War in Ukraine soon?

watfly said:
Putin is having a hard time with Ukraine, seems like he'd have a struggle moving on to other countries. I guess he could bomb the other countries into submission, but I don't see how he occupies the countries. He's also likely going to have to find some source to fund all his expansion activities. Sounds like he is already getting squeezed financially. I guess he could resort to nuclear extortion.
Click to expand...
Hüsker Dü said:
Or brings it to reality quicker. How do you know Putin will keep going? Your gut?
My gut says if this goes on much longer you will get what you want soon, not in a month.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have free reign in Russia the way the Kims did in North Korea. The oligarchs hate losing their soccer teams, yachts, reserves and med holidays. If Putin starts without justification trying to hold nuclear hostages, at that point the oligarch, probably together with the FSB, would take him out. North Korea is like a cult. Russia is organized more like the mob.
 
Grace T. said:
China is unlikely to invade Taiwan now that they've seen the west's resolve in sanctions. As you yourself pointed out, the business of China is business and the addition of Taiwan simply won't add much to the bottom line given the costs.

Georgia? Maybe.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia mean Article five and nuclear war. The Chinese and Indians even won't go there so Russia would be truly alone and it will take a bit for them to rebuild (a half decade at least) their military stores, particularly given the crippled economy and being cut off from certain supplies that the Chinese will now need to make up. And that's assuming they force a capitulation that doesn't require them being in occupation of the Ukraine and facing rebel forces for years to come.

It's really crazy to hear from you of all people that you'd be willing to trade a risk now with a high chance of escalation (US and Russian planes shooting it out in an airwar which necessarily would escalate to the attacking of airbases on NATO and Russian territory and the firing or cruise missiles in order to gain air supremacy, which is what a no fly zone entails) over a hypothetical risk later which may or may not happen. Given you were so afraid of a virus which for your age group had a higher than 99.5% survival rating, I can only conclude you just don't do risk assessment very well for some reason, despite that fabulous mathematical brain of yours. An insurance actuary you are not.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of that except the “afraid” part. Concern for the well being of others shouldn’t be characterized as being afraid, it just hints to your stance on the issue and penchant for petty jabs (i.e. being a troll).
 
watfly said:
Putin is having a hard time with Ukraine, seems like he'd have a struggle moving on to other countries. I guess he could bomb the other countries into submission, but I don't see how he occupies the countries. He's also likely going to have to find some source to fund all his expansion activities. Sounds like he is already getting squeezed financially. I guess he could resort to nuclear extortion.
Click to expand...
You watch way too much Tel A Vision
 
Grace T. said:
He doesn't have free reign in Russia the way the Kims did in North Korea. The oligarchs hate losing their soccer teams, yachts, reserves and med holidays. If Putin starts without justification trying to hold nuclear hostages, at that point the oligarch, probably together with the FSB, would take him out. North Korea is like a cult. Russia is organized more like the mob.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is listed as one of the worse criminal places on earth. Russia is only up on them 4 spots.
 
Grace T. said:
China is unlikely to invade Taiwan now that they've seen the west's resolve in sanctions. As you yourself pointed out, the business of China is business and the addition of Taiwan simply won't add much to the bottom line given the costs.

Georgia? Maybe.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia mean Article five and nuclear war. The Chinese and Indians even won't go there so Russia would be truly alone and it will take a bit for them to rebuild (a half decade at least) their military stores, particularly given the crippled economy and being cut off from certain supplies that the Chinese will now need to make up. And that's assuming they force a capitulation that doesn't require them being in occupation of the Ukraine and facing rebel forces for years to come.

It's really crazy to hear from you of all people that you'd be willing to trade a risk now with a high chance of escalation (US and Russian planes shooting it out in an airwar which necessarily would escalate to the attacking of airbases on NATO and Russian territory and the firing or cruise missiles in order to gain air supremacy, which is what a no fly zone entails) over a hypothetical risk later which may or may not happen. Given you were so afraid of a virus which for your age group had a higher than 99.5% survival rating, I can only conclude you just don't do risk assessment very well for some reason, despite that fabulous mathematical brain of yours. An insurance actuary you are not.
Click to expand...
Why should I assume Putin won’t go after the remaining Soviet Republics? Or that China won’t invade Taiwan?

US red lines teand to be quite blurry. We also had a red line over chemical weapons in Syria, and Putin walked right over that one.

Seems a reasonable bet that, when push comes to shove, we aren’t really willing to defend Riga. I mean, they are NATO, but they are also a former Soviet Republic. It’s part of Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. It’s not like they attacked Paris…..

So it is a reasonable bet, and we have evidence Putin is a betting man. He goes in.

I certainly like our odds at forcing peace negotiations better than our odds that Putin shows restraint.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
Agree with most of that except the “afraid” part. Concern for the well being of others shouldn’t be characterized as being afraid, it just hints to your stance on the issue and penchant for petty jabs (i.e. being a troll).
Click to expand...

I think certain people on the other side of COVID were definitely "concerned about others" and it may have blinded them to risk analysis. I would have bought into that explanation about dad4 until we found out he hadn't really altered his behavior after being vaccinated, particularly when we found it he was wearing N95s into the market and was still rigorously social distancing.

A complaint about petty jabs is pretty funny though coming from you (you are doing it better than espola these days...congrats).
 
Grace T. said:
I remember getting into an argument with my sophomore history teacher who instead of teaching us world history went down a rabbit hole the first month to teach about the occupation of various countries by the US (looking back on it, I'm not sure how she got away with that...today it just wouldn't happen without parents coming to blows in front of the admin). One day she started monologuing about how one day we would all have socialism and how the Soviet model was imperfect but one day true socialism would happen. I was as much of a snit back then as I am now, so I raised my hand and started by quite innocently asking a bunch of questions leading her down the socratic method. I wondered whether the Soviet Union had any people slaving away at jobs they didn't like, how it assigned these jobs, and if people didn't like their jobs maybe that's why things weren't efficient and they had shortages. She responded in the future we could all pick our jobs. So everyone can be a doctor...even those that aren't qualified or smart enough (oh I wish we had seen Idiocracy back then)? No, but the state would find another job that we would like and would be suitable for. Everyone would have a job they'd like and be good at. So the state could manage things so there would be the exact number of teachers needed even if not everyone wanted to teach? Yes, from each according to their gift, to each according to their needs. While you might not have the perfect job, you'd have one you'd like, be good at, and want to do and be equally compensated for. I smiled then...the class knew I had her....so who picks up the garbage, who's the janitor, who scrubs the toilets? She stopped to think and then answered "robots". The class roared out laughing at the obvious absurdity of it.

Even in the communist utopia of the United Federation of Planets, people are forced to labor at a job.
Click to expand...

My point is not that socialism is better than capitalism...it is that having financial freedom is more important than political freedom. Yet, our leaders appear to emphasize the need to have elections, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly all ahead of financial freedom.

Given a choice of having a dictator that is able to generate 10% GDP growth every year vs "democracy" with a failing economy, most everyone would choose having a dictator and 10% GDP growth per year.

For this reason, this is why I think Putin is generally good for Russia see below since 2000. Since coming to power, the GDP per capita of Russia has improved a lot than under Yeltsin. I do not see why Putin is a problem to the West. Whoever is able to help Russia develop into a strong economy, that is who is good for Russia. Political freedom can take a back seat. No rush. That can come in the next 100 years, it does not have to come during my lifetime.

1646261520657.png
 
Grace T. said:
I think certain people on the other side of COVID were definitely "concerned about others" and it may have blinded them to risk analysis. I would have bought into that explanation about dad4 until we found out he hadn't really altered his behavior after being vaccinated, particularly when we found it he was wearing N95s into the market and was still rigorously social distancing.

A complaint about petty jabs is pretty funny though coming from you (you are doing it better than espola these days...congrats).
Click to expand...
I did almost insert a lol but felt the tongue in cheek was obvious enough.
 
dad4 said:
Why should I assume Putin won’t go after the remaining Soviet Republics? Or that China won’t invade Taiwan?

US red lines teand to be quite blurry. We also had a red line over chemical weapons in Syria, and Putin walked right over that one.

Seems a reasonable bet that, when push comes to shove, we aren’t really willing to defend Riga. I mean, they are NATO, but they are also a former Soviet Republic. It’s part of Russia’s traditional sphere of influence. It’s not like they attacked Paris…..

So it is a reasonable bet, and we have evidence Putin is a betting man. He goes in.

I certainly like our odds at forcing peace negotiations better than our odds that Putin shows restraint.
Click to expand...

a. you are assuming he has complete dominance over his government and society. He doesn't. Again, it's organized like the mob.
b. the US redline with the baltics are pretty clear. If we don't live up to that obligation NATO falls apart. There are US troops there as well which are forward deployed. Your assumption therefore is that Putin makes a threat on the Baltics and Biden just says o.k. we are pulling out our troops or doesn't care that US troops are killed and just surrenders the Baltics by pulling out. That's why the Baltics joined NATO...the promise is worth less than the fact there are American troops there in harms way. It's likely the key factor now why Sweden and Finland will both join.
c. It's not just airplanes fighting at each other. Putin would be forced to strike at NATO bases in Europe with planes and cruise missiles. Same with the US and bases in Russia. Civilians in addition to military die. That's a sure fire route to escalation and nuclear war.
d. even if you believe Putin will invade the Baltics, that's still several years away as he'll have to rebuild his military and rebuild his economy to finance that. A lot of stuff can happen in that time period.
e. you are really really really bad a risk assessment (which is fine...you are really great at other things). The choice is a near certainty of at least a tactical nuclear exchange now v. an unknown quantity in the future. If your answer is you rather have nuclear war now than in a few years, well that's a different issue.
 
Grace T. said:
I think certain people on the other side of COVID were definitely "concerned about others" and it may have blinded them to risk analysis. I would have bought into that explanation about dad4 until we found out he hadn't really altered his behavior after being vaccinated, particularly when we found it he was wearing N95s into the market and was still rigorously social distancing.

A complaint about petty jabs is pretty funny though coming from you (you are doing it better than espola these days...congrats).
Click to expand...
Take your covid trolling to the covid thread, please.

I’ve answered your Putin risk analysis question. I believe that a large air deployment to Poland and Romania is sufficient to force a cease fire. I certainly believe that the odds of a nuclear war from such a deployment are lower than the odds of a nuclear war caused by repeated capitulation.
 
Grace T. said:
It's really crazy to hear from you of all people that you'd be willing to trade a risk now with a high chance of escalation (US and Russian planes shooting it out in an airwar which necessarily would escalate to the attacking of airbases on NATO and Russian territory and the firing or cruise missiles in order to gain air supremacy, which is what a no fly zone entails) over a hypothetical risk later which may or may not happen.
Click to expand...

To most ordinary americans, war is abstract. It appears only on TV screens. Not like a bomb is falling on your backyard. Its a different thing if the voting is such that those for the war will be conscripted to the army. Then the response will be drastically different.
 
dad4 said:
Take your covid trolling to the covid thread, please.

I’ve answered your Putin risk analysis question. I believe that a large air deployment to Poland and Romania is sufficient to force a cease fire. I certainly believe that the odds of a nuclear war from such a deployment are lower than the odds of a nuclear war caused by repeated capitulation.
Click to expand...

Unless you think a large air deployment would cause the oligarchs/military/FSB to overthrow Putin before any Russians and Americans are killed, then your assumption is incorrect. Russia is organized like the mob....weakness is a sign to overthrow the Don...Putin cannot show weakness so he'll lob bombs on European airbases and roll the die, hoping Biden is too senile or weak to respond in kind. You yourself said he's a gambler...the only way out of your hypothetical is you think a show of strength forces his overthrow, which is a huge roll of the dice, because if that doesn't happen, it's almost a guaranteed nuclear exchange. Again, you don't know what happens in five years and the sanctions the US has in place and the unexpected losses are certainly enough to make him (and particularly China which as you've said) is all business.

Sorry...this exchange is most illuminating as to the workings of your mind.... couldn't understand before why you took the positions you did so I ascribed it all to "religion"....but it may be as simple as you just can't make a risk calculation to save your life. You are willing to roll the dice RIGHT NOW on nuclear war....but a little bug with an IFR under one percent that sent you into makes us Australia.
 
Grace T. said:
a. you are assuming he has complete dominance over his government and society. He doesn't. Again, it's organized like the mob.
b. the US redline with the baltics are pretty clear. If we don't live up to that obligation NATO falls apart. There are US troops there as well which are forward deployed. Your assumption therefore is that Putin makes a threat on the Baltics and Biden just says o.k. we are pulling out our troops or doesn't care that US troops are killed and just surrenders the Baltics by pulling out. That's why the Baltics joined NATO...the promise is worth less than the fact there are American troops there in harms way. It's likely the key factor now why Sweden and Finland will both join.
c. It's not just airplanes fighting at each other. Putin would be forced to strike at NATO bases in Europe with planes and cruise missiles. Same with the US and bases in Russia. Civilians in addition to military die. That's a sure fire route to escalation and nuclear war.
d. even if you believe Putin will invade the Baltics, that's still several years away as he'll have to rebuild his military and rebuild his economy to finance that. A lot of stuff can happen in that time period.
e. you are really really really bad a risk assessment (which is fine...you are really great at other things). The choice is a near certainty of at least a tactical nuclear exchange now v. an unknown quantity in the future. If your answer is you rather have nuclear war now than in a few years, well that's a different issue.
Click to expand...

In a tactical war, nuclear weapons make no sense. Modern weapon technology allows the pilot to ask "Which window?" when he is asked to hit a house with a cruise missile. Nuclear weapons destroy the target for the enemy and also for the shooter. Unless Putin wants to govern a wasteland, his best use of nuclear weapons is political, and once he uses them, he loses.
 
Last edited:
espola said:
In a tactical war, nuclear weapons make no sense. Modern weapon technology allows the pilot to also "Which window?" when he is asked to hit a house with a cruise missile. Nuclear weapons destroy the target for the enemy and also for the shooter. Unless Putin wants to govern a wasteland, his best use of nuclear weapons is political, and once he uses them, he loses.
Click to expand...
the problem is war isn't always rational. Sometimes its just emotional.
 
dad4 said:
Or that China won’t invade Taiwan?
Click to expand...

China is one nation with 2 governments. One in Beijing and one in Taipei.

The People´s Republic of China in Beijing will absolutely invade the Republic of Taiwan if such a nation ever is declared. That is a guarantee.

As long as Taiwan remains under Republic of China in Taipei, I do not see any risk of this happening.

The logic is that Taiwan even though it is under the administration of Taipei is still a Chinese government, albeit not a Communist one, but it is still Chinese territory under a Chinese government. I suppose the Chinese think that as long as it is Chinese territory who cares which government is governing it. China have been split into multiple nations so many times throughout history.

If there is a coup in Taipei, and the Republic of China in Taipei is overthrown and ceases to exist, and a new nation is declared, then Communist china will see itself as a force that is needed to come in to rescue Taiwan from falling into separatist hands.

The issue I see is the inconsistency of US policy. US policy recognizes the government in Beijing as legitimate government of China. Yet it sells weapons to the Republic of China government in Taiwan, thus it is supporting and supplying arms to an illegitimate government.

The US should stop selling weapons to the ROC in Taiwan OR recognize the Republic of China in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China. It is trying to have my cake and it eat too on this issue. Just recognize Taiwan as China.
 
espola said:
One squadron of A-10s and the Russian convoy will remind us of this --

View attachment 13066
Click to expand...
So sad Espoal that you play with war. I lost a buddy and many died fighting the BS that Herbert got is into. His 9/11/90 NWO speech is ringing true today. The cool news is you guys got caught. You are something else with your war talk. Sad day for anyone who is in any war. War sucks!!!
 
blam said:
Given a choice of having a dictator that is able to generate 10% GDP growth every year vs "democracy" with a failing economy, most everyone would choose having a dictator and 10% GDP growth per year.
Click to expand...
Who is this "most everyone" you speak of? I must not know them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top