Starker on 26/4/2022 at 12:42
Russian security agencies are a bunch of messy bitches. Part of it is by design, so that no one faction gets to have too much power, and infighting and working cross-purposes is very much encouraged.
lowenz on 26/4/2022 at 18:03
Quote Posted by Starker
Russian security agencies are a bunch of messy bitches. Part of it is by design, so that no one faction gets to have too much power, and infighting and working cross-purposes is very much encouraged.
Some silly design :D
Azaran on 27/4/2022 at 00:34
Quote Posted by lowenz
First post on TTLG in this thread? Very normal.
$100 says it's Bruder Murus coming back for another trollfest
Nicker on 27/4/2022 at 12:17
Putin cuts off the gas and now Putin must be faced from a position of power and advantage, and after he has wrought genocidal hell on a largely destroyed Ukraine. Everything the cowering UN and NATO feared would happen if Putin was confronted at the borders, has come to pass in spades through his occupation. The "high road" is manned by Russian check-points. Now, doing Europe and the Americas should have done in the first place, will be harder and more expensive to remedy, in both human and monetary costs.
As predicted, Appeasement failed. Those who ignore history triumphed.
Also - Death To Tyrants.
Cipheron on 28/4/2022 at 03:43
Quote Posted by Nicker
As predicted, Appeasement failed. Those who ignore history triumphed.
WWII Appeasement was only a delaying tactic until you can build enough weapons and allies to stomp them.
People forget that Chamberlain had only been in office for about a year at the point of Munich and they hadn't even convinced the French to fight Hitler at that point. Lack of allies was a major reason for why nothing was done.
Also, in 1938 most of the British air force was still flying biplanes. The Hurricane only entered service at the end of 1937 and the Spitfire was only produced from mid 1938. Having an entire modern air force ready for the Battle of Britain in 1940 was thus almost entirely achieved on Chamberlain's watch.
Czechoslovakia also wasn't somewhere the British could possibly intervene: Britain was a naval power and it was a land-locked region surrounded by powers hostile to Britain.
The problem with the anti-Chamberlain stuff is it is based on the assumption that Chamberlain COULD have done some other action and that would have prevented WWII. That quite obviously to us wasn't going to happen.
So yeah, if they dropped the ball on this Russia stuff now, it's definitely unfair to Chamberlain to say they're doing a Chamberlain.
demagogue on 28/4/2022 at 21:46
I don't know if this was just selection bias (the articles I happened to see), but in the last few days it's looked like a lot of articles have turned really dark, like Putin is backed into a corner and ready to go full "chapter heading in middle school history book" megalomaniac-suicidal-dictator-on-us dark.
You'd see a some articles in the early days ("Putin is signaling that he's ready to use nuclear or chemical weapons & we should take it seriously") which got a pretty strong counter-reaction (the Left is being hysterical again; PDS is the new TDS). But the people joining the Rubicon bandwagon now (crossing the Dnieper?) are increasingly wonkish, the kind of people swimming in data and preternaturally incapable of convincing human emotion. God help us if they're on to something.
But like I said, it might just be selection and confirmation bias on my part.
Starker on 29/4/2022 at 02:01
Putin is already committing war crimes in Ukraine and using chemical weapons to assassinate people all over the world. It's not a big stretch to believe he would use them in Ukraine out of anger or sheer desperation.
A nuclear strike, though, would be getting the whole world's attention and not in a good way. Russia would alienate most of the countries trying to stay neutral and even some cautious allies like China and India would distance themselves. Or at least they would be under immense pressure to do so.
lowenz on 29/4/2022 at 05:43
Quote Posted by Starker
Or at least they would be under immense pressure to do so.
Or the contrary (putting pressure on the West).
*ONE* single nuclear strike (not with a tactical weapon on a strategic target) in Ukraine is not a smart move, the nukes are for us in Western Europe. And I mean a swarm of course, not *ONE*
Cipheron on 29/4/2022 at 10:40
Quote Posted by lowenz
Or the contrary (putting pressure on the West).
*ONE* single nuclear strike (not with a tactical weapon on a strategic target) in Ukraine is not a smart move, the nukes are for us in Western Europe. And I mean a swarm of course, not *ONE*
It comes down to how far Putin would be willing to go if he felt cornered.
Or at the very least how far he's wants us to think he's willing to go.
And what he's willing to do to make us believe he's serious.
For example if he threatens to nuke Western Europe then doesn't do that despite his supposed line being crossed, then he loses face and credibility, so he might be willing to drop a nuke somewhere to say "see, I'm serious".
---
BTW now the Serbians are angry at Putin. Russia supported Serbia vs the breakaway Kosovo region, and Serbians have strongly supported his war in return:
(
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220309-brothers-forever-many-in-serbia-back-russia-amid-global-outcry)
(
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/world/europe/ukraine-serbia-russia.html)
but now Putin is citing the rights of Kosovo as a justification for him supporting the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. This has enraged pro-Russian Serbs:
(
https://balkaninsight.com/2022/04/29/russian-ambassador-to-serbia-denies-change-in-putins-kosovo-policy/)
Quote:
The attacks on Putin followed a meeting between Putin and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in Moscow on Tuesday, when Putin likened Russia's claim to Crimea and eastern Ukraine to Kosovo's claim for independence from Serbia.
