UA-RU | March 24th-26th | DISCUSSIONS

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

But US ambassador statment is a few days old now. Things are changing quickly in my view in what US sees acceptable escalation.

With new statement today saying "currently no US troops" instead of "we will not send troops" is a really big change in tone imo.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Ok so no-one has definitely committed.

No but the road work is being laid out right now for it. Statements and wording the past week from US point to this direction.

 

[dave II judgement day]

The DWS director said and reported it himself that US is opening door to NATO nations putting troops into Ukraine:

this is kind of a misinterpretation, and very far from us giving a green light. this whole war has been about flying the 'defence sovereignty' flag but poland themselves have stated they will not do anything without nato and or US approval, which we haven't gave. what the ambassador to the UN there was saying was very much her giving a non answer

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

this is kind of a misinterpretation, and very far from us giving a green light. this whole war has been about flying the 'defence sovereignty' flag but poland themselves have stated they will not do anything without nato and or US approval, which we haven't gave. what the ambassador to the UN there was saying was very much her giving a non answer

I wouldn't be sure about that. She gave as much room as any NATO nation needs to independently go into Ukraine. Its signaling US will not deny anyone who wants to do so.

 

[dave II judgement day]

here is polish article on the matter: https://www-onet-pl.translate.goog/...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

 

[dave II judgement day]

I wouldn't be sure about that. She gave as much room as any NATO nation needs to independently go into Ukraine. In my eyes its singling US will not deny anyone who wants to do so.

you look at the whole statement and it gives a different impression on what the intended takeaway is, we technically cannot deny that but we technically cannot deny the poles sending fighter jets either, or france launching nuclear missiles. but uh, that doesnt mean we endorse it

 

[Yingyang]

you look at the whole statement and it gives a different impression on what the intended takeaway is, we technically cannot deny that but we technically cannot deny the poles sending fighter jets either, or france launching nuclear missiles. but uh, that doesnt mean we endorse it

Or even actually support it.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

that doesnt mean we endorse it

We kinda did. We did not not endorse it. We almost entirely are leaving it up to them with that statement.

Separately with statement today saying "currently no US troops" instead of "we will not send troops" is a really big change in tone imo.

 

[dave II judgement day]

We kinda did. We did not not endorse it. We almost entirely are leaving it up to them with that statement.

We cannot give the impression that we are bossing around other nato countries, even though we are. this is the purpose of saying we cannot tell other nato countries what to do.

 

[Yingyang]

We cannot give the impression that we are bossing around other nato countries, even though we are. this is the purpose of saying we cannot tell other nato countries what to do.

Basically any nato country claims to go in alone ,will not be separated in Putins eyes. It will simply be a nato interference and war on a larger scale. I seriously doubt he would consider conventional weapons either. But full nuclear response. The west are playing a dangerous game of risks and bluffs. And Putins in no position to take chances. His patience is to thin now.

 

[dave II judgement day]

Basically any nato country claims to go in alone ,will not be separated in Putins eyes. It will simply be a nato interference and war on a larger scale. I seriously doubt he would consider conventional weapons either. But full nuclear response. The west are playing a dangerous game of risks and bluffs. And Putins in no position to take chances. His patience is to thin now.

I think we realize this, I doubt we will let it happen. we halted the transfer of MIGs because we had intellegence that this act would cross the line, NATO does not want to cross the line and would not do something that would so blatantly do so.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

NATO does not want to cross the line and would not do something that would so blatantly do so.

Not when a few nations convince themselves and/or others going in independently is "ok" or acceptable.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Separately with statement today saying "currently no US troops" instead of "we will not send troops" is a really big change in tone imo.

He didn't' say "currently no US troops". He said "currently no US troops training Ukrainians." There is a world of different between those two statements.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

He said "currently no US troops training Ukrainians."

Yes but the question from reporter was if they where training IN Ukraine.

His response was implying "currently no US troops training Ukrainians"... (in) Ukraine since that was the question given & his response was that. The word currently still applies the way I have been insinuating.

 

[dave II judgement day]

granted, I will agree with darkmoon in the fact that we have gotten far less adamant on avoiding conflict and confrontation with russia in the last two or so days and have started laying on thick with the warcrime stuff* and rhetoric of the sort. that coupled with the cyberattack prep, maybe something has changed. If so cant really see the endgame of it, if a nuclear war was expected, something that highups know could likely result from nato russia confrontation, why would the govt be trying to ensure I plug the holes in my windows xp install? If we are announcing that we are allowing a peacekeeping mission that would surely drag us into war, why bother with bickering about fine details and needed loopholes on sanctions? Pretty strange mixed messaging, but I cannot imagine we either forget the implacations of something or go ahead and do it knowing them, know what I mean? *(russians are for sure doing warcrimes but it is in bad taste for superpowers to mention about other superpowers)

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Yes but the question from reporter was if they where training IN Ukraine.

His response was implying "currently no US troops training Ukrainians"... (in) Ukraine since that was the question given & his response was that. The word currently still applies the way I have been insinuating.

Maybe I am just overreacting. But the way he said it was quite different then the normal statements given when press or reporters ask if US putting boots on ground for any reason its always a hard no or very cold response. Today it was "currently"....

 

[Araxen]

I suspect as soon as the first bomb lands on Poland soil, NATO crosses into Ukraine. Just my guess. There won't be any NATO troops in Ukraine till then. Russia more than likely knows this so they will more than likely not do it.

 

[Obreid]

So how do you see this ending?
Because Russia know they are doomed either way. Please no response such as Putin being assassinated or removed from power.

No “Russia” is not doomed either way. They “might” be defeated militarily but the nation and people of Russia won’t be doomed.
Their leadership might or might not be ousted.
Lot of talk about how that is not possible.
That too is an incorrect assumption. Few if any saw the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of the Soviet Union coming when it did.

Now will the Russian government as it is today be ousted? I don’t know and will not be surprised which ever way is goes. Yes I’m totally serious!

Will Putin escalate? Given the performance they’ve shown in Ukraine they cannot escalate against NATO in any protracted conventional manner.
They might continue to try and bluff with a conventional attack somewhere but they cannot wage major war conventionally.

Now because you and I have gone back and forth on this amiably I probably can guess your likely response.
Is the right of Ukraine to exist as a independent nation worth the risk of a nuclear exchange?

I say YES! Because if any nation is allowed to use threat of nuclear first strike to impose their will in today’s geopolitical reality. Especially when they were the initiator of conflict. It is a surrendering to the threat of nukes and that threat will be used again.

The response to a threat to use nuclear weapons when the aggressor nations conventional invasion didn’t go well should be viewed as a nuclear first strike threat and it must be countered with MAD.
That’s called the OBR doctrine

 

[Obreid]

The west are playing a dangerous game of risks and bluffs. And Putins in no position to take chances. His patience is to thin now.

Putin is playing a very dangerous game this is his doing not the west.

 

[Yingyang]

No “Russia” is not doomed either way. They “might” be defeated militarily but the nation and people of Russia won’t be doomed.
Their leadership might or might not be ousted.
Lot of talk about how that is not possible.
That too is an incorrect assumption. Few if any saw the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of the Soviet Union coming when it did.

Now will the Russian government as it is today be ousted? I don’t know and will not be surprised which ever way is goes. Yes I’m totally serious!

Will Putin escalate? Given the performance they’ve shown in Ukraine they cannot escalate against NATO in any protracted conventional manner.
They might continue to try and bluff with a conventional attack somewhere but they cannot wage major war conventionally.

Now because you and I have gone back and forth on this amiably I probably can guess your likely response.
Is the right of Ukraine to exist as a independent nation worth the risk of a nuclear exchange?

I say YES! Because if any nation is allowed to use threat of nuclear first strike to impose their will in today’s geopolitical reality. Especially when they were the initiator of conflict. It is a surrendering to the threat of nukes and that threat will be used again.

The response to a threat to use nuclear weapons when the aggressor nations conventional invasion didn’t go well should be viewed as a nuclear first strike threat and it must be countered with MAD.
That’s called the OBR doctrine

When I refer to Russia being doomed it was in reference to sanctions imposed on it. This will not be fully lifted should they back down from Ukraine or be successful. In either case halved sanctions would still be destructive to Russia.