Ukraine War Watch Thread

[Yuli Ban]

[ibm9000]

Can I ask what conclusion you are referring to?

You

(Caltrek)

are right.
I find a bit simplistic that the end of capitalism -if ever- equates mankind happiness and 5.000 years of civilization tends to prove it.


"I think that initially Pentagon planners"
No, we have the Pentagon Papers. "Initially" is the Atlantic Charter in the 40's.

"lost"
We were talking about the war, political/economic consequences 20 years later...

"No, there may still be a war."
We are talking about WW3 or shelling along a 1.000 km front, guerrillas in occupied territories is nothing to worry about (here, for us, not that much to worry about).

"...and of course the U.S. must never be allowed to use that excuse."
You are missing the irony... both walk like a duck.
Also, in "fighting" Wahhabism.

"Self-censored as in being"
Submissive to the power without the need for coercion.

Again, the A.I.M. may disagree about "extrajudicial killings" and I wouldn't be surprise to find more examples. In NI yes, but in US never?, in Spain, France, Germany... If I consider the history of honesty of the FBI, I am more than skeptic about it.

"What about at the middle-class"
I think you are missing something about "peasants", maybe your lack of vision? My point: are you a member of any Board of Directors? The day-to-day life of the people I met was not different to mine.

"Rumsfeld is a retired"
That doesn't mean a new policy, I haven't been able to read any announcement on that; an important one, I would say.
Governments, I am talking about westerns democracies, tend to keep what they fought from the opposition because it favours its interests.

"the situation may go nuclear, but still be contained"
I'm afraid not, we start wars... the containment -Vietnam- doesn't happen, it's always escalation, "winning".

"My point was in response to a person who focused of the theme of "two imperialist"
Yes, I know, but you cannot obviate the implications of your own words. The wishes of the catholics in NI are legitimate according to the British
Government?, the UN is going to decide on that?, the Atlantic Charter and a French colonial war... I am afraid I have to go back to hypocrisy about who is going to legitimize what according to its own interests.

[ibm9000]

"Russia has reached legal definition of ‘terrorist state’ under US law" The Guardian. UK.

Under the law of a state that was providing Osama Bin Laden with weapons and money.

[funkervogt]

I wonder if a certain russian user is getting his mobilization papers at this moment?

Maybe he did. He's probably in the draft-eligible age group.

At least there will be one person in eastern Ukraine spreading the word about the Singularity.

[ibm9000]

Maybe he did. He's probably in the draft-eligible age group.

Unless he is a senator's son...

[wjfox]

[Yuli Ban]

[wjfox]

Hard to believe Russia would do something this reckless.

But then, we've been living in this weird timeline since 2016 or so, and 2022 has itself been crazy... so who knows. If they really do this, it will take the conflict to an entirely new and unpredictable level.

[raklian]

Hard to believe Russia would do something this reckless.

But then, we've been living in this weird timeline since 2016 or so, and 2022 has itself been crazy... so who knows. If they really do this, it will take the conflict to an entirely new and unpredictable level.

I'm actually concerned about what the United States will do in response. The military's spokesperson confirmed they told Moscow privately what will happen should they use a nuke in Ukraine.

Whatever it is they told Moscow is something they will certainly follow through. It WILL have "horrific consequences" for Russia.

Is Russia stupid enough to think the United States is bluffing, like Dmitry Medvedev saying NATO won't get involved regardless of what happens?

[raklian]

[ººº]

As I said previously: What would they gain from this? Apparently they only have to resist until Ukraine is exhausted.

[Outlook]

Hard to believe Russia would do something this reckless.

But then, we've been living in this weird timeline since 2016 or so, and 2022 has itself been crazy... so who knows. If they really do this, it will take the conflict to an entirely new and unpredictable level.

Yea, it could become a scorpion and frog situation.

[raklian]

Is the USA's threat of "horrific consequences" any of these? I wonder...

[Yuli Ban]

[Xyls]

BREAKING: FALL OF LYMAN IMMINENT



The city which has been the main point of resistance against the Ukrainians marching into Luhansk is now encircled. It's fall is imminent and could literally happen tomorrow whilst Putin is trying to have his party...

Russia's situation is rapidly deteriorating, mobilization will not save Russia. Tactical nukes won't save Russia.

[erowind]

.

[ibm9000]

With his officer training, apart from WW3, what does

Pfarrer

think that US would do if:

- Ships start to sink worldwide (all, instantly, like... magic?)
- Its airplanes are attacked
- Its ports are blockaded
...

The risk of any nuclear strike risks escalation: WW3. Horrific consequences... only for Russia?
The risk of a conventional response to a nuclear attack, (lets say against the Pacific Fleet and ports) risks a response: that the defender
will choose, proportionate or not.
Is any US Fleet ready, right now, to launch a heavy attack against any port?, because if it has to prepare, Russia will prepare; escalation, again.
Any Russian submarine on patrol?, any radar active?, Russia is "at war" right now (if not very efficiently).

[ibm9000]

It's rather interesting that I can't find any mentions of the Putin Administration's threats...

You have a point there, we just take it from western media, their version... like that story about WMD. Still, I think it's more about politics,
sending a message, negotiating than about "consent".

"Putin has made veiled references... to nuclear/chemical weapons if threatened."
Wouldn't any other country?

"Amid ominous signals from Moscow about escalating the war, including hinting at the use of nuclear weapons..."
What are we selling here?, a call for help?

"While this uncertainty is destabilizing, it is also a crucial aspect of nuclear deterrence strategies and so is difficult to escape. Putin’s threat was deliberately vague, leaving room for doubt about where the red lines might lie." (Deterrence works for both sides). "It is important to understand Putin’s repeated nuclear threats have always been directed towards NATO, and not against Ukraine itself. Indeed, the emphasis in the media indicates that they would be targeted at the UK."
Now I am living in the UK.

"...and implied Russia was ready to use nuclear weapons."
I cannot speak Russian, how accurate and partial was that translator or the version provided to the press?, does the CIA and The Times read the same "implications"?

"If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will, of course, use all means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people,"
A translation of Putin's words. Any leader of any western democracy would say anything different?

Can anybody provide a direct threat to use nukes against Ukraine from Putin? Who is selling what and what are we swallowing?, WMDs again?

[caltrek]

The U.S. "lost"

What do you mean by those " " ?
That was a war they could have never won and the US Government knew that.

You mean the joke? "You put all the South Vietnamese in boats and you move them to the middle of the China Sea, then you bomb North Vietnam until they are in the Stone Age, and then you sink the boats".

I think that initially Pentagon planners had a different conclusion in mind. One in which a puppet government would have prevailed in both the north and the south. A reason that I to this day regard as coming from a place of moral bankruptcy.

I put "lost" in quotations because Vietnam ultimately morphed into a society willing to carry on trade relations with other countries, including "capitalist" and "democratic" countries, etc.

[wjfox]

Remember folks, NATO are the bad guys.

/s