3 ms·

>Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatev

>Except they have learnt from Ukraine that if they threaten to use tactical nukes, people fold like a house of cards under your policy and Russia can get whatever it wants by holding the world hostage again. No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. >What is to stop Russia doing exactly what they are doing now again?. To repeat for the millionth time, the extreme cost that we impose on them for adventurism. They will not be willing to pay the cost they paid in Ukraine for fucking Moldova, for example. >Why do you refuse to acknowledge that your policy just allows Russia to continue doing whatever it wants as long as it threatens nukes Because it obviously doesn't to any honest interlocutor. I'm not sure what your deal is. >My policy is to support Ukraine with any weapons that are not escalatory (ie dont given Ukraine its nukes back) and to provide Ukraine with the intelligence and support that it needs to push Russia out of its borders. It's interesting to note the contrast between your actual policy proposal and the bombast of your rhetoric: >The only thing that will stop Russia having its colonial ambitions is to defeat them in such a thorough and direct way that they never think of doing it again as it would risk destabilising their country. It turns out you can't surely achieve the outcome of your rhetoric by adhering to the constraints of your policy. So which one gives first? What outcome are you willing to live with in reality, stripped of the rhetoric and cheerleading?

_kbh_ 4y ago
> No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. The only progress here is that you keep responding without any real answers. What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes?. Can you actually answer the question instead of deflecting?. > To repeat for the millionth time, the extreme cost that we impose on them for adventurism. They will not be willing to pay the cost they paid in Ukraine for fucking Moldova, for example. Why cant this extreme cost be laid on them right now, so that they leave Ukraine, why is it that you are willing to throw Ukraine to the wolves so easily?. > Because it obviously doesn't to any honest interlocutor. I'm not sure what your deal is. The only bad faith participants here are you, you refuse to even explain any of your points or what these magical 'costs' are. Your only point is that we must let Russia do whatever they want to Ukraine, and then hope for the best that they don't continue. Your policy didn't work for Hitler and won't work for Russia. > It turns out you can't surely achieve the outcome of your rhetoric by adhering to the constraints of your policy. So which one gives first? What outcome are you willing to live with in reality, stripped of the rhetoric and cheerleading? Ukraine is completely capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, they are in fact doing it right now. One of the Russian ""annexed"" cities fell mere hours after the ceremony in Russia, nothing happened.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes? What's the state of their economy again? What's the state of their military readiness? How many lives have been lost? How much wealth have the oligarchs had frozen? This is the COST. I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. >Why cant this extreme cost be laid on them right now, so that they leave Ukraine Because they are likely willing to pay that cost to secure Ukraine, whereas they likely will not be willing to pay a similar cost for Moldova. >Your policy didn't work for Hitler and won't work for Russia. This facile Hitler comparison is going to lead us straight into WW3. >Ukraine is completely capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, they are in fact doing it right now. We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Also notice how you didn't answer my question. It's the same with all you guys, you refuse to state explicitly where your lines are and what cost you're willing to pay.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Russias mobilisation has already started, mobilised soldiers have already made it to the front and have had enough time (~1 week) to be captured as POWs. This is literally all Russia has.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten.
      - _kbh_ 4y ago
        > It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten. If you want to show the gains the Russian conscripts have made I’d be happy to look at the evidence. But it appears to me after mobilisation that Russia has started being pushed back to their own borders at a incredible rate. Unless you expect the conscripts to do better then the professional soldiers how does Russia have anything more to give?.

_kbh_ 4y ago

> No, they haven't. Let's not fall back into the dishonest takes after we made so much progress. The only progress here is that you keep responding without any real answers. What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes?. Can you actually answer the question instead of deflecting?. > To repeat for the millionth time, the extreme cost that we impose on them for adventurism. They will not be willing to pay the cost they paid in Ukraine for fucking Moldova, for example. Why cant this extreme cost be laid on them right now, so that they leave Ukraine, why is it that you are willing to throw Ukraine to the wolves so easily?. > Because it obviously doesn't to any honest interlocutor. I'm not sure what your deal is. The only bad faith participants here are you, you refuse to even explain any of your points or what these magical 'costs' are. Your only point is that we must let Russia do whatever they want to Ukraine, and then hope for the best that they don't continue. Your policy didn't work for Hitler and won't work for Russia. > It turns out you can't surely achieve the outcome of your rhetoric by adhering to the constraints of your policy. So which one gives first? What outcome are you willing to live with in reality, stripped of the rhetoric and cheerleading? Ukraine is completely capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, they are in fact doing it right now. One of the Russian ""annexed"" cities fell mere hours after the ceremony in Russia, nothing happened.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>What have exactly has Russia learnt if they get _exactly_ what they want when they threaten the world with nukes? What's the state of their economy again? What's the state of their military readiness? How many lives have been lost? How much wealth have the oligarchs had frozen? This is the COST. I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. >Why cant this extreme cost be laid on them right now, so that they leave Ukraine Because they are likely willing to pay that cost to secure Ukraine, whereas they likely will not be willing to pay a similar cost for Moldova. >Your policy didn't work for Hitler and won't work for Russia. This facile Hitler comparison is going to lead us straight into WW3. >Ukraine is completely capable of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, they are in fact doing it right now. We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Also notice how you didn't answer my question. It's the same with all you guys, you refuse to state explicitly where your lines are and what cost you're willing to pay.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > We will see when Russia's "partial" mobilization is complete. We'll see when Russia continues to escalate their use of weaponry. Russias mobilisation has already started, mobilised soldiers have already made it to the front and have had enough time (~1 week) to be captured as POWs. This is literally all Russia has.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > It's ironic that we're on a programming forum but doing a worst-case analysis of your proposed policy is verboten. If you want to show the gains the Russian conscripts have made I’d be happy to look at the evidence. But it appears to me after mobilisation that Russia has started being pushed back to their own borders at a incredible rate. Unless you expect the conscripts to do better then the professional soldiers how does Russia have anything more to give?.