Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,096
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 13, 2024 5:42:37 GMT
Well, I'm no Putin fan, but I'm sort of wondering what our response would be if, say, Mexico were to be involved in a similar attempt on our soil...
|
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,761
|
Post by RWB on Sept 13, 2024 6:00:01 GMT
Well, I'm no Putin fan, but I'm sort of wondering what our response would be if, say, Mexico were to be involved in a similar attempt on our soil...
Funny I was thinking the same thing except if Canada invaded us what would Mexico do after all we did steal alot of land from Mexico 🇲🇽 |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 13, 2024 11:35:08 GMT
Well, I'm no Putin fan, but I'm sort of wondering what our response would be if, say, Mexico were to be involved in a similar attempt on our soil...
Funny I was thinking the same thing except if Canada invaded us what would Mexico do after all we did steal alot of land from Mexico 🇲🇽 GTMA |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2024 15:23:18 GMT
That's not the why of the entire war; I don't think that's really a why at all. This has been going on since 2014. There are strategic reasons for this war. There are even some cultural reasons.
Based on what I've read (see recs back on p. 2 among other things), not sure I buy Zeihan's thesis. He seems to emphasize demography and geography at the expense of any other inputs.
If is doing a lot of work there.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2024 15:32:49 GMT
Interesting. What alternative escalatory measure might they employ? Chemical? Biological? Freon As mentioned in the other thread, I think more likely scenario would be striking forces, specifically U.S. forces, in places like Syria, Iraq, the Red Sea. They're already sitting ducks for all kinds of attacks; Putin would just be arming the forces already attacking them.
And Russia has already made contact with the Houthis:
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 13, 2024 15:37:59 GMT
Interesting. What alternative escalatory measure might they employ? Chemical? Biological? Freon As mentioned in the other thread, I think more likely scenario would be striking forces, specifically U.S. forces, in places like Syria, Iraq, the Red Sea. They're already sitting ducks for all kinds of attacks; Putin would just be arming the forces already attacking them.
And Russia has already made contact with the Houthis:
Those actions seem like a reasonable metaphor for Russia whining about Western involvement in Ukraine, but they are hardly equivalent in scale. Still, I would expect those locations to increase defense posture, just in case. Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Sept 13, 2024 16:29:33 GMT
Those actions seem like a reasonable metaphor for Russia whining about Western involvement in Ukraine, but they are hardly equivalent in scale. Still, I would expect those locations to increase defense posture, just in case. Freon Equivalency in scale wouldn't really be the point though. It's basically a response in kind. It would be an escalation measure that avoids direct conflict with the U.S. or Nato partners, because the major powers are trying to avoid direct conflict with each other (even if we lift targeting restrictions, we're still trying to appear indirectly involved). |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,632
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 13, 2024 17:52:14 GMT
Those actions seem like a reasonable metaphor for Russia whining about Western involvement in Ukraine, but they are hardly equivalent in scale. Still, I would expect those locations to increase defense posture, just in case. Freon Equivalency in scale wouldn't really be the point though. It's basically a response in kind. It would be an escalation measure that avoids direct conflict with the U.S. or Nato partners, because the major powers are trying to avoid direct conflict with each other (even if we lift targeting restrictions, we're still trying to appear indirectly involved). See, to me, 'in kind' would be 'in scale', else it's an annoyance, not a threat. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 13, 2024 22:30:54 GMT
Its the why of the entire war.. Russia shifting their borders out to plug the gaps. Skip to a minute in. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkuhWA9GdCoYes, I agree Russia would fair poorly in a direct confrontation with NATO. If Ukraine is just phase 1 of an overall plan that includes Poland and Russia has no chance of winning a conventional war with Poland/NATO, then that's the scenario where nuclear war becomes possible. Avoiding that at any reasonable cost is the goal. Do you think the US lifting restrictions on Ukraine using long range missiles provided by NATO to attack Russia is “avoiding” escalation? That’s the point of the thread. Obviously the restrictions were put in place originally for a reason, and that was to avoid escalation. Was that wrong? Is it no longer an escalation? I'm pretty indifferent on that question. I could be convinced either way. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 13, 2024 22:31:34 GMT
It's a limited war in Ukraine. That's the whole point. But would it continue to be limited if Poland were the target? What's our read on how Russia fares in a direct confrontation with NATO? So you think giving Ukraine long range missiles to fire into Russia is a limited war? Has that threshold already been crossed by Russia in this war? |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 13, 2024 22:35:11 GMT
So you think giving Ukraine long range missiles to fire into Russia is a limited war? Has that threshold already been crossed by Russia in this war? Fuck, yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 13, 2024 23:01:11 GMT
That's not the why of the entire war; I don't think that's really a why at all. This has been going on since 2014. There are strategic reasons for this war. There are even some cultural reasons.
Based on what I've read (see recs back on p. 2 among other things), not sure I buy Zeihan's thesis. He seems to emphasize demography and geography at the expense of any other inputs.
If is doing a lot of work there.
Wait a minute.. You're saying plugging the geographic gaps that have been used to invade Russia before isn't strategic? And you're saying this motivation has nothing to do with Crimea 2014? This is a POV I am not familiar with. So what's it all about, then? I've never seen Zeihan say demography and geography are the only factors that matter. Would it be your position that these issues matter some, or a lot, or not at all? Re: the big "if." It's there on purpose. The "if" in that phrase lets us look through the eyes of people who think like Zeihan so funding Ukraine doesn't seem so hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 14, 2024 1:42:08 GMT
Do you think the US lifting restrictions on Ukraine using long range missiles provided by NATO to attack Russia is “avoiding” escalation? That’s the point of the thread. Obviously the restrictions were put in place originally for a reason, and that was to avoid escalation. Was that wrong? Is it no longer an escalation? I'm pretty indifferent on that question. I could be convinced either way. Ukraine striking Russians in Russia with American made weapons escalates. You know that. Perhaps not enough to cause a nuclear conflict, but certainly closer than not involving ourselves in a foreign entanglement between two corrupt Slavic countries. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 14, 2024 17:00:43 GMT
I'm pretty indifferent on that question. I could be convinced either way. Ukraine striking Russians in Russia with American made weapons escalates. You know that. Perhaps not enough to cause a nuclear conflict, but certainly closer than not involving ourselves in a foreign entanglement between two corrupt Slavic countries. Putin is full of shit with this absurd narrative. The USSR he pretends to admire supplied offensive weaponry on an enormous scale from the late 1920s until it fell apart; nobody suggested the USSR was "at war with NATO" 'cos MiG 21s fought F-4s over Saigon. Russia can only fight "the West" with nuclear ordnance or trivial terrorism. A "proper" war in Europe would be over in a week. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 14, 2024 18:25:07 GMT
Ukraine striking Russians in Russia with American made weapons escalates. You know that. Perhaps not enough to cause a nuclear conflict, but certainly closer than not involving ourselves in a foreign entanglement between two corrupt Slavic countries. Putin is full of shit with this absurd narrative. The USSR he pretends to admire supplied offensive weaponry on an enormous scale from the late 1920s until it fell apart; nobody suggested the USSR was "at war with NATO" 'cos MiG 21s fought F-4s over Saigon. Are you serious with this? Nobody suggested USSR was at war with the west during the Cold War, when proxy battles were occurring all over the world? And intelligence agencies and militaries were spending literally all of their time and resources to fight the proxy wars and battle through intelligence agencies for decades? And were any of these conflicts literally on America’s border? And do you think it might have been different if America was fighting a war against a hypothetical pro-Soviet Mexican government at the time? Naive. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 14, 2024 22:16:46 GMT
Putin is full of shit with this absurd narrative. The USSR he pretends to admire supplied offensive weaponry on an enormous scale from the late 1920s until it fell apart; nobody suggested the USSR was "at war with NATO" 'cos MiG 21s fought F-4s over Saigon. Are you serious with this? Nobody suggested USSR was at war with the west during the Cold War, when proxy battles were occurring all over the world? And intelligence agencies and militaries were spending literally all of their time and resources to fight the proxy wars and battle through intelligence agencies for decades? And were any of these conflicts literally on America’s border? And do you think it might have been different if America was fighting a war against a hypothetical pro-Soviet Mexican government at the time? Naive. Meh. "Your missiles - owned by a commercial recipient- hit us, we're at war" Bullshit. Soviet weapons hit all over the place, 1920- fizzleout of Communism. Fuck his crap. Remember, Russia actually invaded a countey. Invaded. For fuck's fucking sake. Jesus. Give them the tools. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 14, 2024 22:33:30 GMT
Are you serious with this? Nobody suggested USSR was at war with the west during the Cold War, when proxy battles were occurring all over the world? And intelligence agencies and militaries were spending literally all of their time and resources to fight the proxy wars and battle through intelligence agencies for decades? And were any of these conflicts literally on America’s border? And do you think it might have been different if America was fighting a war against a hypothetical pro-Soviet Mexican government at the time? Naive. Meh. "Your missiles - owned by a commercial recipient- hit us, we're at war" Bullshit. Soviet weapons hit all over the place, 1920- fizzleout of Communism. Fuck his crap. Remember, Russia actually invaded a countey. Invaded. For fuck's fucking sake. Jesus. Give them the tools. America invaded Syria. NATO took out Libya. America invade Iraq. Invaded. Toppled. Fuck our crap? And if Russian weapons sold to Syria started actually hitting the United States? You don’t think there would be an issue there? Killing civilians? |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 14, 2024 23:15:11 GMT
Meh. "Your missiles - owned by a commercial recipient- hit us, we're at war" Bullshit. Soviet weapons hit all over the place, 1920- fizzleout of Communism. Fuck his crap. Remember, Russia actually invaded a countey. Invaded. For fuck's fucking sake. Jesus. Give them the tools. America invaded Syria. NATO took out Libya. America invade Iraq. Invaded. Toppled. Fuck our crap? And if Russian weapons sold to Syria started actually hitting the United States? You don’t think there would be an issue there? Killing civilians? Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Russia is full of shit. You & l both saw lraq, a fully Russian Army, fall to bits in 3 days, 2003. I saw the same in '91. Russia's options against NATO are A. All out nuclear war B. Performative terrorist shit |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,957
|
Post by petep on Sept 14, 2024 23:18:22 GMT
America invaded Syria. NATO took out Libya. America invade Iraq. Invaded. Toppled. Fuck our crap? And if Russian weapons sold to Syria started actually hitting the United States? You don’t think there would be an issue there? Killing civilians? Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Russia is full of shit. You & l both saw lraq, a fully Russian Army, fall to bits in 3 days, 2003. I saw the same in '91. Russia's options against NATO are A. All out nuclear war B. Performative terrorist shit The ussr failed there. And so did we and the UN. Bombing someone and inflicting damage once or a few times is one thing. Trying to occupy is entirely different. Small arms win every time when trying to occupy. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 14, 2024 23:43:36 GMT
www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-american-who-helped-sink-the-bismarck/Fighting is between the fighters. The weapons in their hands aren't that big a deal... guns don't kill people, people... errr... Russia is full of shit. You & l both saw lraq, a fully Russian Army, fall to bits in 3 days, 2003. I saw the same in '91. Russia's options against NATO are A. All out nuclear war B. Performative terrorist shit The ussr failed there. And so did we and the UN. Bombing someone and inflicting damage once or a few times is one thing. Trying to occupy is entirely different. Small arms win every time when trying to occupy. Tell that to Germany, Italy Austria & Japan, 1945. |
|
