EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 659
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8242 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7117 Posts
On February 27 2024 17:08 Sent. wrote: I think he just wanted to make himself look cool by saying "we won't do that but we totally could, watch it Russia". I would be extremely surprised if any NATO member seriously proposed that kind of move, even behind closed doors. But what it actually does do is getting some other options back on the table. In Germany the debate about sending Taurus systems (500km range) is open again. It has not yet gone through but I believe it will sooner or later | ||
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
The odds of a direct confrontation with Russia are dramatically reduced by giving Ukraine everything they need and taking off any restrictions on usage. We have 3 scenarios. A. Ukraine wins without Taurus etc. Let’s say that has a 50% chance and a 0% chance of confrontation with NATO. B. Ukraine loses without Taurus etc. forcing the west to get more directly involved. Let’s say that has a 20% chance and a 20% chance of confrontation. C. Ukraine wins with Taurus etc. Let’s say that has a 30% chance and a 1% chance of confrontation. Germany are looking at A and saying “well obviously 0% is the safest for us” but A and B are a package deal. A and B have a combined confrontation risk of 4%. Meanwhile C has a confrontation risk of just 0.3%. It seems higher to them because they’re comparing A and C but in their rhetoric they imply B. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
| ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
On February 28 2024 16:54 zeo wrote: Kwark pulling out the Scott Steiner math for this one Alright, I bite, where exactly do you think the math mistake is here? | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7117 Posts
On February 27 2024 23:41 KwarK wrote: The German stance, like many others, is built on contradictions. On the one hand we have absolute statements like that Russia will not be permitted to win. That implies that extremely escalatory and interventionist measures may eventually be required in the unlikely event that a total Russian victory appears imminent. I think the risk of an all out war is extremely low in any event but it’s certainly higher in the more direct intervention scenarios. And yet they balk at the far safer actions they can take to avoid it getting to that point. The odds of a direct confrontation with Russia are dramatically reduced by giving Ukraine everything they need and taking off any restrictions on usage. We have 3 scenarios. A. Ukraine wins without Taurus etc. Let’s say that has a 50% chance and a 0% chance of confrontation with NATO. B. Ukraine loses without Taurus etc. forcing the west to get more directly involved. Let’s say that has a 20% chance and a 20% chance of confrontation. C. Ukraine wins with Taurus etc. Let’s say that has a 30% chance and a 1% chance of confrontation. Germany are looking at A and saying “well obviously 0% is the safest for us” but A and B are a package deal. A and B have a combined confrontation risk of 4%. Meanwhile C has a confrontation risk of just 0.3%. It seems higher to them because they’re comparing A and C but in their rhetoric they imply B. I mean they already have StormShadow / SCALP. I don't see how Taurus would lead to any more escalation. Obviously these things are expensive as well, so there are maybe 20 missiles. Could make a difference in the war effort but won't make a difference on the red line | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8242 Posts
On February 28 2024 16:54 zeo wrote: Kwark pulling out the Scott Steiner math for this one Do you understand the meaning of the word "example"? | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On February 28 2024 17:34 Evotroid wrote: Alright, I bite, where exactly do you think the math mistake is here? Every single number in that post is pulled out of an ass with flawed reasoning/logic based on 'I feel' and Reddit upvotes. That said, if this is how countries do risk assesment its no wonder its all gone downhill for all of us. Unelected career politicians and beurocrats playing brinksmanship on behalf of special interests and inflated egos. Good luck. | ||
zatic
Zurich15363 Posts
On February 28 2024 17:42 Harris1st wrote: I mean they already have StormShadow / SCALP. I don't see how Taurus would lead to any more escalation. Obviously these things are expensive as well, so there are maybe 20 missiles. Could make a difference in the war effort but won't make a difference on the red line Taurus is somewhat more capable in terms of range and warhead, but you are right, it's not a qualitative difference to Storm Shadow. As always it's the German chancellor who is uncomfortable to deliver something that France and UK have been sending for over a year now. And as always he is terrible in communicating this, hence the standard "no further escalation" line. The only thing we can give him is that a majority of the German public is against delivering cruise missiles to Ukraine. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7117 Posts
On February 28 2024 18:27 zatic wrote: Taurus is somewhat more capable in terms of range and warhead, but you are right, it's not a qualitative difference to Storm Shadow. As always it's the German chancellor who is uncomfortable to deliver something that France and UK have been sending for over a year now. And as always he is terrible in communicating this, hence the standard "no further escalation" line. The only thing we can give him is that a majority of the German public is against delivering cruise missiles to Ukraine. The majority of the German public is against a lot of things our current government (internal policy) does and the chance of them beeing reelected is shit anyway  But that is another topic entirely | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2660 Posts
On February 28 2024 17:34 Evotroid wrote: Alright, I bite, where exactly do you think the math mistake is here? The mistake is zeo thinking it's about the math. | ||
|
FriedrichNietzsche
92 Posts
| ||
|
Branch.AUT
Austria853 Posts
On February 28 2024 18:27 zatic wrote: Taurus is somewhat more capable in terms of range and warhead, but you are right, it's not a qualitative difference to Storm Shadow. As always it's the German chancellor who is uncomfortable to deliver something that France and UK have been sending for over a year now. And as always he is terrible in communicating this, hence the standard "no further escalation" line. The only thing we can give him is that a majority of the German public is against delivering cruise missiles to Ukraine. There is a big reason why Germany is hesitant to deliver military equipment to <enemy of russia>. It begins with A- and ends with bomb. And germany doesn't enjoy the deterrence factor of this specific weapon systemversus russia. The hesitation of escalating versus russia, in germanies shoes, is appropriate in my opinion. Contrary to France or Uk, germany IS a potential target for russian invasion in the next 20 years. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4742 Posts
| ||
|
zatic
Zurich15363 Posts
The German populace is just very much not belligerent and doesn't want "offensive" weapons given to anywhere where they could hurt someone. And Germany has an incredibly weak chancellor who doesn't have his own government in line, can't make decisions, and can't communicate decisions made by other for him. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43677 Posts
On February 28 2024 18:17 zeo wrote: Every single number in that post is pulled out of an ass with flawed reasoning/logic based on 'I feel' and Reddit upvotes. That said, if this is how countries do risk assesment its no wonder its all gone downhill for all of us. Unelected career politicians and beurocrats playing brinksmanship on behalf of special interests and inflated egos. Good luck. Yes, it was an example using example numbers. I was using them to illustrate my point of how focusing on the safety of A over C makes no sense if your rhetoric implies the possibility of B, should A fail. The fact that the numbers were all extremely round percentages should have clued you in. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8242 Posts
On February 28 2024 18:17 zeo wrote: Every single number in that post is pulled out of an ass with flawed reasoning/logic based on 'I feel' and Reddit upvotes. On February 28 2024 17:45 Excludos wrote: Do you understand the meaning of the word "example"? He made it exceptionally clear it was "pulled out of his ass". You can't use that against him when he literally says it in the post. This is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time On February 28 2024 18:59 FriedrichNietzsche wrote: Kwarks Percentages are nothing than a feeling or a wild guess. So what. Little to no relevane/substance imo. That goes for you too. Are Russian sympathisers incapable of understanding thought experiments? If I give an example of "If I had 10 bananas and you took 2, how many would I have left?", the answer "Lol you don't have 10 bananas" is not the intellectual argument you think it is | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18234 Posts
On February 29 2024 00:27 Excludos wrote: He made it exceptionally clear it was "pulled out of his ass". You can't use that against him when he literally says it in the post. This is the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time That goes for you too. Are Russian sympathisers incapable of understanding thought experiments? If I give an example of "If I had 10 bananas and you took 2, how many would I have left?", the answer "Lol you don't have 10 bananas" is not the intellectual argument you think it is Joke's on you. I just bought bananas | ||
| ||
