Things are heating up in the Donbass

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Russia launched a significant cruise missile strike deep into Ukraine.

Where it gets interesting is multiple missiles flight paths took them through polish airspace above Poland to strike western Ukraine in the lyviv region on facilities that were likely for F16 infrastructure.

We have live Russian missiles over a NATO country. 1 miscalculation or mechanical failure away.

 

[Mosinitis]

Russia launched a significant cruise missile strike deep into Ukraine.

Where it gets interesting is multiple missiles flight paths took them through polish airspace above Poland to strike western Ukraine in the lyviv region on facilities that were likely for F16 infrastructure.

We have live Russian missiles over a NATO country. 1 miscalculation or mechanical failure away.

Relations between Poland and Ukraine cooled down quite a bit in recent months. Grain exports and old territorial claims played a role. There were also statements from both sides against deployment of Polish troops into Ukraine.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Relations between Poland and Ukraine cooled down quite a bit in recent months. Grain exports and old territorial claims played a role. There were also statements from both sides against deployment of Polish troops into Ukraine.

Sure, but if the Russian missiles over Poland malfunction and kill Poles, if Poland shoots them down over their airspace and they are entitled to do that, if Poland shoots the missiles down and civilians are killed in the debris or secondary explosion) then things can wildly spiral out of control. It's playing with fire.

Russia is cracking open the door giving NATO an opportunity to get into the war. I don't like it. If Russia is going to bomb Ukraine keep the missiles over Ukrainian airspace.

It's 1 misstep away from Russia and NATO directly attacking each other and that's very unsettling. Once that starts I don't know where it goes or how it ends but basically every possible scenario is either "bad" or "worse".

 

[spat]

Relations between Poland and Ukraine cooled down quite a bit in recent months. Grain exports and old territorial claims played a role. There were also statements from both sides against deployment of Polish troops into Ukraine.

Poland is still probably just itching for an excuse to declare article V though

 

[Mosinitis]

Sure, but if the Russian missiles over Poland malfunction and kill Poles, if Poland shoots them down over their airspace and they are entitled to do that, if Poland shoots the missiles down and civilians are killed in the debris or secondary explosion) then things can wildly spiral out of control. It's playing with fire.

Russia is cracking open the door giving NATO an opportunity to get into the war. I don't like it. If Russia is going to bomb Ukraine keep the missiles over Ukrainian airspace.

It's 1 misstep away from Russia and NATO directly attacking each other and that's very unsettling. Once that starts I don't know where it goes or how it ends but basically every possible scenario is either "bad" or "worse".

The game of chicken is being played by NATO for some time now. Attacking Russia's infrastructure and military targets while using Ukraine for plausible deniability. Routinely crossing the lines, NATO promised it wouldn't cross.

Now that Russia has the upper hand, it's Russia's turn and Russia is being more open about it. They declared any base outside Ukraine where F16's will take off to attack Russian forces as a legitimate target. So this confrontation is coming.

I agree with you that we are getting closer and closer to all out war, but is it Russia's fault?

 

[Mosinitis]

Poland is still probably just itching for an excuse to declare article V though

This was kind of tested in the past. When a stray "Russian" (Ukrainian) missile hit Poland and killed a farmer. Poland didn't agree with pushed nerrative that this was a Russian missile and didn't call for declaration of article 5. They weren't itching then and I doubt they are itching now.

There is nothing for Poland to gain from article 5, except becoming a giant battlefield and being destroyed, no matter who wins in the end.

 

[Mosinitis]

More and more grass roots resistance to forced conscription into NATO's slave army.

 

[spat]

This was kind of tested in the past. When a stray "Russian" (Ukrainian) missile hit Poland and killed a farmer. Poland didn't agree with pushed nerrative that this was a Russian missile and didn't call for declaration of article 5. They weren't itching then and I doubt they are itching now.

There is nothing for Poland to gain from article 5, except becoming a giant battlefield and being destroyed, no matter who wins in the end.

Or, they could end up with payback, and half of Russia.

 

[holdover]

Some of those missiles are designed to zig zag in mid flight to make them harder to track and hit .

 

[holdover]

You have to ask who is escalating the situation, NATO or Russia?

 

[spat]

You have to ask who is escalating the situation, NATO or Russia?

If Russia wants to end the war, they can pack up their toys and head home anytime. No (new) consequences.

The only way Ukraine can end the war is by winning, or ceasing to exist.

It's already a full blown war, the idea that "escalation" is still a thing is the sort of stupidity that cost us Vietnam.

You either go to war, or you don't.

If you go, you don't ask "how much force should I use" you ask "how much force *can* I use.

Like any life or death fight, you bring all the violence you can as fast as you can.

This pussyfooting around we are doing trying to rope-a-dope Russia into squandering all her resources is just awful.

 

[holdover]

If Russia wants to end the war, they can pack up their toys and head home anytime. No (new) consequences.

The only way Ukraine can end the war is by winning, or ceasing to exist.

It's already a full blown war, the idea that "escalation" is still a thing is the sort of stupidity that cost us Vietnam.

You either go to war, or you don't.

If you go, you don't ask "how much force should I use" you ask "how much force *can* I use.

Like any life or death fight, you bring all the violence you can as fast as you can.

This pussyfooting around we are doing trying to rope-a-dope Russia into squandering all her resources is just awful.

LOL what? When did NATO declare war on Russia? Or Russia attack NATO? I missed that. Last I checked they gave them weapons , training, and cash.You think this is already a full blown war between NATO and Russia? Your kidding me.

Escalation is very much a thing. France or Poland sending ground troops to fight Russian troops is an escalation.

es·ca·la·tion
/ˌeskəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

• an increase in the intensity or seriousness of something; an intensification.
  "an escalation of violence"
  NATO is escalating the situation by threatening to bring in ground forces
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[holdover]

This pussyfooting around we are doing trying to rope-a-dope Russia into squandering all her resources is just awful.

So we should nuke them right off the bat ?

 

[MothMan]

 

[spat]

So we should nuke them right off the bat ?

You do understand that there are entire think tanks that study this stuff right ?

They know exactly how escalation games play out.

And *every* *single* *time* if you involve nukes, it eventually escalates to all of them.

So, if *anyone* involves nukes, then you launch everything, as fast as possible. Because the faster you destroy them the less nuked you get.

And *every* nuclear power has run that math, and they all have come to the same conclusion.

There is no "proportional response" or "ladder of escalation" once nukes are involved. It literally goes from zero to armageddon in about 10 mins.

 

[spat]

LOL what? When did NATO declare war on Russia? Or Russia attack NATO? I missed that. Last I checked they gave them weapons , training, and cash.You think this is already a full blown war between NATO and Russia? Your kidding me.

Escalation is very much a thing. France or Poland sending ground troops to fight Russian troops is an escalation.

es·ca·la·tion
/ˌeskəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun

• an increase in the intensity or seriousness of something; an intensification.
  "an escalation of violence"
  NATO is escalating the situation by threatening to bring in ground forces
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Right, NATO is not at war.

You can't escalate a war that you're not in.

You can *join* a war that you're not in, but that's not escalation.

The question is, does Russia want things with Ukraine to escalate to the point that NATO feels it need to join.

Remember, Russia's casus belli was that the didn't want to allow NATO to expand east.

NATO expansion was just a theoretical at that point. They could have blocked Ukrainian membership for decades with political maneuvers.

But, Russia is actively invading Ukraine, and expanding West.

So, if Russia was justified in an invasion over a theoretical NATO membership, then they can't claim NATO wouldn't be justified over an actual invasion.

 

[tirwin1]

This pussyfooting around we are doing trying to rope-a-dope Russia into squandering all her resources is just awful.

Oddly enough there is one geopolitical analyst who thinks this is the best outcome. He predicted Russia would eventually invade Ukraine about a decade ago.

His position is that if Russia wins they won't stop at Ukraine and will ultimately take over half of Poland and the 3 Baltic nations. If that happens then it's WW3 and nukes will fly. If Ukraine wins it can only be by pushing Russian troops out of Ukraine and then into Russia. If that happens nukes will fly. Only by keeping a stalemate with no side gaining an upper hand will nukes be avoided. It's a very cynical strategy and I don't necessarily agree with it.

 

[holdover]

You can *join* a war that you're not in, but that's not escalation.

Thats exactly what it is

 

[holdover]

You either go to war, or you don't.

If you go, you don't ask "how much force should I use" you ask "how much force *can* I use.

Like any life or death fight, you bring all the violence you can as fast as you can.

You do understand that there are entire think tanks that study this stuff right ?

They know exactly how escalation games play out.

And *every* *single* *time* if you involve nukes, it eventually escalates to all of them.

So your for nuking Russia right out of the gate .

I cant believe what Im reading .

 

[holdover]

Oddly enough there is one geopolitical analyst who thinks this is the best outcome.

Oddly enough there is one geopolitical analyst on this forum that agrees with that.

 

[holdover]

The question is, does Russia want things with Ukraine to escalate to the point that NATO feels it need to join.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Russia wanted to attack NATO it could do so anytime it wanted. It has no need to escalate because it already has enough Cassus belli to launch a full scale war against NATO.

 

[spat]

So your for nuking Russia right out of the gate .

I cant believe what Im reading .

If you think a nuclear war is imminent, then you launch everything ASAP.

Do you think this will escalate into a nuclear conflict? If it will, then we should. There's no question about it. It's not even a matter of opinion, everyone who has ever studied the subject understands this.

Furthermore, the fact that *everyone* knows and understands this, and they know everyone else does too, is why we *haven't* had one.

Russia won't use nukes unless they believe they are facing imminent destruction. Getting kicked out of Ukraine isn't imminent destruction.

 

[spat]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If Russia wanted to attack NATO it could do so anytime it wanted. It has no need to escalate because it already has enough Cassus belli to launch a full scale war against NATO.

If *either* side wanted war, we would have it. It only takes one.

At this point the question is whether Russia would rather LET Ukraine join NATO, or get destroyed in a war with NATO, then have Ukraine join NATO anyway.

It seems like an easy choice to me, but the obvious choice would have been to avoid the war to begin with, and they didn't take that.

 

[holdover]

If *either* side wanted war, we would have it. It only takes one.

At this point the question is whether Russia would rather LET Ukraine join NATO, or get destroyed in a war with NATO, then have Ukraine join NATO anyway.

It seems like an easy choice to me, but the obvious choice would have been to avoid the war to begin with, and they didn't take that.

I see it completely the opposite. the war could have been completely avoided by allowing Ukraine to remain neutral, keeping their agreement with Russia , Not overthrowing the government, installing a pro NATO government then arming them to teeth after which they offered them a seat in NATO dismissing all warnings for the last 30 years that it would mean war with Russia.

NATO could have and should have avoided the war by simply not allowing Ukraine to join or overthrowing their government.

The whole point of NATO was to defend Europe against the soviet union which no longer exists . Russia was not poised to invade Europe. They weren't even ready for a war . which is another reason the US felt it could get away with it .

For Christs sakes even the administration officials admitted that Russia needs to be broken up . They spent years fortifying the Donbass and arming Ukraine , for a war they knew was coming .

Its as clear day , they intended to bring Ukraine into NATO , war or no war . the bigger picture was the break up of Russia, Ukraine is just the pawn to do it with.

I hate to have to say it but its the west who are the trouble makers here, Were not the good guys this time. I have to call em like I see em.
Not only could this war have been avoided, it was planned .

 

[Robin]

 

[spat]

I see it completely the opposite. the war could have been completely avoided by allowing Ukraine to remain neutral, keeping their agreement with Russia , Not overthrowing the government, installing a pro NATO government then arming them to teeth after which they offered them a seat in NATO dismissing all warnings for the last 30 years that it would mean war with Russia.

NATO could have and should have avoided the war by simply not allowing Ukraine to join or overthrowing their government.

The whole point of NATO was to defend Europe against the soviet union which no longer exists . Russia was not poised to invade Europe. They weren't even ready for a war . which is another reason the US felt it could get away with it .

For Christs sakes even the administration officials admitted that Russia needs to be broken up . They spent years fortifying the Donbass and arming Ukraine , for a war they knew was coming .

Its as clear day , they intended to bring Ukraine into NATO , war or no war . the bigger picture was the break up of Russia, Ukraine is just the pawn to do it with.

I hate to have to say it but its the west who are the trouble makers here, Were not the good guys this time. I have to call em like I see em.
Not only could this war have been avoided, it was planned .

Your argument would be more convincing if Russia hadn't *already* invaded and occupied several of it's neighbors and former satellites *before* Ukraine.

We should have put a stop to it way back with Chechnya, then we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Do you honestly think they were going to stop of their own accord ?

And, repeat after me, Russia gets zero say in what alliances another sovereign nation decides to join.

Would NATO be justified in invading Belarus, to keep "Russia off their border" ?

 

[Robin]

And let us not forget Vlad the Mad in his little romp through Georgia.

How a Five-Day War With Georgia Allowed Russia to Reassert Its Military Might | HISTORY

Moscow's aggressive reaction to its long-simmering tensions with the former Soviet republic signaled a newly assertive Russia.

www.history.com

Robin

 

[holdover]

And, repeat after me, Russia gets zero say in what alliances another sovereign nation decides to join.

Doesn't work that way. If Canada invited the Chinese military to put military and naval bases along the Canadian border The US is going to have a big fucking say in the matter. Its a national security threat and the US would not allow it under any circumstances , Hell the Truman doctrine said no communists in the western hemisphere! The US would tell Canada the same thing Putin Told Ukraine , Remove your armys from our border , or we will remove them for you. The US would commence military operations and you would be complaining that We invaded .

 

[holdover]

Do you honestly think they were going to stop of their own accord ?

I did. Im not so sure now because the battlefield is changing. Poland France may enter the war , that changes the dynamics .

 

[tirwin1]

I did. Im not so sure now because the battlefield is changing. Poland France may enter the war , that changes the dynamics .

Why on earth would they stop? Putin publicly declared the decline of the USSR was a tragedy in his eyes. He wants the borders of the USSR back.