• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU-NATO | Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
RiffRaff said:
Correct, but even then it would most likely be a slow progression from DEFCON 5 to 1. Most people here agree that NATO countries are already involved in a proxy war with Russia at this point.
Click to expand...
IMO, if a full-fledged conventional engagement breaks out between NATO and Russia, there is substantial risk of rapid escalation.

Falling back on a "Guns of August" type of assessment, the belief that escalation to nuclear confrontation will be slow might be influenced by how past conflicts unfolded (not that any of them got to a nuclear launch, except arguably 1945). My fear is that in a conventional conflict between opposing nuclear powers, nerves are ratcheted up, and the desire to "show strength and determination" to use nuclear weapons creates a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. My own personal defcon level immediately goes to 2 in the event direct confrontation occurs between NATO and Russia.
 
War moves to quickly now a days. Any kinetic war that starts between Russia & NATO will almost guarantee end up nuclear and deteriorate extremely rapidly before most even know what up.

Though of course there will most likely be a lead up to such a conflict so those like us who pay attention to world affairs will be aware before a conflict turns kinetic then inevitably a hasty nuclear exchange that follows.
 
teekay99 said:
IMO, if a full-fledged conventional engagement breaks out between NATO and Russia, there is substantial risk of rapid escalation.

Falling back on a "Guns of August" type of assessment, the belief that escalation to nuclear confrontation will be slow might be influenced by how past conflicts unfolded (not that any of them got to a nuclear launch, except arguably 1945). My fear is that in a conventional conflict between opposing nuclear powers, nerves are ratcheted up, and the desire to "show strength and determination" to use nuclear weapons creates a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. My own personal defcon level immediately goes to 2 in the event direct confrontation occurs between NATO and Russia.
Click to expand...
"Slow" is relative, and was used to distinguish from a surprise nuclear attack where we might go straight from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1. It is entirely conceivable that the escalation from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1 might occur within days or even hours, but that is still "slow" compared to the surprise attack scenario.
 
Silent said:
Nice (US) Propaganda Channel here. (y) :cool:
Click to expand...
I did say it needs to be investigated and proven as factual. I cannot say if it is premeditatedly true at this time but the reports have been out there for several months.

propaganda

prŏp″ə-găn′də

noun​

  1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
  2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.
  3. Systematic effort to propagate or win support for a theory or method of action
Propaganda is not inherently false. It is the codification and dissemination of a narrative, a reason for national action.
So it honestly follows is the narrative verified, it to scale and relevant to the nations population then what is the issue.
Propaganda is only destructive when it rooted in a falsehood.

So if it is true then what?
Its true but we’re still not going to talk about it?
Was the holocaust or holodomor propaganda? Or do we just not have our thinking correct?

The calls for peace and fears of escalation are then just as much propaganda as anything else because they to cannot be proven as factual assertions. There just statistical probabilities. They are propaganda and opinions voiced against conflict and they should be considered in balance to everything else as well.

So I guess the reasons for war just come down to who’s on top and who’s your daddy. Or maybe what type of liquor you prefer.

There are in life reasons to either take actions or not. Would it not be worthwhile to ensure those reasons are based in truth?
 
And yet again I would still argue a conventional conflict between Russia and NATO as long as Russia invasion is clearly not evident. Then a default nuclear escalation is not necessarily a given.

We “feel or assume” it will automatically be true. But going there by either side is still simply not in either best interest.

Elevated risk? well yes absolutely, default nuclear exchange no.
 
Please continue the discussion of Depleted Uranium Weapons and the long term dangers they pose here:

Deployed Depleted Uranium Shells - Their Danger And Long Term Effects

Putin has threatened to deploy depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine if Kyiv receives such ammunition from the West. - AFP "Russia of course has what it needs to answer. Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands of such shells. We have not used them yet," he said.
community.defconwarningsystem.com community.defconwarningsystem.com
 
Erecon said:
Someone on yt (combat vet) mention that Prigozjin might be an unofficial mouthpiece of Putin, whats your take on it?
Click to expand...
Can’t say for sure, but I personally can’t see him getting away with saying the things he does without tacit approval from Putin.
However if he doesn’t have Putin’s nod then there is considerable more discord in Russia than we see on the surface.
Probably no one in Russia has better security than Prigozjin except Putin.
 

The moral and legal case for sending Russia’s frozen $300 billion to Ukraine:​

Russia’s assault on Ukraine has become a brutal war of attrition — militarily but also economically and socially. Russian President Vladimir Putin recognizes the nature of this struggle. Ukraine, having lost one-third of its GDP, with one-third of its population already displaced and the lights flickering on and off, could win battles and still lose the war.
Ukraine’s allies have rallied to its aid with armaments, but they have faltered on the decisive economic front. Using the approximately $300 billion in Russian central bank assets that were frozen by Western governments at the war’s onset would show Putin he cannot outlast Ukraine and the West economically. There is elegant justice in using Russia’s state funds, now lying idle, to counter the costs of Moscow’s destruction. Plans have been prepared, with ways to avoid corruption and linked to the European Union. That would be a strategy of hope.
Click to expand...
 
Seriously said:
That is not a good indicator. Are they trying to win or simply get rid of the undesirables and retirees
Click to expand...
It means they are running out of "volunteers" and are too afraid to take the unpopular step of a draft.
 
alphaecho said:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that Ukraine wants to attack Transnistria when he spoke to Russian press today: "I would like to say once again that Russia is responsible for security in Transnistria in full compliance with the mandate that our tropos have."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1640860766239698947
Click to expand...

They are in no position to help them either if Ukraine does decide to liberate Transnistria. If Moldova is ok with it, they should do it. They have bigger fish to fry atm though.
 
Araxen said:
They are in no position to help them either if Ukraine does decide to liberate Transnistria. If Moldova is ok with it, they should do it. They have bigger fish to fry atm though.
Click to expand...
Much Time till December. Personally I hope, Moldova joins the EU. But who knows, what will happen until then. Russia is unpredictable and the EU Politics sometimes too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom