|
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. |
United States43672 Posts
On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense.
Makes the least sense.
“They’re not our friend and they’re still attacking other countries but at least they’re well armed”
|
On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense.
You are describing the situation before 24 February 2022.
I think the last ~year has shown why that is not an acceptable option.
|
|
|
On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense.
And how will that work out? Russia will be pumping tanks and ammunition and father some sons and we will be right where we are now.
Also I can't imagine anyone want to trade with them anytime soon aside from Russia offering stuff for absolute dumping prices.
|
On April 11 2023 22:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. Makes the least sense. “They’re not our friend and they’re still attacking other countries but at least they’re well armed”
Why does that make the least sense? You're describing the best deterrent (protection by NATO) and calling it bad? It's not a coincidence that Russia has never invaded a NATO country, but instead a whole bunch of non-NATO countries.
|
On April 11 2023 22:33 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. And how will that work out? Russia will be pumping tanks and ammunition and father some sons and we will be right where we are now. Also I can't imagine anyone want to trade with them anytime soon aside from Russia offering stuff for absolute dumping prices.
Explain then how crippling Russia would prevent that exact same scenario. Russia in adversity vs Russia not in adversity. What's the difference? Why would one version be more peaceful than the other? If anything, history shows that adversity creates more friction and increases the likelihood of war.
|
On April 11 2023 22:36 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 22:33 Harris1st wrote:On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. And how will that work out? Russia will be pumping tanks and ammunition and father some sons and we will be right where we are now. Also I can't imagine anyone want to trade with them anytime soon aside from Russia offering stuff for absolute dumping prices. Explain then how crippling Russia would prevent that exact same scenario. Russia in adversity vs Russia not in adversity. What's the difference? Why would one version be more peaceful than the other? If anything, history shows that adversity creates more friction and increases the likelihood of war.
Ignoring at all cost the red flags hoping war does not happen never stopped a war. On the contrary, it create the incentives to prepare for the war.
1. Build trust
2. Build commercial relationship
3. Stabilize and create growth that benefit the population as a whole.
4. Freedom of press
5. Protection of democracy
A total collapse will give the population the option to chose. Will they chose something different than Putin is not a given if they fear the chaos caused by the lack of a strong leader.
When you are part of a giant country, you kind of scared but in reality, the smaller countries are so much better at fighting corruption and improving life.
It may be hard to find the will to fight for something that you have never experienced.
We will see how this whole thing goes. Putin seems here to stay, but at the same time, dictatures are always falling in unexpected ways.
|
On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second.
I'm having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. Can you please elaborate? From my perspective, Russia is the least reasonable of the West's enemies and eliminating them as a threat would be incredible for like 1000 reasons. China's growth is entirely dependent on Russia being a distraction. Once Russia is neutered, China won't have much opportunity to grow and the West's grip on the world will crystallize.
|
United States43672 Posts
On April 11 2023 22:34 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2023 22:14 KwarK wrote:On April 11 2023 20:28 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 20:04 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 20:02 Magic Powers wrote:On April 11 2023 19:36 0x64 wrote:On April 11 2023 19:02 Gorsameth wrote:On April 11 2023 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:
This claim that western countries want to cripple Russia is absurd. I'm not going to entertain it even for a second. I don't think its that absurd. Russia has proven repeatedly that it doesn't want to play nice and taking out Russia itself is not an option (cause nukes) so the available solution is to isolate and cripple Russia to the point where waging offensive operations is difficult. There was a choice made to let Russia attack and not intervene. Russia did go for the "everybody lose" scenario. Now would it make sense to risk a nuclear war? That would have been awkward. While the bigger the collapse of Russia, the longer the peace we get after, it would require Russia to not be given the choice of stopping the conflict. So yes, western country don't want to prove Putin right by intervening and yes, it is better for world peace if Ukraine doesn't collapse and shows the price of a modern invasion war. A collapsed Russia does not make a peaceful Russia. For comparison, looking at North Korea, both South Korea and the US would prefer nothing more than for NK to become democratic, peaceful and stable. It would be mutually beneficial. A crippled NK benefits no one. Likewise the idea of wanting to cripple Russia. It is preferable to completely defeat them militarily this very second and create lasting ceasefire and/or peace with prospects of a return to trade somewhere down the line. For all western countries this is preferable, and that should be obvious because of the previously mutually beneficial trade relations. The claim that instead western countries prefer to see Russia crippled is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. We tried peace and trade with Russia. It failed because we are here now. So all that is left is crippling them long term. Third option: no peace but also not crippling them. Makes the most sense. Makes the least sense. “They’re not our friend and they’re still attacking other countries but at least they’re well armed” Why does that make the least sense? You're describing the best deterrent (protection by NATO) and calling it bad? It's not a coincidence that Russia has never invaded a NATO country, but instead a whole bunch of non-NATO countries.
I assumed you knew that having a bunch of non-NATO countries invaded by Russia was a bad thing and that I wouldn’t have to explain why it was bad as if you were some kind of idiot. Peace and prosperity in our time relies on peace. Nuclear nonproliferation requires on nuclear states not engaging in naked land grabs. Global supply chains exist outside of strict alliances.
|
The reason why Russia invades other countries is because Russia has a fascist at the helm. It's not because Russia is either rich or poor, it's not because Russians are either rich or poor. The fact that Russia isn't as prosperous as other countries, and why it's the most corrupt country on the European continent, comes - in part - from the fact that it's never been free and democratic. The people of Russia don't steer the ship, they can merely hope to survive the ride.
This is why it makes no sense to argue that crippling Russia will help prevent future invasions. The amount of money or GDP required to wage war is tiny compared to the economy that supports it. This is why Russia is currently in a deadlock with neither side budging. They can afford to continue fighting this war despite all the economic hardship. This was true also back during WW2, with the Germans suffering immensely under the Nazi war economy, yet being unable to change course because their fascist leaders held them in their grips. Germany - with its economy going to complete hell and even the military having breakdowns on every front - continued the war for years and could've lasted many more years if the US hadn't intervened.
This is the same now in Ukraine. If Russia loses this war and ends up "crippled", Putin - or the next fascist leader - won't miraculously lose his ability to keep invading other countries.
|
On April 12 2023 03:01 Magic Powers wrote:
The reason why Russia invades other countries is because Russia has a fascist at the helm. It's not because Russia is either rich or poor, it's not because Russians are either rich or poor. The fact that Russia isn't as prosperous as other countries, and why it's the most corrupt country on the European continent, comes - in part - from the fact that it's never been free and democratic. The people of Russia don't steer the ship, they can merely hope to survive the ride.
This is why it makes no sense to argue that crippling Russia will help prevent future invasions. The amount of money or GDP required to wage war is tiny compared to the economy that supports it. This is why Russia is currently in a deadlock with neither side budging. They can afford to continue fighting this war despite all the economic hardship. This was true also back during WW2, with the Germans suffering immensely under the Nazi war economy, yet being unable to change course because their fascist leaders held them in their grips. Germany - with its economy going to complete hell and even the military having breakdowns on every front - continued the war for years and could've lasted many more years if the US hadn't intervened.
This is the same now in Ukraine. If Russia loses this war and ends up "crippled", Putin - or the next fascist leader - won't miraculously lose his ability to keep invading other countries.
What are you saying they will invade with? By all indications, Russia will basically just keep throwing stuff at the situation until they run out. And their ability to make more is harmed by sanctions.
In the absence of tanks and the ability to make tanks, how does Russia invade other countries? I think the WW1 comparison isn't great because the world is different in many ways. Russia is running on momentum from being a big empire previously. Once we cut the legs down, they won't stand up again.
|
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true.
|
On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true.
So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things?
TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff.
|
On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true.
Their current predicament in Ukraine shows that they can't really invade anyone at the moment. This whole war has been protracted in order for Russia to lose more troops and equipment to make sure they can't invade anyone for another 25 years.
|
On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff.
No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way?
So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried.
There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory.
I think the source of our disagreement is the idea of slowly bleeding Russia. You are saying it will not permanently downgrade Russia to a threat that is no longer a threat to the west. I am saying it will.
I don't think the current western strategy is being limited by fear of Russian nukes. They are directly participating in every possible way other than their own soldiers. Ukraine is being directly supported in every conceivable way. It is hard to imagine Russia nuking due to the west using planes to bomb a bunch of Russian stuff in Ukraine. I just don't think that's how the diplomatic dance works. But I won't pretend I am an expert or I know for sure. I am just giving my perspective.
|
On April 12 2023 05:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. I think the source of our disagreement is the idea of slowly bleeding Russia. You are saying it will not permanently downgrade Russia to a threat that is no longer a threat to the west. I am saying it will. I don't think the current western strategy is being limited by fear of Russian nukes. They are directly participating in every possible way other than their own soldiers. Ukraine is being directly supported in every conceivable way. It is hard to imagine Russia nuking due to the west using planes to bomb a bunch of Russian stuff in Ukraine. I just don't think that's how the diplomatic dance works. But I won't pretend I am an expert or I know for sure. I am just giving my perspective.
This claim is also completely unsubstantiated and requires almost as much evidence as that of wanting to bleed Russia dry. Western leaders have unanimously agreed to leave their own forces out of the conflict zone and they have stated their reason for doing so. If you want to argue that they're lying, please enlighten us with the secret documents proving it.
|
On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory.
Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard.
Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more...
|
On April 12 2023 06:13 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2023 04:55 Magic Powers wrote:On April 12 2023 04:27 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2023 04:17 Magic Powers wrote:
Excuse me but Russia can invade Georgia again anytime, and with ease. If or when they lose the war against Ukraine, that will still be true. So you are saying Russia will basically cut their losses early so that they can focus on other things? TBH I think after Ukraine, the west is done just letting Russia bully all the non-NATO countries. Russia will not be permitted to just keep jacking themselves off with war stuff. No that is not at all what I'm saying, and I'm surprised that you're reading that into my point. I specifically said that this would be the situation if or when Ukraine wins the war. In that scenario Russia would be forced back behind Ukrainian borders. By definition, if Ukraine wins, that's the situation. Russia could still continue to be de facto at war with Ukraine, but only on paper, otherwise it wouldn't be a de facto victory for Ukraine. Does this make sense or do I need to explain it in a different way? So in that scenario, Russia would certainly not be any less fearsome to many other countries than they were before this war. If Russia sets its sights on another country, after a defeat in Ukraine, that country should be extremely worried. There is no scenario where Russia becomes effectively toothless through the war in Ukraine. This is why the goal cannot and should not ever be to "cripple" Russia. The goal should strictly be to defend Ukraine as effectively and as quickly as possible, to help them dominate as much as they can right now, and not at some later point in the unforeseeable future. All world leaders should know exactly that this is the only way forward. This is why there's no grander plan of "bleeding Russia dry" by western leaders. It's a completely wild conspiracy theory. Why do you assume it's a conspiracy theory? It seems to be working as apparently Russia is running out of equipment and soldiers, their ammo stocks are dwindling fast and their economy is tanking hard. Replacing thousands of tanks and training 500k soldiers doesn't happen overnight you know. Replacing the tanks they've lost so far in Ukraine would take Russia with its current production capabilities around 15 years - assuming the sanctions would end, with sanctions they can't replace them or any of their more advanced platforms and munitions because they don't have access to required chips. I mean, they can't even build cars with ABS or AC any more...
Ok, lets see. A couple dozen or more politicians, often accompanied by or listened in by competing politicians, from a few dozen different countries, are going to take the risk of proclaiming, one after another, to everyone else, that they have certain "malicious" intent that may be "controversial" but overall "beneficial" to the best interest of NATO and/or western countries in general, and certainly overall harmful to Ukraine, and is going to break the promise they've all made to Ukrainian leadership... without arousing any suspicion or public humiliation and potentially risking the very existence of NATO and all of their own careers with it?
Does anyone else see the problem or am I the only one who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories that could come straight out of the junkyard of the worst spy novels ever written?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
