2022: The year the world returns to war?

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

He's competent as consolidating power. Actually leading the country.... Meh.

I would take Putin over both Bushes, Trump and Biden. Probably not over Obama and Clinton. Putin is also notorious for putting really skilled people in key government roles.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Everyone in Russia knows Putin is a power junkie. He also does not care too much on whether he breaks the law or not. Yet, he's quite a competent leader.

You just contradicted yourself.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You just contradicted yourself.

How? Being power junkie and habitually murdering anyone who is even remotely a threat to his position does not necessarily imply that Putin is bad at actually doing his job. Conversely, a democratically elected president voted in by The People may turn out to be horrible president. This is why Russians don't want to fight for the sake of some Freedom and Democracy. They look at USA and how they've got to vote for either keeping Trump or replacing him with Biden, and no other options, and wonder whether Democracy and Free Elections would really give us any better leaders than what we have now

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I would take Putin over both Bushes, Trump and Biden. Probably not over Obama and Clinton. Putin is also notorious for putting really skilled people in key government roles.

I'm not sure why... Russia currency has tanked in value and they are under sanctions. All this despite been rich in resources.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I don't have such deep military understanding as Captain Crunch, but still global range missiles are easier to intercept and fly for much longer (i.e. like 20 minutes). While you are right about distance mattering less, it still matters.

Yes, the theory is that launching your missiles from closer gives you a higher chance to obliterate your enemies before they can respond, which means there's not mutually assured destruction as a deterrent any more.

Originally Posted by edslunch

Shorter range and response time. Moscow is 600 km from Ukraine, far closer than any open water or NATO state

Latvia is a NATO member and is also 600 km away, the Baltic Sea is 650 km, the Barents Sea is 900 km. We aren't talking orders of magnitude of difference. I don't see Ukraine having particular strategic importance in a nuclear scenario. In fact, the only thing that I think would matter is a defense system with extreme technological superiority over offensive systems, and I do not believe that exists.

Originally Posted by Pointman

Which is why the only way out of it is to gain some more trust. Which can only be gained by honouring agreements and improving understanding of each other.

I think the fundamental conflict that will be difficult to resolve pertains to human rights. The West (ostensibly, at least) believes in rights for minorities, democracy, and that it has a responsibility to advance these rights for all people, no matter where they may be. That presents an existential threat to the Russian autocrats. Even while the threat can be mitigated through power or the pragmatism of deal-making, the underlying conflict remains unresolved. I don't think the West can or should compromise on these values, so the path to truly set the Cold War behind us lies in further Russian progress on these files.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, the theory is that launching your missiles from closer gives you a higher chance to obliterate your enemies before they can respond, which means there's not mutually assured destruction as a deterrent any more.

The nightmare scenario was especially for the US was the depressed trajectory shot from a sub off of the West coast. There would because of where Washington was literally a few minutes of warning which meant that for the Russians a true decapitation strike was possible.



Moscow was better defended by geography from scenarios like that. Even with a ballistic missile from a submarine they'd have more warning to evacuate the government.

Originally Posted by SebC

Latvia is a NATO member and is also 600 km away, the Baltic Sea is 650 km, the Barents Sea is 900 km. We aren't talking orders of magnitude of difference. I don't see Ukraine having particular strategic importance in a nuclear scenario. In fact, the only thing that I think would matter is a defense system with extreme technological superiority over offensive systems, and I do not believe that exists.

Russia and the United States were in a race for a ballistic missile defense, the American's with Star Wars, the Russians with their directed energy project. In the end you can spend as much money on defense as you want. a small change to your offensive weapon usually invalidates it. That's why Hyper sonic weapons is taking a leap forward.



Currently America is working on its National Missile Defense program including the development of ABM hypersonic missiles to counter hypersonic ballistic missiles.



the Russians are following the same path. But there's no good defense against Ballistic missiles except to keep them in the silos, remove them through diplomacy, or have really accurate missiles that can hit them before they launch.






I think the fundamental conflict that will be difficult to resolve pertains to human rights. The West (ostensibly, at least) believes in rights for minorities, democracy, and that it has a responsibility to advance these rights for all people, no matter where they may be. That presents an existential threat to the Russian autocrats. Even while the threat can be mitigated through power or the pragmatism of deal-making, the underlying conflict remains unresolved. I don't think the West can or should compromise on these values, so the path to truly set the Cold War behind us lies in further Russian progress on these files.[/QUOTE]

[bob-loblaw]

Long but interesting but article about Russian capabilities against Ukraine. Pretty scary how much economic control they exert over them now.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ign=pockethits

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Pointman

GDP per Capita is weird list. It has Iran, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago ahead of China. Total GDP Russia is 11th in the world. Canada is 9th.

For what it worth, I have been in Canada for one week. I have briefly visited Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver. I haven't really noticed much different in terms of wealth or in things like houses, buses, streets and such between Canada and Russia. Vancouver has incredible scenery though, I give you that. And I by no means want to downplay your country - in fact I wanted to move over there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...al)_per_capita

You coincidentally were also in Canada for a week and said the exact same things about the exact same cities the last time we had this type of discussion a couple years ago. Weird.

edit: Sorry that may be a language thing. It sounds like you're saying you've been visiting this past week, you may have been saying you have visited Canada for a week, in the past.

[nik-]

One week, four cities, 4000kms and a quality of life comparison.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by nik-

One week, four cities, 4000kms and a quality of life comparison.

That's the part that gets me. I can't imagine coming across the ocean to Canada for just a week and hitting four cities spread out like that. I mean I don't think you'd be flying 4 times while on a one week trip, but the driving would make it a pretty quick, mostly travelling week.

You'd have very little time in each city to experience anything, let alone acquiring an accurate comparison of how citizens live relative to your home country. I'm not calling him a liar or anything, but you travel across the world to another country for only a week and have Saskatoon and Winnipeg on the itinerary?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I would take Putin over both Bushes, Trump and Biden. Probably not over Obama and Clinton. Putin is also notorious for putting really skilled people in key government roles.

Christ. Dumbest post yet.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by nik-

One week, four cities, 4000kms and a quality of life comparison.

I'm genuinely interested in how that itinerary went. Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver in the span on a single week? Ok. Was it by car? Plane? Have to take travel time into account given how far apart VAN and TO are, with 2 stops in between. Time to travel from each location, get to your destination, then travel around to visit and get a feel for each place. 4 cities in 7 days in a big task for any traveler, even in small countries.

Who the hell comes to visit Canada and visits those exact 4 places in a week, unless there is some kind of crazy business deal that requires all that?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I'm genuinely interested in how that itinerary went. Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Vancouver in the span on a single week? Ok. Was it by car? Plane? Have to take travel time into account given how far apart VAN and TO are, with 2 stops in between. Time to travel from each location, get to your destination, then travel around to visit and get a fell for each place. 4 cities in 7 days in a big task for any traveler, even in small countries.

Who the hell comes to visit Canada and visits those exact 4 places in a week, unless there is some kind of crazy business deal that requires all that?

It seemed more like he picked 4 cities across Canada on a map and made it his "trip" for online discussion to suggest that Russia and Canada is basically the same standard of living.

[peter12]

I love Russia and Russian culture, people, and language. Doesn't mean they haven't been cursed with years and years of awful government. Doesn't mean there isn't also a hint of truth over their concerns. Also doesn't mean that opposition to those concerns is invalid.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It seemed more like he picked 4 cities across Canada on a map and made it his "trip" for online discussion to suggest that Russia and Canada is basically the same standard of living.

Pointman has been very reputable and reliable in the past. Don’t make him seem like he’s yet another sh*t disturber like this.

Certainly needs a clarification, but not necessarily an outright fabrication based on his history.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Pointman has been very reputable and reliable in the past. Don’t make him seem like he’s yet another sh*t disturber like this.

Certainly needs a clarification, but not necessarily an outright fabrication based on his history.

Pointman has frequently done exactly what he's doing now.

[Ducay]

I don't get it - if Ukraine is so desperate for direct support, is there something holding back any western (Nato) nation from sending soldiers to Ukraine as 'peacekeepers'? I know there is the Minsk monitors there, but I'm talking a real amount of soldiers.

Certainly having "allied" armies present would deter and piss off Russia all the same (hence their desire to have Ukraine banned from NATO); but isn't that the perfect solution? Or why not just admit them to NATO, post up a few battlegroups and let Russia deal with it. Not like they'd attack a NATO country.

[Language]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Everyone in Russia knows Putin is a power junkie. He also does not care too much on whether he breaks the law or not. Yet, he's quite a competent leader. I would take Putin over having a choice between Trump and Biden. While Putin's lust for power is real, his corruption level is overrated. Think of how many in the west thought that Russia would bribe referees to ensure our hockey victory in 2014 Olympics. Or how KHL allegedly was fixed to let Putin's favorite team to win. That didn't age well.

How can you really say his corruption level is overrated? It’s been reported by multiple sources (both inside and outside of Russia), that he is worth billions of dollars. This was not an in individual who assumed a position of power, already being wealthy. Corruption and high-up political figures go hand in hand in Russia, and there can be no debate about that.

I find it interesting that you mentioned that your cross country trip through Canada yielded no major observational differences between Canada and Russia. Step outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, and the majority of the rest of Russia is quite literally 2nd world.

I have a unique viewpoint on all of this. My parents immigrated from the USSR (Ukraine) to Canada when the USSR fell apart. Even though my family is from Kyiv, like most, we spoke Russian at home, and growing up and well into my mid-twenties, I just identified myself as Russian, based on the mother tongue. I never really differentiated between Ukraine/Russia. That all changed in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and started its proxy war in the East.
Those events strangely gave me Ukrainian nationalistic pride, and opened my eyes as to what a piece of #### Putin and the government was.

I do understand why Putin does not want NATO at his doorstep. However, if Russia actually does invade Ukraine, then does it not entirely validate Ukraine’s concerns. At this point, Russia is a pariah nation and I hope they get taken to task for the escalating rhetoric, if nothing else comes of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I don't get it - if Ukraine is so desperate for direct support, is there something holding back any western (Nato) nation from sending soldiers to Ukraine as 'peacekeepers'? I know there is the Minsk monitors there, but I'm talking a real amount of soldiers.

Certainly having "allied" armies present would deter and piss off Russia all the same (hence their desire to have Ukraine banned from NATO); but isn't that the perfect solution? Or why not just admit them to NATO, post up a few battlegroups and let Russia deal with it. Not like they'd attack a NATO country.

Because no one in NATO wants to get forced into a (potentially nuclear) war to protect an unstable place like Ukraine. The US will dangle the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO to keep them friendly with the West and to undermine Russia, but it has little to no chance of ever happening. They're just using Ukraine to further their geopolitical goals.

Probably the only real way for long term stability is where Ukraine is a more or less neutral buffer state between Europe and Russia. But that's far easier to achieve in theory than in reality.

[btimbit]

With parts of Ukraine seemingly supporting a NATO bid and parts seemingly supporting Russia I could just see a civil war/proxy war that results in the country splitting in two