Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

Sinking a yacht in Maldives is going to start WW III... gotcha.

Only if the Archduke Ferdinand is on it.

[mtutiger]

Bombing yachts would be dumb, but lets not forget that Russia has hit actual vessels in the Black Sea since this has began (sailing with the flags of allies like Japan and Turkey)... and yet that apparently hasn't been considered "escalatory" nor has it resulted in WWIII

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I think there are some emotional proposals that would not make good policy.   If the oligarchs are his center of gravity (maybe)  Denuding their wealth through the tools of the Rule of international law is sane and correct.  

Putin's real center of gravity might be western sycophants. 

Then maybe we should be bombing Trump’s yacht instead.

[pfife]

19 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

So you immediately stopped reading or you savagely disregarded what I wrote after? 

I savagely disregarded your ifs and buts post.   I find your hypotheticals to be boring and super unrelated to the issue and hand, so I choose not to consume them.    As soon as you start doing that, I stop reading.  I pride myself on being an informed consumer.

Furthermore, I stopped reading the subsequent post after you baselessly declared that I backed bombing yachts, which was the first sentence.   Of course, I never backed bombing yachts, you just made that up.    As soon as you start doing that, I stop reading.   I really have no time or desire to engage you on your fictional rantings about me. 

I also stopped reading the post above I quoted after the part I quoted.  Because it wasn't that hard to follow what happened in this "discussion" so clearly you're just playing games.   

[romad1]

11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Bombing yachts would be dumb, but lets not forget that Russia has hit actual vessels in the Black Sea since this has began (sailing with the flags of allies like Japan and Turkey)... and yet that apparently hasn't been considered "escalatory" nor has it resulted in WWIII

Not sure if this supports any argument.  It would be nice if this was a Russian ship that had hit one of the Ukrainian sea mines. 

[casimir]

11 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

was it Churchill's line "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma," 

I thought that was a turducken?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[ewsieg]

27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Bombing yachts would be dumb, but lets not forget that Russia has hit actual vessels in the Black Sea since this has began (sailing with the flags of allies like Japan and Turkey)... and yet that apparently hasn't been considered "escalatory" nor has it resulted in WWIII

Russia also just invaded a sovereign country, that showed no aggression to it, based on trumped up charges that no international body has been able to confirm or identify over the years.  Even Iraq and Libya does not compare to this, yet the Russian claim this is a peacekeeping mission and are 'surprised' that the world is against them.  I have a feeling they have different views on what is escalatory when they do it, versus when something is done to them.

Edited March 2, 2022 by ewsieg

[ewsieg]

27 minutes ago, pfife said:

I savagely disregarded your ifs and buts post.   I find your hypotheticals to be boring and super unrelated to the issue and hand, so I choose not to consume them.    As soon as you start doing that, I stop reading.  I pride myself on being an informed consumer.

Furthermore, I stopped reading the subsequent post after you baselessly declared that I backed bombing yachts, which was the first sentence.   Of course, I never backed bombing yachts, you just made that up.    As soon as you start doing that, I stop reading.   I really have no time or desire to engage you on your fictional rantings about me. 

I also stopped reading the post above I quoted after the part I quoted.  Because it wasn't that hard to follow what happened in this "discussion" so clearly you're just playing games.   

I apologize that I said you were for the bombings.  I took your response was that you didn't think bombing those yachts could be seen as an escalation and I should have stated that clearer.  

 

[romad1]

without comment

[pfife]

7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I apologize that I said you were for the bombings.  I took your response was that you didn't think bombing those yachts could be seen as an escalation and I should have stated that clearer.  

 

Even that's not accurate.   Whether or not it would be an escalation was also something I never addressed.

I'll be as plain as possible, you need not infer my position on this at all:  I don't think bombing yachts would lead to WW3.   

[romad1]

Speaking of WWIII.  If Vladdie uses a nuke in Ukraine.   Would that be enough justification to bring NATO into the war? 

Say, Kiev or Kharkiv gets a tactical nuclear weapon resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. 

Would you favor a no-fly zone and direct support to Ukrainian ground forces? 

Edited March 2, 2022 by romad1

[1776]

4 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Speaking of WWIII.  If Vladdie uses a nuke in Ukraine.   Would that be enough justification to bring NATO into the war?

Very difficult question to answer. Would this be the signal/excuse China is looking for move against the west? My concern would be China’s response and our readiness to defend against them. Would they move on Taiwan? I don’t have the answer but I think about where it might go from here. It could potentially escalate to a world war. 
Lastly, if NATO doesn’t act on a nuke attack of Ukraine, you would have to wonder what NATO would do and under what circumstances. Just me thinking out loud.

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Speaking of WWIII.  If Vladdie uses a nuke in Ukraine.   Would that be enough justification to bring NATO into the war? 

Say, Kiev or Kharkiv gets a tactical nuclear weapon resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. 

Would you favor a no-fly zone and direct support to Ukrainian ground forces? 

Given how likely it is that the fallout would waft across NATO Europe, I'm thinking yeah, that might be enough.

[oblong]

18 minutes ago, pfife said:

Even that's not accurate.   Whether or not it would be an escalation was also something I never addressed.

I'll be as plain as possible, you need not infer my position on this at all:  I don't think bombing yachts would lead to WW3.   

It's not complicated.

Person A says "Bomb their yachts"

Person B says "That will lead to WW3"

You say "No it won't"

Person B says you are in favor of bombing yachts.

 

 

[buddha]

24 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Very difficult question to answer. Would this be the signal/excuse China is looking for move against the west? My concern would be China’s response and our readiness to defend against them. Would they move on Taiwan? I don’t have the answer but I think about where it might go from here. It could potentially escalate to a world war. 
Lastly, if NATO doesn’t act on a nuke attack of Ukraine, you would have to wonder what NATO would do and under what circumstances. Just me thinking out loud.

why would nato moving against ukraine cause china to move against taiwan?  because the us would be too occupied in europe to fight?

[1776]

7 minutes ago, buddha said:

why would nato moving against ukraine cause china to move against taiwan?  because the us would be too occupied in europe to fight?

In a word, yes. That would be my concern. 

[romad1]

12 minutes ago, 1776 said:

In a word, yes. That would be my concern. 

It would be the most devilish opportunism.  But, the last time that happened to the World we won. 

[buddha]

15 minutes ago, 1776 said:

In a word, yes. That would be my concern. 

understood.

i dont think the us will move into ukraine under any circumstances, so i dont think we have to worry about it.

Edited March 2, 2022 by buddha

[romad1]

George Will turns on a fastball in his wheelhouse and puts it over the fence. 

Opinion | The West gives Putin a refresher course in physics — and judo - The Washington Post

Nice writing and interesting points. 

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

Even that's not accurate.   Whether or not it would be an escalation was also something I never addressed.

I'll be as plain as possible, you need not infer my position on this at all:  I don't think bombing yachts would lead to WW3.   

I contend that I'm accurate as I believe any escalation could lead to WWIII if some of the intelligence reports of we're seeing about Putin's mindset is accurate.   I'm not even saying that it would definitely lead to WW3, but again, it would definitely be an escalation and Putin made it clear any escalation would be met severely.

1 hour ago, oblong said:

It's not complicated.

Person A says "Bomb their yachts"

Person B says "That will lead to WW3"

You say "No it won't"

Person B says you are in favor of bombing yachts.

I apologized, sorry that was not enough.

[pfife]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

It's not complicated.

Person A says "Bomb their yachts"

Person B says "That will lead to WW3"

You say "No it won't"

Person B says you are in favor of bombing yachts.

 

 

I know man, I really don't understand what's going on here.

[romad1]

More to the cultural landslide underway in Germany

You went too Far Vladdie

[pfife]

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I contend that I'm accurate as I believe any escalation could lead to WWIII if some of the intelligence reports of we're seeing about Putin's mindset is accurate.

I meant you were inaccurate in your representation of what my post meant.  

[romad1]

Also very encouraging...Ukraine will need these items