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 September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
I find this argument somewhat persuasive:
Basically, the Kremlin might view escalation, even including a nuclear exchange with NATO, as a catastrophic, yet welcome "out" of what is currently a sure loss.
Quite an interesting point of view. According to this guy the invasion is a direct result of US interventions in UA politics even before 2014 and the West encroaching on Russia's sphere of influence.
Makes sense to me. Full disclosure: I'm a fan of Dave Smith (as a comedian and also an aspiring libertarian politician,) so I may be a bit biased. However, he brings up a few good points about the fact that our government conveniently ignored a shitload of facts when it comes to war(s) in order to paint the correct narrative to include themselves in. It isn't the first time, and I doubt it will be the last. America got to where it is by infiltrating, obstructing, destroying, and denying involvement in any part of the world worth giving a shit about, why would they change that now? Why the fuck would anyone trust us now? I believe US had significant involvement in Euromaiden. I believe they have interests involved in aiding Ukraine in succeeding against Russia. I won't go into Burisma because it touches on conspiracy, which most of this forum is quick to dismiss if it doesn't fit their worldview, but it's pretty evident that many high-powered people in the US had economic or political involvement in Ukraine before, during, and/or after the current conflict.
What's so strange about this concept? I thought most of this was common knowledge at this point. Why wouldn't anyone care to investigate or post personal opinions about a conflict before reading about what lead up to it? Asking for a friend, of course.
Anyway, congrats to the 4 new oblasts being included into Russia. Ukraine won't recognize Luhansk, Donbass, Zaporozhye, or Kherson as Russian territories, so look forward to escalation soon. See y'all on the other side of WW3, I suppose.
Well, the only problem with this narrative is that it doesn't really paint the full picture. Sure, the West did encroach on Russia's sphere of influence but that sphere has been dwindling of its own accord for decades now. One of the big driving forces for Russia has also been the mentality of a cornered dog, where they're convinced everyone is out there to get them so after the fall of the Soviet Union they wanted to keep some ex-soviet countries as a buffer zone. Unfortunately for them the West had more to offer and those countries naturally started gravitating towards it and further away from Russia, despite all their efforts. Obviously the West was somewhat involved in the process as it's beneficial for it and also against its core values to deny countries that want to get closer to it (would look kinda bad if they just waved them away and told them to go deal with Russia instead).
What we're seeing now is a result of decades of cultural and economic changes in central and eastern Europe. I don't think we would have this war if only Russia could for once stop acting like it usually does. Personally I could see Russia vying for #1 spot in world powers with US and China if it also adopted more of a western philosophy and would try to act friendly instead of hostile for a change. It could seriously disturb the balance of power since EU would then flock to it instead of US (it's good to be friends with Uncle Sam but he's behind the Great Water...), there would be possibilities for some great trade agreements that would benefit both EU and Russia a lot and it would lead to them developing much better.
I'm sure you're right in that Russia could genuinely benefit from some more tolerant and open trade agreements and political posturing. Could. Yet Russia continues to act in such a way that both denies the value of and disrupts the legitimacy of the powers "the west." Why do you think that is? I'm not baiting you, I'm just here for conversation.
Because it is a threat to those currently in power in Russia and they do not have the Russians best interest at heart but their own.
What is it that presents a threat those in Russia who hold power? Politics? Economics? Philosophy?
Actual democracy. They want a buffer of authoritarianism, they have said and shown it. Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Is it not clear why people woukd rather live under the flawed democracies over Putins rule? For one thing way less people fall out of windows for disagreeing with government choices.
Okay, so you believe that Russia's largest threat is democracy? That sounds oddly familiar as an American.. there were quite a few nations who were afraid to embrace democracy, and then were on the receiving end of the American military industrial complex. I don't remember many of those past nations being very happy about the US involvement.
Why make up a complicated conspiracy with the americans or west as bad guys?
Not sure what "complicated conspiracy" you're claiming. I'm only citing how my nation has acted upon others for the past hundred plus years.
Russia's political elite's biggest threat is the indirect result of democracy.
As Russian satellite nations leave its orbit and chose democracy and an approach with the West, seeing incredible increases in quality of life for the common citizen and an actual future, there is more and more the threat that the Russian people might also want these quality of life increases and they might realise there is a different option.
On September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
Basically, the Kremlin might view escalation, even including a nuclear exchange with NATO, as a catastrophic, yet welcome "out" of what is currently a sure loss.
Surely a bullet through your own head is a much easier way to have an 'out' from the current sure loss then nuclear annihilation.
I don't think nuking Moscow is on the table if they do it to Ukraine. Maybe conventional war aiming for regime change or international isolation akin to that of North Korea.
On September 30 2022 15:39 plasmidghost wrote: Can someone provide more insight on this? Is there actually this high of a chance or are they trying to get more military aid?
What would nuking Ukraine actually accomplish though? Tactical nukes in the right spot would definitely kill thousands per Nuke(tens or hundreds of thousands if they nuke a town/city, millions if they nuked chernobyl or some other reactor), and sow incomprehensible chaos in Ukraine, but then what?
Basically, the Kremlin might view escalation, even including a nuclear exchange with NATO, as a catastrophic, yet welcome "out" of what is currently a sure loss.
Surely a bullet through your own head is a much easier way to have an 'out' from the current sure loss then nuclear annihilation.
I don't think nuking Moscow is on the table if they do it to Ukraine. Maybe conventional war aiming for regime change or international isolation akin to that of North Korea.
I doubt any venture into Russia is on the table. More likely conventional response in Ukraine (possibly via Belarus if the nukes drop in Western Ukraine) and complete isolation of Russia on an international stage.
An article discussing potential NATO responses to Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. It talks about four scenarios, their likelihood, and their implications: (1) responding in kind, (2) conventional response), (3) maintaining the sanctions, and (4) pressuring Ukraine to sue for peace on terms allowing Russia to save face.
I'd argue the former, especially since Ofcom revoked RT's broadcasting license. Russia has done some retaliatory actions towards the UK media after that decision, including sanctions on British journalists. Wouldn't be a huge leap to assume they've blocked UK media in general.
On September 30 2022 22:33 Simberto wrote: Is sky news blocking Russia, or is Russia blocking Russians from viewing stuff that is not Kremlin-Approved?
Russian internet control department may block certain websites they don't want Russians to read, but as far as I understand, Russia can't influence what's shown and what's not on Youtube, since Youtube is private Western company (that's why they were considering blocking Youtube itself, but abandoned the plan later), so if something is blocked for me by Youtube itself because of the country I live in - it must be the former.
On September 30 2022 22:33 Simberto wrote: Is sky news blocking Russia, or is Russia blocking Russians from viewing stuff that is not Kremlin-Approved?
Russian internet control department may block certain websites they don't want Russians to read, but as far as I understand, Russia can't influence what's shown and what's not on Youtube, since Youtube is private Western company (that's why they were considering blocking Youtube itself, but abandoned the plan later), so if something is blocked for me by Youtube itself because of the country I live in - it must be the former.
A lot of the region locking is due to licensing and exclusive rights. Companies will sell the rights to distribute their content in a specific region to a third party. They’re then contractually disallowed from competing with the party they sold the rights to.
EPT
