Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

understanding the "why" behind putin's moves is not "signing his praises". he's a bad dude for sure.

he is acting rationally in what HE thinks the best interest of Russia are. so many in the media dismiss him as "crazy", but in my opinion he's anything but crazy. he's been warning us and telling us what HIS red lines are and the west hasn't listened.

we have zero interest in getting involved in WW3 to "save" ukraine. zero. it's scary to see how many Americans are clamoring for war when they have no idea how this conflict came into be.

American foreign policy has been a total disaster since Korea. we need to sit this one out.

This thought process (the one you are describing of other Americans) is endemic of our habit of framing everything under a banner moral interventionalism.

Everyone is looking for "who is the good guy" and "who is the bad guy" and very few people fail to see outside the black and white that in war 99% of people are grey. 

Know thy enemy is a basic intellectual principal of war but so many people would rather resort to the academically lazy solution of just presuming the enemy is irrational. How does a person who lacks ration and reason get and maintain power of an enormous nuclear nation state? Just doesn't make sense....

[goingkinetic]

I’m not clamoring for war. I’m current and qualified, but I will risk my life against authoritarian dictators who are currently killing innocents to refight the cold war. I agree that Putin is smart and calculating. He assumes

1. Nato is impotent

2. The threat of Nuclear war is so scary no one will openly stand up to him.

Do you think the richest man in the world with a palace full of Russian playmates would actually push the button. I don’t.

[BashiChuni]

totally agree flea.

nuance is gone in today's environment. to quote a famous painter "you're either with us, or against us"

that type of polarization is easily exploitable...by the media, our adversaries, and our politicians. before making emotional arguments for war in Ukraine we need to take a breath, step back, and try to understand the geopolitical events that led us to this point.

unfortunately the media has yelled "putin bad!" for years, so people are conditioned to immediately turn off their brain and demand putin be "held accountable". only in this case holding him accountable will start world war III which clearly is not in the national security interests of the united states.

if anything getting russia bogged down in another version of Afghanistan for them IS in our best interests as it makes them MUCH weaker. from a moral humanitarian perspective obviously that's not a good thing, but from a geopolitical viewpoint it helps the united states if russia is crippled in ukraine.

anytime foxnews and MSNBC are both arguing for the same thing and the obvious is TOO obvious i become skeptical.

 

 

 

go to the 28:00 minute mark to hear the conventional wisdom about Ukraine. this really opened my eyes. it's a fantastic academic look at what's going on.

Edited March 2, 2022 by BashiChuni

[FLEA]

3 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

I’m not clamoring for war. I’m current and qualified, but I will risk my life against authoritarian dictators who are currently killing innocents to refight the cold war. I agree that Putin is smart and calculating. He assumes

1. Nato is impotent

2. The threat of Nuclear war is so scary no one will openly stand up to him.

Do you think the richest man in the world with a palace full of Russian playmates would actually push the button. I don’t.

You're willing to place that bet though? Your ready to deal with the consequences of being wrong? You don't think he would push the button but lots of people certainly think he is. What brings you so much confidence that others don't have? The dude just dropped a vacuum bomb in the middle of a major population center. He is already not far from using nuclear weapons. And the more you pit him in a corner the less he has to lose. 

Also realize, our own media has a shade of bias in it regarding innocent casualties. Certainly many are tragic like the children, but also remember Ukraine MPs are in the squares handing rifles out to anyone who will take them. That taints things quite a bit. So far most of the targets causing high civilian deaths have also had military value (tv towers, industrial centers, government offices). Russia has also done this without the modern advances in targeting pods, ISR and PGMs the US has developed. Russia has also sent broadcast for safe passage for civilians out of cities and warning civilians that remain will be declared combatants. Why am I mentioning that? Because that is exactly what we did in Mosul, Tabqa, and Raqqa. We declared every male in those cities combatants regardless of their intentions for remaining. So I think we need to recognize there is more similarity in these approaches than there are differences. 

I'm not an apologist for Russia. I still think what they're doing is horrible, and I by no means support it. But I don't think going in with so much force that we push a side to miscalculation is a good way to pursue this. 

[goingkinetic]

13 minutes ago, FLEA said:

You're willing to place that bet though? Your ready to deal with the consequences of being wrong? You don't think he would push the button but lots of people certainly think he is. What brings you so much confidence that others don't have? The dude just dropped a vacuum bomb in the middle of a major population center. He is already not far from using nuclear weapons. And the more you pit him in a corner the less he has to lose. 

Also realize, our own media has a shade of bias in it regarding innocent casualties. Certainly many are tragic like the children, but also remember Ukraine MPs are in the squares handing rifles out to anyone who will take them. That taints things quite a bit. So far most of the targets causing high civilian deaths have also had military value (tv towers, industrial centers, government offices). Russia has also done this without the modern advances in targeting pods, ISR and PGMs the US has developed. Russia has also sent broadcast for safe passage for civilians out of cities and warning civilians that remain will be declared combatants. Why am I mentioning that? Because that is exactly what we did in Mosul, Tabqa, and Raqqa. We declared every male in those cities combatants regardless of their intentions for remaining. So I think we need to recognize there is more similarity in these approaches than there are differences. 

I'm not an apologist for Russia. I still think what they're doing is horrible, and I by no means support it. But I don't think going in with so much force that we push a side to miscalculation is a good way to pursue this. 

Nuclear weapons lose all deterrence if we are unwilling or unable to use them. Thats what he assumes. So what’s the line? Poland, Sweden? Hitler didn’t stop with Austria. Let’s pretend Canada invaded the US. You’re telling me you wouldn’t pick up a rifle to defend your home. We have castle laws in the US for a reason. Defending your home doesn’t make you a criminal/combatant.

 

 

 

[brickhistory]

21 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Nuclear weapons lose all deterrence if we are unwilling or unable to use them. 

 

 

 

World class post right there.

 

 

And not in a good way.

[goingkinetic]

1 minute ago, brickhistory said:

World class post right there.

 

 

And not in a good way.

Then why have a nuclear aresenal? I’m not advocating starting WWIII, I’m advocating protecting a sovereign nation that has civilians being killed by tyrant that has so far invaded two of his neighbors.

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Nuclear weapons lose all deterrence if we are unwilling or unable to use them. Thats what he assumes. So what’s the line? Poland, Sweden? Hitler didn’t stop with Austria. Let’s pretend Canada invaded the US. You’re telling me you wouldn’t pick up a rifle to defend your home. We have castle laws in the US for a reason. Defending your home doesn’t make you a criminal/combatant.

 

 

 

Actually it does make you a criminal combatant. Thats exactly what the Geneva conventions say about people who are combatants that aren't apart of a belligerent uniformed force. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by FLEA

[goingkinetic]

So what does it say about grandma who won’t leave Kyiv?

Edited March 2, 2022 by goingkinetic
grammar

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

So what is it say about grandma who won’t leave Kyiv?

Again man, war is messy. Tragic, yes. Sad, absolutely. But do I think civilians are being deliberately targeted? I don't think there is a lot of evidence to support that. Seems more likely these people area in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

This may come as a surprise to you, but you can legally kill civilians in war and the US has done it extensively in the last 20 years. So long as there is a target of military value and that value is proportional to the civilian casualties inflicted, you can lawfully pursue a strike against that target knowing it will kill civilians as well. 

[goingkinetic]

Last I checked Pearl Harbor was considered a war crime. Explain to me how dropping a cluster munition in a city is legitimate. DWE will not be achieved against “combtants” in defended positions. 

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Last I checked Pearl Harbor was considered a war crime. Explain to me how dropping a cluster munition in a city is legitimate. DWE will not be achieved against “combtants” in defended positions. 

Peal Harbor is often considered a war crime because Japan had not gone through a 5 point declaration of war before initiating hostilities. 

Putin very clearly announced prior to his invasion his intention to intervene militarily in the Ukraine. You area comparing apples and oranges. 

[BashiChuni]

the united states has zero national security interests in Ukraine. This conflict has seeds going back decades. it's a fight between ukraine and russia.

conflicts are tragic. civilians are dying. that does not change the geopolitical calculus for the US.

we have zero responsibility to get involved. let europe fight that war if they want.

you are speaking as someone who has no background on how we got here and your type of grandiose chest thumping hubris is how America has gotten ourselves into horrible messes.

[goingkinetic]

You’re unwilling to admit there are war crimes because it might make it harder to throw the Ukraine under the bus.

[brickhistory]

6 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

Last I checked Pearl Harbor was considered a war crime. Explain to me how dropping a cluster munition in a city is legitimate. DWE will not be achieved against “combtants” in defended positions. 

Vindman, is that you?

[goingkinetic]

2 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Vindman, is that you?

Just an American willing to do the JOB to stop war crimes and protect innocents.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, goingkinetic said:

Just an American willing to do the JOB to stop war crimes and protect innocents.

And did you calculate for how many innocents would be killed if the war massively scales to a global level? 

[goingkinetic]

What’s the line flea? If your an isolationist just say so. That is an ok answer.

[pawnman]

19 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

the united states has zero national security interests in Ukraine. This conflict has seeds going back decades. it's a fight between ukraine and russia.

conflicts are tragic. civilians are dying. that does not change the geopolitical calculus for the US.

we have zero responsibility to get involved. let europe fight that war if they want.

you are speaking as someone who has no background on how we got here and your type of grandiose chest thumping hubris is how America has gotten ourselves into horrible messes.

All the world is seeing is that US security assurances aren't worth the paper they are written on.

If I'm Iran, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan...I'm clutching my nukes with both hands. Because they provide more security than a US assurance of sovereignty. 

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, pawnman said:

All the world is seeing is that US security assurances aren't worth the paper they are written on.

If I'm Iran, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan...I'm clutching my nukes with both hands. Because they provide more security than a US assurance of sovereignty. 

Was one of the things being talked about behind closed doors in the North Korea talks in 2019. We as a country need to recognize and adapt that the strategy of nuclear counter-proliferations was never meant to be permanent. Its an 80 year old technology and the vast majority of the research needed to construct a nuclear arm is now open source and taught in college physics. 

[FLEA]

14 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

What’s the line flea? If your an isolationist just say so. That is an ok answer.

Not an isolationist. But to be clear, presuming you're an officer, you were taught the DIME Instruments of Power model somewhere in your commissioning or PME courses. You are openly rejecting the viability of three of pillars within that model and broadcasting support for solely military options to solve world problems. In essence, you are basically saying the US should use only force to enforce its moral/ideals/culture onto other nation states. Who sounds like the bully now? 

[goingkinetic]

Copy, you believe nuclear weapons are evil and we as mankind should eliminate them. Sorry flea, thats  a utopian wish.

[brickhistory]

[goingkinetic]

Flea, did the DIME model work for Georgia or Crimea? Discuss.

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

Copy, you believe nuclear weapons are evil and we as mankind should eliminate them. Sorry flea, thats  a utopian wish.

Bro maybe go back and check your reading comprehension. Literally said exactly the opposite.