Here's an surprisingly good take on the tactical nuclear weapons -question:



Discusses also their potential use in Ukraine war.

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden. — Olivier5

I don't think that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them. I think Al Qaeda wanted for the US to come after them.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan. — Olivier5

And you hit the nail here. 3 000 killed and images of people leaping into their death isn't something that a politician can respond with an police investigation, especially if you have the armed forces of a Superpower. It's a slam dunk response to stay in power in a democracy. Only a Houdini of a politician could have gone this way and be successful.

Yet as we know (from Iraq and the War on Terror), the neocons wanted to use and did use this opportunity in their delirious idea that the US ought to try to gain hold of the Middle East before China grows too much (or something).

And then there is the question just how this war was managed and fought.

Again interesting topic, but for a different thread... like the late War on Terror thread.

How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home? — frank

The question is, do you use the DOJ/FBI/CIA or do you invade and occupy a country? In fact, even the Reagan/Clinton answer of punitive strikes into the country...and then leave the country alone seemed to have out of the question.

@frank, the truth is that the Domino Theory, the reason for the US to fight in Vietnam, was far more logical and clear headed (and in the end wrong) than the scaremongering reasons we got for the War on Terror. Which goes on even this day.

You think it's a great idea to invade a large country because of the actions of few individuals that weren't from that country, had no links to the officials of that country and that the majority (if anyone) hadn't even visited, but then had the financier of the attacks living in? Yes, the Afghan government dared to ask proof just why would they give OBL to the US. Such thing was non-negotiable.

The only reason was that the first Twin Towers bombing failed and hence it could be dealt as a police matter (as terrorist attacks usually dealt with). But the second one was a great success and hence the US politicians had to bomb somewhere. The American people craved for revenge and a police investigation would have seemed as if the politicians would not care. Hence war was the best solution for politicians.

Think about it for a while.

If you look at both the terrorist attacks that have happened or have been prevented, NO have had a link to Afghanistan. The Islamic State was what Al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into, and Al Qaeda in Iraq was not in control of the tiny cabal that Osama bin Laden had. It was a franchised movement. And the terrorists were usually estranged people likely with mental problems that could pick up from the net all the IS regalia needed to make them part of the IS.

But this is a topic for a different thread...

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak. — frank

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us.

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan. It's been by tightening the laughable pre-9/11 security and basic police & intelligence work. Not fighting an insurgency in one of the poorest countries in the World.

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt.

It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003. — Olivier5

I think it was not. Afghanistan had as much to do with the 9/11 as basically Sudan. Both countries had given refuge for Osama bin Laden. And just where was Osama bin Laden then found?

The perpetrators of the first Twin Tower bombing were found in Pakistan. By the FBI. It was a police matter. And the perpetrators were sentenced to jail. In the US.

As usually terrorists should be confronted by: the police and the legal system.

But of course, when you have something like the US armed forces and a popular need for revenge, those cruise missiles and armed forces feels so good.

So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response.

The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea. — Olivier5

Well, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? Has now Afghanistan turned into a terrorist safe haven? That was the main reason given to have US and Western troops in Afghanistan. I think there's far more than just Iraq to be criticized.

Likely the Kosovo War was real game changer, not Iraq. That really spoiled the relations and created the first confrontation between NATO and Russian. It maybe one reason why Putin's siloviks won over the "Westernizers".



Yet to understand the war in Ukraine, one has to look at other issues than NATO - Russia confontration. The bromance between Putin and Bush during 9/11 was a temporary thing. Yet then Russia did wait and successfully got the US out of Central Asia.

With Putin at the helm, it seems genuinely difficult to build trusting relations with Russia. :meh: Many would otherwise stand in line to do so, is my guess, which also would be beneficial for Russia. — jorndoe

Putin has basically cut the relations. For example, the relations are so bad with Finland that the Finnish President doesn't see any reason to be in contact with the Russia leadership. There is nothing to talk about. Hence the relationship is something like in the 1920's. And this is the same President who hoped that bringing Trump and Putin together would be beneficial.

I think the West has had enough of "resets" and the only reset would happen after a regime change. Even if Putin would die tomorrow (or five years from now), that wouldn't change things. Some diplomatic interactions would be done and some rogue entrepreneurs would seek to improve the relations. But I don't think there's no appetite for example German strategy of Wandel durch Handel. I think that the way how Eastern Europe countries looked at Russia will prevail now for a long time.

A good documentary. Shows just how long it takes for the effects to be noticed.

I think that the malaise Brexit has done to the British economy won't be over in 2024-2025. Sticking along this sad time will have a deep impact on the popularity of Conservative Party. One has to remember that Thatcher (and later John Major) stayed in power because Britons remembered how bad it was in the 1970's with Labour governments. Only in 1997 enough time had passed, and then it was time for a "Third Way".

Winter of Discontent 1979, the waste collectors strike:

Ukraine and Russia could have had a splendid relationship like for example we Finns enjoy with Sweden, a country we belonged to earlier and whose language a minority of Finns speak. Russia and Ukraine could have enjoyed that kind of relationship, but then Russia would have had to be totally different.

But just like a man can have a nice relationship with a woman, violently raping her will ruin that. Yes, you can call it a tragedy, of course.

Putin has been really poison for the universal slavophile movement. Of course, in Russia being a slavophile has meant actually to be a russophile, a disguise for Russian imperialists. Russia sees itself as a Great power, which should subjugate smaller and weaker nations. Hence the relationship between an Imperialist and it's colonies cannot be built on equality as a warm friendly relationship.

So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well:



The error was in thinking that Russia wanted to be a part of Europe when it still craved for the Empire it had lost. Or to be more specific, those that got into power wanted to get back that Empire and those who wanted Russia to be part of the West were either fired or even killed. Hence in the Slavophile way, any integration to the West was seen as this sinister plan to make Russia weak (a conspiracy promoted even on this thread).

I admittedly expanded ssu's comment to a broader cultural thing.

Mariupol elementary schools must reportedly now call their home "Russia", and have introduced books in Russian. In Crimea, someone singing Oi u luzi chervona kalyna at a wedding were targeted.
The machine has been rolled out, apparently part of the agenda. — jorndoe

And the actions on the occupied territories just make it more obvious just how existential this fight is for Ukrainians. And when this isn't only limited to Ukraine, but goes on in Russia (starting with that you cannot call it a war, but a special military operation), the dictatorial rule that promotes Slavophile jingoism will likely be detrimental in the long run for the ideology. Especially if the war goes bad.

Cambridge University is woke by comparison with Oxford.
It’s simply the Chanels established by the political elites. Through which the chosen ones pass on their path to power. — Punshhh

Wokeness is pretty new. But there are similar small paths for example in France also. Yet I think for a democracy to work you do need people with different education and career paths. It's just funny to me, but I notice this education especially in the traditional Oxford education in their speeches and oratory: a British prime minister never speaks like a businessman, an engineer or someone from the military. (As they obviously aren't businessmen, engineers of from the military, but well trained in the art of giving speeches.)

But of course as the negative impact of Brexit will be felt as the global economy goes into recession and one cannot blame it on Covid, it's utterly stupid for the Conservative party to "rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic" and select new prime ministers. The negative effects of Brexit will go for long.

Either Boris should have sat it out and be as popular as Yeltsin was in Russia in the 1990's or then have a new election. Elections have to be had only in 2025, so likely three years feels so long that Conservative party can have a pipe dream that the economy has "a brief rough patch" and walz through it. Otherwise it could be better to be in the opposition and have the Labor now to be in charge when the train wreck happens.

Could Boris be the British Berlusconi? In the country of Britaly. — Punshhh

Second longest Italian leader since Mussolini. And a friend of Putin.

God, imagine the Tories actually replace Truss with Boris, and then he's suspended for lying to Parliament and forced to face a by-election, probably prompting an immediate resignation. What a farce. — Michael

And here's the Boris Johnson thread waiting to be continued... :snicker:

I would assume some resentment on such elitism in the UK for the cradle of prime ministers to be so tiny. Oxford has about 3300 undergraduate places and 5500 graduate places every year (and about 25 000 students in all). And likely the politicians come from even a smaller group of students. That's out of a population of over 68 million.

The argument that Nato is a threat to Russia has no ground whatsoever, for anyone with an insight into Nato and Russian affairs. Nato is a piece on the chessboard, but not a player. Russia uses the Nato chess piece as a way to legitimize their actions, but it has no real foundation as truth.

Post-Soviet nations are all extremely scared to be snuffed out by Russias delusional dreams of being a grand empire again and they seek security against that, which Russia, especially under Putin's rule, views as a ticking clock against realizing that dream. Therefor Russia has built up the narrative that Nato is threatening Russias very existence in order to keep post-Soviet nations from joining and blocking Russias expansion back into its old form. — Christoffer

Very well put. :cheer: :100:

But it's meaningless for some trolls who don't see even a trace of imperialism in Russia's action. But enough of those.

What has Putin done and what are the consequences of his action taken on February 24th?

1) NATO has gone back to it's roots

Likely Trump is the last US President that argued for NATO to "reinvent" itself and face "new threats" and not focus on the defence treaty aspects of the Cold War era. This started to change in 2014, but now the large conventional war in Europe has shown that large armed forces do matter and no amount of "Revolution in Military Affairs" will change this, even if drones and pinpoint accuracy of artillery and missiles do matter. Germany's rearmament is a huge change.

2) Countries that wouldn't have applied for NATO membership have done this

Had not Russia attacked Ukraine the way it did in February, neither Sweden or Finland would be joining NATO. Sweden would be happy with it's centuries old non-alignment and Finland would be just talking domestically about an option to join NATO. And Putin's bluff was shown to be a bluff. That he belittled the fact that these two countries joined NATO just shows how hollow the argument of NATO enlargement is compared to the argument that Russia wanted Ukraine and Ukrainian territory.

3) Ukraine has strengthened it's national identity

An outside aggressor can unify a country. What is interesting is how similar Ukraine has it now as Finland had during the Winter War. Prior to the Soviet attack in 1939, Finland as a new independent country had a huge row about the role of the Swedish and Finnish languages in Finland and there was distrust after the Civil war which just had happened 21 years ago. After the war (or wars) the nation was unified the Swedish speaking Finns were considered Finns and there had been no fifth column from those that previously had fought on the Red side.

Prior to this war the role of the Ukrainian language and Russian were a hot potato in Ukraine, but now that has gone away. Naturally the result of the war is still unknown, but likely this war will be the unifying moment for Ukraine.

4) If Putin loses, Russia's imperial aspirations will be in doubt

There's a time when a failing Great Power notices collectively that it isn't anymore a Great Power. For the UK (and also partly for France) this moment was the Suez crisis. The United States showed to the UK it's place and UK understood it couldn't do anything like this anymore. If Putin loses this war, there will be huge effects not only for Putin, but for Russia and how it sees itself. The classical imperialism and jingoism that Putin has so dearly advocated might likely suffer a huge collapse. The pinnacle of Putin's jingoism was the annexation of Crimea, the bloodless, quick and dashing military operation where the propaganda worked miracles: the sham elections went through and even today some in the West believe Ukraine is ruled by neonazis. Now you have a mobilization which has gotten more men to have fled the country than been taken into service. The first criticisms of how the war is going have already happened and the blame on everybody else than Putin has been made already quite public. Next is to question just why the military performs so poorly because of other reasons. And in the end the whole imperialism and jingoism can be questioned as Russia isn't living in the 19th Century. Something like it is a really tough sell if you don't deliver.

So what's then with your Prime Ministers all coming from Oxford University? Keir Starmer is btw also from there. (And Gordon Brown is the only exception!)

Don't the British have any other universities? What's wrong with Cambridge University?

Liz Truss started with one sovereign ruling and quitted with another sovereign holding the crown.

That usually would mean that Truss would have been a prime minister for a long time. :smirk:

Yet this thread won't be long now. Perhaps we go to the Boris Johnson thread again? :snicker:

Nah.

NATO's a threat to Putin's ambitions, a threat to free Kremlin movements/actions, to Putin's Russia bulging. Should be clear to anyone. NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. Well, except (ironically perhaps) Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. (Nov 6, 2014; May 19, 2021; Feb 14, 2022; Feb 22, 2022.)

Russia's a direct and present, tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors). Including cultural: Jul 12, 2021; Mar 17, 2022; Mar 18, 2022; Mar 22, 2022; Mar 25, 2022; Apr 5, 2022; Apr 12, 2022; May 6, 2022; Sep 6, 2022; Sep 9, 2022; Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022; Oct 17, 2022. No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection.

Keep up. (Long thread.)

But, granted, NATO might a factor somewhere. — jorndoe

I think in this case making the most obvious and clear case doesn't matter to some members here.

None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. — Mikie

This is simply trolling.

Good bye.

So finally Putin declare martial law... to the territories his army has taken over and are now fought over.

As if those territories wouldn't otherwise be treated as in wartime.

What else would it or could it be:

Trump predicted Durham would uncover “the crime of the century” inside the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that investigated his campaign’s links to Russia. But so far, no one charged by the special counsel has gone to prison, and only one government employee has pleaded guilty to a criminal offense. In both trials this year, Durham argued that people deceived FBI agents, not that investigators corruptly targeted Trump.

Yet for the Trumpsters, this doesn't matter.

There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. — Mikie

Oh false narrative? You must be trolling.



What is annexing more territories from Ukraine into Russia other than pure classical imperialism?

What is Novorossiya anything than imperialism? Or in Putin the Great's words (from the last annexation):

As you know, referendums took place in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. Their results have been summed up, the results are known. People made their choice, a clear choice.

And this, of course, is their right, their inalienable right, which is enshrined in the first article of the UN Charter, which directly speaks of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Today we are signing agreements on the admission of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, the Zaporizhia Region and the Kherson Region to Russia. I am sure that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the adoption and formation in Russia of four new regions, four new subjects of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people.

I repeat: this is an inalienable right of people, it is based on historical unity, in the name of which the generations of our ancestors won, those who from the origins of Ancient Russia for centuries created and defended Russia. Here, in Novorossia, Rumyantsev, Suvorov and Ushakov fought, Catherine II and Potemkin founded new cities. Here our grandfathers and great-grandfathers stood to death during the Great Patriotic War.

That above is one big imperialist speaking.

Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. — Mikie

On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. Putin was heard, but as I've said now many times, NATO cannot give a veto to Russia on the matters. But you don't have to go to Russia's friends like Turkey or Hungary, even Germany was saying it won't happen.

You simply cannot deny that. :lol:

Will the war have the effect of cementing Putin's control over Russia? Or loosen it?

The problem with saying Russia was threatened, so we should have seen this coming, is that no one saw it coming. Biden was ridiculed across the globe for warning that Putin was about to invade. Nobody believed it even in Russia and Ukraine. — frank

Or several people here on this forum, who thought it all was American propaganda.

It's hard to know what will happen to Putin and his hold on to power. Dictators can suffer humiliating defeats and then still carry on... just like Saddam Hussein did after Desert Storm. Czar Nicholai the II did face political turmoil after the Russo-Japanese war, but it took World War I to finally sweep him out of power.

And let's face it: if Putin would get an armstice or a frozen conflict on these frontlines at present, he could say the war has had been a great success.

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. — Mikie

NATO pushing? NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something.

No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either. — Mikie

Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it.

It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. It's a threat to Russia's aspirations to regain back it's Empire that it lost when Soviet Union collapsed, that's for sure. And that's why countries are joining or wanting to join NATO: for a reason that we have now seen is real, not only something hypothetical.

NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. That's the true reason for Putin to be against NATO.

Five years later, in 2013, the United States proved its willingness to follow through on its 2008 promises, when it supported regime change in Ukraine during the Maidan protests. — Tzeentch

I would agree the way you describe it: US supporting a regime change. Yet notice that a lot of Ukrainian administrations have gone since then as there have been elections.

Yet NATO membership isn't just what the US wants. (Which can be seen from the situation of Finland and Sweden). Hence NATO membership was off: something NATO or the US wouldn't publicly admit, but just as de facto thing like Turkey is not going to get EU membership.

From that point onward, the threat of US-backed regime change in Ukraine was a fact. That's what Russia reacted to in March of 2014, and the subsequent 2022 invasion of Ukraine was an unavoidable consequence. — Tzeentch

More like unavoidable consequence of the annexation in 2014 going so well and the territorial objectives that Russia has.

I'm guessing they don't have much patience left for those saying that NATO is an existential threat to Russia and calling it a day. — jorndoe

I'm guessing that is not only confined to Ukraine.

Can anyone see parallels between this Ukraine conflict and the Spanish Civil War 1936-9?
Then as now, via proxy, the various world powers probed each others military capabilities, weapons, and tactics in preparation for the main show to follow. — yebiga

Spanish civil war was truly a civil war: no other country had territorial ambitions on Spain. The Syrian civil war would be more similar.

Better example would be the Korean war. There actually China, the Soviet Union and the US and Western allies were engaged in combat and not just sending arms. (Soviet Air Force was fighting with the USAF in "Mig Alley", which both side kept a secret)

It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. — Xtrix

Not only that would have guaranteed that Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member, Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful.

The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward. — Xtrix

If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. It's hostility is the only cause why NATO is enlarging now on it's borders with Finland and Sweden.

Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. NATO has a charter, it cannot go against it's charter and formally give Russia a veto on just how applies for it. But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you.

This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false. — Xtrix

Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine.

You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot?

Finland and Sweden wouldn't have applied for NATO membership if 2/24 hadn't happened. That is just the reality.

Now that NATO membership of Ukraine might really be in the works.

I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes. — Xtrix

How can territorial annexations be less important?

I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live. — Xtrix

You should not be biased. The reasons should be the same where ever you look at it. Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity.

Isaac, I have been pretty consistent about this.

I haven't denied that NATO is one reason. What I have said again and again is that it isn't the most important reason, and it would have been taken care of without attacking Ukraine. Hence the NATO argument simply doesn't cut it as an explanation for Putin's actions. Just like "spreading democracy" was a reason for Bush to invade Iraq. But "spreading democracy" simply isn't the most important reason for the war in Iraq and to emphasize this reason simply makes an inaccurate answer for the reasons for the invasion.

The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed: — Xtrix

Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. Yet no matter how much assurances Putin got about Ukraine not going to join NATO, Putin didn't care a shit about it when he launched the attack. It was never was about NATO membership in the first place. NATO enlargement was a point like for Bush "spreading democracy" when he invaded Iraq. Yeah, it's important for the US. The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it".

Perhaps you believe also that Turkey's on the cusp to become a member of the EU too? EU and Turkey have had discussions about membership for ages. :snicker:

Bravo. :cheer:

Have to put this quote to this thread:

(March 1941) “ … What are we doing supplying all these arms to the British? Don’t misunderstand me, no one is a bigger admirer of the British than I am. So brave, the way they fight on, in spite of everything.

But isn’t this lend-lease deal simply prolonging the inevitable? It’s not the cost to the taxpayer I’m concerned about – although my God it does add up, doesn’t it? No, I’m talking about the cost in British lives.

It’s easy for these armchair generals to talk about the need to stand up to Mr. Hitler but I don’t see any of them enlisting. I have to ask: How long can this war go on? Do we keep sending Britain arms forever? I mean, what’s our exit strategy?...”

Well, you'll see it in 2027-2030 when you buy a BigMac.

If it's still 5 dollars, I was wrong.

Before.

Did you notice me talking about the dam breaking?

Before the dam breaks, everything is just fine and dry. Then when it breaks, things get wet.

This is an example of things being for long one way until they aren't.

That's not even a counterargument. :roll:

If Russia are useless at invading places they cannot at the same time be a serious threat to any great number of such places. One cannot be both a global threat, and impotent. With what power would such a threat be realised? — Isaac

Agreeing with @neomac.() If Ukraine wouldn't get the huge Western assistance, Russia would likely win this war. Ukraine itself simply wouldn't have had the arms to defend against Russia.

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea. — Xtrix

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO.

And several countries said quite openly that Ukraine shouldn't be in NATO. Starting with Germany:

(Feb 15th, 2022) Olaf Scholz has appeared to rule out any prospect of Nato membership for Ukraine after talks with Vladimir Putin.

“The fact is that all involved know that Nato membership for Ukraine is not on the agenda,” the German chancellor said, in the clearest comments yet by a Western leader on the question.

“Everyone must step back a bit here and be clear that we can’t have a military conflict over a question that is not on the agenda."

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine.

Hence the "NATO made Putin do it" is quite a horseload...

If you're talking about the stimulus payments, I don't think that was enough to generate the inflation we're seeing. — frank

The real reason is the fiscal and monetary policy implemented for decades. I think the basically all the Corona policies implemented just broke the dam.

The Fed is going to increase rates again this fall, but that isn't expected to stop inflation. We'll just have a recession with inflation. :grimace: — frank

I agree. It won't increase it to really take inflation down as the effects of positive real interest rates would be too horrible. Hence inflation continues. Not perhaps as high, but it does. And in a few years time, you will notice that prices have increased dramatically.

If Big Mac costs 5 dollars (?) in the US, few years from now it will be 10 dollars. And likely will be a bit smaller.



This is the future. It sucks. :yikes:

I'm interrogating that claim. You were the one who brought it up, that it is ridiculous to think Ukraine could invade Russia and win. — Isaac

In a way it's just like Finland in 1940. It didn't win Russia. It survived and wasn't annexed as the Baltic States. Finns don't refer to winning the war, but sure are proud about it.

Nothing. It's a perfectly understandable position. It's you who keep popping up every time someone presents any alternative to this narrative to claim their view is ridiculous. — Isaac

More historicist crap.

There is a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, there again an example from history how these can end. — Isaac

What is historicist crap?

There isn't a peace deal with North and South Korea. That is a fact. It's one possibility here. If people are so fixated that Putin cannot back down and find an agreement, then this is one possibility.

Peace agreement with Egypt and Israel, as peace agreements in general in the Arab-Israeli conflict, can also happen. (Usually with the peacemakers actually been killed afterwards)

You have given absolutely no reasons why historical examples cannot show us what the possibilities of the future outcome in this war is.

The economic position of the average American has declined. Even as wages increase, they're in worse shape. You see this as attributable to Biden? — frank

I would say that the combination of Trump's and Biden's policies especially with the Corona pandemic did long term damage, because finally it got the inflation running when the pumped up financial markets would be in for deflation, assuming the market mechanism would be let to operate. Handing out cash to people finally could do it, and the two Presidents are guilty of this.

Just like the debacle in Afghanistan: only possible with both Trump and Biden.

But naturally this view is unacceptable for those with partisan views. :roll:

I didn't ask about attacking, I asked about winning - defeating Russia in a land invasion. You seemed to be saying that Ukraine are not a threat to Russia because they could never successfully invade Russia. — Isaac

I don't know what your obsession here is for "winning" the war. And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? I think Ukraine has made a good effort in stopping Russia.

So what is so difficult for you to understand with this scenario:

1) Russia attacks Ukraine
2) Russia fails to reach it's objectives.
3) Either there is a proper armistice or then Russia continues this like a frozen conflict.

There is no peace-agreement between North Korea and the US/South Korea. Just an armistice. So there again an example from history how these can end.

Correct. Nevertheless, Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. Nor was it for the United States.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen. — Manuel

No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period. But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. It's not about regime change when you have already tried to annex one-fifth of the state. Likely the objective was one forth of the territories and a puppet regime in rest of Ukraine, or something like that. NATO expansion is an convenient excuse and a propaganda argument (like Russia isn't fighting Ukraine, but the West).

According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. — Manuel

It's already a full-scale war. Russia has thrown everything in plus the kitchen sink. The mobilization, which Putin promised wouldn't happen, is a clear indicator of this.

The thing is, this argument takes a massive, massive gamble, that Putin will just bow out of Ukraine and just handle getting embarrassed - this is after all these sanctions, poor military results and so on. I don't see Putin as the type of person who would just not react. One must measure how likely that gamble is to succeed and it's extremely risky, in my view. — Manuel

Let's have a thought experiment: Assume that during the Gulf War in 1991 the Iraqi armed forces would have had high fighting moral and similar combat capabilities as Israeli Defence Forces has and the US lead coalition would have suffered similar defeats as Russia has now. What do you think would have happened? Would it have been better then for the US to make the bluff of using nukes? How much weight to you give this embarrasment issue? Didn't the US just have an enormous embarrasment of losing a war in Afghanistan? How much did that shake Biden's administration? Hell, IT'S BEEN FORGOTTEN! Who is whining about it? Nobody. The longest war in US history...and basically nothing said about it.

Fact: if you are defeated on the battlefield, then you are defeated on the battlefield. If you don't call it quits and try to prolong the defeat, good luck with that.

Putin can stop this war and then just face the consequences and continue. It is actually THAT EASY. Saddam Hussein had two disastrous wars and he was not toppled by Iraqis. That took a full invasion from the US army. Hence Putin can a) have this war end (or be stopped) as an embarrasment and b) continue on ruling Russia until he dies. That is totally a possibility, which I wonder is so difficult to understand.

There's a simple answer to this war: as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight, the West should continue to send aid to Ukraine.

So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly successfully invade Russia? — Isaac

When have I said anything like that? Or when has anybody here said that? There is absolutely 0% chance of Ukraine or the West attacking Russia. I think the examples of Napoleon and Hitler tell how that will end.

Do notice that Ukrainian troops have stopped their advance to their borders and are quite limited in their attacks to Russia proper.