3 ms·

@andrewstuart Resolution is the same as the way all wars eventually end (or preferably never start) - diplomacy and agreements. We are in a period of catastrop

@andrewstuart Resolution is the same as the way all wars eventually end (or preferably never start) - diplomacy and agreements. We are in a period of catastrophic diplomatic failures after decades of successful MAD standoff balance

nosianu 4y ago
> the same as the way all wars eventually end As a German, that's not how our last war ended. Neither did the more recent Iraq war, or Libya. Plenty of wars end with the utter defeat of the opponent.
- dralley 4y ago
  Russia won't be "utterly" defeated in the same way as Iraq, Germany or Libya. But they don't have to be to be brought to the negotiating table by the lack of ability to continue.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    > Russia won't be "utterly" defeated Who cares? I didn't say that, nobody wants that, and it is completely unnecessary. The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan either, and the withdrawal of the US from those countries was not negotiated. It is perfectly enough to throw out the aggressor or make their losses to big for them to want to stay. Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out. This kind of bad-faith argument of trying to find something in the words to argue against when you very well know what we are talking about is making public discussion such a chore.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      >The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan I was in Afghanistan, and yes we were. I walked I don't know how many patrols in that country and watching how we left was a remarkable embarrassment that makes me finally understand what Vietnam Vets felt like, which is the last war the United States truly lost. >Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out. I can't parse what this means, but I do speak a little German if you want to clarify. To "beat" the Russian military at this stage would require full NATO mobilization and World War III. I've made other comments on this website expressing my skepticism of the wisdom of NATOs involvement here, but I'll sum it up as this: Ukraine is not worth a bunch of cities in eastern Europe turning to glass. That's the reality, and you should note that the US Military has a pretty severe recruiting problem right now. We can't fight this war without a draft, and at some point the true nature of NATO will show through the clouds, which is that the United States has been paying for the continental security of the entire European continent for 50+ years. Rheinmetall designed the new main gun for the M-1 Abrams, I guess.
      - unrealhoang 4y ago
        > To "beat" the Russian military at this stage would require full NATO mobilization and World War III. Why? The Vietnamese can beat the US then so can the Ukrainian. I'd argue the Ukrainian got much better weapon (and most importantly, intel) support.
      - nosianu 4y ago
        > I was in Afghanistan, and yes we were. Your definition of "utterly defeated" is very different and moving of goal posts from what the OP that I replied to used. OP used it in an absolute term, the country itself had to be defeated, like Germany in 1945. And I argued that that was not necessary. Now you don't attack anything at all of my argument, you just move the goal somewhere else. Your scenario is exactly the same that I used. Unless you want to argue that the US capitulated - and not just withdrew from Afghanistan - and Taliban now rule in Washington? Could we please argue in good faith and not try to play with words and definitions to "win" some Internet discussion and show some anon commenter how wrong they are, using all kinds of dark methods?

nosianu 4y ago

> the same as the way all wars eventually end As a German, that's not how our last war ended. Neither did the more recent Iraq war, or Libya. Plenty of wars end with the utter defeat of the opponent.

dralley 4y ago
Russia won't be "utterly" defeated in the same way as Iraq, Germany or Libya. But they don't have to be to be brought to the negotiating table by the lack of ability to continue.
- nosianu 4y ago
  > Russia won't be "utterly" defeated Who cares? I didn't say that, nobody wants that, and it is completely unnecessary. The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan either, and the withdrawal of the US from those countries was not negotiated. It is perfectly enough to throw out the aggressor or make their losses to big for them to want to stay. Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out. This kind of bad-faith argument of trying to find something in the words to argue against when you very well know what we are talking about is making public discussion such a chore.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    >The US was not "utterly defeated" when they left Vietnam o Afghanistan I was in Afghanistan, and yes we were. I walked I don't know how many patrols in that country and watching how we left was a remarkable embarrassment that makes me finally understand what Vietnam Vets felt like, which is the last war the United States truly lost. >Diplomatic solutions would mean to give something to the aggressor. That is not necessary, you can just beat their military and force them out. I can't parse what this means, but I do speak a little German if you want to clarify. To "beat" the Russian military at this stage would require full NATO mobilization and World War III. I've made other comments on this website expressing my skepticism of the wisdom of NATOs involvement here, but I'll sum it up as this: Ukraine is not worth a bunch of cities in eastern Europe turning to glass. That's the reality, and you should note that the US Military has a pretty severe recruiting problem right now. We can't fight this war without a draft, and at some point the true nature of NATO will show through the clouds, which is that the United States has been paying for the continental security of the entire European continent for 50+ years. Rheinmetall designed the new main gun for the M-1 Abrams, I guess.
    - unrealhoang 4y ago
      > To "beat" the Russian military at this stage would require full NATO mobilization and World War III. Why? The Vietnamese can beat the US then so can the Ukrainian. I'd argue the Ukrainian got much better weapon (and most importantly, intel) support.
    - nosianu 4y ago
      > I was in Afghanistan, and yes we were. Your definition of "utterly defeated" is very different and moving of goal posts from what the OP that I replied to used. OP used it in an absolute term, the country itself had to be defeated, like Germany in 1945. And I argued that that was not necessary. Now you don't attack anything at all of my argument, you just move the goal somewhere else. Your scenario is exactly the same that I used. Unless you want to argue that the US capitulated - and not just withdrew from Afghanistan - and Taliban now rule in Washington? Could we please argue in good faith and not try to play with words and definitions to "win" some Internet discussion and show some anon commenter how wrong they are, using all kinds of dark methods?