What are you talking about? Demented related to the absence of fear, you can do frightening things in spite of fear.
Anyone who isn't afraid of nuclear weapons is a damn fool.Do you think that Russians are afraid of the Western nuclear arsenal? If not, why not?
If Putin is desperate he will kill himself, for example like Hitler did.
He has to be demented to start a nuclear war, that's what you said above, and I agreed. And not only Putin, multiple Russians in the chain of command have to be demented to start a nuclear war with NATO. Do you think there are multiple Russians that are demented? I don't think so.
Or he will cause the death of millions knowing that he is done.
It's a fair worry to have.So you think he will be demented!. And you also think that other Russians around him in the chain of command will also be demented and they will start a nuclear war.
I disagree. I don't think the Russians will be demented no matter how desperate they are.
One example. In December 2021 Biden said Russia will pay a heavy price if it invades Ukraine. This is weak. He did not specify anything, this sounds like an empty threat.
If Biden said "USAF will obliterate any Russian forces that enter Ukraine", and he meant it, and F-16s started flying inside Ukraine near the Russian border, with F-22s and F-35s and B-52s nearby... do you really think that Putin would ever invade Ukraine? I don't think so. Putin had his forces on the border for 2 months and was waiting to see what the NATO response is. NATO did nothing: that was the green light for Putin.
Of course, I understand that if Biden did that, the whole world would blame him as warmonger. We'd see the global anti-american squad in full force. Well yes, but how many lives would have been saved by this "USAF air show"? Sometimes leaders do not have any good options, they have to choose the least worst option from an array of bad options.
And if Russia still invaded?
If the Russians knew that USAF is serious about it they wouldn't dare invade. Why would they? It would be a certain defeat for them.
But even if they did invade, USAF would destroy the first few tanks in their columns and the whole thing would probably end there.
Do you think that Putin would go full nuclear holocaust in this case? Just because he lost a few tanks? Then, if he loses the war a few months from now, why wouldn't he do the same? After all, the Russians are certain that without American help, Ukraine would not be able to fight for long (and they are not wrong).
I think it's funny that you think that.
Probably more like "... and the world would begin to end there".
I didn't say anything about an invasion?
You've lost me.
So you think he will be demented!. And you also think that other Russians around him in the chain of command will also be demented and they will start a nuclear war.
I disagree. I don't think the Russians will be demented no matter how desperate they are.
I believe he was speaking of Russia invading Ukraine and then also responding to part of your post that reads as if you’re talking about Russia being invaded.So that's how you were commenting on an invasion without saying anything about an invasion.
Yes. That's all about invading Ukraine. Not Russia. Read back through it again.This is the conversation you commented on, you were saying, as I said, that if Russia invaded and the US defended Ukraine, it would be the end of the world.
So that's how you were commenting on an invasion without saying anything about an invasion.
Wow, sucks to be a Kurd.
So you think he will be demented!. And you also think that other Russians around him in the chain of command will also be demented and they will start a nuclear war.
I disagree. I don't think the Russians will be demented no matter how desperate they are.
But do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.
Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
Maybe. Maybe not. But there’s absolutely no reason to try and push him to do soBut do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.
Malaysia surprises me, but Singapore really does:
Authoritarian states recognize game, I suppose.
The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.
Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
Yes, i talking about Russia invading Ukraine, which is what they were talking about, though I did say as an aside that Russia didn’t have to worry about being invaded themselves thanks to their nukes.Yes. That's all about invading Ukraine. Not Russia. Read back through it again.
One US military figure commented that the US would respond in equal measure if Russia used tactical nukes, but probably not with tactical nuclear weapons, because they’re not limited to that option, and it’s bad PR. Though he didn’t give any detail beyond that.The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.
Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
Ha, deal!Yes, i talking about Russia invading Ukraine, which is what they were talking about, though I did say as an aside that Russia didn’t have to worry about being invaded themselves thanks to their nukes.
Anyway it seems we’re on the same page now. Don’t make me read it all back again!!
I don't have a good answer to that. I think it's possible he might do something destructive to escalate in the scenario you describe, but if we get get directly involved I think it goes from possible to very likely.But do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.
One US military figure commented that the US would respond in equal measure if Russia used tactical nukes, but probably not with tactical nuclear weapons, because they’re not limited to that option, and it’s bad PR. Though he didn’t give any detail beyond that.
Due to a threat of being surrounded by orcs the Ukrainian armed forces are retreating from Lysychansk completely.
Well, I'd say a mixture of shock, seeing a giant fireball, and a lake being water.Is there any good reason that guy jumped into the lake? Just panic or is there any advantage to it in case of an explosion?
Well, I'd say a mixture of shock, seeing a giant fireball, and a lake being water.
Unfortunately, the best way to get that outcome, is to ensure Putin believes we would indeed be prepared to risk that. We have to look, act and be prepared to do the things we don't want to, in order to make them less likely. I do think Putin would have to pay a very very high price for using nukes.I understand why the US says this, but I really hope it's strategic rhethoric under the hopeful presumption that they'll never have to actually follow through. As much as I appreciate the US as our security guarantor, I really would rather not have the warfare spread out of Ukraine, which I think would be a given if the US gets involved in a tit for tat game with Russia. I realize it sounds very cynical saying it, but I don't think most European voters (except Poland and Lithuania maybe) are willing to risk this kind of escalation on the European continent, even with the kind of support we see for Ukraine now.
