk of nuclear war does not go up by avoiding direct conflict. Everyone with a clue on all sides knows this. That’s why the US and Russia never engaged each other directly over nearly a century of nuclear armament. Because direct conflict is far too risky. We’ve had multiple generations of military leaders on both sides and they all thought the same about direct conflict. But suddenly you know better? Please…

I think Putin has strategic goals and personal ambitions. I also think he doesn’t have the capital to make any further advances for a while. So we trade Ukraine for all the remaining NATO holdouts, get the world on board with sanctioning him, and avoid a nuclear war. That’s a pretty good trade off.

Putin has no desire for nuclear war, as one would result in him not being a billionaire anymore.

His biggest fear is turning into Gaddafi. 

Wow. So now what from the Kremlin? Doesn’t look like they’ll have enough to overwhelm or occupy.

 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

It's mainly driven by a desire to see the world burn so they can blame it on Biden.

I wish I was kidding.

I'm sure there are lots that want it so they can blame Biden but it honestly seems like people just want some world conflict that involves the US

Just now, Thrive said:

Wow. So now what from the Kremlin? Doesn’t look like they’ll have enough to overwhelm or occupy.

100% of the military forces that Russia designated and staged for Ukraine are inside Ukraine.

Not 100% of Russia's military forces overall.

It's a significant amount of Russia's troops. But at this point they also need boots to pacify the population. And they can't commit everything else to Ukraine lest they be exposed elsewhere.

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

Putin has no desire for nuclear war, as one would result in him not being a billionaire anymore.

His biggest fear is turning into Gaddafi. 

Also nuclear war would be globally catastrophic

Ukrainian billboard speaks for itself... see spoiler for translation.

Spoiler

 

12 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Wow. So now what from the Kremlin? Doesn’t look like they’ll have enough to overwhelm or occupy.

Kyiv is preparing for a siege. I think the best Russia can hope for is bombing Kyiv into submission, installing a puppet regime, but neglecting to take over the remainder of the country who will never follow them. Ukrainians will continue to resist. This is going to take a while to sort out.

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

And they can't commit everything else to Ukraine lest they be exposed elsewhere.

There have to be some people in the Caucasus sharpening their knives.

 

1 minute ago, toolg said:

Kyiv is preparing for a siege. I think the best Russia can hope for is bombing Kyiv into submission, installing a puppet regime, but neglecting to take over the remainder of the country who will never follow them. Ukrainians will continue to resist. This is going to take a while to sort out.

Based on what we've seen so far, none of us will live long enough for the Russians to get to Lviv. 

20 minutes ago, Thrive said:

Wow. So now what from the Kremlin? Doesn’t look like they’ll have enough to overwhelm or occupy.

And I thought they were a powerhouse. Fing pathetic showing 

 

 

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

Javelin was developed in 1989 and Russia hasn't developed any counter measures to their fixed wings aircraft in that time? 

Embarrassing