6 ms·

Another option for #4 is supplying enough long range anti-ship rockets to sink whole russian fleet in black sea. They can't bring in more ships, because turkey

Another option for #4 is supplying enough long range anti-ship rockets to sink whole russian fleet in black sea. They can't bring in more ships, because turkey is blocking the entrance.

paganel 4y ago
And then you have Russian aviation attacking and sinking Ukrainian merchant ships, plus a couple of submarines.
- nradov 4y ago
  Ukraine doesn't have much of a merchant fleet. Most of their exports travel on foreign bottoms. And foreign ship owners are unwilling to risk entering an active conflict zone, especially because they can't obtain affordable insurance.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  for a short while, while said aviation exists we can play this game all day long, but the past 2 months have clearly shown that russian conventional forces are not even close to a match for NATO combined forces* * as long as the goal isn't to slaughter as many civilians as possible, which for russia is a strong assumption
postalrat 4y ago
Triggering world war 3 would also help reduce the population which could reduce co2 emissions and food requirements. Killing a few birds with one stone.
- chrsig 4y ago
  I really wish the last few years didn't make me desensitized to the notion.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time"." That is what they have been threatening...
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      They threaten everyone and change their mind all the time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        The question was would they really "say" it.
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        It felt pretty clear to me the intention was saying it "to themselves" and following up with actual action. Nobody cares if they say things aloud.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      in that case, it would be russia starting ww3, and I don't think they will.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        I agree, but they will spin it from their prospective to say Han, I mean we, shot first.
- axiosgunnar 4y ago
  I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world. And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to this statement will consist of, it will not change my stance, so do not bother.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    I’ll drink to that!
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world." Well many people went to Ukraine to fight on their side. If that is what you do why would anyone bother "changing your stance". Just go and do it. But if you expect other people to perish in WWIII for the sake your stance they might hold a different opinion about that part.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.
        geoka9 4y ago
- UnFleshedOne 4y ago
  That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK). Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).
- trasz 4y ago
  We are talking about a country that can’t even supply proper boots to its troops. Why believe that the nuclear weapons they inherited from USSR still work?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Another option for #4 is supplying enough long range anti-ship rockets to sink whole russian fleet in black sea. They can't bring in more ships, because turkey is blocking the entrance.

paganel 4y ago

And then you have Russian aviation attacking and sinking Ukrainian merchant ships, plus a couple of submarines.

nradov 4y ago
Ukraine doesn't have much of a merchant fleet. Most of their exports travel on foreign bottoms. And foreign ship owners are unwilling to risk entering an active conflict zone, especially because they can't obtain affordable insurance.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
for a short while, while said aviation exists we can play this game all day long, but the past 2 months have clearly shown that russian conventional forces are not even close to a match for NATO combined forces* * as long as the goal isn't to slaughter as many civilians as possible, which for russia is a strong assumption

postalrat 4y ago

Triggering world war 3 would also help reduce the population which could reduce co2 emissions and food requirements. Killing a few birds with one stone.

chrsig 4y ago
I really wish the last few years didn't make me desensitized to the notion.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going on. If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They will lose, and get shot down. Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time".
- giantg2 4y ago
  "Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global thermonuclear war time"." That is what they have been threatening...
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    They threaten everyone and change their mind all the time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      The question was would they really "say" it.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        It felt pretty clear to me the intention was saying it "to themselves" and following up with actual action. Nobody cares if they say things aloud.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    in that case, it would be russia starting ww3, and I don't think they will.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      I agree, but they will spin it from their prospective to say Han, I mean we, shot first.
axiosgunnar 4y ago
I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world. And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to this statement will consist of, it will not change my stance, so do not bother.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  I’ll drink to that!
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"I‘d rather die trying, than live in a non-free world." Well many people went to Ukraine to fight on their side. If that is what you do why would anyone bother "changing your stance". Just go and do it. But if you expect other people to perish in WWIII for the sake your stance they might hold a different opinion about that part.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"those other people choose to, as they would rather vaporize than give an inch of their land to russia" If that was the case we would have active war in Crimea in 2014. >"if you expect them to surrender or accept less, well, you'll have to make your case to them" Why would I make any case? I do not expect anything. It is their choice. Also I do not think the talking was about Ukraine in particular. The statement was generic.
      - geoka9 4y ago
UnFleshedOne 4y ago
That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK). Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).
trasz 4y ago
We are talking about a country that can’t even supply proper boots to its troops. Why believe that the nuclear weapons they inherited from USSR still work?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]