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 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
They're trying to blame everyone but their own incompetence, so they can add it on to the pile of the rest of their lackluster excuses for continuing the invasion of Ukraine. The best ones are the ones blaming NATO and "The West", despite "The West" literally warning them about it. This might be modus operandi for Russia, but "The West" isn't in the habit of warning their opponents about an imminent terrorist attack they themselves orchestrated.
What's more embarrassing are people still beliving this was an Ukrainian attack, even after all this. At this point,the only options left are that Russia are completely incompetent, or they let it happen so they could try to blame it on Ukraine. Either way isn't a particularly good look
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
something something, act of war, something something.
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
Russia in their own view of the world are not at war. The possibilities for siezing production, forcing labour, drafting soldiers will get increased immensly if they turn their "special military operation" into full scale war effort. The majority of the population and economy is not at full scale war operation.
To think that russia is almost beat, or incapable of upping their efforts, or has no cards left to play is underestimating your opponent. Rts enthusiasts of all people should know where that leads.
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
I find the conspiracy theory that the CIA (and several other agencies) are lying to help Russia cover this up for agency recruitment purposes amusing albeit rather incredible.
For most people in the US they stopped paying attention to "Havana Syndrome" stuff after this:
Beginning in 2022, several major studies were published, and none of them found any evidence of involvement by a hostile power. In January 2022, the Central Intelligence Agency issued an interim assessment concluding that the syndrome is not the result of "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power".
and
In March 2023, seven U.S. intelligence agencies completed a review of the proposed cases of Havana syndrome and released an unclassified report with the consensus that "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents".
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
I find the conspiracy theory that the CIA (and several other agencies) are lying to help Russia cover this up for agency recruitment purposes amusing albeit rather incredible.
For most people in the US they stopped paying attention to "Havana Syndrome" stuff after this:
Beginning in 2022, several major studies were published, and none of them found any evidence of involvement by a hostile power. In January 2022, the Central Intelligence Agency issued an interim assessment concluding that the syndrome is not the result of "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power".
In March 2023, seven U.S. intelligence agencies completed a review of the proposed cases of Havana syndrome and released an unclassified report with the consensus that "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents".
Or a coordinated global attack on US personal is a serious thing and the government doesn't want to acknowledge it out of fear of being 'forced' into an escalation by public pressure.
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
I find the conspiracy theory that the CIA (and several other agencies) are lying to help Russia cover this up for agency recruitment purposes amusing albeit rather incredible.
For most people in the US they stopped paying attention to "Havana Syndrome" stuff after this:
Beginning in 2022, several major studies were published, and none of them found any evidence of involvement by a hostile power. In January 2022, the Central Intelligence Agency issued an interim assessment concluding that the syndrome is not the result of "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power".
and
In March 2023, seven U.S. intelligence agencies completed a review of the proposed cases of Havana syndrome and released an unclassified report with the consensus that "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents".
Or a coordinated global attack on US personal is a serious thing and the government doesn't want to acknowledge it out of fear of being 'forced' into an escalation by public pressure.
That's what I'm thinking. The article gives too many details that can't be a coincidence. Numerous traces leading to a specific military unit whose members were present during the alleged attacks. Not to mention the track record of the investigative journalists involved.
A joint investigation by The Insider, Der Spiegel and CBS has linked the so-called Havana syndrome to Russian intelligence. It looks like for years Russia has been targeting US and other Western officials and agents with a weapon causing brain damage, among other symptoms.
Do you think this could force the Republicans' hand and stop them from aiding the enemy? Is this case blowing up in the US?
I find the conspiracy theory that the CIA (and several other agencies) are lying to help Russia cover this up for agency recruitment purposes amusing albeit rather incredible.
For most people in the US they stopped paying attention to "Havana Syndrome" stuff after this:
Beginning in 2022, several major studies were published, and none of them found any evidence of involvement by a hostile power. In January 2022, the Central Intelligence Agency issued an interim assessment concluding that the syndrome is not the result of "a sustained global campaign by a hostile power".
and
In March 2023, seven U.S. intelligence agencies completed a review of the proposed cases of Havana syndrome and released an unclassified report with the consensus that "available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents".
Or a coordinated global attack on US personal is a serious thing and the government doesn't want to acknowledge it out of fear of being 'forced' into an escalation by public pressure.
Except the US government were among the first to say it was an attack on US personnel
U.S. State Department officials contended Cuba staged a sonic attack on employees of the American embassy, causing a variety of neurological symptoms.
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
Russia in their own view of the world are not at war. The possibilities for siezing production, forcing labour, drafting soldiers will get increased immensly if they turn their "special military operation" into full scale war effort. The majority of the population and economy is not at full scale war operation.
To think that russia is almost beat, or incapable of upping their efforts, or has no cards left to play is underestimating your opponent. Rts enthusiasts of all people should know where that leads.
Their leaders literally say that they’re at war nightly on tv.
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
Russia in their own view of the world are not at war. The possibilities for siezing production, forcing labour, drafting soldiers will get increased immensly if they turn their "special military operation" into full scale war effort. The majority of the population and economy is not at full scale war operation.
To think that russia is almost beat, or incapable of upping their efforts, or has no cards left to play is underestimating your opponent. Rts enthusiasts of all people should know where that leads.
Their leaders literally say that they’re at war nightly on tv.
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
Russia in their own view of the world are not at war. The possibilities for siezing production, forcing labour, drafting soldiers will get increased immensly if they turn their "special military operation" into full scale war effort. The majority of the population and economy is not at full scale war operation.
To think that russia is almost beat, or incapable of upping their efforts, or has no cards left to play is underestimating your opponent. Rts enthusiasts of all people should know where that leads.
Their leaders literally say that they’re at war nightly on tv.
Might want to recheck your translation on that.
It has not been long but they have stopped pretending it’s not a war.
On March 28 2024 19:51 Sent. wrote: I disagree with the claim that giving Ukraine more weapons counts as "escalation". We're just giving them stuff to help them do what they are already doing. Escalation would be something that opens a new aspect of the conflict, like a deep invasion into Russia or giving Ukraine nuclear weapons (which in my opinion is an absurd idea by the way).
The last two years, ulraine got just enough to stay even. Or reconquer important positions with a slight edge at most. The never got overwhelming firepower to actually defeat russian forces convincingly.
Which is what that near-sighted PR letter from 31 nobel laureats is asking for. More military support, so ukraine can defeat russia. Doesn't matter how you label it. That is escalating the arms conflict. Ukraine convincingly reconquering donbass is escalation. As is retaking crimea. Any military success on ukraine side, will force russia to escalate. Any time you strengthen ukraine, russia has to escalate.
Goes to show that a nobel prize in physics doesn't make anyone a good stregist, tactitian or statesman.
I think Ukraine would continue using its manpower to defend itself regardless of whether it had only T-72s, 10 extra Leopards or 200 extra Leopards. If Ukrainians didn't receive any weapons, they would still try to defend Bakhmut, Avdiivka and whatever town Russia would target next. I wouldn't say it's an escalation if the sides will continue to fight for south eastern Ukraine and the only thing that changes is the side making progress.toward their goal.
I find the belief that Russia is happy with what it took and has no desire to keep attacking very naive. The only reason they're not pushing forward more aggressively is that they're unable replenish their losses fast enough to maintain a higher pace of combat.
Exactly. Putin would push for Kiev if he could, and either annex Ukraine, or annex some parts and set up a puppet regime in the rest. That was what Russia has attempted in the beginning of the war, and there is no reason to assume that given the chance, they wouldn't do that now.
This escalation talk is silly. Putin has exactly one card he hasn't played yet, and that is nuclear weapons. He won't use those (except as a threat) because that would be suicidal and not actually help achieve any goals. Russia is sending as many men and weapons into Ukraine as it can muster.
The goal for the west should be to make Russia lose, make them return all of the occupied parts of Ukraine. We should not do that for Ukraine, but for our selves. A world order where countries randomly attack their neighbours because they feel stronger is fucking scary. We should do anything we can to prevent that from being established as normal. Making Russia lose hard here is the only way to make sure no one else tries for a while.
The clear message to any imperialist dictator should be that if you attack your weaker neighbour, they will get supplied, and you will lose.
He does have full mobilisation, which might be the only thing that Russians are scared the crazy man could do.
What use is full mobilisation if you can't supply them? And runs a risk of the country actually revolting (tho a slim chance at best)
Russia in their own view of the world are not at war. The possibilities for siezing production, forcing labour, drafting soldiers will get increased immensly if they turn their "special military operation" into full scale war effort. The majority of the population and economy is not at full scale war operation.
To think that russia is almost beat, or incapable of upping their efforts, or has no cards left to play is underestimating your opponent. Rts enthusiasts of all people should know where that leads.
Their leaders literally say that they’re at war nightly on tv.
Might want to recheck your translation on that.
It has not been long but they have stopped pretending it’s not a war.
EPT
