That is simply false. China has greater leverage right now. — Olivier5
Looks like Russia is taking a breather. Simply to stack on supplies and some brigades that have endured losses have been withdrawn. — ssu
Because Nuland is not a CBRN expert either. — Count Timothy von Icarus
NATO has far more nuclear weapons than China — boethius
You don't really pay attention, do you? — Olivier5
The evaluation metric the Western media is using of how much land Russia "occupies", makes zero sense. If you want to trap the enemy forces and encircle them (common sense strategy), then the goal is not to just take and occupy a lot of land, but to take the land required for encircling. — boethius
This strategy is discussed on Fox news, just saying the public is aware (or some of the public). — FreeEmotion
NATO and EU represent more nukes, more conventional military power (both direct and indirect by supplying Ukraine), and more economic power than China. Therefore, they have more leverage than China in the situation. — boethius
That's actually incorrect.Russia has only committed 10% of it's standing army to Ukraine, and so can also rotate units in and out of the war as well as reinforce if it needs. — boethius
"You have made me the subject of insulting, defamatory remarks," Zolotov said. "You know, it is not customary among officers simply to forgive. From time immemorial, scoundrels have had their faces smashed and been called to duels." Addressing the activist as "Mr. Navalny," Zolotov continued: "No one is stopping us from reviving at least some of these traditions, by which I mean seeking satisfaction. I challenge you to single combat — in the ring, on the judo mat, wherever, and I promise to make juicy, tenderized meat out of you."
Are you advocating that NATO nukes Moscow to save Mariupol? Because that would be a bit odd, ligically speaking, to kill millions of civilians here in order to save thousands of civilians there. — Olivier5
Hence NATO has this leverage vis-a-vis Ukrainian neutrality because it has nuclear weapons. — boethius
Russian Ground Forces consist of only 280 000 troops. If you have 190 000 in Ukraine, that's basically it. Putin is not sending the personnel of the Air Force or the Navy or the Strategic Rocket forces to fight it out in urban combat in the streets of Kyiv. — ssu
What has to be understood that Putin truly is a dictator, and just like Saddam or Ghaddafi, he is scared about the Armed Forces being a monolithical power in Russia. — ssu
I'm not accusing you of that! I'm only making the point that it's wrong to say only 1/10 of Russian forces are deployed to Russia. There isn't the 9/10 to be deployed there.Neither me nor Isaac or @Benkei (to the extent he's criticizing NATO / EU as well) have defended Putin's decisions morally. — boethius
Just add up the figures and you do get the nearly one million. 280 000 + 340 000 + 200 000 +.... — ssu
I'm not accusing you of that! I'm only making the point that it's wrong to say only 1/10 of Russian forces are deployed to Russia. There isn't the 9/10 to be deployed there. — ssu
Well, 90% of 280 000 is 252 000, hence even if you take into account the National Guard units fighting in Ukraine, not so much is committed to Ukraine. But it's logical that they cannot withdraw troops for example from Kaliningrad and leave other places totally void of troops.I agree maybe 10% is too low ... but nearly 90% committed to Ukraine seems too high. — boethius
Or then start calling in the reserves.For example, let's say 35% of troops of some base have been requisitioned for the war in Ukraine, as things go on, they will start to be rotated out with the fresh troops still on base; still 35% from that base committed to the war, but different people. — boethius
Ok. Actually it wasn't meant as a moral condemnation (even if Putin deserves all the moral condemnation there is).I was just responding to your mention Putin as a dictator, which I initially interpreted as just moral condemnation, so wanted to make that part clear. — boethius
I just explained it pretty clearly. The whole basis of Russia wanting Ukraine not to join NATO and commit to neutrality, is because NATO has nukes.
Hence NATO has this leverage vis-a-vis Ukrainian neutrality because it has nuclear weapons. — boethius
The basic thing you want to accomplish in conventional warfare is surround your enemy cutting them off from reinforcements and supplies — boethius
Well, 90% of 280 000 is 252 000, hence even if you take into account the National Guard units fighting in Ukraine, not so much is committed to Ukraine. But it's logical that they cannot withdraw troops for example from Kaliningrad and leave other places totally void of troops. — ssu
Or then start calling in the reserves. — ssu
No, the fact is that dictators and authoritarian regimes are basically scared of their own security apparatus and hence they divide the apparatus to various competing organizations. — ssu
How does the civilian population figure in all this? Surrounding a city and asking the civilians to leave seems like a good strategy but the combatants are unlikely to let civilians leave, when they make avoiding civilian deaths more difficult, and also, combatants become civilians when they drop their weapons. Isn't it reasonable to expect civilians to be prevented from leaving a battle zone? — FreeEmotion
To put it bluntly, joining NATO gives a nation absolute impunity, because any military action, whether sanctioned by the UN Security council or not, with our without just cause, cannot be responded to by Russia in kind because that would mean attacking a NATO member, which is tantamount to attacking them all, including the United States.
This was Putin's point when he suggested that if Ukraine joined NATO, they could attempt to take back Crimea and he would not be able to do anything about it. — FreeEmotion
Come to think of it, a good strategy would be for everyone to join NATO and paralyze Russia's ability to use their military ever again. Whom is Russia going to have left to attack? China? — FreeEmotion
Neither me nor Isaac or @Benkei (to the extent he's criticizing NATO / EU as well) have defended Putin's decisions morally.
We are simply being realistic that we cannot convince Putin to just give up on the war and turn Russia into an participatory devolved direct democracy somewhat loose confederation of cantons as a resolution to the problem of Ukrainians dying and children dying and being traumatized for life. — boethius
NATO, plenty of nations will abuse the position, NATO won't do anything as otherwise it will just encourage more abuse, and so the Article 5 will be undermined and the alliance start to fall apart in a practical sense. — boethius
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.