3 ms·

> 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

by _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?.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > This is the COST. So far the most of the "COST" you're talking about has been covered by EU oil exports. Your "COST" is a missed opportunity. Not great, not terrible. > whereas they likely will not be willing to pay "Likely". That's reassuring. > I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. Conveniently your theory is that Russia costs are just on the line of winning in Ukraine, but not pushing forward. Same theory has been applied to every single Russia expansion, and it hasn't worked yet. But this time it's going to work, right? You presented absolutely no evidence that supports your theory, and yet you act incredibly condescending. It's just "trust me guys, this time the costs are high enough for Russia to stop. But only after they conquer Ukraine". Who's playing dumb here? At this point there's plenty of evidence that Russia actions are not rational, they are ideological.

by _kbh_ 4y ago

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?.
hbrn 4y ago
> This is the COST. So far the most of the "COST" you're talking about has been covered by EU oil exports. Your "COST" is a missed opportunity. Not great, not terrible. > whereas they likely will not be willing to pay "Likely". That's reassuring. > I don't know why you insist on playing dumb. Conveniently your theory is that Russia costs are just on the line of winning in Ukraine, but not pushing forward. Same theory has been applied to every single Russia expansion, and it hasn't worked yet. But this time it's going to work, right? You presented absolutely no evidence that supports your theory, and yet you act incredibly condescending. It's just "trust me guys, this time the costs are high enough for Russia to stop. But only after they conquer Ukraine". Who's playing dumb here? At this point there's plenty of evidence that Russia actions are not rational, they are ideological.