EPTI don't know if the Ukraine can survive long enough for the sanctions to be felt, but he is really having his Churchill moments- and this from a former comedian!
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1340
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
I don't know if the Ukraine can survive long enough for the sanctions to be felt, but he is really having his Churchill moments- and this from a former comedian! | ||
|
Vivax
21971 Posts
On February 27 2022 10:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yeah until said 3 countries realize they are the only ones in this new said system. China, and India especially rely on Trade with the West otherwise their economy is dead in the water. Hell India relies on the West for most of it's foreign policy muscle. So when push comes to shove they can bring in heavy hitters, such as France, or even the US, and UK. That and less than a year ago there was a major border skirmish that claimed lives on both sides. So doubt the public in India would approve of cozying up to China. You‘d rather have a far away enemy than one at your doorstep (re China&India). I doubt they‘d relinquish the opportunity for exclusive access to Russian resources over a bunch of mountain areas. Imho the only advantage (of the US in particular) is their widespread proprietary technology. But I have no idea how long that will last. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On February 27 2022 10:47 Falling wrote: I'm very impressed with Zelenskyy. Whatever else, he has the courage of convictions. I don't know if the Ukraine can survive long enough for the sanctions to be felt, but he is really having his Churchill moments- and this from a former comedian! This was a war conducted to stamp out and suppress Ukrainian identity and notions of independent statehood. Ironically, it's done nothing more than unite a nation and its people. Then it created heroes like Zelenskyy who will be remembered as a great figure who chose to stay in Kyiv and stand with his country when he had the easy option of fleeing to safety to lead a government-in-exile. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On February 27 2022 09:48 KwarK wrote: You think Putin would prefer his death and the death of all Russians to fighting Ukraine on the ground/not fighting Ukraine? I think perhaps you might be the idiot. Nukes are a weapon of last resort when your back is against the wall. Not winning in Ukraine wouldn't put Russia's back against the wall. So you think NATO and Russian jets blowing each other out of the sky in Ukraine, in other words the start of war between NATO and Russia, will NOT lead to nuclear war? Yeah, you're a fucking idiot. User was warned for this post | ||
TheEmulator
28087 Posts
On February 27 2022 10:47 Falling wrote: I'm very impressed with Zelenskyy. Whatever else, he has the courage of convictions. I don't know if the Ukraine can survive long enough for the sanctions to be felt, but he is really having his Churchill moments- and this from a former comedian! I admittedly know very little of Ukrainian politics so I don't have an opinion on his policies, but his actions the past few days are exactly what I would want from a political leader. I can't imagine what kind of a mental boost it is for the people fighting on the front lines. Nothing but respect for what he's currently doing. I should also point out the Klitschko brothers who are also fighting too. They could be on a beach somewhere sipping on Margaritas. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 27 2022 10:05 SC-Shield wrote: He is crazy, but I think he is rational enough still. Not completely crazy in other words. Are you sure you don't fall victim to the Madman theory? Good thing from being a dictator since 1999 is that we have past actions to draw conclusions from. If NATO attempts to attack Russians on their soil, we may see nukes but not if Putin loses to Ukrainian forces or if damages there are too high. I don't think he's a madman or entirely irrational but I think he feels threatened enough that I don't know what he would do if you'd enforce a no fly zone which would mean entering a literal war with Russia. Spiraling into a World War doesn't seem appropriate at this point. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 09:51 Nyxisto wrote: If you think Putin is an entirely rational actor after his absolutely bizarre Monty Python like TV appearances of the last week I think you're a little bit too optimistic. He doesn’t want to die. Whenever both parties are at the brink of nuclear war they typically call for a temporary ceasefire and conference. There are no shortages of examples of a no-fly zone being the trigger for de escalation and talks. China and India shoot at each other all the time without anyone deciding to nuke each other. If things start getting serious they stop and talk it out. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 11:13 TheLordofAwesome wrote: So you think NATO and Russian jets blowing each other out of the sky in Ukraine, in other words the start of war between NATO and Russia, will NOT lead to nuclear war? Yeah, you're a fucking idiot. Are you from the timeline where India, Pakistan and China have all nuked each other? The one where the US nuked the USSR over Soviet jets in NK? I’m from the main timeline where countries can shoot at each other without anyone losing their mind. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 11:45 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think he's a madman or entirely irrational but I think he feels threatened enough that I don't know what he would do if you'd enforce a no fly zone which would mean entering a literal war with Russia. Spiraling into a World War doesn't seem appropriate at this point. Russia hasn’t even declared war on Ukraine and yet you think they’d declare war over a no-fly zone. Nobody declares war anymore. Countries are always shooting at each other in “peacetime”. Turkey downed Russian jets before. Reality is nowhere near as black and white as the diplomacy menu in bw and yet most of y’all seem to think that there are only two settings, peace and all out nuclear exchange. Ultimately the lives of soldiers are cheap, no Chinese premier has ever said “a patrol took fire, let’s just all fucking die for no reason over this”. It just doesn’t happen. They send a strongly worded letter and maybe do a proportionate response. If the other side responds in turn then a third party typically tells them to cool it and they talk it out. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:06 Nyxisto wrote: This isn't some skirmish on some goat mountain pass, this is a full fledged war regardless of what you call it. Putin has staked his name on it and declared it essential to Russia's existence. Every Russian leader knows that losing a war is the quickest way to lose your head. If Russian soldiers get killed by NATO forces and he has to retreat, he is done. His entire party is probably done. Autocratic leaders don't get golden parachutes when they lose. Russia's existence isn't threatened if the West intervenes military but his own may very well be. And there's no telling what he'll do to avoid that. You’re from the timeline where Krushchev declared a red line and then refused to back down? I’m from the one where red lines are used as starting positions and nobody wants to die. The most likely outcome would be a mutual declaration of a ceasefire because nobody wants NATO and Russian jets shooting each other. Then China hosts a conference and the Eastern Ukrainian breakaway states get given to Russia with Russia withdrawing from the rest. Ukraine wouldn’t be happy about it but they wouldn’t get a say. Both sides would call it a win, nobody gets nuked. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On February 27 2022 11:50 KwarK wrote: Are you from the timeline where India, Pakistan and China have all nuked each other? The one where the US nuked the USSR over Soviet jets in NK? I’m from the main timeline where countries can shoot at each other without anyone losing their mind. While it is true that the United States and the Soviet Union fought an undeclared air war in North Korea, there was no threat of nuclear armageddon in 1950-1953. This was due to the very simple reason that neither country had anywhere near enough nukes to end the world, or the required number and range of delivery systems. The situation today is totally different. The threat of MAD literally did not exist during the Korean War. It only came about in the 1960s due to the development of reliable second strike nuclear capabilities (SLBMs being the most important development). Let's say NATO declares a no fly zone in Ukraine tomorrow. How are they going to enforce that? By sending up their jets to destroy any Russian jets that venture into that airspace. The Russians aren't just going to take that lying down, they will target NATO jets with their integrated air defense systems like the S400 and S300. These SAM systems are ground based systems which can be sitting all the way over the border in Belarus. But they can still blast NATO jets out of the sky very effectively at that range. So in order for NATO aircraft to defend themselves, they must start shooting at the Russian ground based air defenses, which is totally indistinguishable from just shooting at the Russian army. I hope you now see how "no fly zone" develops inexorably into "NATO and Russia start WW3, which, from the Russian perspective, means nuke time." | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote: Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. Ever heard of Seven Days to the River Rhine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine Ever heard of Able Archer? Ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which out of the 3 people required to start nuclear launch on a Russian submarine, 2 of them voted for immediate nuclear use against the US Navy battlegroup dropping empty depth charges on it to make it surface? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov The Arkhipov wiki entry is particularly horrifying reading. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:20 TheLordofAwesome wrote: While it is true that the United States and the Soviet Union fought an undeclared air war in North Korea, there was no threat of nuclear armageddon in 1950-1953. This was due to the very simple reason that neither country had anywhere near enough nukes to end the world, or the required number and range of delivery systems. The situation today is totally different. The threat of MAD literally did not exist during the Korean War. It only came about in the 1960s due to the development of reliable second strike nuclear capabilities (SLBMs being the most important development). Let's say NATO declares a no fly zone in Ukraine tomorrow. How are they going to enforce that? By sending up their jets to destroy any Russian jets that venture into that airspace. The Russians aren't just going to take that lying down, they will target NATO jets with their integrated air defense systems like the S400 and S300. These SAM systems are ground based systems which can be sitting all the way over the border in Belarus. But they can still blast NATO jets out of the sky very effectively at that range. So in order for NATO aircraft to defend themselves, they must start shooting at the Russian ground based air defenses, which is totally indistinguishable from just shooting at the Russian army. I hope you now see how "no fly zone" develops inexorably into "NATO and Russia start WW3, which, from the Russian perspective, means nuke time." It doesn’t mean nuke time, it means talk time. Nobody nukes anyone because pilots are dying, they’re allowed to die. They could shoot down NATO jets all day without escalation, losing pilots is priced in if NATO sends them in. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42569 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well okay then... https://twitter.com/MarketRebels/status/1497675529490767881 Russia “suicide”? | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote: Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov | ||
| ||
