First Russo-Turkish War 15681570
Second Russo-Turkish War 16761681
Third Russo-Turkish War 16861700
Fourth Russo-Turkish War 17101711
Fifth Russo-Turkish War 17351739
Sixth Russo-Turkish War 17681774
Seventh Russo-Turkish War 17871792
Eighth Russo-Turkish War 18061812
Ninth Russo-Turkish War 18281829
Crimean War 18531856
Tenth Russo-Turkish War 18771878
World War I 19141918
When you are in double digits of wars called by your countries names you have bad blood.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
The dillema for the US/west is simple, Putin will likely end up being deposed and killed if he loses the war and he knows it, so for him personally that means nukes are not off the table, a man that knows he will be dragged kicking and screaming out of his house and strung up on a lamppost by an angry mob isnt a rational player in any normal sense even if he isnt technically insane.
Also beyond this it is vital not to prove his own rational for the war, the reality is most Russians dont disapprove of the war, they do see Ukraine as part of Russia, if the war had worked, a quick bloodless takeover they would have approved, for Russia to disapprove it needs to be a bloody expensive mess for Russia with no sense that they are defending themselves from the west, if we start being seen to attack Russia then the blood and expense becomes worthwhile in Russians eyes
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I really do not know what you are confused about. The USA contributing fighter jets - either directly or indirectly - is a clear provocation to Russia and it's totally understandable why they wouldn't want to take that step to escalate tensions beyond where they already are. In terms of defending NATO, they've been very clear and consistent: you don't attack NATO. Well, NATO hasn't been attacked.
It's as if you've somehow come to think that "Russia doing horrible things and committing war crimes" must be something that results in NATO going in and stopping them from doing those things. This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of NATO. NATO is a defensive military pact. It is not a global police organization. It does not prevent, or respond to, war crimes. It does not keep the peace or intervene to stop conflicts once they've started. It's essentially a promise that if you attack someone in NATO, you will be vaporized, potentially along with the rest of humanity... so don't do it.
And, since vaporizing all of humanity is a very big thing to threaten, the "trip wire" that causes that result needs to be very clear and very simple: do not attack NATO countries. There's no "well, maybe if you attack someone who isn't in NATO we'll still respond, but maybe not, and maybe if you commit war crimes, and they're bad enough, and it's all over the news, then we'll intervene". No. It's simple: we only act if you attack us.
So again - with all of that in mind - what exactly is it about NATO's behaviour to date that you find confusing?
Not the poster you are replying to, but I want to chime in.
Here is what is confusing to me, and what Kasparov posed the other day during a talk. How does anything you said compute if you suppose that russia does attack a NATO country?
What does NATO do then? Because the fear of a nuclear war is precisely the same as it is if NATO were to intervene now, defending a non-NATO country.
This is the confusing part. It's not like when a NATO member is attacked, the aggressor's nuclear arsenal disappears. Therefore, the distinction between defending a NATO member or a non NATO member looks arbitrary.
Not the poster you are replying to, but I want to chime in.
Here is what is confusing to me, and what Kasparov posed the other day during a talk. How does anything you said compute if you suppose that russia does attack a NATO country?
What does NATO do then? Because the fear of a nuclear war is precisely the same as it is if NATO were to intervene now, defending a non-NATO country.
This is the confusing part. It's not like when a NATO member is attacked, the aggressor's nuclear arsenal disappears. Therefore, the distinction between defending a NATO member or a non NATO member looks arbitrary.
The distinction is that NATO is a DEFENSIVE military organization with clear protocols, namely that it doesn't act unless one of its member countries is attacked. NATO does not otherwise intervene, police, etc for non-NATO countries.
NATO not intervening for a non-NATO member conflict is not arbitrary; it is the exact function of NATO.
The distinction is that NATO is a DEFENSIVE military organization with clear protocols, namely that it doesn't act unless one of its member countries is attacked.
The question remains: what does it do if one of its members is attacked?
In the case of Putin's Russia, I hope we don't find out.
It appears that's what NATO members are trying to avoid at this point, hence their level of (in)action so far in Ukraine.
It will only embolden him. He will realize that to NATO it will not matter if it's Ukraine, or Poland, or Hungary, or the Baltics. Because the fear of nuclear war will persist.
The distinction is that NATO is a DEFENSIVE military organization with clear protocols, namely that it doesn't act unless one of its member countries is attacked. NATO does not otherwise intervene, police, etc for non-NATO countries.
NATO not intervening for a non-NATO member conflict is not arbitrary; it is the exact function of NATO.
The question remains: what does it do if one of its members is attacked?
Depends on the scenario. You can be sure there are hundreds of plans at the ready for hundreds of eventualities. Plans for hostile flights over Estonia, hostile ships operating in the Baltic, armoured attacks into Poland, etc., with each plan tailored to the scope and nature of the threat. The NATO Reaction Force (40k strong) likely figures prominently in most of them. What do you think the thousands of people who work in NATO have been doing for the last 60 years?
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone thinks NATO has any more responsibility to defend Ukraine than they do Georgia or Azerbaijan.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-09-2022 at 04:25 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
NHere is what is confusing to me, and what Kasparov posed the other day during a talk. How does anything you said compute if you suppose that russia does attack a NATO country?
Is it the talk with Sam Harris? If you watched that I would be interested to hear how it went... one thing you have to understand about Kasparov is that he is pretty hawkish, and proceeds from the view that under no circumstances will Russia actually launch a strategic nuke, because the other people in Putin's chain of command won't allow it - they'd stop him if he tried. That's quite an assumption. Maybe he's right, but I'm not as convinced as he seems to be.
Quote:
What does NATO do then? Because the fear of a nuclear war is precisely the same as it is if NATO were to intervene now, defending a non-NATO country.
Then you have to respond with overwhelming force, using the same means that are used - for example, if Russia were to invade Poland, NATO allied forces would deploy overwhelming military assets to repel that invasion. If Russia were to deploy tactical nuclear weapons against Poland, NATO would do likewise against Russia... And anything above that point, we're then talking about first strikes to attempt to disable Russian nuclear capabilities and probably billions of people dead.
That's my sense of the way it would play out, anyway. The first couple of stages there at least give sanity some time to prevail, and the people around the aggressor (Putin or whoever) to seize control and prevent the apocalypse switch from being flipped.
Quote:
This is the confusing part. It's not like when a NATO member is attacked, the aggressor's nuclear arsenal disappears. Therefore, the distinction between defending a NATO member or a non NATO member looks arbitrary.
I don't think that's true at all. There is simply an understanding here about when military assets will be used - everyone, including Putin, gets that an attack on a NATO country will gain you nothing and cause considerable pain and suffering for you and your military. It creates a significantly higher risk of a world-ending event. That understanding does not exist for non-NATO countries, which is why Ukraine is being invaded right now and Lithuania isn't.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
MOD map updates for the day. Minimal movement across the board with Russian's increasingly bogged down with heavy fighting and inability to gain any air superiority. Only exception is North of Kyiv where Russia's Western MD Group appears to have captured and held the highway south of Kozelets to the capital. Towns like Nizhyn remain encircled and the Western MD grouping appears to have held the ground they gained yesterday north of Luhansk. https://twitter.com/user/status/1501530196926767107 https://twitter.com/user/status/1501438467103989762
First Russo-Turkish War 15681570
Second Russo-Turkish War 16761681
Third Russo-Turkish War 16861700
Fourth Russo-Turkish War 17101711
Fifth Russo-Turkish War 17351739
Sixth Russo-Turkish War 17681774
Seventh Russo-Turkish War 17871792
Eighth Russo-Turkish War 18061812
Ninth Russo-Turkish War 18281829
Crimean War 18531856
Tenth Russo-Turkish War 18771878
World War I 19141918
When you are in double digits of wars called by your countries names you have bad blood.
Turkey has been supplying drones both previously and since the conflict started. One estimate I saw was that 10% of Russian vehicle losses were from Turkish made drones.
Also, they've closed the Bosporous to Russian shipping, so they can't send more warships to the Black Sea where they could be added to the fight.
Turkey is probably helping Ukraine more than most at this point I'd say.
Not that that makes Erdogan a good guy (he isnt) but that specific criticism doesn't hold water, imo.
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Is it the talk with Sam Harris? If you watched that I would be interested to hear how it went... one thing you have to understand about Kasparov is that he is pretty hawkish, and proceeds from the view that under no circumstances will Russia actually launch a strategic nuke, because the other people in Putin's chain of command won't allow it - they'd stop him if he tried. That's quite an assumption. Maybe he's right, but I'm not as convinced as he seems to be.
Then you have to respond with overwhelming force, using the same means that are used - for example, if Russia were to invade Poland, NATO allied forces would deploy overwhelming military assets to repel that invasion. If Russia were to deploy tactical nuclear weapons against Poland, NATO would do likewise against Russia... And anything above that point, we're then talking about first strikes to attempt to disable Russian nuclear capabilities and probably billions of people dead.
That's my sense of the way it would play out, anyway. The first couple of stages there at least give sanity some time to prevail, and the people around the aggressor (Putin or whoever) to seize control and prevent the apocalypse switch from being flipped.
I don't think that's true at all. There is simply an understanding here about when military assets will be used - everyone, including Putin, gets that an attack on a NATO country will gain you nothing and cause considerable pain and suffering for you and your military. It creates a significantly higher risk of a world-ending event. That understanding does not exist for non-NATO countries, which is why Ukraine is being invaded right now and Lithuania isn't.
Yes, the one with Sam Harris. I think there a a good chance Sam will release it soon as it was recorded. GK further supported the closing of the sky as he does not believe russian pilots are kamikazes who would be willing to die for putin. Do you disagree? Because it strikes me as a rational argument.
GK may appear hawkish, but he believes that the reason we've gotten to this point is because the West was too dovish with vp and did not know how to respond to the annexation of Crimea.
GK further supported the closing of the sky as he does not believe russian pilots are kamikazes who would be willing to die for putin. Do you disagree? Because it strikes me as a rational argument.
