Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

shamans said:
Im backed in a supposed corner yet you're running away from every question of mine as "you don't mean it!"

My money is where my mouth is. I want this war to end and I've proposed obvious unpopular opinions on here. You on the other hand want the war to continue but at someone else's expense.

You're western privilege in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

No, I definitely don't want the war to continue. I just happen to think it is wrong to ask a country to spend defending itself because it affects your wealth.
 
Part 2 of the conversation between Fareed Zakaria, Adm. James Stavridis and Gen. David Petraeus.



It goes straight back to what we discussed a while ago about doing something to get the grain out. Hundred of millions depend on this grain to find a way home, and only military naval escorting of convoys can do the trick. It's risky, but we have to come to terms with what is right in the current reality now.
 
Last edited:
Map of force deployment along frontline, also youtube video gives quick 5 min summary of last 24hrs.

 
shamans said:
How dare I point out hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Yeah, these double standards really needed pointing out. How can anyone dare supporting Ukraine when he also enjoys Messi playing football. Those two things are obviously morally incompatible. Luckily you are here to call people out for such hypocrisy. Not all heroes wear capes, I know that now.
 
Zehner said:
Yeah, these double standards really needed pointing out. How can anyone dare supporting Ukraine when he also enjoys Messi playing football. Those two things are obviously morally incompatible. Luckily you are here to call people out for such hypocrisy. Not all heroes wear capes, I know that now.
Click to expand...

Give it a break. You went on some privileged rant all because I dared to bring into light the cost of war and how it can end.

Now I point out exact same atrocities by exactly the same guy, Putin, and youve been deflecting, running away or calling me names.
 
Brwned said:
I don’t think it’s betrayal, I just think it’s painting a very one sided view as seeing the bigger picture. You’re still doing it now. You’re framing the position as: stop putin and do the right thing, or stop a food crisis and save potentially tens of millions. But the people who think stopping Putin is the right choice, morally, also think it’s the right choice in all sorts of other ways. They worry he might invade other countries. They worry he might manipulate the food supply that he’s taken control over from that Ukrainian territory. They worry he might lead us into a nuclear war. They worry, just like you, that tens of millions might die. They’re valid concerns too. They aren’t just ignorant moral positions.

The dichotomy you’re presenting simply isn’t real. Continuing a war with Russia could cause millions to die. Conceding a war with Russia could cause millions to die. The reason these kinds of scenarios exist is because none of those outcomes are certain, all people are making imperfect judgments with imperfect facts, and there’s a lot of guesswork involved. You’re describing the guesswork from one position (millions could die from a food shortage) as a legitimate concern we don’t talk about, while ignoring the guesswork from the other position (millions could die from the geopolitical implications of Russia stealing Ukraine). And then you’re using that to frame the argument as moral vs practical. But there are moral and practical arguments for both. It’s just a question of how much weight you apply to him. And in every case you’re guessing.

From that perspective, it’s a bit distasteful to suggest the people who are advocating for Ukraine to fight to the end are not considering all of the potential lives that decision could impact. They are. They just don’t really know what the impact will be, and they’re making judgments from the best position they can.
Click to expand...

As you said, there's a lot of uncertainty here and of course we're all giving opinions based on what we know and and based on how we value certain things. So yeah, maybe I made it sound like those who want ukraine to fight no matter what somehow don't care about other potential impacts and I'm sorry about that.

That being said, in my view the two things aren't as dangerous, that's why I'm more concerned about one of them. If we somehow negotiate with putin something that emboldens him, I trust the west will step up and deal with it. Let's say if putin decides to go for kiyv or moldova, I trust the west to respond in a strong fashion to deal with the problem.

On the other hand, if the food situation gets worse, I don't trust the west or the world community to act in a strong way. That's generally what history tells us.

So while the potential downsides of each decision may be equally terrible, the way I believe the world will deal with them is not equal, that's why I'm more concerned about one of them.
 
Simbo said:
If you (and others talking similarly) are going to suggest 47 million people are going to die and their is no other possible way to prevent this than to force Ukraine to give in to the demands of a fascist warmonger (this is what you are alluding to in the context of this conversation) then please provide some sort of citation/reasoning.
Click to expand...

Since I have suggested none of those things I really don't know what you want me to say.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

A civil war between Russians and anti-Russians means he's actually acknowledging it's a war and, as censored/propaganda fed the public are, they know Ukraine isn't part of Russia. Long way to go but pressure is ramping up on him.
 
Finland doubling russian border with NATO, Kazakhstan pissing off putin by saying they won't acknowledge DNR and LNR, now Lithuania with this, how does one choose what special military operation to do next?
I suspect he might involve his mutt Lukashenko to somehow deal with this, though.
 
ShoePolish said:
Finland doubling russian border with NATO, Kazakhstan pissing off putin by saying they won't acknowledge DNR and LNR, now Lithuania with this, how does one choose what special military operation to do next?
I suspect he might involve his mutt Lukashenko to somehow deal with this, though.
Click to expand...
That would be a very dark day for the Belarusian Army.
 
ShoePolish said:
Finland doubling russian border with NATO, Kazakhstan pissing off putin by saying they won't acknowledge DNR and LNR, now Lithuania with this, how does one choose what special military operation to do next?
I suspect he might involve his mutt Lukashenko to somehow deal with this, though.
Click to expand...
Not even Lukashenko is crazy enough to attack Nato. Belarus vs Nato might be the most one sided war ever waged.
 
ShoePolish said:
Finland doubling russian border with NATO, Kazakhstan pissing off putin by saying they won't acknowledge DNR and LNR, now Lithuania with this, how does one choose what special military operation to do next?
I suspect he might involve his mutt Lukashenko to somehow deal with this, though.
Click to expand...
With around half of the country visibly opposed to Lukashenko after last year's protests, any involvement would sign his own death warrant.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Not even Lukashenko is crazy enough to attack Nato. Belarus vs Nato might be the most one sided war ever waged.
Click to expand...

I’m suspecting that Lukashenka, while a very provincial fella, is more acting the idiot than is an idiot. I believe he knows Russia/Putin have messed up by starting this war and he is doing everything he can to stay out of it, while also paying lip service to Russia who helped him stay in power.

He also knows there’s huge public discontent against him and his position is only retained through brute force. If he puts his pampered and corrupt military in harms way they could turn on him. And then he’s toast.

So I expect he’ll continue to use all his tricks to try and keep Belarus out of it. There’s no way he’s attacking anyone.
 
MadMike said:
I’m suspecting that Lukashenka, while a very provincial fella, is more acting the idiot than is an idiot. I believe he knows Russia/Putin have messed up by starting this war and he is doing everything he can to stay out of it, while also paying lip service to Russia who helped him stay in power.

He also knows there’s huge public discontent against him and his position is only retained through brute force. If he puts his pampered and corrupt military in harms way they could turn on him. And then he’s toast.

So I expect he’ll continue to use all his tricks to try and keep Belarus out of it. There’s no way he’s attacking anyone.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it was you but I remember early in this thread there was a piece on Lukashenko and how he acts the clown to appease Putin but is actually very calculated - zero idea of there's a shred of truth to it but was interesting to read!
 
So how this war ends? Russia retreats and says - oops, or Ukraine gives up eastern territories?
Simbo said:
Interesting...

Click to expand...



I thought Russians are out of supplies? They have been running out of supplies since 3rd week of the war.
 
ExoduS said:
So how this war ends? Russia retreats and says - oops, or Ukraine gives up eastern territories?



I thought Russians are out of supplies? They have been running out of supplies since 3rd week of the war.
Click to expand...

Russia is not out of supplies... Although clearly struggling in some areas. They have seemingly unlimited amounts of artillery ammo.

They may be about to unleash their remaining stock of Kalibr missiles on Odessa though, there are question marks around if they can replace those.
 
ExoduS said:
So how this war ends? Russia retreats and says - oops, or Ukraine gives up eastern territories?



I thought Russians are out of supplies? They have been running out of supplies since 3rd week of the war.
Click to expand...

Probably Putin will end up like Milosevic. It may take a few years, even Milosevic survived for a while.
 
frostbite said:
Probably Putin will end up like Milosevic. It may take a few years, even Milosevic survived for a while.
Click to expand...

For Milosevic to completely go down it took NATO to bomb Serbia for 78 days where innocent children died as a collateral. Easy to bomb a country that can't fight back. There is a bit of hesitancy bombing Russia.
 
ExoduS said:
For Milosevic to completely go down it took NATO to bomb Serbia for 78 days where innocent children died as a collateral. Easy to bomb a country that can't fight back. There is a bit of hesitancy bombing Russia.
Click to expand...

NATO did not capture Milosevic. The Serbs arrested him for his crimes. The Russians will do the same for the dictator Putin, give them a couple of years.
 
frostbite said:
NATO did not capture Milosevic. The Serbs arrested him for crimes.
Click to expand...

True. He lost elections. However his demise came after those powerful around him turned the other way. Same can happen in Russia, but Putin can't be too cozy. We shall see what happens. Situation is complex and simple all at the same time. It really is terrible for all the innocent people that have to suffer or die. Life is hard enough without war.
 
ExoduS said:
True. He lost elections. However his demise came after those powerful around him turned the other way. Same can happen in Russia, but Putin can't be too cozy. We shall see what happens. Situation is complex and simple all at the same time. It really is terrible for all the innocent people that have to suffer or die. Life is hard enough without war.
Click to expand...

Yes it is terrible that Putin caused so much suffering. And it s terrible that Milosevic caused so much suffering. Dreams of a Great Russia (or a Great Serbia) were catastrophic.
 
I love how Kremlin works, let us have our special military operation in peace, dont put sanctions on us, be friends with us cause if you get involved you're the cause of all the troubles. Not us who made a brutal attack on independent state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.