That's why I posted it. If you read my links, all of them are criticizing Zelensky's choice of replacing Zalushny with the Butcher. — neomac
↪boethius I trust the posts from twitter even more than the article, for reasons. — neomac
To defend against a Russian first strike?
And where do you even get what the "Russians really think" from?
You just makeup total bullshit, whatever is required to simply directly contradict obvious common sense.
Nuclear threats, first strike threats, are far greater than an ABM threat to your own first strike.
This whole areas is far from US shores ... this ABM base does not protect Washington (or any part of the US counter-strike arsenal), from a first strike.
Totally moronic point. — boethius
Please explain how these missiles are simply "not capable" of having their ABM warhead swapped out for a nuclear warhead. We can literally put nuclear warheads in artillery shells but this feet is just not possible. — boethius
Therefore, if the same tensions emerged as in the sixties we could expect the US to deploy nuclear weapons to new countries.
Your imagination levels are literally zero. You can't even imagine something that has already happened, and a key point of yours, simply happening again. — boethius
Again, a ship you can get your own submarines, planes, other ships closer to than an inland base. — boethius
The land bases are also simply in different positions so expand the radar coverage and missile coverage. — boethius
It's also easier to sink a ship than a land-base. — boethius
This is really the most basic common sense possible that a single ship is less capable than a ship + land base. — boethius
If it was so insignificant why would such a base be built? Answer: because it's not insignificant but increases capabilities in the theatre. — boethius
"DRAMATICALLY" does not equal "dramatically".
"DRAMATICALLY" is significantly more dramatic than merely "dramatically".
A citation should be exact, I do not all-caps words because I can rely on "arguing a point". — boethius
Ah yes, They can't! ... but if they could (because they obviously can) here's another goalpost move.
We've literally but nuclear warheads in artillery shells, so what's your argument that swapping out the warhead in these ABM missiles is beyond what US engineers are "capable" of? — boethius
You're really saying that the missiles couldn't be modified (such as the ABM missiles or otherwise) to more easily fire from these tubes, and if went beyond what was "easy" in preparing your first strike, you couldn't do the difficult task of converting the tubes in some covert way, part of regular maintenance etc. on your own base? — boethius
Why would Russia be nuked by North Korea???? Would the US be nuked by the UK or France? I don't think so.Russia doesn't want to be nuked by North Korea or some other rogue nation or terrorist cell either. — boethius
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday that his country offers its “full and unconditional support” for Russia’s “sacred fight” to defend its security interests, in an apparent reference to the war in Ukraine, and said Pyongyang will always stand with Moscow on the “anti-imperialist” front.
Donbas secedes. It's messy, like most secessions are, but they manage to maintain their independence. They need Russian support, but so too did the US need French support; once you're a new political entity it is incumbent on you to seek out support where you can find it.
The US guards jealously its right to secede from the British; the war of independence was costly and bloody but they won (with the help of foreign powers hostile to Britain).
I don's see why I would reduce in meaning the Donbas Declaration of Independence.
Ukraine tries to reconquer the Donbas, fails, creates the inevitable intervention of Russia to resolve the situation. — boethius
Also, if Syrskyi isn't popular, it's definitely setting the stage for a coup. — boethius
Had the Minsk agreements been implemented, Nebenzia said, “the tragedy that has taken place in Ukraine today would not have happened, a tragedy in which the U.S. and the collective West are complicit as they try to achieve their geopolitical aims at the cost of Ukraine and the lives of its citizens.” — Vasily Nebenzya
It is Russia that is the aggressor and Ukraine which is simply defending its people, its territorial integrity and its freedom. — Robert A Wood
There was and is no such independence, remember? :D Rather, regions were grabbed by the (regressing) Kremlin empire after their campaigns. (odd how these ↑ comments keep skirting other stuff, oh well) — jorndoe
Covertly, no protests or the like? After all, Zelenskyy was democratically elected. Protests seem unlikely in the current (wartime) situation. But, hey, who knows. — jorndoe
Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.(29)(30) Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.(29) — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)
"DRAMATICALLY" does not equal "dramatically".
"DRAMATICALLY" is significantly more dramatic than merely "dramatically".
A citation should be exact, I do not all-caps words because I can rely on "arguing a point". — boethius
Of all the hilarious of your backtracks this is the best one... You claim that you did not use 'the word'... When I have pointed out that yes, actually you did use the exact same word, you claim that the same word in all caps is not the same word? Seriously, can you get more absurd? Oh, yes, you can: you then argue that your use of the word 'dramatically' was less dramatic. — Jabberwock
↪boethius, yes yes, I know, everyone should hate the US...and blame...at least suspect...always. Well, I've been asking "To what end" in contexts like this, and here's what they wanted (again): — jorndoe
Of all the hilarious of your backtracks this is the best one... You claim that you did not use 'the word'... When I have pointed out that yes, actually you did use the exact same word, you claim that the same word in all caps is not the same word? Seriously, can you get more absurd? Oh, yes, you can: you then argue that your use of the word 'dramatically' was less dramatic — Jabberwock
Or then add the caveat of "of course not all caps because you're not a moron and need to resort to all capitalization". — boethius
For example, feel free to try to explain how if the Cuban missile crisis was about Soviets moving ABM into Cuba, the US would be like "insignificant, we cool with it, soviets already have ships". — boethius
For example, feel free to try to explain how if the Cuban missile crisis was about Soviets moving ABM into Cuba, the US would be like "insignificant, we cool with it, soviets already have ships".
It's honestly incredible how deeply people believe the double standard delusions of American foreign policy analysis. — boethius
Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.(29)(30) Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.(29) — Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)
No, you need to resort to use words like 'dramatically' (and half a page pseudo-philosophical ramblings), because you do not know the basic facts of the things you discuss and when faced with that you have to resort to inane rhetorics. When asked about specifics, you flatly refuse to engage with facts, because you abhor the facts, you do not even look at the map. — Jabberwock
Lol, you do it again... The Cuban missile crisis was about land-launched ballistic missilies which had SIX TIMES (some argue more) the range of any ship-borne missiles that Russians could realistically deploy in 1962. For those map-averse: a regular-service Russian submarine anchored right at the Statue of Liberty equipped with R-13 could penetrate the American continent to about Pennsylvania. R-14s launched from Cuba could reach California. Admittedly, Russians had one submarine, K-19, which in 1961 was equipped with three R-13s (with the range doubled, but still three times shorter than land-based missiles), but it was only one unit and prone to failures (or, rather disasters: in 1961 and later twenty sailors died of radation, the boat was nicknamed 'Hiroshima').
So yes, at that time the land-based launchers did provide an enormous advantage over the ship-borne ones, which you would be aware of, if you had the slighest idea of the things you insist on talking about. — Jabberwock
For example, feel free to try to explain how if the Cuban missile crisis was about Soviets moving ABM into Cuba, the US would be like "insignificant, we cool with it, soviets already have ships". — boethius
First, as already argued elsewhere, I don't find the double standard accusation particularly compelling in geopolitics because indeed double standard reasoning can very much be part of the game: namely, depending on the circumstances, one may STILL feel rationally compelled to support an ally who is wrong, precisely because he is an ally, than an enemy who is right, precisely because he is an enemy. — neomac
Second, as far as I'm concerned, the Cuban Missile crisis serves better pro-US propaganda then pro-Russian propaganda: indeed, in the Cuban Missile crisis we are talking about an ACTUAL case of medium-range and intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles on site [1] — neomac
↪boethius, you missed the point (again), or skirted or whatever. Regardless of Kremlin CIA Mossad Sri Lanka whatever, this is what the Ukrainians wanted (again):
Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.(29)(30) Repressive anti-protest laws fuelled further anger.(29)
— Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)
(you're free to work backward from the facts, but no matter)
And there still was/is no independence in the grabbed regions.
So, to what end? — jorndoe
The person resorting the drama is the person screaming "DRAMATICALLY"! — boethius
What facts are you even talking about? That the US doesn't have a weapon right this moment with publicly available specifications that literally says "for nuclear deployment in ABM tubes"?
I literally posted a video showing how to take a warhead out of a nuclear bomb. — boethius
1. Obviously you can load a nuclear warhead into an ABM missile tube or then just an ABM missile itself. (After denying this was possible, you finally accepted it was possible but not "easy" and could not be done covertly. When I ask you why it being easy or hard matters to someone setting up a first strike, and also why it couldn't be done covertly ... nada, no specifics, just random denials based on nothing.) — boethius
2. The ABM treaty (which the US withdrew from) was negotiated because ABM is first strike capability, arguably anywhere but for sure in forward deployed missile bases. — boethius
3. The bases we're talking thus represent an increasing nuclear first strike capability and the Russians would make the same analysis and same conclusion and take mitigatory measures. Perhaps they view the risk as low and the only mitigatory measure they saw reasonable to take was simply diplomatically complain about it (to for example setup taking stronger measures if more bases are forward deployed) or then maybe it was one factor in the decision to invade Ukraine. — boethius
I asked if the US would not have reacted if the Russians deployed ABM. — boethius
My question is, make the Cuban missile crisis of similar nature to the US bases in East-Europe. So whatever analogue of ABM missiles you want to imagine being deployed to Cuba. — boethius
Russian activist and Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in prison
— Andrew Roth, Helen Sullivan · The Guardian · Feb 16, 2024 — Feb 16, 2024
would super very likely trigger a Russian invasion (plenty experts predicted this) — boethius
First, I have not forgotten your long post explaining this pick-a-hegemon position, which at least strives to resolve surface level contradictions. I will get to it when I have time.
But, in short, you are describing realpolitik and the justification for supporting the ally in the wrong is going to be ultimately a consequentialist argument that not-doing-so would lead to some worse outcome (losing a war to some fascist state, for example).
I do not mind this realpolitik approach, it is essentially my basic argument in this debate just I have different realpolitik conclusions:
1. That Ukraine very likely cannot win militarily.
2. That the war very likely strengthens, rather than weakens, Russia.
3. That most of the rest of the world is sympathetic to Russia and don't give much of a crap what we Westerners think (most of the rest of the world is authoritarian, anti-gay, anti-trans, and have a long memory vis-a-vis Western colonialism and CIA interference); Russia is "standing up to the West" in this alternative view point.
4. That the war greatly harms the European economy and makes it structurally less competitive over the long term significantly decreasing Western leverage in general (and most ceding it to China).
5. That creating a global economic schism in which Russia is pioneering a totally different economic framework structurally decreases Western leverage over the long term.
So the war isn't good neither for Ukraine nor the West, and the idea that Ukraine is harming Russia is a dangerous myth.
Of the objectives the US achieves:
1. Destroying the EU as a competition to the Dollar.
2. Selling LNG to Europe.
3. Fully subordinating the (current) European political class.
4. Making mad bank in arms exports.
Are terrible for Europe (and I'm European) and I would also caution that they are in the "careful what you wish for" category even for the United States. — boethius
So, if Ukraine could win and Russia was actually an enemy (which I don't buy that it was) then there would be at least the realpolitik case for supporting Ukraine, even if it would be a double standard vis-a-vis plenty other causes as or more just. — boethius
As the RAND documents makes clear, escalating military conflict between Russia and Ukraine would likely result in Russia winning any such escalation and would significantly harm US prestige and strategic position if Russia were to win. — boethius
It's a simple question: had the Soviets some analogous ABM system to Cuba, the US would not (or at least should not have) reacted in anyway because such ABM bases are insignificant? — boethius
For them (the West - TASS) this is about improving their tactical position, but for us this is about our destiny, a matter of life and death. I wanted people that will listen to this [interview with Carlson] to realize that. It’s not up to me to judge whether it hit the mark or not. — Putin · TASS · Feb 18, 2024
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.