|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 04 2022 01:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Second largest company in Russia apparently.
almost a 93% drop in a month just in the US markets LOL
man I was on the fence of the real impact of sanctions at first, but this is far more devastating than any military intervention could have possibly been.
Hopefully this ends this shitshow asap, and forces the Russian govt to collapse quickly
|
On March 04 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:30 justanothertownie wrote:On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote: Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended
No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that. Isn't NATO no longer existing better than nuclear doomsday? Are we assuming Putin would nuke people less if it was due to NATO being attacked? What is the point of NATO sticking around if all of the members end up being nuked? I really feel like all the same logic applies. If the intention is to defend NATO allies and accept mutually assured destruction, we may as well also defend Ukraine. The only way that NATO actually makes sense is if it is assumed NATO prevents MAD. If NATO does not prevent MAD, it is all pointless anyway. NATO may as well just defend Ukraine if it is assumed Russia would never nuke NATO. Exactly, the assumption, which is likely correct, is that NATO prevents MAD. This only works when it is absolutely clear where the red line is though (attacking NATO members) so it is never crossed by russia. There was no such red line in the case of Ukraine.
|
On March 04 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 05:30 justanothertownie wrote:On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that. Isn't NATO no longer existing better than nuclear doomsday? Are we assuming Putin would nuke people less if it was due to NATO being attacked? What is the point of NATO sticking around if all of the members end up being nuked? I really feel like all the same logic applies. If the intention is to defend NATO allies and accept mutually assured destruction, we may as well also defend Ukraine. The only way that NATO actually makes sense is if it is assumed NATO prevents MAD. If NATO does not prevent MAD, it is all pointless anyway. NATO may as well just defend Ukraine if it is assumed Russia would never nuke NATO. The only thing that prevents MAD is MAD itself, a desire to not end the world.
By your logic the entire world should surrender to Putin today, because if he is willing to attack NATO the world surrendering is to the only way to prevent annihilation.
The fact that the 2 options are 1) hoping that no one is ever mad enough to test MAD or 2) MAD itself is why nukes existing is so terrible and why the world spend the cold war on the bring of annihilation.
|
Makes me wonder if it is possible to keep Russian market closed till the "special operation" is over.
Russia’s rating was cut to junk by Moody’s. Fitch also slashed Russia’s credit rating six levels to junk and MSCI is eliminating Russian equities from its emerging-markets index. Russian markets continued to be roiled, with investors trying to find out whether the country’s bonds are in default.
Source
|
On March 04 2022 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:30 justanothertownie wrote:On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that. Isn't NATO no longer existing better than nuclear doomsday? Are we assuming Putin would nuke people less if it was due to NATO being attacked? What is the point of NATO sticking around if all of the members end up being nuked? I really feel like all the same logic applies. If the intention is to defend NATO allies and accept mutually assured destruction, we may as well also defend Ukraine. The only way that NATO actually makes sense is if it is assumed NATO prevents MAD. If NATO does not prevent MAD, it is all pointless anyway. NATO may as well just defend Ukraine if it is assumed Russia would never nuke NATO. The only thing that prevents MAD is MAD itself, a desire to not end the world. By your logic the entire world should surrender to Putin today, because if he is willing to attack NATO the world surrendering is to the only way to prevent annihilation. The fact that the 2 options are 1) hoping that no one is ever mad enough to test MAD or 2) MAD itself is why nukes existing is so terrible and why the world spend the cold war on the bring of annihilation.
This logic implies NATO is free to defend Ukraine. If Russia can’t attack NATO due to MAD, that means NATO can essentially do whatever it wants.
|
On March 04 2022 08:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:30 justanothertownie wrote:On March 04 2022 05:19 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2022 05:03 plasmidghost wrote:Is Zelenskyy right in thinking this is Putin's next course of action? It would make sense since Putin's trying to reestablish the Russian Empire, but it to me feels like he'll be far too overextended https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499423733286641673 No. Those are all 3 NATO countries, attacking any of them is the end of Russia. The logic I hear people using with Ukraine feels like it could easily be applied to other NATO countries. So long as the result is nuclear war, the logic should still be exactly the same. The only way this would not be true would be if defending a NATO ally meant a lower chance of nuclear war. So long as any military engagement means nuclear war, and that is considered intolerable, it should also mean that defending NATO allies is also a bad idea. I of course think the logic is garbage, but it is what I commonly hear. I don't see how NATO is any different in practice. Because if NATO members are attacked without reaction the whole thing might as well not exist. Putins knows that there will be war in this case. It is not at all comparable to the current situation and I really have no idea what is not to get about that. Isn't NATO no longer existing better than nuclear doomsday? Are we assuming Putin would nuke people less if it was due to NATO being attacked? What is the point of NATO sticking around if all of the members end up being nuked? I really feel like all the same logic applies. If the intention is to defend NATO allies and accept mutually assured destruction, we may as well also defend Ukraine. The only way that NATO actually makes sense is if it is assumed NATO prevents MAD. If NATO does not prevent MAD, it is all pointless anyway. NATO may as well just defend Ukraine if it is assumed Russia would never nuke NATO. The only thing that prevents MAD is MAD itself, a desire to not end the world. By your logic the entire world should surrender to Putin today, because if he is willing to attack NATO the world surrendering is to the only way to prevent annihilation. The fact that the 2 options are 1) hoping that no one is ever mad enough to test MAD or 2) MAD itself is why nukes existing is so terrible and why the world spend the cold war on the bring of annihilation. This logic implies NATO is free to defend Ukraine. If Russia can’t attack NATO due to MAD, that means NATO can essentially do whatever it wants. In theory yes. NATO can do whatever it wants to countries that are not Russia and Russia can do whatever it wants to countries that are not NATO. That is how we got a bunch of proxy wars during the cold war.
But the US, UK, France ect are all not really looking to get into a war right now. They just got out of one not so long ago and the population isn't really interested in having another one. So they would much rather just send weapons and not risk their own people.
|
If I'm correct, right now, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have applied to join the EU. I have to think that Putin severely underestimated the reaction from Europe this time around
|
On March 04 2022 08:31 plasmidghost wrote: If I'm correct, right now, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have applied to join the EU. I have to think that Putin severely underestimated the reaction from Europe this time around Macron calling a EU meeting to discuss how they handle military issues makes me hopeful he’s advocating for the EU to be a military alliance as well.
|
France and Finland have been probably the most active countries in pushing EU to have shared defenses for several years now. It is understandable Finland is not in NATO and France has history of doing their own things inside NATO.
|
On March 04 2022 08:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 08:31 plasmidghost wrote: If I'm correct, right now, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have applied to join the EU. I have to think that Putin severely underestimated the reaction from Europe this time around Macron calling a EU meeting to discuss how they handle military issues makes me hopeful he’s advocating for the EU to be a military alliance as well. Didn't know that at all! Is there a chance NATO countries like the US and Canada would form a defensive alliance with the EU should they go down the military alliance route?
|
United States41934 Posts
On March 04 2022 08:40 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 08:33 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2022 08:31 plasmidghost wrote: If I'm correct, right now, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia have applied to join the EU. I have to think that Putin severely underestimated the reaction from Europe this time around Macron calling a EU meeting to discuss how they handle military issues makes me hopeful he’s advocating for the EU to be a military alliance as well. Didn't know that at all! Is there a chance NATO countries like the US and Canada would form a defensive alliance with the EU should they go down the military alliance route? They’re already generally overlapping for the significant players.
|
On March 03 2022 22:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:A pretty reputable journalist who specializes in Russia says her friend is scrambling to leave Russia to the Baltics by land. There's expectations that Putin will declare martial law soon. Not exactly a sign that Putin is feeling confident at home if this is true. Russia was already seeing a severe brain drain of its best and brightest, and it's surely going to be even worse now. A nearly worthless currency, a country being closed off from the world, and a shortening window for escape means panic from people who have the opportunity. This is also a great read on how the economic sanctions will reverberate throughout the world, including places and industries we may not be considering. This means the least developed countries will face food shortages because Russia and Ukraine are a major source of wheat exports, Tajikistan's economy will lose a major chunk of its remittances, and fertilizer costs will skyrocket because Russia exports a great deal of the potash and nitrogen that sustains global crop yields.
Same reporter just posted this.
|
Currently fighting going on at the Enerhodar nuclear plant. Apparently also some sort of fire which is worrying. Can even watch it live on youtube...
|
On March 04 2022 08:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2022 22:48 PhoenixVoid wrote:A pretty reputable journalist who specializes in Russia says her friend is scrambling to leave Russia to the Baltics by land. There's expectations that Putin will declare martial law soon. Not exactly a sign that Putin is feeling confident at home if this is true. https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1499368360903073798Russia was already seeing a severe brain drain of its best and brightest, and it's surely going to be even worse now. A nearly worthless currency, a country being closed off from the world, and a shortening window for escape means panic from people who have the opportunity. This is also a great read on how the economic sanctions will reverberate throughout the world, including places and industries we may not be considering. This means the least developed countries will face food shortages because Russia and Ukraine are a major source of wheat exports, Tajikistan's economy will lose a major chunk of its remittances, and fertilizer costs will skyrocket because Russia exports a great deal of the potash and nitrogen that sustains global crop yields. Same reporter just posted this. https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1499364395373240323
Even the KGB cant stop these leaks from the administration. Shit is imploding.
|
My absolute hottest take right now is that this war will probably end with Putin dead or overthrown once the grim reality of Russia's economy hits
|
Russian forces are actively shelling the plant now. What happens if there is a radiation leak due to that? And it goes into a NATO country...
|
On March 04 2022 09:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Russian forces are actively shelling the plant now. What happens if there is a radiation leak due to that? And it goes into a NATO country... Yeah, I'm seconding that. If a leak happens, I feel like NATO will actually mobilize their forces to drive out the Russians. I don't think the citizens of Europe would be silent as they deal with another Chernobyl
|
On March 04 2022 09:38 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 09:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Russian forces are actively shelling the plant now. What happens if there is a radiation leak due to that? And it goes into a NATO country... Yeah, I'm seconding that. If a leak happens, I feel like NATO will actually mobilize their forces to drive out the Russians. I don't think the citizens of Europe would be silent as they deal with another Chernobyl
Jesus Christ...
|
On March 04 2022 09:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2022 09:38 plasmidghost wrote:On March 04 2022 09:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Russian forces are actively shelling the plant now. What happens if there is a radiation leak due to that? And it goes into a NATO country... Yeah, I'm seconding that. If a leak happens, I feel like NATO will actually mobilize their forces to drive out the Russians. I don't think the citizens of Europe would be silent as they deal with another Chernobyl Jesus Christ... https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1499543775240196099 Good G-d. I think that Europe and the surrounding areas are completely justified to stop this with whatever means possible. That thing blows and hundreds of millions of people are fucked
|
Radiation leak? The risk is a meltdown. But when your plant is on fire and getting shelled you don’t keep it running as long as the shutdown mechanisms work.
|
|
|
|