Hope you've notified the necessary channels in DC and NATO of your assessment.
If nothing else, I've found out HROT is full of future Jack Ryan's with their finger on the pulse of Russian leadership dynamics and wargaming.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
If nothing else, I've found out HROT is full of future Jack Ryan's with their finger on the pulse of Russian leadership dynamics and wargaming.
I want to make it clear I was making a joke and not attacking people on here
Though I don't think Putin would allow Russia to be destroyed, I realize those that do are in the majority on here.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
Yes, I do.
I've felt for a long time that any European country that wants to be part of NATO should be strongly considered, including Ukraine. As I mentioned, I am of Lithuanian ancestry and I am glad the Baltic states were admitted into NATO so they would never again be under the yoke of Russian oppression.
That said, I also was of the belief Putin had more limited aims in Ukraine and would not engage in total war, including attacks on civilians.
That is what has changed in my calculus.
Strategically I think a better strategy is to not say what you're planning on doing. We have kind of set our own limits. It would be better to say that we fully intend to support Ukraine and we will decide what tools to use based on the evolving situation. All options are and will remain on the table.
This is poker not chess. You aren't obligated to show your hand. Our allies can have some idea of what our limits are but Russia should be left guessing. Maybe that makes Russia more aggressive but I think declaring we won't put boots on the ground or drawing these lines gives Russia an opportunity to push right up to those limits.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
I find it interesting you keep resorting to this debate tactic as though you, yourself, are somehow more enlightened and smarter than the average HROTer.
What, pray tell, are your bonafides in this arena?
No worries and agreed. Putin may be a megalomaniac, but I would imagine he would ultimately be happy being resigned to, say, a cozy retirement in exile a la Napoleon, if push came to shove. Though, personally, I wouldn't mind if his retirement were interrupted a la Trotsky.I want to make it clear I was making a joke and not attacking people on here
Though I don't think Putin would allow Russia to be destroyed, I realize those that do are in the majority on here.
Many of you are jumping to the conclusion that the US is being completely transparent. That's very naive.
The only way for us to scare Putin is for Biden to go full Mel Gibson.
True but still a far cry from using nukes which would keep Russia (and much of the rest of the world) uninhabitable for a very long time.
Reeeeaaaaally trying to not let that image pop into my mind.The only way for us to scare Putin is for Biden to go full Mel Gibson.
Hey, I'm the one saying listen to the experts because I, or more importantly, we, don't know. Not to the cumulative wisdom of HROT that nukes are out of the question.
Apparently the Biden Administration, under the guidance of his top advisors, have leaned to one side. I'll let you decide which they have went with so far.
We (NATO/US) made our bed in regards to Ukraine in the lead up to the invasion. The time to show backbone was THEN.
Now if we intervene militarily we get into a shooting war with a country that has over 6,000 nukes. If you think Putin just takes an ass whoopin and goes quietly I think that's wishful thinking.
What if the Russians decide to deploy a small tactical nuke to hit an Air Base involved in enforcing the no fly zone? What's the US/NATO response to something like that?
Maybe Putin thinks we won't respond in kind because we don't want to risk Nuclear armegeddon...he might be right.
I'd rather not contemplate such a scenario....
The time for backbone was BEFORE the invasion. Clearly defined lines...essential in deterrence.
We (NATO/US) basically said we'd impose some sanctions if Russia invaded...Putin said IDGAF and invaded.
Russia's actions in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria pointed to indiscriminate attacks on civilians being pretty damned likely.
Epic failure by the US and NATO in the lead up to the invasion....
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
The same administration that said the Russians wouldn't be kicked out of Swift. Or allowed to sell oil.
Things change as events on the ground unfold.
None of us are experts, and considering much the world intelligentsia INSISTED that Putin would never fully invade Ukraine up until about Feb. 23, pardon my skepticism that even professional diplomats and politicians are all-knowing.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
Not just the US “and NATO” although your view is not wrong.
It’s PAST time to name individual countries, not just lump them under NATO. The Germans have hidden behind our skirt for almost 80 years and they are wimpy shadows of their former selves. And mustn’t disturb their natural gas!
Our newest partners in Eastern Europe -who have sharp memories of the Russian boot on their throats - have stepped up the most.
I think sometime last week I posted that I decided to pick up a copy of Moscow 2042, a satirical novel from the 1980s by Russian dissident author Vladimir Voinovich, who I played beer pong with in college. Well, it would appear that I am something of what the kids call an "influencer" if today's WaPo has anything to say in that regard:
BTW, if you have a sense of Soviet history, this book is actually laugh out loud funny.
BTW, if you have a sense of Soviet history, this book is actually laugh out loud funny.
There were clear lines established. The notion that daring Putin to invade by saying we would unleash our military might is what he was looking for to justify it.
Of course they change. And we'll know when they go with the HROT nuclear assessment route when we turn this into a hot war because nukes are off the table. So far, we haven't see it.
Your last paragraph shows me you're not following along here at all. My entire point is that we don't know what escalation might potentially happen and are playing it cautious.
JFC, are you having a stroke or something?
Sociologists have been saying for a while that we're long past due for a World War. The fears that one would ramp up have only increased over the last ten years as the last people involved with them either died out or got too old for political office/military place. Essentially everyone who remembers just how terrible a world war were have all died off and now we have a bunch of younger hot heads who want to have a dick measuring contest without realizing just how damaging it really can be.
We simply have to just read the boards here to see how little people give to just what a real major conflict would look like, and the absolute devastation that even a handful of Russia's nukes being used would look like. I guess growing up in the coldwar still has me remembering all the dangers of a nuclear war. The fact that so many are certain that no one uses one and that no one escalates are just silly.
Again, there are red lines that may require we move in regardless of that threat; but you decide to play the big dog and guess wrong and you wind up radiating the entire planet. That's not a risk any sensible leader should take, and it doesn't make them weak to recognize how many people's lives they're putting at risk world wide. If we're going to amp up this escalation, that needs sign off of all of our major allies, not just the US deciding enough is enough.
We simply have to just read the boards here to see how little people give to just what a real major conflict would look like, and the absolute devastation that even a handful of Russia's nukes being used would look like. I guess growing up in the coldwar still has me remembering all the dangers of a nuclear war. The fact that so many are certain that no one uses one and that no one escalates are just silly.
Again, there are red lines that may require we move in regardless of that threat; but you decide to play the big dog and guess wrong and you wind up radiating the entire planet. That's not a risk any sensible leader should take, and it doesn't make them weak to recognize how many people's lives they're putting at risk world wide. If we're going to amp up this escalation, that needs sign off of all of our major allies, not just the US deciding enough is enough.
Just got back from Germany.
They've responded a lot stronger than I would have thought...increased defense spending and have sent anti-tank weapons to Ukraine...Panzerfaust 3's I believe which are pretty damned good.
Anyway, if you don't produce natural gas you have to get it from somewhere...Russia's a major producer.
Gas is going for 2.14 euro per liter in Germany.....over $9.00 a gallon FWIW.
So...385 pages in, I would just like to again express my appreciation for this thread, the information shared, the viewpoints expressed and an admiration for the ability of almost every single person on here to hold an important discussion.
This is really, really good stuff.
Thanks, everyone.
👍🇺🇸
This is really, really good stuff.
Thanks, everyone.
👍🇺🇸
Word. NATO is not one size fits all. The more prosperous members, who have benefited the most from the American taxpayer and troops over the years seem to be doing the least. We get ass raped by the various healthcare industries while shouldering the financial burden of being the world's policeman Meanwhile they live comfortably with a strong social safety net subsidized by our generosity. I am still of the belief that some of them would keep their heads under their pillows and continue to wish all of this away if Poland, or one of the other post 1997 NATO countries, was attacked.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,026
- 207,570
- 113
Interesting story on how younger Russians are trying to get accurate news about the war:
www.poynter.org
Finding truth, avoiding jail: The news Russians can see in wartime - Poynter
A conversation with a Russian millennial about how, in Russia, much can be learned, but little can be shared.
www.poynter.org
The line that was established was sanctions....not the same as threatening a military response. Putin hasn't F'd with a NATO member for a reason....because he knows it'd get a military response and he doesn't want to tangle with NATO. If the Ukrainian's with no air force to speak of are doing this to his military...what do you think NATO could do?
We made it clear we wouldn't respond militarily.....clear line but a very weak and unintimidating one. At least for Putin....he's finding out now that the sanctions aren't a joke.
Holy ****. For context, at this rate Russia is on pace to have more dead soldiers than we have suffered 1946-2022. For context most we lost in Vietnam in a single year was 16k. We lost 58 k in Vietnam and 36k in Korea. They admit they lost 10k in three weeks in Ukraine. This is going to cause major problems for Putler when the parents find out.
I don't think Putin would use nukes unless the Kremlin was in danger of being overthrown.
Even then, he would have to get other people to agree.
I don't see that happening.
(I'm not saying we should try to find out the hard way, though.)
I'm counting on Putin not actually holding control over the military guys who would be tasked with launching nukes.
Akin to the cluster**** you're currently witnessing on the Russian military hierarchy.
Putin cannot rush into a single room to push "the button". And if he doesn't have the support of his military commanders (which it clearly appears he does not), then he's got no nukes.
What makes you think he does not have support of the military commanders required to initiate a nuclear launch?
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-