Not gonna do it.
If you have a point, state it plain. I’m not gonna go down the Socratic rathole with you.
1 Like
Nothing it is then.
1 Like
This is funny. You throw out a claim.
I asked what you base that claim on.
You say “Socrates”.
Chick argument.
A Russia/NATO conflict and the stakes aren’t high enough?
Given we have seen how ■■■■■■ his conventional army is?
How could the stakes be any higher?
1 Like
…
Look, I get how the war porn and doomsday scenarios are evocative, I really do.
BUT…
I think that if Putin is going to escalate, it will first be chemical. God help us if he goes biological or nerve.
Before he does that, he will float the possibility through his propoganda organs. Our usual suspects here will pick it up, disseminate it, and amplify it.
Putin will judge the results before acting.
So far, it doesn’t look good
I’m not commenting on escalating from the situation as it is right nowright now.
I’m commenting on your hypothetical scenario that it has escalated sometime in the future to a NATO/Russia conflict.
THAT has a very high probability of going nuclear.
2 Likes
Very possible. That or some thermobaric bombs dropped into the center of Kyiv seems like the most likely escalation. Im not sure how or if the West would respond.
We have to be prepared for Putin to escalate this to a whole 'nother level. Cant stick our head in the sand.
Yes, that is the good statement of narrative pushed by US media. The same media pushed the Russia-collusion hoax for four years. The same media pushed the Binden-laptop-is-Russian-disinformation hoax. The same media assured us that everything was fine with the withdrawal in Afghanistan until it wasn’t. Clearly their track record is poor.
Here is an alternate viewpoint from Gonzalo Lira, an Chilian-American author who is living in Kharkov. His reports that he is personally witnessing steady Russian advances that go against the media narratives in the US.
Here is his bio in Spanish:
The issue is that if your prediction is wrong Pandora’s Box is opened.
You’d be making the ultimate gamble. Openly mocking the sword of Damocles.
IMO, it would be inevitable.
The Russian’s conventional military sucks. The war has shown the entire world that truth.
They would get really desperate, really fast.
Yes.
The stakes just aren’t high enough. Putin took his shot, failed, with his billions he can buy the ultimate dacha and the justice that comes with it.
Spolier alert-he dies in comfort, after a jet setting life amongst our other adversaries.
That’s fine. I hope they win.
That’s escalating the situation. I think we’ve helped enough at this juncture. We’ve propped up plenty of regimes that failed over the years. Chalk this one up as another loss. We shot for the moon at Russias doorstep and came up short. We’ve walked away from far more invested blood and treasure (I’m looking at you Iraq and Afghanistan.)
If NATO troops engage and start beating the ■■■■ out of the Russians (which is what would happen at first) and started pushing them back to the Russian border he would have every justification he needs to start using tactical nuclear weapons. His own generals would hang him if he didn’t.
Ah, I see. In that case, a new threat matrix opens up.
However, the point I am (clumsily) trying to make: let us jettison our doom spiral negativity and root for Ukraine to solve their problem for us.
Team Democracy!
Realism.
Okay. That is an option on the threat matrix. I still say the stakes aren’t high enough to bust out the nukes.
Also as I posted previously: NATO would probably establish a cordon sanitaire 10 miles (or whatever) from the Russian border. You know team Democracy✊️will take a beat for diplomacy.
There are no guarantees that Lira’s analysis is correct. On the other hand, he appears to be an eyewitness to events in Kharkov and his account contradicts the narratives in US media. My point is that we need to take all the reports from Ukraine with a lot of skepticism.
The track record of the US corporate media about similar issues has been abysmal, and only years later do they begin to admit the truth. The New York Times finally admitted that the Biden laptop is real and not Russian disinformation. Oops, sorry!
A year after the US invaded Iraq the Times admitted:
The verdict: The Times reporting was flawed, and relied too heavily and credulously on now-suspect sources of WMD intelligence.
The New York Times WMD Coverage | PBS NewsHour
Will they end up issuing a similar retractions for the coverage about the current war in Ukraine?
Will the US get dragged into another war based on lies and misinformation?
