4 ms·

> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Sarcasm aside, all th

by 2143 5y ago

> NATO and especially USA should have responded by sending two thousands soldiers to Kiev And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Sarcasm aside, all that would've done is accelerate the whole invasion procedure. And then the 2000 troops would be killed by Russia. Then America/NATO will retaliate. That'll be the endgame.

CodeArtisan 5y ago
It was the only way to tell Putin to stop and to prevent an invasion; you send troops at the border, we will do the same on our side and they will stay as long as yours stay there.
mopsi 5y ago
> And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Yes. Without sarcasm. This happened several times with Trump, who despite all his faults, was a master bullshitter and master at seeing through other bullshitters. A notable episode was an attack by Russian Wagner group on a small outpost held by 30-something US special forces soldiers guarding a gas plant in Syria. Signals intelligence was later able to capture a few phone calls of survivors describing what had happened[1]. Russians were used to fighting poorly trained rebels, but now fell under combined arms fire from a modern army and it was a total massacre. They got hit from drones, artillery, Apaches and F-22s. Russian casualties: some 300 dead out of 600, American losses: 0. After that, Russians were much less eager to provoke the US. They test every president like this. Obama failed ("red lines" in Syria), Trump succeeded, Biden... depends on what he does next. [1] https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html
- hef19898 5y ago
  Not so sure if Trump succeeded. All Trump did was tell Putin "do whatever you want with whomever, as long as you leave my interests alone" (as in my personal interests). Did you forget the Helsinki summit, the one without interpreter? Or the Russian bounty on US troops in Afghanistan?
  - woodpanel 5y ago
    Amazing, there are still people out there believing the Russian Bounty hoax? https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-role-in https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-r...
- creato 5y ago
  You're omitting a critical detail: Russia denied that those forces were Russian, effectively green lighting the US response. That's not a useful "test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
  - mopsi 5y ago
    Denying involvement is their modus operandi, which backfired in this case. They obviously didn't expect one of the worst humiliations in modern military history.
- 2143 5y ago
  > modern army and it was a total massacre You don't get it. Look, nobody has any doubt that USA is very powerful. But that doesn't mean they must annihilate the world. And Russia is no slouch. Diplomacy is the need of the hour. As somebody who lives far far away from Europe and North America (in a country that's supposed to have no skin in this game), I don't want to get killed because Uncle Sam wants to show who's boss.
  - mopsi 5y ago
    > Look, nobody has any doubt that USA is very powerful. Russia obviously doubts. All that power is useless if you are afraid of using it. Russia conquered Crimea in 2014 without firing a single shot in the best spirit of Sun Tzu because everyone else was so deathly afraid of what might happen that it utterly paralyzed them. Congratz on being far away. I live next to a strategically important rail bridge that will get hit by a missile in the next round if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine. I don't think appeasement is going to achieve that.
    - 2143 5y ago
      > Russia obviously doubts You still don't get it. Do you doubt that Russia is powerful? Hence, the diplomacy. > strategically important rail bridge That's kind of the problem isn't it? Strategic assets near Russia (I think it's safe to assume the aforementioned bridge isn't in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is concerning to them. Every country involved is protecting their own interests. I have no sympathy for any of the governments involved. On any side. However, I hope that you and your family would be safe.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Diplomacy is the need of the hour. Diplomacy was yesterhour's need. It failed, otherwise there wouldn't be Russian troops all over Ukraine right now.
    - ghostwriter 5y ago
      It failed because the US diplomats were too ignorant to take Putin's "red line" demands (Ukraine never getting into NATO) seriously and they discarded any possibility for immediate negotiations on that matter too eagerly.

by 2143 5y ago

CodeArtisan 5y ago

It was the only way to tell Putin to stop and to prevent an invasion; you send troops at the border, we will do the same on our side and they will stay as long as yours stay there.

mopsi 5y ago

> And Russia would've been scared and retreated. Yes. Without sarcasm. This happened several times with Trump, who despite all his faults, was a master bullshitter and master at seeing through other bullshitters. A notable episode was an attack by Russian Wagner group on a small outpost held by 30-something US special forces soldiers guarding a gas plant in Syria. Signals intelligence was later able to capture a few phone calls of survivors describing what had happened[1]. Russians were used to fighting poorly trained rebels, but now fell under combined arms fire from a modern army and it was a total massacre. They got hit from drones, artillery, Apaches and F-22s. Russian casualties: some 300 dead out of 600, American losses: 0. After that, Russians were much less eager to provoke the US. They test every president like this. Obama failed ("red lines" in Syria), Trump succeeded, Biden... depends on what he does next. [1] https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html https://www.polygraph.info/a/29044452.html

hef19898 5y ago
Not so sure if Trump succeeded. All Trump did was tell Putin "do whatever you want with whomever, as long as you leave my interests alone" (as in my personal interests). Did you forget the Helsinki summit, the one without interpreter? Or the Russian bounty on US troops in Afghanistan?
- woodpanel 5y ago
  Amazing, there are still people out there believing the Russian Bounty hoax? https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-role-in https://greenwald.substack.com/p/liz-cheney-lied-about-her-r...
creato 5y ago
You're omitting a critical detail: Russia denied that those forces were Russian, effectively green lighting the US response. That's not a useful "test". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
- mopsi 5y ago
  Denying involvement is their modus operandi, which backfired in this case. They obviously didn't expect one of the worst humiliations in modern military history.
2143 5y ago
> modern army and it was a total massacre You don't get it. Look, nobody has any doubt that USA is very powerful. But that doesn't mean they must annihilate the world. And Russia is no slouch. Diplomacy is the need of the hour. As somebody who lives far far away from Europe and North America (in a country that's supposed to have no skin in this game), I don't want to get killed because Uncle Sam wants to show who's boss.
- mopsi 5y ago
  > Look, nobody has any doubt that USA is very powerful. Russia obviously doubts. All that power is useless if you are afraid of using it. Russia conquered Crimea in 2014 without firing a single shot in the best spirit of Sun Tzu because everyone else was so deathly afraid of what might happen that it utterly paralyzed them. Congratz on being far away. I live next to a strategically important rail bridge that will get hit by a missile in the next round if Putin is not stopped in Ukraine. I don't think appeasement is going to achieve that.
  - 2143 5y ago
    > Russia obviously doubts You still don't get it. Do you doubt that Russia is powerful? Hence, the diplomacy. > strategically important rail bridge That's kind of the problem isn't it? Strategic assets near Russia (I think it's safe to assume the aforementioned bridge isn't in Albuquerque, New Mexico) is concerning to them. Every country involved is protecting their own interests. I have no sympathy for any of the governments involved. On any side. However, I hope that you and your family would be safe.
- tremon 5y ago
  Diplomacy is the need of the hour. Diplomacy was yesterhour's need. It failed, otherwise there wouldn't be Russian troops all over Ukraine right now.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    It failed because the US diplomats were too ignorant to take Putin's "red line" demands (Ukraine never getting into NATO) seriously and they discarded any possibility for immediate negotiations on that matter too eagerly.