Trump: Just Mark U.S. Planes With Chinese Flag and Bomb Russia

OK I really can't believe those are the examples that you want to bring to the table. If your position is, "be patient. After a 100 year occupation of Ukraine, eventually the Russians will get tired and go home," then I would say your the impatient one. You probably shouldn't have even bothered to notice it until the first decade of Russian occupation.

 

I'm guessing...neither of you have children?

 

Why does that matter? If it happens, it happens.

 

Russians have quite a painful experience from the 90s. I think the lack of jobs and poverty will cause some serious discontent. The goal is to make the country not governable.
Current sanctions, amplified by companies leaving voluntarily, will have a massive impact on all Russians.

 

I think you are overestimating the risk. As long as we are not fighting Russia on our territory, or theirs, chances of nukes flying off are very slim.

 

The fact that you don't think it matters answers the question.

 

If we are actually directly fighting Russians than yes, the chances of nukes flying are considerable.

 

Nah. The Russians don't want to be vaporized any more than you do.

 

So I take it you are not one of those who thinks that Putin is crazy? That he's a rational actor? And that he knows what he's doing?

I hope you're right.

 

I doubt Americans will confront any Russian fighter jets. What I see happening as a response to closed sky (if it happens) is Russians switching to guided missiles.
In Syria, just a few years ago, Americans butchered 200 Russian mercenaries in one batch and we are still here. The U.S. confronted USSR more in the past than Russia today.

Anyway, it looks like we are escalating by providing Ukraine with fighter jets. We will see what Pootin does next.

 

Desperate and deluded to a certain degree, but otherwise quite rational. Also surrounded by rational people.

 

Launching a nuclear attack is more than just pushing a button. I remember reading about some military guy who saw an american ICBM flying towards the USSR on his screen. As far as I remember, it was a computer error. He resisted some orders for which he was fired, but is credited for saving the world from the nuclear war. As far as I know, there were several instances of similar situations in the past where people in the middle of the chain of command took the matter into their own hands and prevented responses to such errors.

 

Not really though. If putler wants to launch, having children or not doesn't factor in the equation. He's the one responsible not me.

 

No, I am giving you extreme examples of time ranges to show you things do not necessary operate on simple time scales. There is no magical number. It is like telling impatient children we are not there yet. On what are you basing that the 7-8 years of sanctions should be an indicator that sanctions do not work. What is the magic number for you? How long did we impose sanctions on Iran? On Cuba? On North Korean?

Also remember the first thing I said were these sanctions are magnitudes more punishing than the sanctions that have been in place before. That alone should make timelines from the previous sanctions less relevant. We are not continuing the last sanctions but we are stepping it up. Maybe the reason why the previous sanctions were not effective was the scale of them. That has changed.

Look, lets keep this simple.
1. Do you think the Ukraine arming civilians with weapons to fight Russia is a good idea? (This is how you where you injected yourself into the discussion because you seemed to think it was too late).
2. Do you think it is a good strategy for nations to impose sanctions on Russia in response to their invasion. (You seem to be arguing against this because in your opinion the sanctions of the past we not effective)

Those are really the only two topics on the table. I get the impression you are arguing against both of them because you question there effectiveness. I simply tried to make the point that both have merits and I support both. If you do not accept them as being options what do you propose as being better and maybe we can discuss that.

 

I wouldn't count on it. Start stockpiling iodine tablets.

“Why Do We Need a World if Russia Is Not In It?”: State TV Presenter Opens Show With Ominous Address

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022...senter-opens-show-with-ominous-address-a76653

 

Funny you mention that but I've thought about those Russian mercenaries a bit for the past few days. It was so under the radar that there was very little press coverage (or interest) and was seldom mentioned, even by the Russians. Of course, the fact that they were mercenaries totally alters the calculus on the politics. They weren't employed by Russia, they were working for the Syrian military. They weren't Russian military so the Kremlin never had to even acknowledge them.

Your dream scenario in which we establish a no fly zone, and we either shoot down Russian aircraft or they shoot ours down, doesn't sound anything like the mercenary scenario.

 

So they must think the invasion and their goals are rational.

Hmm

 

Prove it.

 

1. Arming civilians at this late date, after the invasion and with no real time to train, is going to be mostly useless, and will just get civilians killed. Some of them may take to it but and eventually, say in a couple of years, you might develop some sort of core guerilla force that could irritate the Russians.

2. Imposing sanctions on authoritarian regimes in and of themselves has never worked to my recollection. They don't like them, but they generally regard their national goals as more important than the minor inconveniences of Western sanctions. But by all means, let's do them. They will make us feel good about ourselves.

 

I don’t think the world is ready for the no-fly zone in Ukraine.
Russian army is stalled. Additional fighter jets will eliminate the need for the no-fly zone. Once they start flying, the ball will be in Putins hands.

 

So what is your solution?

 

I already offered a way out of war before the invasion started, and it wasn't very popular. I vastly underestimated the actual popularity of a war with Russia. I thought only a crazy person would flirt with it, but it turns out it's pretty popular on this forum at least.

Now of course we're knee deep in the invasion. So all of the good options are gone. We only have degrees of less bad options.

1 Do nothing. Russia will eventually overthrow the government, install a puppet regime, and get what they want anyway.

2 Surreptitiously provide support to any insurgency that may develop. This won't stop Putin's plans but it will just make them more costly.

3 Offer to host a summit between Russia and Ukraine in exchange for a cease fire. The attractiveness of this is different for each party though. If Russia's army is stalled and not making progress, it's more attractive to them to talk, but less attractive to Ukraine, which would want to push the military advantage. And visa versa.

But we're more likely to get a forum favorite, which seems to be to let slip the dogs of war, because Ukraine is the issue we've decided is worth burning human civilization to the ground in nuclear fire.

 

I think Russia would be very happy with your choices. Worst case is they send some diplomats for a meeting.

I don't agree with your assessment that the idea of a war with Russia is popular particularly on this forum. I do not want war with Russia. That is why I do not support suggestions like no fly zones or sending in US or NATO troops. I think many people here support the Ukraine's efforts through supplies, equipment and donations. I think many people support sanctions against Russia for their actions BUT that does not equate to supporting war with Russia. I don't think we will be the first to attack Russia so it will be on Russia to make that move. Russia needs to understand that if they want to be part of the world community there are consequences for their actions. We are in no way obligated to be their friend and do business with them. If they want to threaten to start a war because no one likes them then it is a Russia issue not an issue for how the rest of the world chooses to pick their friends. If we just rollover and give them whatever they want every time they threatens war, what is their motivation to stop.

Just a final question for you. Is it your worry that we will go to war with Russia because we (NATO) will send in troops or fire on the Russian military (ie we start the war) or is it because you think that Russia will retaliate to the economic sanctions and current type of support for Ukraine with a military strike against a NATO county (ie they start the war)?

 

Did, at least. Like Crimea on a larger scale, it would seem.

 

Nobody is saying that (aside from Trump’s joke). If the west want to preserve current world order then the west cannot allow Russia to do what its doing. Arming or helping a country that is fighting a nuclear state is nothing new - Chinese sent like 300,000 troops against a nuclear state (the U.S.) in Vietnam and got away with it (and I do not advocate for NATO troops on the ground!). Arming a non-nuclear state that is at war with a nuclear state does not automatically lead to a nuclear war!