Putin at a summit in Astana: "2.5 million people live in Crimea. They [Ukrainians] cut off the water [from the Dnieper to the peninsula] just like that - so the [Russian] troops had to go in and open the water to Crimea. Just as an example of the logic of our actions."
Simple as that :roll: — SophistiCat
I don't think it's hard really. The more humiliation Russia suffers, the more they missiles they will use to flatten Ukraine. It's not the "actual opposite" of what I'm saying, it's what's happening.
If you don't know the difference between defensive and offensive, you can look it up. I've been polite with you till now, but you've been insulting one too many times.
It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have.
So keep on dreaming about Ukraine defeating Russia, "helping" the Ukrainians get slaughtered, which is what you are advocating for. — Manuel
This is simply nonsense.It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have. — Manuel
Things changed after in 2008 NATO stated they wanted to incorporate Ukraine — Tzeentch
The Russians have been saying that the matter of Ukraine is an existential threat to them since at least 2008, and it has been a hot topic way before — Tzeentch
1) Nuclear armed countries have lost many wars. Afghans have now gotten victory over to two nuclear armed Superpowers. Nuclear weapons aren't some miracle weapon system, just like chemical warfare. — ssu
2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu
3) Russia has it's limits. Sending the now mobilized troops immediately to the front tells how bad the situation is for Russia. The idea that "Russia cannot lose" is quite naive. This can very well be one of those wars that end up as a huge embarrassment for Russia. It's totally possible. — ssu
Afghanistan was nowhere near the level of importance to the USSR as Ukraine is now. — Manuel
He doesn't consider its current status as a sovereign nation legitimate, does he? — Srap Tasmaner
If it's not the homeland stuff, then we have clear examples of a small nation fighting for its life overcoming those sorts of reasons. — Srap Tasmaner
+ 143 (78%) ... ? 35 (19%) China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, ... - 5 (3%) Russia, Belarus, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria 183
Nicaragua — jorndoe
The other examples of Vietnam and Afghanistan, as far as I know, did not resemble this one in that sanctions of this scale, followed by constant coverage of a humiliating retreat right after annexation, were put into play. — Manuel
2) For Ukraine this war is successful when it has repulsed the Russian attack.For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu
'Russia is evil and must be stopped at all costs' and 'Russia is useless'. Putting aside for now the fact that these two narratives aren't even coherent (who cares about that anymore) — Isaac
The world changes and we're living the consequences of a failure to realise that. — Isaac
Show the incoherence. — neomac
At any point of history one can claim that bot that the world is changing and that we are living the consequences of a failure to realise that for anybody by anybody. You included. Now what? — neomac
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).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
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.According to most military experts, any use of nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would almost inevitably lead to a full-scale war. — 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.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
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.So you admit that Ukraine could not possibly 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.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. — ssu
For a smaller defender to succeed in defense is the objective, not overtaking the aggressors Capital and totally destroying all of it's army. Ukraine won't have it's tanks on the Red Square, hence that kind of victory is a silly argument. — ssu
And what is your argument that Russia cannot be stopped? — ssu
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. — ssu
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. — ssu
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.