@Olivier5 @Isaac christ. Do you two ever take a day off?

For one, Putin can find in him the strength to make peace, irrespective of the US. — Olivier5

True. And Trump can find the strength to admit he lost the election fairly.

For two, so can Zelensky. If he wants to go for peace, the US can't stop him. — Olivier5

He’s already made proposals.

For three, I don't know where you've seen that the war is good for business. Inflation is already here. Global recession awaits us after the Russian debt default. — Olivier5

It’s extremely good for business. Take a look at Lockheed stock since the beginning of the war — to name one arms manufacturer. So that’s one giant sector — defense contractors.

Another is the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been very happy indeed, now that they can present themselves as heroes.

“Inflation is already here” — and? That’s not bad for business, and in fact is largely created by business.

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it. — Olivier5

There’s no way Ukraine lasts this long without military support, as you know. So yes, the US is also fighting this war.

The US or the UK cannot stop this war because they did not start it and do not fight in it. — Olivier5

Uh huh... made the mistake of thinking we were having a grown up conversation. We'll leave it there.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/russias-war-for-the-donbas-begins-what-happens-if-putin-cant-win/

From learning, reading, researching, philosophizing? Never.

We'll leave it there. — Isaac

You're welcome to surrender at any time.

It’s extremely good for business. Take a look at Lockheed stock since the beginning of the war — Xtrix

There are many factors at play here, including I would think the recent contracts for the f-35 in Finland and Switzerland. And that's just one company among zillions.

Another is the fossil fuel industry. They’ve been very happy indeed, now that they can present themselves as heroes. — Xtrix

And everybody else -- all the consumers and companies not selling fossil fuels but buying it -- have to pay them through the nose. How is that good for their business?

There’s no way Ukraine lasts this long without military support, as you know. So yes, the US is also fighting this war. — Xtrix

A little conceptual clarity, please? The US is helping Ukraine fight this war via weapons donations, but the US is not fighting itself directly. It's an important distinction if one wants to avoid WW3.

How long Ukraine could continue fighting without such support is an open question.

The guys in Mariupol are still fighting to this day, after several weeks during which all Western war monitoring sites have reported "Mariupol should fall in the next few days", thus beating all expectations, and they received none of these fancy US javelins, to my knowledge.

I don’t know exactly what you were arguing as I haven’t followed that line of reasoning. My comment was about the use of imperfections in western countries as a point of argument in the morality or justification of their support for Ukraine, or criticism of Putin.

Every country is deeply flawed and imperfect in many ways. Geopolitics is about these imperfect regimes rubbing along together without trying to destroy each other.

The US is helping Ukraine fight this war via weapons donations, but the US is not fighting itself directly. It's an important distinction if one wants to avoid WW3. — Olivier5

If you want to be clear, then specify what you mean. You didn’t saying “directly fighting the war.” Yes, we’re all aware that the US does not have boots on the ground. They’re still fighting this war by contributing support. They’re as involved as one can be.

And everybody else -- all the consumers and companies not selling fossil fuels but buying it -- have to pay them through the nose. How is that good for their business? — Olivier5

I assume by “their” you’re referring to consumers and other companies. True, it’s not good for many consumers, small businesses, etc. But “they” don’t have the pull that Big Oil does.

They’re still fighting this war by contributing support. They’re as involved as one can be. — Xtrix

No they are not. The ones that are as involved as one can be are the actual belligerants: Ukraine and Russia.

But “they” don’t have the pull that Big Oil does. — Xtrix

So you agree it's bad for most businesses under the sun. Thank you.

@Baden
What are the odds of nuclear war and would you bet on it?

Obviously not Baden, but, I think chances could be better. It could be worse, but, not by much.

This is going on way too long. And these sanctions could destroy Russia and the government, in a way that, though may be "satisfactory" for people who dislike Putin, is not wise. They'll go down in flames before giving up power.

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? The former is a significant possibility (though still very unlikely) at the moment imo, the latter not. The most likely outcome is still Russia forcing Ukraine to capitulate through conventional warfare. That might take a month or a year depending on how much support Ukraine gets, but they're losing the war simply because they're facing a much more powerful opponent and there's no external political will to overturn that dynamic.

Obviously not Baden — Manuel

I'm just another internet rando anyhow. :grin:

Well, yeah, that may be true.

But you're a rando w/power. :smirk:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/19/ukrainian-workers-flee-modern-slavery-conditions-on-uk-farms — Isaac

:o Seems the commenters agree — bad conditions and something ought be done. Those farmers doing unchecked capitalism (or being assholes) need slapping.

:chin: Just to add though, for all their ostensibly hostile talk, there seems to be a tacit agreement between NATO and Russia that goes something like this: NATO 'You can destroy Ukraine, but go no further'. Russia: 'You can arm Ukraine, but go no further'. This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine even as the propaganda arms of their respective media were dramatizing it. It's distasteful as the likely result is that Ukraine's destruction just gets drawn out rather than mitigated while NATO and Russia act tough to keep their respective plebs satisfied.

No they are not. — Olivier5

Yes, they are. Your delusions are your own.

"The US is not involved in what is obvious to anyone with half a brain as the clearest-cut proxy war between Russia and the US in modern memory, one that it helped engineer and provoke".

Who are you quoting?

No one. Call it a paraphrase.

Well, yes. Ukraine's destruction is pretty much a given, how destroyed is an open question and depends on the relevant actors, mostly Russia.

It's excellent PR for most Politicians in the "West", but, the fight is broader. Ukraine could not defend itself without Western support, they'd be done by now.

The sanctions are very, very harsh. Some of them make sense, particularly to the oligarchs and Putin. Not to the general population. My fear here, and it is still stuck in my head, that they'll put Russia in a spot in which it will go crazy. And they may.

Russia really messed up going into this one, but, the outcome can be devastating.

It sounds like the Ukrainians and the Russians had nothing to do with it from that paraphrase. Seems unlikely in view of the "civil" war quality of the participants.

The U.S. has fought a lot of proxy wars. One quality that has appeared consistently in those conflicts is how the people actually fighting for themselves came to use foreign powers for their own ends. It turns out that it is not just a game of Risk.

:up:

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? — Baden

I think the first will lead directly to the second based on what Count Timothy von Icarus said. The world would react to Russia's use of tactical nuclear weapons in a way that would lead Putin to use strategic weapons.

But you're still betting on a cease fire and negotiations. Sounds good. :up:

What happened to the bioweapons that were an existential threat justifying the invasion? Surely, the Slav targeting super virus and killer bird flocks remain. But now the entire Kyiv axis was a feint?

Didn't Nuland admit to the bio weapons!?

Your delusions are your own. — Xtrix

Unlike your lies, which someone else put in your mouth.

Nuland admitted to biological research labs with contents such that it would be a concern if Russia obtained them.

Putin invented some fantasy about Slav-killing viruses to help his anti-Western propaganda.

I don't understand why you're having such trouble distinguishing between the two issues. The non-existence of the latter is obvious, but has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of the former.

Or:
C. Able to distinguish nuance. Maybe it isn't about a specific number of Nazis, but what they are doing. Are they massacuring civilians and gearing up to invade their neighbors the way the real Nazis did? Do they actually have the capacity to do these things or is there an immanent risk of them gaining those capabilities? How will said Nazis be eliminated and what collateral damage will occur during these efforts? What tools are available for dispatching the Nazis: a modern, professional military with guided munitions for avoiding collateral damage, or one that is going to begin punitively shelling residential neighborhoods when they meet resistance and which will start gang raping women and children? Are there ways to engage the Nazi threat with more limited means? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or D: Refuse to take the bait. Seriously discussing whether or not there were enough Nazis in Ukraine to justify an invasion, or even considering it a topic worthy of discussion serves to enable Kremlin's fake narrative. For the useful idiots to do their job, they don't even need to buy into the narrative completely - they just need to take it seriously and keep it in the public consciousness. This creates the general impression that there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."

This creates the general impression that there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem." — SophistiCat

No. Reports from international counterterrorism experts like the Soufan Center are what give the impression there is such a thing as "Ukraine's Nazi problem."