22532

image
image2048×1187 231 KB

image
image2048×1147 226 KB

22533

Blinding light theme!

22534

They just don’t get it.

22535

People who use light theme hate the earth

22536

The light, it burnsss

22537

Sigh, still pro-Ukraine, still want mostly the same thing you guys want, but still want to discuss narratives that are uncomfortable as I thought this was the place to do so.

Its fine if some don’t want to debate this, but I think it is childish what’s going on upthread there.

Timex you think Ukraine will win, fine, I hope so too, but they are drafting a heck of a lot of guys, how do you think that plays out on a battlefield that’s very wide, where small combat units cover 3-4 km stretches…

Will USA be willing to send a lot more Bradleys?..my favorite war vehicle btw, it is awesome.

22538

I think in the big picture I believe this, but I also believe two additional things:

1)Janster I feel you have absorbed a lot of pro-Russian framing and this makes your framing of these issues sound off to a lot of us here. I’m guessing this has to do with your background the media you are exposed to, which is probably different than the forum median. But that leads to 2…

2)Janster, no offense, but you kind of suck at framing and also at “reading the room”. If you want to have a more productive participation in this forum, try thinking about why your expression of your views so often provokes a harsh reaction from many here. I believe English is not your first language but do try to think about the nuances in what you say. And try for God’s sake to think about the reactions you are generating.

As an example of what I mean, when you were talking about Ukraine continuing to fight despite the devastation and so on you have to realize to this audience, that statement leaves out a HUGE gaping void with massive implications, and the framing is very offensive to many here. Rather than focus on Ukraine persisting in fighting, why not focus on Russian persisting in an unjustified, illegal, war of aggression plus continuing severe war crimes and crimes against humanity? Your choice of framing in that example is HIGHLY offensive to most of us here; that’s why you are getting such harsh and persistent pushback.

Please think about why that keeps happening, and think about the framing of your comments.

Now, it’s possible that you are a 100% in the tank bad faith Putin apologist, but I kinda feel it’s more of a language, background and expression issue. I could be wrong. But think about how are presenting and being received here. And also think about the impact of what you DON’T say in many of your statements. When you talk about Ukraine and leave out Russian aggression and war crimes, that has meaning. It affects the framing and presentation of your ideas.

If you really do have view of supporting Ukraine, to be blunt, you are doing a terrible job of expressing it.

22539

Where is Ukraine at with their conscription? I’ve read different things - but in October didn’t they decide to not perform a draft?

I feel like Ukraine has plenty of population to continue to replenish its forces - and I believe much more in their NATO supported training regime, who should allow more capable conscripts to reach the front lines when they’re ready.

22540

But again: what are they doing to make those troops combat-effective?

Why will these new troops be equipped and trained properly when the last wave wasn’t? What changes to the logistics system will be made to enable operations to work better than a year ago? Is there evidence of doctrinal or leadership changes that would make them more effective at actual combat, rather than the current troops’ core competencies of looting and torturing/killing civilians?

Or are you maybe suggesting that the morale of these new troops will be superior to the old ones’?

Yes, having men in uniforms is better than not having them all else being equal. Russia has a larger (but not unlimited) pool of manpower to draw from, and that is an advantage. But an untrained and unequipped person is a liability at the front, not an asset.

You know what, never mind.

People have tried engaging you in good faith debate dozens of times. They’ve explained that the problem isn’t that you’re convinced of Russian victory, is that you just assert things, rather than support them with verifiable facts or sound logic.

What they get in return is you not engaging with any actual arguments, repeated lying about sources, and generally just repeating the same Putinist talking points you’re getting from who knows where. If only those darn Ukrainians could sit at the negotiating table like grownups, and make a win/win deal with the trustworthy Russians.

I have never seen somebody acting so obviously bad faith be cut so much slack by this forum.

And after all that you have the gall to complain about how nobody will debate you and everyone is being childish.

22541
22542

I’ve had the pleasure of talking to some high-ranking politicians here in Norway on some occasions, some of them, particularly the socialists are deeply worried about the lack of a diplomatic angle in this, they see no endgame and they don’t see Ukraine holding their own in the long run.

They are willing to support, but it’s not an open-ended card forever, and what happens if shit really hits the fan, they are people who first and foremost are responsible for our own people…and their well-being.

You talk about gall, well some here are really childish, they have no arguments and their ideas is based on thoughts that make you sleep well at night.

I know I can be a bit rough on the edges, and I try not to, but it’s why I don’t do debates, I’m not cold enough to do that, so I have been using my talents to analyze issues on possible problems in the past.
(I used to analyze roads, so yes, not military stuff but hey I’m retired from that now)

So, to sum up, I have listed some sources, and unlike some here, I’ve actually taken the time to hear ALL of it, even the sucky angles, just to see what’s what…

And here’s what…

1)I was right about the conscription, they are not going to stop, maybe not as fast as I thought, but its pretty fast still.
2)Combat ready…any male in Russia has a year of service, and they will fight about as well as the Ukrainians…less motivated perhaps, but with a gun to your back, what choice will they have.

3)Artillery, 7 or 17 million shells used, I know they have dropped in fire rate, but I think they are changing tactics…They don’t need to shoot so much now that they have better defenses.

Sources
Task and Purpose, Austrich Bundesheer analyst, Perun, and a few others.

So knowing this, I debated with those politicians the use for sending more arms, and for now, they agree, and we also got very lucky with a warm winter this year, and nobody likes the atrocities that Russia is committing…
However, even if I don’t like Mearsheimer, what’s next…WW2,5? How far are people on this forum willing to go?

It’s dangerous to underestimate Russia, this is kinda my main point.

With this I think I’m done for now, it’s not my plan to make everyone hate me really.

22543
  1. Perun says you are wrong. Their mobilised troops are not “combat ready”, I’ve pointed this out at least 4 times in this thread and you haven’t responded at all.
22544

This suggests a solution!

I mean, seriously, I’ve (finally) put the guy on ignore, but this thread is one reply to him after another the last couple of days. We’ve all given it the old college try. Time to move on, I say.

22545

European countries closest to the war have a very legitimate strong interest in doing things to protect their people. That requires a longer term view than “anything to stop the fighting,” because security is complex and has to be maintained over time. Anything resembling success for Russia in Ukraine, anything that leaves them with the ability to frame their actions as legitimate and effective, seriously threatens the security of everyone in Europe, if not the world.

Too often over the past half-century people have trotted out the tropes of Munich and appeasement and all that, usually inappropriately and without much insight. Here though the case is pretty clear and unequivocal. You have blatant, unjustified, brutal armed aggression, sustained criminal violence against a recognized nation state, and a persistent message of “what we want, we get, what we desire, we deserve, don’t stand in our way” from the Kremlin. The only way to bolster the security of your people is to stand up to this by aiding Ukraine. Anything else only commits you to a very dim and grim future.

22546

Your “discussion of narratives that are uncomfortable” all too frequently involves the posting of Russian propaganda views about the world with high confidence. You’re not even “asking questions” - you’re stating as near-fact things that go against our observations of the world.

I’m coming around to @Dave_Perkins view. I’m even using the light theme to post this.

Yes, proud inheritors to the diplomatic tradition that saw Norway invaded by the Nazis.

22547

How dumb are those Russians for allowing state media which holds a monopoly over the media to fully control the discourse and what they think. We enlightened people are not like that. We possess critical thinking and even if we’re bombarded with self-contradictory repeating non-sensical arguments we wouldn’t let them define the conversation, cause we understand that there’s no point in arguing when it’s clear the other point of view ignores the arguments, engaging in it just empowers the discourse. Clearly even an army of determined influencers won’t be able to do it.

22548

“Look, I went and talked to some people in a diner in rural Ohio and their thoughts will really surprise you.”

22549

We’ve never had to deal with a nuclear power being aggressive in Europe before in this way, not in our lifetimes, though we had plenty of theorizing what that would be like.

Ultimately this comes down to ‘what is Ukraine worth’ to you, or to Europe, ect. I’m pretty sure if Russia was invading Finland instead of Ukraine you’d be 100% certain of defending it regardless of the cost. If you accept the Putinist position that Ukraine is just another east slavic backwater, and that it doesn’t matter, and that this is some kind of fratricidal conflict that doesn’t involve ‘Europe’, than it’s not worth risking nuclear war to defend it. If you consider Ukraine a fully fledged member of Europe facing Russian aggression, well than, it is. It’s also worth pointing out that there really can’t be a renegotiation of the supply of hydrocarbons from Russia now either way - there’s really no way to go back to the antebellum status quo without more or less conceding to Russia what they want you to concede, ie, accept their gas for letting them do what they want, regardless of the human rights costs.

But either scenario, what you (we) are going to have to deal with us what to do when a nuclear armed power decides to become aggressive just because it wants to. If we allow the fear of nuclear weapons exchanges to dominate our policy, we might as well show up before the Tsar and hand the keys of Europe to him and pay homage. It’s a broader problem facing the western world now, what are westerners willing to risk or give up to defend Democracy, even at the cost of sacrificing the quality of life we currently enjoy. The neoliberal globalization of the last 30 years hasn’t really supported Democratic ideals near as much as hoped, and the increase in quality of life globally has been accompanied by a stagnation and retreat of democratic and globalized values. We’ve kind of made monsters of the despotisms that we’ve allowed to fester and grow and not resolve, and the world is still divided and broken along unresolved fault lines with tens of millions caught in between. Those interstitial places need international support, else the despotisms will eventually move in and take over.

22550

And we should remember that not standing up to the aggression of a nuclear power is going to make any nation that believes they will be under threat from that nuclear power go to whatever steps they feel are necessary to defend themselves. Which will lead to a whole new wave of nuclear proliferation, since that’s the only way to match the invincibility you’re granting to nuclear powers. Appeasing Russia because they have nukes only leads to more nukes in more places.

22551

The ultimate corollary is that it’s not worth evoking NATO to actually… defend NATO countries. If Russia invades Norway, how many people are there? A million? Five? Is it worth 300 million lives to defend five million? Probably not. So every country is on it’s own, so every country needs nuclear weapons, to defend itself against everyone else.