Or we could escalate with a psychopath sabre rattling with his finger on the button, and doing the precise opposite of what he has said for decades not to do and to which the "west" has collectively and continually done for decades.
Aren't you kind of conceding that Putin is bluffing here?
Ukraine joining NATO puts Putin in the bind that you see the West in now - does he really want to mess with a country protected by Article 5, and it would be nice to flip the script that way.
I do see where you and Street Pharmacist are coming from. You are starting to convince me. It is a tough call. But I still think that we unfortunately are in a situation where Putins reality is our reality. So this is merely a conversation about how much risk you want to take avoiding nuclear war, based on Putin’s reality. Putin’s reality is the one we need to worry about, because Putin is the decision maker.
Also no, not Chamberlain. That implies you’re all Churchills but if you were all Churchills you’d have us fighting in Ukraine right now. Which leads me to my next question. If your contention is that we need to govern ourselves by what we think is rational and just, why are we not in Ukraine today fighting rather than just supplying arms? After all, Russia is probably just bluffing on the nuke front right?
Well, IMO not using NATO airpower to deliver a quick and decisive defeat to Russia in Ukraine was a mistake. A quick shock would have been less risky than the slow descent into madness that we're witnessing.
And now that Russia has fully committed to the war, NATO airstrikes would feel very different to Russia, while increased Russian engagement also means that the risk of something forcing NATO to step in also goes up.
So each day we're more and more dependent on an internal Russian uprising to save us all, which doesn't look like it's ever going to happen. Not unless Russian children start to starve at least, or just a total Russian economic collapse, which also doesn't seem to be happening. Just in general I feel like the West isn't pushing hard enough towards any goal that would actually end the war.
Now, MAYBE Ukraine can deliver a decisive battlefield victory, but those are rare, and possibly impossible without crossing the Russian border.
This video goes into a lot of the pros and cons discussed about who would gain and lose from the pipeline. It doesn't draw any conclusions, but highlights reasons why both sides would or would not want to do it. Personally, I still think the destruction of the pipeline hurts Russia more than it benefits. That doesn't mean they didn't do it of course.
The channel is generally pro Ukraine and the scenarios looked at suggest Russia more than the others, it also points out that nothing is obvious either.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 10-04-2022 at 02:33 AM.
Well, IMO not using NATO airpower to deliver a quick and decisive defeat to Russia in Ukraine was a mistake. A quick shock would have been less risky than the slow descent into madness that we're witnessing.
And now that Russia has fully committed to the war, NATO airstrikes would feel very different to Russia, while increased Russian engagement also means that the risk of something forcing NATO to step in also goes up.
So each day we're more and more dependent on an internal Russian uprising to save us all, which doesn't look like it's ever going to happen. Not unless Russian children start to starve at least, or just a total Russian economic collapse, which also doesn't seem to be happening. Just in general I feel like the West isn't pushing hard enough towards any goal that would actually end the war.
Now, MAYBE Ukraine can deliver a decisive battlefield victory, but those are rare, and possibly impossible without crossing the Russian border.
The advantage of the geography of southern Ukraine is that it does offer the opportunity for a decisive win, my guess is Ukraine slowly clears out the northern Donbass area that Russia captured in the spring and the North bank of the Dniper and Kherson over the next 3 or 4 weeks, they are moving that quickly, then we will see a lull, at some point though the Ukraine Army will force a wide corridor through Maripol to the sea, cutting off the Crimea and forcing the Russians to withdraw from almost everything they have captured, the terrain is perfect for a decisive blow
This video goes into a lot of the pros and cons discussed about who would gain and lose from the pipeline. It doesn't draw any conclusions, but highlights reasons why both sides would or would not want to do it. Personally, I still think the destruction of the pipeline hurts Russia more than it benefits. That doesn't mean they didn't do it of course.
The channel is generally pro Ukraine and the scenarios looked at suggest Russia more than the others, it also points out that nothing is obvious either.
That channel in general is excellent.
Not all the analysis is flawless (more apparent when looking at some of the older videos), but it's still a very worthwhile channel to listen to.
The parallels between that and Russian media are kinda shocking. It would be like a Russian professor saying Putin is at fault for the war on Russian TV. No one wants to even hear it.
That was interesting about the helicopters and radar info.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
And again, this is according to Rybar a pro Russia source. Would love to see Baron's take.
Russia is losing on all fronts, even Bakmut right now which for whatever reason Russia is still trying to take despite the strategic reasons for taking it being lost (you know because of the total Izyum and Lyman collapse). We are seeing the total collapse of the Russian military in real time.
Of significant note, the north Crimean Canal is nearly back in Ukrainian hands. Ukraine built a dam in 2014 to cut off water to Crimea after it was annexed. This was blown up 2 days into the war, Russia losing control would be a significant blow to Russia with Ukraine able to block water to Crimea again.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The parallels between that and Russian media are kinda shocking. It would be like a Russian professor saying Putin is at fault for the war on Russian TV. No one wants to even hear it.
That was interesting about the helicopters and radar info.
Yup. Most of us are well aware of the various narratives presented to us on mainstream media and even stop and think when we hear certain things instead of just blindly drinking it all up, but to see this level of contrast in an interview is rare. And then as you mentioned, for the anchor to first ask what details the professor has to substantiate his claim only to respond after he provides it with they don't want to get into all the details...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
The parallels between that and Russian media are kinda shocking. It would be like a Russian professor saying Putin is at fault for the war on Russian TV. No one wants to even hear it.
That was interesting about the helicopters and radar info.
Yeah, and left out from that brief clip, and even from the full interview below, is how right after the interview another Bloomberg host immediately took a minute just to dismiss/discredit him as merely an economist ranting outside of his lane. The hosted basically said he doesn't know about policy issues and shouldn't talk about them.
In reality, Sachs has been special advisor to three UN Secretaries-General, been President of a UN sustainable development network, and has been Commissioner of another UN commission on development. He was also the economist chiefly charged with development of the economic policies for post-Soviet states around the breakup of the Soviet Union and knows first-hand how policies were set up for Russia at that time and how political interests factored into the policy decisions.
His work with the UN on leading for the SDGs directly deals with the dichotomy between what leaders will publicly profess to support and the realities of what they support as demonstrated in policy and in how they choose to spend their money. He's not a military expert, but he has a lot of credibility in terms of insight into policy via one of the most core factors for understanding the motivations and behaviors of nation states.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
It's plausible that the US did it. I don't think it's likely, but it's plausible.
I think it was Russia. They've made blunder after blunder strategically, and this would be par for the course.
Plus, as someone mentioned a page or two back, if someone other than Russia did it, the Russians would be screaming from the rooftops and would take the nuclear sabre rattling to the next level.
Considering that gas is still leaking points to it being Russia. Why would you actively continue to pump gas down a burst pipeline except to send a message.
If the US did it, and if Germany can prove it, and if Germany struggles to keep power/ heat over winter, then NATO could potentially collapse. Or the EU could pivot out of the US diplomatic structure.
I can't see why the US would do this unless they could guarantee German energy another way. Too much risk.
If the US did it, and if Germany can prove it, and if Germany struggles to keep power/ heat over winter, then NATO could potentially collapse. Or the EU could pivot out of the US diplomatic structure.
I can't see why the US would do this unless they could guarantee German energy another way. Too much risk.
The only way I can see this is if there are elements within Germany who are getting set to make an energy or peace deal with Russia unilaterally. So the US damages the pipeline handcuffing any rogue German elements from making a deal with Putin.
Considering that gas is still leaking points to it being Russia. Why would you actively continue to pump gas down a burst pipeline except to send a message.
I would think its just residual line fill depressurizing? I doubt Russia would have N2 purged the line or anything like that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
