4 ms·

Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics

Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics in Ukraine are very specific and absolutely measurable. Essentially the exact opposite of the situation in that conflict, in this regard. Putin's croaking soon isn't a requirement for this thing to stop. The main point is that not something that's going to happen in the far off future. Which means that most likely this conflict has similar bounds time-wise as well. If by "people" you mean random Youtubers -- yeah, "people" have been predicting all kinds of stuff. But very few of the analysts with actual expertise in these things have been making catastrophic predictions of the sort you're talking about (not even about the mutiny, or whatever it was 3 weeks ago). They've been quite level-headed and consistent in what they've been saying, actually. With that - I think we can find our own "stop", also. We don't have to agree about where this thing is ultimately heading. For my own part, I'll leave deliberations on that topic -- to those who are actually fighting it or living through it.

remarkEon 3y ago
You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.
- lisasays 3y ago
  I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.

remarkEon 3y ago

You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.

lisasays 3y ago
I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.