It could escalate but it also may not. The participants are both incentivized to not allow it to for fear of triggering article 5, which is why it could well work.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
It could escalate but it also may not. The participants are both incentivized to not allow it to for fear of triggering article 5, which is why it could well work.
You're taking something impersonal personally. The topic is a proposed NFZ. I think it would be disastrous and would lead to nuclear escalation. You don't. That's fine.
We're still lacking that feature to put staff members on the ignore list it seems.
What a cnut…
Retired Generals are a terrible source of information. If you quote Michael Flynn next you'll probably learn that Q predicted that the Deep State would try to overthrow Putin the Saviour.
The only scenario I see where it doesn't lead to nuclear escalation is a limited NFZ confined entirely to the (far) East and excluding Kiev. But it's all very risky especially if you take the view that Putin is basically deranged.
It wasn't Michael Flynn, it was someone rational.
If they reach a deal with Russia forcing them to write "Neutrality" into their constitution then they'll have to opt-out of the defence pact when joining the EU. For Ukraine, the main goal of joining the EU is to gain access to the funds, the investments and the common market.
Opting out will not prevent the EU (or even NATO, via UN's article 51) from defending them if necessary. The EU will have a stronger motive to defend them. And in itself will be a deterrent. While at the same time giving Russia some assurances that Ukraine territory won't be used against Russia's interests (in Belarus or Crimea).
This whole is just hypothetical, taking into account the perspective of Russia's regime (assuming Putin and his gang stay in power). As it seems they are really convinced that Ukraine was being prepared to play a big role in some plots against Russia's interests.
Again assuming what I think and don't think. Your level of disingenuousness and condescension in this short exchange is something to behold.
Flynn is a terrible example. The Generals on CNN have provided more insight and fidelity of Russian and Ukrainian military actions than most journos on the ground
You're basically just going ad hominem and accusing me of being disingenuous at the same time. I'm staying on topic, which is the point.
I think this is what most are discussing. Something in the west to create some degree of a humanitarian corridor for safe passage. Not to chase Russian jets around the rest of the country.
That could work but obviously there would have to be back-channel discussions with the Russians beforehand expressing the range of the operation. I still don't think the WH goes for it.
He did that in 2014 though, and the failure to react strongly enough back then is one of the main reasons we are witnessing this tragedy now. And the regrets from that "timid" reaction are also at play in the unprecedented sanctions (economical war) that have been implemented this time.
The theory that Putin wants to prevent democracy from reaching Russia makes sense. Democracy aspirations in a certain cultural sphere are very contagious. But is it worth waging another war after the price his regime is being made to pay for this war? That's very doubtful.
Its an option. I don't think Biden has the courage to do it at this time because the Russians are generally bogged down and unable to make progress. He is probably banking on the infusion of US and EU weapons getting into the hands of Ukrainians, in the hope that it will gradually turn the tide. That would of course need to happen before the Russians carpet bomb Kyiv into submission and take other cities like Mariupol.
He's not behaving like the rational actor we thought he was is he ? If he was, he would've sought a path of self-preservation by not invading and building more soft power along the way. The fact that he has freaked out and invaded Ukraine suggests an act of desperation driven by fear and paranoia.
It's fine you think that. I also think that, but don't go claiming paraphrases are quotes or that paraphrases heavily imbued with your own inferences are "highly accurate". Just state your opinion and stop with the sophistry.
This is what he said:
This is what you claimed he said and then claimed was a "highly accurate" paraphrase:
Just stop, or even better, be honest.
I don't think that the weapons given to the Ukrainians will turn the tide in any conventional sense (at least in the short-term). They're digging in for a long-term insurgency which seems to me to take the shelling and carpet bombing of Kiev into account. The assumption being that Russia may commit warcrimes but cannot possibly hold Ukraine and so will have to retreat at some stage while casualties stack up.
I paraphrased the first and derived the second with the added input of various generals and commentators on mainstream American news networks (that input being that a NFZ equals a declaration of war which equals nuclear escalation).
Zelenskyy: I have a dream... [for a NFZ].
Generals: A NFZ is a declaration of war by the US on Russia and will lead to nuclear escalation.
That's the context of my comment, there's nothing dishonest or disingenuous about it. Using MLK (a pacifist) in the context above is far more disingenuous than anything I've ever said.
Its not just the weapons themselves, its the fact that it would bog down and frustrate the Russians into not making much progress. Putin doesn't have endless resources to continue fighting in Ukraine and there will be a tipping point where he either deescalates into negotiation or escalates by using WMDs. At that point, all of this trivial NATO tap dancing about no fly zones will fly out the window.
Yeah I agree with that (if chemical weapons or other "conventional" WMD are used, the game changes).
This will not happen. No matter how crazy Putin is, the generals around him would rather nuke Paris or London than carpet bomb Kyiv. It is like the "orthodox Jerusalem" for the religious Russians. And the regime while losing many of its supporters seems to have most of the religious fanatics still on the loyal side. Destroying Kyiv is probably the quickest way to incentivize another sort of uprising in Moscow, and lose power in Russia.
Don't presume Putin is above anything in this war, especially given his track record in Chechnya, Syria, the bombing of apartment buildings in his own country, and what he has already done in Mariupol and Kharkiv in the preceding three weeks.
She is. It takes a whole different level of despicable for a woman to be called as such, but she's among the few deserving it.
Check out my "highly accurate" paraphrase of your opposition to a no fly zone.
What you are doing, and you know you are doing this, is inverting Zelensky's "need" in order to cast him as the belligerent antagonist. He requests a no fly zone or the means by which Ukraine can itself defend. Why? Not to escalate things into a nuclear war, but to stop people being blown up by bombs. Similarly you (and I) don't want a no fly zone because you think it may escalate to a nuclear exchange, not because you have a fetish for innocent death.
So again, stop with the sophistry.
I think the Feds need to take a fresh look at where Marge is getting her funding.
They're quite good, right? Great news if true
The risk that it might escalate is not a sensible risk to take given the potential nuclear consequences if it does escalate.
Moreover, it's highly likely that would escalate, given that establishing a no-fly-zone means it'd first be necessary to destroy all Russian anti-aircraft missile systems that have a capability to bring down NATO planes in Ukrainian airspace. Some of those systems are sited in western Russia. Do you think Putin would just sit back and watch?
What I was doing was pointing out the logical outcome of a NFZ in the context of Zelenskyy's invocation of MLK. The original invocation is itself inverted, as MLK was a pacifist. Zelenskyy's demand for a NFZ is belligerent and is framed as non-belligerent by distorting the original value of MLK's speech. But it was one comment that wasn't intended to provoke, but was intended to summarize the corruption of MLK when tied to a demand that could, very easily, lead to nuclear escalation. That being said, I'm happy to let anyone read it how they want as a two-page exchange on the topic serves only to derail.
I don't think the NFZ will happen due to a lack of political appetite. but it could work imo. Putin would be incentivized to not shoot down any NATO planes for fear of what would happen next, especially if he's already running out of military and economic resources. So a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west could work.
That is certainly one of the key points. Because the NATO commanders would likely say that they can't risk their aircraft and crews if those sites can't be targeted, and the decision to target those sites is a political one. That makes it a bit of a non-starter.
You just know she will fundraise on it.
I'm not putting anything beyond him. But I genuinely believe it is very different for the Russian public. The regime could sell the atrocities of Grozny and Aleppo as necessary "collateral damage" when fighting for their allies against "terrorists". In both cases, there was a "legitimate" ally being protected from the "radical rebels". And the victims weren't Christian orthodox civilians. It was Muslims fighting each other, and the regime could sell the idea that it had every right to support its allies regardless of the "collateral damage". This narrative can't possibly apply to Kyiv, no matter what propaganda they have. I can't see it. The day Putin gives the unequivocal order to carpet bomb Kyiv is the day he gets overthrown by his own.
The Russian apartment bombings happened across multiple cities in Russia to primarily white, slavic Russians. Do you think a guy who is willing to murder his own citizens to create a fake provocation so he can seize greater control of the nation's security apparatus has any problem with bombing cities in foreign countries ?
If there was an EU defence opt-out, since the EU is not now directly defending Ukraine from the current invasion, and since NATO via the UN's article 5 is also not now directly defending Ukraine, why would this suddenly change in the event of a 2nd Russian invasion ?
I think Ukraine's main priority, ahead of access to EU funds (etc), would be obtaining a sure deterrence against a 2nd invasion. That can only come if there are EU troops and bases in Ukraine, with no Ukrainian opt-out from the EU defence pact. Otherwise, Ukraine will be left merely hoping that Russia doesn't do it all again, and merely hoping that EU military forces would come directly to help them.
Putin and his cronies are not worried about some EU or NATO invasion of a nuclear-armed Russia. They know that is never going to happen. Instead they are worried about the example of Ukrainian freedom, independence and democracy being spread to the Russian people. This is what it's all about.
Had not heard of her before so did a quick google. The first result was "Calls Daylight-Saving Time a Conspiracy to Control Clocks". Yeah I see she is a nutter then.
Flynn is a terrible example just because he's Michael Flynn, and because you think these guys are right instead of wrong? Michael Flynn was a highly decorated general who gave apparent high level talks and analysis after playing a major role in Afghanistan. It's not like we're talking 30 years ago either, this was within the last decade. He turned out to be batshit insane.
I'm being a bit flippant here, but my point is that I don't really trust someone just because they're a retired general.