14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

By this logic, our assistance thus far could be seen as a provocation and could result in escalation so apparently we shouldn't have taken that chance. 

That logic is how we have been handling Russia my entire life. Both countries have always avoided direct combat with each other in favor of fighting proxy wars. They assist our enemies and we assist theirs. 

8 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

That logic is how we have been handling Russia my entire life. Both countries have always avoided direct combat with each other in favor of fighting proxy wars. They assist our enemies and we assist theirs. 

But by his logic we're still taking a chance by doing so, and he's saying we shouldn't. As always TEW is trying to have it both ways after he spent all of March insisting that Putin only invaded because Biden was weak. Now he's suddenly praising Biden for threading the needle after seeing 4 months of his posts blow up in his face spectacularly. 

57 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

By this logic, our assistance thus far could be seen as a provocation and could result in escalation so apparently we shouldn't have taken that chance. 

No, because there is a difference between directly engaging in armed conflict and providing aid to a third party, so that is a completely illogical comparison by you.

Further, we have over half a century of precedent of what the "rules of the game” are, and both sides have abided by them — from the USSR aiding Vietnam against the US to the US aiding Afghanistan against the USSR. This mutual understanding between the two powers has been followed exactly because both sides agreed that direct military action between the two sides was insane.

Again, this is very basic stuff and is exactly why the Cold War was named the Cold War: because the two largest nuclear powers fought each other by proxy instead of direct confrontation. Which is what we are doing now, as we should be. Because our leaders have far more sense than you and the rest of the lunatics on here.

The fact that this has to be explained is incredible but sadly not surprising.

58 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

But by his logic we're still taking a chance by doing so, and he's saying we shouldn't. As always TEW is trying to have it both ways after he spent all of March insisting that Putin only invaded because Biden was weak. Now he's suddenly praising Biden for threading the needle after seeing 4 months of his posts blow up in his face spectacularly. 

I don’t know what he was saying before but the logic of not directly engaging Russian troops in favor of proxy wars has been policy for as long as I can remember. 

15 minutes ago, TEW said:

No, because there is a difference between directly engaging in armed conflict and providing aid to a third party, so that is a completely illogical comparison by you.

Further, we have over half a century of precedent of what the "rules of the game” are, and both sides have abided by them — from the USSR aiding Vietnam against the US to the US aiding Afghanistan against the USSR. This mutual understanding between the two powers has been followed exactly because both sides agreed that direct military action between the two sides was insane.

Again, this is very basic stuff and is exactly why the Cold War was named the Cold War: because the two largest nuclear powers fought each other by proxy instead of direct confrontation. Which is what we are doing now, as we should be. Because our leaders have far more sense than you and the rest of the lunatics on here.

The fact that this has to be explained is incredible but sadly not surprising.

You spent 4 months crowing about how weak our leaders were. You're a flip-flopping loser who can't ever bring himself to admit he was wrong about all your predictions. From all the praise heaped on Putin for being brilliant and planning for how everything has unfolded, to talking down to us for "not understanding time", to all the horseshit about him taking advantage of Biden, and now acting like you never said any of it. The fact you'd even show your face again in this thread after how much of a moronic failure you've proven to be is one of the most amusing plotlines of CVON. Bet money that I'll thoroughly enjoying quoting all your epic fails for months to come.

Just now, Tnt4philly said:

I don’t know what he was saying before but the logic of not directly engaging Russian troops in favor of proxy wars has been policy for as long as I can remember. 

You should go back and take a look. It was quite the spectacle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bernie joins the war effort!

32 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You spent 4 months crowing about how weak our leaders were. You're a flip-flopping loser who can't ever bring himself to admit he was wrong about all your predictions. From all the praise heaped on Putin for being brilliant and planning for how everything has unfolded, to talking down to us for "not understanding time", to all the horseshit about him taking advantage of Biden, and now acting like you never said any of it. The fact you'd even show your face again in this thread after how much of a moronic failure you've proven to be is one of the most amusing plotlines of CVON. Bet money that I'll thoroughly enjoying quoting all your epic fails for months to come.

You should go back and take a look. It was quite the spectacle.

4 months? I popped in occasionally because it was pretty big news, not posting all day every day like you little guy.

People were saying the Russians were losing when they were pretty obviously winning at the start, when I made those posts. Russia was advancing rapidly and our own military leaders were saying the exact same thing, which — shockingly — is where I formed my opinion. I have no problem saying it didn’t turn out that way, and I’m happy it didn’t.

Praising Putin? Get a grip — he’s a terrible person, but he did see weakness in the west and saw his opportunity to act on his geopolitical and ideological interests. Does anyone doubt he’s intelligent, if a monster? Does anyone doubt he saw weakness in the west, which precipitated his actions? Does anyone doubt Russia has legitimate geopolitical interests in Ukraine, even if their invasion was unwarranted?

Biden has done a great job here. He’s been measured and effective. How me, of all people, saying that about Biden is some how a negative against me is pretty funny. 

And believe me, if I could bet, I would. I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that you’ll be maniacally combing through threads to try to find some stupid imagined gotcha moment on the political sub-forum of an obscure message board, because it’s quite clear that is the substance of your existence. Months dude. Months. That’s how you’re literally planning to spend your life. Talk about losers...  

12 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

How close they came to using nukes in Vietnam is beside the point. They considered using them. The U.S. could not consider using nukes if they didn't have a first strike doctrine. The real danger of nuclear war emanates from the crazies in the U.S. who've demonstrated the willingness to use nukes on at least two occasions. 

These same crazies have already breached another red line no other nation has been maniacal to do thus far when they attacked civilian undersea infrastructure. 

The Russians, on the other hand, have shown enormous restraint. 

What exactly is wrong with "considering them"?  The "willingness" to use nukes on 2 occasions SAVED millions of lives.....although that wasn't the issue in vietnam, I would think any military response or action is "on the table" but are prioritized as to the likelihood of using them or what scenarios they would be seriously considered.

What "crazies" damaged the "undersea infrastructure"?  

And the russians have shown restraint?  How?  For What?  Using nukes?  Ukraine is not threatening the russian population or their infrastructure.....they're not under attack from NATO or the US........how are they showing "enormous restraint"?

I love how by making a counterpoint that Putin is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in this conflict, @TEWthen looks at me like I'm Gen. Jack D. Ripper and that I want American boots on the ground in Russia and B-2 bombers dropping GBU's on Red Square, and that when I have free time I'm watching the nuke dream sequence in Terminator 2 and fondling myself. 

 

Burning coal now in Germany

3 hours ago, Bill said:

I love how by making a counterpoint that Putin is unlikely to use nuclear weapons in this conflict, @TEWthen looks at me like I'm Gen. Jack D. Ripper and that I want American boots on the ground in Russia and B-2 bombers dropping GBU's on Red Square, and that when I have free time I'm watching the nuke dream sequence in Terminator 2 and fondling myself. 

 

First of all, the Dr Strangelove post wasn’t in response to you. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if you limit the direct conflict to just Ukrainian territory just like it wouldn’t matter if we had opened fire on the USSR over Cuba. Fighting over a third party nation is still fighting, and two nuclear powers with thousands of warheads each puts human civilization in jeopardy.

In fact, Cuba would have been more understandable from a geopolitical view because of the Monroe Doctrine and Cuba being within what had long since been established as our sphere of influence (ironically, Russia views Ukraine the same way as we view Latin America, however much we might not like it). In addition, there wasn’t over half a century of precedent of BOTH sides agreeing under the table not to directly engage with each other because, you know, it could very easily spiral into nuclear war. The lesson was don’t do that.

I admire your bravery man, and understand that you’re probably seeing things that most people couldn’t imagine. I get that you look at it all and think how easily and quickly it might end if NATO got in the ring. How many lives and families might be saved. How many horrors might be averted. But, I’m sorry, that’s not a risk any responsible leader could ever in their right mind take.

 

Wagner PMC + Russian Military relationship status: "it's complicated"

(They do not like each other.)

10 hours ago, TEW said:

I have never said it’s the only valid possibility. Quite the opposite you illiterate moron — I’ve talked about it in terms of risk/reward, literally a probabilistic framework. Now go take your dementia meds.

Just the one you keep bringing up, ad nauseum. When you aren't actively taking the Russian side.

Or moving the goal posts to try and distance yourself from your own words.

 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

First of all, the Dr Strangelove post wasn’t in response to you. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if you limit the direct conflict to just Ukrainian territory just like it wouldn’t matter if we had opened fire on the USSR over Cuba. Fighting over a third party nation is still fighting, and two nuclear powers with thousands of warheads each puts human civilization in jeopardy.

In fact, Cuba would have been more understandable from a geopolitical view because of the Monroe Doctrine and Cuba being within what had long since been established as our sphere of influence (ironically, Russia views Ukraine the same way as we view Latin America, however much we might not like it). In addition, there wasn’t over half a century of precedent of BOTH sides agreeing under the table not to directly engage with each other because, you know, it could very easily spiral into nuclear war. The lesson was don’t do that.

I admire your bravery man, and understand that you’re probably seeing things that most people couldn’t imagine. I get that you look at it all and think how easily and quickly it might end if NATO got in the ring. How many lives and families might be saved. How many horrors might be averted. But, I’m sorry, that’s not a risk any responsible leader could ever in their right mind take.

1) They don't at all view Ukraine in the same way that the US views Latin America. From the Banana Wars to Just Cause? A tinge of same sport, different league. Now? Sure, vis a vis a sphere of influence point of view, but the similarities end there. Occam's Razor. Everyone wants to have this idea that Putin is doing it so that he can recreate the Soviet Union. The man has never had an ideology such as that in his life. To have such an ideology means that one must first have principles. For one to have principles, one must have a soul. He does not. Break it down to it's simplest terms. Economics and domestic political power. That's why Russia is in Ukraine. That's why they went into Georgia. 2014 Ukraine was to keep Sevastopol (Ukraine had just announced they weren't going to renew Russia's lease on the port). Syria was to T&E their military organizational changes (as it turns out fighting against a bunch of insurgents driving around in Toyota pick ups using RPGs left over from the fighting the Israelis isn't an effective way for a military to cut their teeth).

2.) As stated, Putin keeps drawing lines that get crossed. If he was going to do something, he would have done it by now. The standard doctrine for Russia is to use artillery on civilian centers to drive the opposing army to retreat (Georgia). If that can't be done, then chemical weapons are to be used on civilian centers (Syria). If that can't be done, then tactical nuclear weapons are to be used (hasn't been done yet). The fact that Russia is still in step one shows how worried they are of escalation. The first time chemical weapons were used in Syria made him realize that the US was weak and would not responded militarily. The second time chemical weapons were used in Syria made him realize his assumption was falsely tied to the US as a whole and not to the one making executive decisions. And that was in Syria, a land where no one in the US gives an ish about. So now you have a European country. That changes the game. He's not that stupid, and he realizes what's at stake if he escalates further than what he already had. The US has already privately told Russia point blank that if they so much as make a furtive movement towards launching a tactical nuke that the US will launch a preemptive strike in Russian territory to take his launch vehicles out. You don't do that when you're worried about escalation in kind. Putin knows that he can't win that game, so he won't play it. You're so focused on the "could he" that you're paying absolutely zero attention to the "would he". In which case, he wouldn't. When it comes to matters such as this, it is better to appear guilty than impotent.

3) I've seen some things. A lot here have seen worse. Do I understand why other countries don't have boots on the ground? Of course, I'm not stupid. Other countries can get their desired goal with minimal sacrifice on their part. But at the same time, I recognize that any conventional escalation on the part of any country aligned to Ukraine would not yield the doomsday scenario you pontificate about. It's a non starter for Putin because he realizes that he can't win the game, so he won't play it.

4) I would certainly hope so, because I would consider it an insult to be compared to Major Kong. The correct comparison is General Turdgison.

54 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Just the one you keep bringing up, ad nauseum. When you aren't actively taking the Russian side.

Or moving the goal posts to try and distance yourself from your own words.

 

The topic is if NATO should get in a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine, as many have argued. The potential of that causing a nuclear war is the reason every sane person agrees it is a bad idea. Try to keep up.

When have I taken the Russian side? Are you confusing me with Abra? Or more dementia?

7 hours ago, TEW said:

4 months? I popped in occasionally because it was pretty big news, not posting all day every day like you little guy.

People were saying the Russians were losing when they were pretty obviously winning at the start, when I made those posts. Russia was advancing rapidly and our own military leaders were saying the exact same thing, which — shockingly — is where I formed my opinion. I have no problem saying it didn’t turn out that way, and I’m happy it didn’t.

Praising Putin? Get a grip — he’s a terrible person, but he did see weakness in the west and saw his opportunity to act on his geopolitical and ideological interests. Does anyone doubt he’s intelligent, if a monster? Does anyone doubt he saw weakness in the west, which precipitated his actions? Does anyone doubt Russia has legitimate geopolitical interests in Ukraine, even if their invasion was unwarranted?

Biden has done a great job here. He’s been measured and effective. How me, of all people, saying that about Biden is some how a negative against me is pretty funny. 

And believe me, if I could bet, I would. I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that you’ll be maniacally combing through threads to try to find some stupid imagined gotcha moment on the political sub-forum of an obscure message board, because it’s quite clear that is the substance of your existence. Months dude. Months. That’s how you’re literally planning to spend your life. Talk about losers...  

You said Biden was weak, he wasn't. Fail.

You kept saying this wouldn't have happened with Trump because he was so tough. Laughable. Fail 

You said Putin was brilliant and this wasn't a miscalculation. Big fail.

You said you couldn't see any resistance when it was obvious to the rest of us. Big fail.

You kept saying we didn't understand time. We did,. It was you that was retarded. Big fail.

You kept saying for months that Putin planned for everything. He didn't. He's losing epically. Big fail.

I could go on and on. And I will, for as long as you try to deny your idiocy. By quoting your old posts. Because you're a fraud and a liar. That's how you spend your life, lying to strangers in the internet to avoid admitting you might've been wrong about something. 

39 minutes ago, Bill said:

1) They don't at all view Ukraine in the same way that the US views Latin America. From the Banana Wars to Just Cause? A tinge of same sport, different league. Now? Sure, vis a vis a sphere of influence point of view, but the similarities end there. Occam's Razor. Everyone wants to have this idea that Putin is doing it so that he can recreate the Soviet Union. The man has never had an ideology such as that in his life. To have such an ideology means that one must first have principles. For one to have principles, one must have a soul. He does not. Break it down to it's simplest terms. Economics and domestic political power. That's why Russia is in Ukraine. That's why they went into Georgia. 2014 Ukraine was to keep Sevastopol (Ukraine had just announced they weren't going to renew Russia's lease on the port). Syria was to T&E their military organizational changes (as it turns out fighting against a bunch of insurgents driving around in Toyota pick ups using RPGs left over from the fighting the Israelis isn't an effective way for a military to cut their teeth).

2.) As stated, Putin keeps drawing lines that get crossed. If he was going to do something, he would have done it by now. The standard doctrine for Russia is to use artillery on civilian centers to drive the opposing army to retreat (Georgia). If that can't be done, then chemical weapons are to be used on civilian centers (Syria). If that can't be done, then tactical nuclear weapons are to be used (hasn't been done yet). The fact that Russia is still in step one shows how worried they are of escalation. The first time chemical weapons were used in Syria made him realize that the US was weak and would not responded militarily. The second time chemical weapons were used in Syria made him realize his assumption was falsely tied to the US as a whole and not to the one making executive decisions. And that was in Syria, a land where no one in the US gives an ish about. So now you have a European country. That changes the game. He's not that stupid, and he realizes what's at stake if he escalates further than what he already had. The US has already privately told Russia point blank that if they so much as make a furtive movement towards launching a tactical nuke that the US will launch a preemptive strike in Russian territory to take his launch vehicles out. You don't do that when you're worried about escalation in kind. Putin knows that he can't win that game, so he won't play it. You're so focused on the "could he" that you're paying absolutely zero attention to the "would he". In which case, he wouldn't. When it comes to matters such as this, it is better to appear guilty than impotent.

3) I've seen some things. A lot here have seen worse. Do I understand why other countries don't have boots on the ground? Of course, I'm not stupid. Other countries can get their desired goal with minimal sacrifice on their part. But at the same time, I recognize that any conventional escalation on the part of any country aligned to Ukraine would not yield the doomsday scenario you pontificate about. It's a non starter for Putin because he realizes that he can't win the game, so he won't play it.

4) I would certainly hope so, because I would consider it an insult to be compared to Major Kong. The correct comparison is General Turdgison.

In order of the bold:

1) Communism proves this wrong. Communists have no souls, it is an ideology, and they literally created the USSR.

2)  Of course that’s a huge reason. But you’re acting like it’s incompatible with Russian imperialism when it in fact it’s completely congruent and complimentary.

3) Which is exactly why it’s a dangerous game, because at some point he’s not going to blink. What point that will be and what his response might be is anyone’s guess, but the US has been reluctant to send longer range weapons to Ukraine, so obviously the U.S. is not entirely convinced it’s all a bluff.

4) Russia just a few days ago was moving forces that maintain their nukes towards Ukraine. And then there is the question of if we’d follow through with a preemptive attack? Brinksmanship goes both ways, and sometimes the US bluffs. Chemical weapons were a red line for Obama in Syria, but we blinked. You think we will preemptively attack Russia? I have serious doubts. More likely we’d call Putin’s bluff (as you yourself argue he would never use them) because it’s the least risky move. This is of course assuming we can track their nuclear arsenal and detect intent.

5) If the "would he” is non zero then the "could he” is all that matters.

7 hours ago, birdman#12 said:

What exactly is wrong with "considering them"?  The "willingness" to use nukes on 2 occasions SAVED millions of lives.....although that wasn't the issue in vietnam, I would think any military response or action is "on the table" but are prioritized as to the likelihood of using them or what scenarios they would be seriously considered.

What "crazies" damaged the "undersea infrastructure"?  

And the russians have shown restraint?  How?  For What?  Using nukes?  Ukraine is not threatening the russian population or their infrastructure.....they're not under attack from NATO or the US........how are they showing "enormous restraint"?

By this logic, if Russia actually threatened the first use of nukes (which they haven't), they could simply say it's going to save millions of lives and it's justified. 

I think most nations which possess nukes have publicly stated a nuclear doctrine. Obviously, they all consider scenarios where they would use the weapon. To my knowledge, only one has prepared scenarios to initiate the use of nukes under circumstances where the survival of their state is not in jeopardy. 

Anybody with half a brain knows the U.S. blew up NS pipelines.

Russia has shown restraint by not attacking NATO headquarters or the Pentagon. It's obvious that the U.S. and NATO are at war with Russia. That they haven't taken out satellites both civilian and military, which are being used against Russia in the intel war, shows considerable restraint.

 

Sweden seizes evidence at Baltic Sea pipeline leak site

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-crime-denmark-security-services-500536a756145a82a13925bb73ad5583

Quote

Sweden’s domestic security agency said Thursday that its preliminary investigation of leaks from two Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea "has strengthened the suspicions of serious sabotage” as the cause and a prosecutor said evidence at the site has been seized.

The Swedish Security Service said the probe confirmed that "detonations” caused extensive damage to the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines last week. Authorities had said when the leaks off Sweden and Denmark first surfaced that explosions were recorded in the area.

 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

 

The topic is if NATO should get in a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine, as many have argued. The potential of that causing a nuclear war is the reason every sane person agrees it is a bad idea. Try to keep up.

When have I taken the Russian side? Are you confusing me with Abra? Or more dementia?

Moving the goalposts.

 

The TEW way of life.

Quote

The potential of that causing a nuclear war is the reason every sane person agrees it is a bad idea.

Who is arguing against this? Nobody sane, but you keep pretending that is all we are saying.

 

Feel free to point out all the support for a shooting war has by me.

 

Edit: Don't bother, the only difference between you and Kz! is that he is stupid. You are as self-deluded, just not unintelligent.

2 hours ago, Abracadabra said:

By this logic, if Russia actually threatened the first use of nukes (which they haven't), they could simply say it's going to save millions of lives and it's justified. 

I think most nations which possess nukes have publicly stated a nuclear doctrine. Obviously, they all consider scenarios where they would use the weapon. To my knowledge, only one has prepared scenarios to initiate the use of nukes under circumstances where the survival of their state is not in jeopardy. 

Anybody with half a brain knows the U.S. blew up NS pipelines.

Russia has shown restraint by not attacking NATO headquarters or the Pentagon. It's obvious that the U.S. and NATO are at war with Russia. That they haven't taken out satellites both civilian and military, which are being used against Russia in the intel war, shows considerable restraint.

 

Except there's no scenario that supports the use of nuclear weapons that "saves" millions of lives.  The US had battle after battle showing that Japanese were not only willing to fight to the last man, they were willing to enlist civilians, use kamikaze attacks too.......they would have pulled all their troops from manchuria and around SE asia to defend the homeland.  

Just saying it proves and justifies nothing.  And what's with the problem with having a first strike doctrine?  That alone is a deterrent to any of our enemies.  I really don't care what nuclear doctrine France, England, China or India have......

Anybody with half a brain shouldn't assume about what happened to that pipeline......

Russian showing restraint is laughable......they KNOW if they attacked NATO in any way, any hopes of defeating Ukraine and keeping any gains is over......that's not restraint, that's fear and acknowledgement that their military would be overwhelmed.  

3 hours ago, TEW said:

Communists have no souls, it is an ideology, and they literally created the USSR.

How f'ing old are you?