Let’s have a war!

[ousdahl]

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

ah, yes, so something more aggressive yet, indeed.

heck, maybe we should have had (even more than we did) US and NATO troops by the tens of thousands on the eastern Ukrainian front lines by no later than March 2022.

Or heck heck heck, maybe we should have just preemptively nuked Moscow already!

And to think you accuse others of gaslighting and similar rhetorical tricks.

(What's especially sad is that you cannot, or do not want to, see the through-line connecting our restraint in providing things like F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS to this 1/5 thing you keep coming back to. In other words, you are using the foreseeable RESULT of our restraint (in combination with Putin's capture of the GOP) to criticize ... Biden?)

ah, thanks for explaining your perception of restraint. I can actually see, at least al little more clearly, what you mean by that now.

And forgive me if I came across as gaslighting. That's not my intent. (hopefully that's a better response to gaslighting accusations than something like, "we're not gaslighting you, yer just ignorant!"

I was going for hyperbole tho for sure, in a way to suggest just how far the "if only we had been even more aggressiver even more soonerer" sort of strategy might go.

as far as criticizing Biden, I'm bummed he now seems OK with a strategy less about regaining Ukrainian territory lost to Russia, and more about just maintaining the current front lines, in a way that effectively concedes 1/5 of Ukraine to Russia anyway.

I wish there was some better strategy yet, one that may not involve increased militancy but also may not involve territorial concessions, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

[ousdahl]

For my money (which it is; yours, too) I would have had F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS in Ukraine's hands a year ago. Even if Russia could have bleated that those things have offensive potential.

can you seriously not thing of anything better to do with your money?

BTW, I've got some oceanfront property in Idaho I'd like to sell you.

some Russian tabloid bro says Putin's gonna nuke us all unless you buy it.

Why is it that you continue to say things like this, when it is just obviously untrue and that takes two seconds to figure out? Is it the same reason you acted like clicking a mouse twice to translate the guy's post to English was rocket science?

per wiki:

The London Evening Standard, formerly The Standard (1827–1904), is a local free daily newspaper in London, England, published Monday to Friday in tabloid format.

In October 2009, after being purchased by Russian businessman Alexander Lebedev, the paper ended a 180-year history of paid circulation and became a free newspaper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Standard

again, can't help but be skeptical here, but just dunno how much weight I wanna give to a former KGB agent

[jfish26]

ah, yes, so something more aggressive yet, indeed.

heck, maybe we should have had (even more than we did) US and NATO troops by the tens of thousands on the eastern Ukrainian front lines by no later than March 2022.

Or heck heck heck, maybe we should have just preemptively nuked Moscow already!

And to think you accuse others of gaslighting and similar rhetorical tricks.

(What's especially sad is that you cannot, or do not want to, see the through-line connecting our restraint in providing things like F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS to this 1/5 thing you keep coming back to. In other words, you are using the foreseeable RESULT of our restraint (in combination with Putin's capture of the GOP) to criticize ... Biden?)

ah, thanks for explaining your perception of restraint. I can actually see, at least al little more clearly, what you mean by that now.

And forgive me if I came across as gaslighting. That's not my intent. (hopefully that's a better response to gaslighting accusations than something like, "we're not gaslighting you, yer just ignorant!"

I was going for hyperbole tho for sure, in a way to suggest just how far the "if only we had been even more aggressiver even more soonerer" sort of strategy might go.

as far as criticizing Biden, I'm bummed he now seems OK with a strategy less about regaining Ukrainian territory lost to Russia, and more about just maintaining the current front lines, in a way that effectively concedes 1/5 of Ukraine to Russia anyway.

I wish there was some better strategy yet, one that may not involve increased militancy but also may not involve territorial concessions, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

This is driving me nuts. What in the world makes you think Biden is "OK with" the present strategy?

Acknowledging reality (and accepting the legal limits of one's authority) is hardly the same thing as being "OK with" it in a macro sense.

[jfish26]

can you seriously not thing of anything better to do with your money?

BTW, I've got some oceanfront property in Idaho I'd like to sell you.

some Russian tabloid bro says Putin's gonna nuke us all unless you buy it.

Why is it that you continue to say things like this, when it is just obviously untrue and that takes two seconds to figure out? Is it the same reason you acted like clicking a mouse twice to translate the guy's post to English was rocket science?

per wiki:

The London Evening Standard, formerly The Standard (1827–1904), is a local free daily newspaper in London, England, published Monday to Friday in tabloid format.

In October 2009, after being purchased by Russian businessman Alexander Lebedev, the paper ended a 180-year history of paid circulation and became a free newspaper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evening_Standard

again, can't help but be skeptical here, but just dunno how much weight I wanna give to a former KGB agent

Why can't you help yourself from clouding the water with a discussion of the relative reliability of one particular secondary source?

[ousdahl]

dude, when it comes to wartime rhetoric, all that water is cloudy by its very nature.

That's why I'm skeptical!

as to this piece specifically, I just can't help but think maybe a KGB-agent-turned-tabloid-owner dropping bombshell headlines, no pun intended, just might have some ulterior motives yet. For real, he's using himself as the source for his own media's report?

Of course, if you'd like to take a stab at articulating which wartime rhetoric should be summarily dismissed as bad guy propaganda and which wartime rhetoric is for sure undoubtedly legit "clear water", please do enlighten me.

[ousdahl]

And to think you accuse others of gaslighting and similar rhetorical tricks.

(What's especially sad is that you cannot, or do not want to, see the through-line connecting our restraint in providing things like F-16s, A-10s and ATACMS to this 1/5 thing you keep coming back to. In other words, you are using the foreseeable RESULT of our restraint (in combination with Putin's capture of the GOP) to criticize ... Biden?)

ah, thanks for explaining your perception of restraint. I can actually see, at least al little more clearly, what you mean by that now.

And forgive me if I came across as gaslighting. That's not my intent. (hopefully that's a better response to gaslighting accusations than something like, "we're not gaslighting you, yer just ignorant!"

I was going for hyperbole tho for sure, in a way to suggest just how far the "if only we had been even more aggressiver even more soonerer" sort of strategy might go.

as far as criticizing Biden, I'm bummed he now seems OK with a strategy less about regaining Ukrainian territory lost to Russia, and more about just maintaining the current front lines, in a way that effectively concedes 1/5 of Ukraine to Russia anyway.

I wish there was some better strategy yet, one that may not involve increased militancy but also may not involve territorial concessions, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

This is driving me nuts. What in the world makes you think Biden is "OK with" the present strategy?

Acknowledging reality (and accepting the legal limits of one's authority) is hardly the same thing as being "OK with" it in a macro sense.

I almost wanted to suggest debating "OK with" as just some argument in semantics.

But, in the interest of a good discussion, yea I can see what you mean by distinguishing "OK with" from "acknowledging reality."

but is it then acknowledging reality that Ukraine simply may not get that territory back from Russia?

that's just such an icky thought.

But reality can often be icky, I guess.

[jfish26]

dude, when it comes to wartime rhetoric, all that water is cloudy by its very nature.

That's why I'm skeptical!

as to this piece specifically, I just can't help but think maybe a KGB-agent-turned-tabloid-owner dropping bombshell headlines, no pun intended, just might have some ulterior motives yet. For real, he's using himself as the source for his own media's report?

Of course, if you'd like to take a stab at articulating which wartime rhetoric should be summarily dismissed as bad guy propaganda and which wartime rhetoric is for sure undoubtedly legit "clear water", please do enlighten me.

I’m confused.

Did you miss that I posted the primary source? Who is second to Putin on Russia’s National Security Council and also a former President of Russia?

[ousdahl]

ah, I might have those two Russians confused.

So the question then becomes, why is one Russian president full of shit but another Russian president a trustworthy source?

[jfish26]

ah, thanks for explaining your perception of restraint. I can actually see, at least al little more clearly, what you mean by that now.

And forgive me if I came across as gaslighting. That's not my intent. (hopefully that's a better response to gaslighting accusations than something like, "we're not gaslighting you, yer just ignorant!"

I was going for hyperbole tho for sure, in a way to suggest just how far the "if only we had been even more aggressiver even more soonerer" sort of strategy might go.

as far as criticizing Biden, I'm bummed he now seems OK with a strategy less about regaining Ukrainian territory lost to Russia, and more about just maintaining the current front lines, in a way that effectively concedes 1/5 of Ukraine to Russia anyway.

I wish there was some better strategy yet, one that may not involve increased militancy but also may not involve territorial concessions, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.

This is driving me nuts. What in the world makes you think Biden is "OK with" the present strategy?

Acknowledging reality (and accepting the legal limits of one's authority) is hardly the same thing as being "OK with" it in a macro sense.

I almost wanted to suggest debating "OK with" as just some argument in semantics.

But, in the interest of a good discussion, yea I can see what you mean by distinguishing "OK with" from "acknowledging reality."

but is it then acknowledging reality that Ukraine simply may not get that territory back from Russia?

that's just such an icky thought.

But reality can often be icky, I guess.

So again I’ll ask, what point is it that you think you’re making when you (accurately) point out that we are (realistically) walking back expectations?

[ousdahl]

So again I’ll ask, what point is it that you think you’re making when you (accurately) point out that we are (realistically) walking back expectations?

well one point is, if we're walking back expectations, then that kinda makes the hardline rhetoric sound unrealistic, and a little silly now.

I mean, isn't this also you?

In your opinion, should Ukraine be expected to give up one inch of its land (including Crimea)?

I have to think, based on your unwillingness to answer, that you believe the answer is something OTHER than an unqualified “no”. And to me, that’s (1) ludicrous, and (2) pro-Putin.

oh, and for the record - I was not unwilling to answer. I did answer. And that answer of course was an unqualified "no."

In hindsight maybe I sounded a little silly too.

[jfish26]

ah, I might have those two Russians confused.

So the question then becomes, why is one Russian president full of shit but another Russian president a trustworthy source?

“Source” of what exactly?

All I have said is that Medvedev’s own words are the source of the stories you are challenging, and that your own “skepticism” of those words and the seriousness of the threat they contain* is 100% the whole point of the trap you’ve fallen into (and the result of the trap you’ve fallen into) by following Putin’s words in his war-opening speech.

* This is another of those things you don’t want to be true, but is: because you dismiss the unequivocal wrongness of Putin’s war on Ukraine, you dismiss threats on NATO even when made by senior Russian officials.

[jfish26]

So again I’ll ask, what point is it that you think you’re making when you (accurately) point out that we are (realistically) walking back expectations?

well one point is, if we're walking back expectations, then that kinda makes the hardline rhetoric sound unrealistic, and a little silly now.

I mean, isn't this also you?

In your opinion, should Ukraine be expected to give up one inch of its land (including Crimea)?

I have to think, based on your unwillingness to answer, that you believe the answer is something OTHER than an unqualified “no”. And to me, that’s (1) ludicrous, and (2) pro-Putin.

oh, and for the record - I was not unwilling to answer. I did answer. And that answer of course was an unqualified "no."

In hindsight maybe I sounded a little silly too.

You are missing - intentionally or otherwise - the through-line again.

[ousdahl]

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the unequivocal wrongness of Putin's war on Ukraine. It's wrong, unequivocally!

and I don't mean to dismiss threats on NATO. Even when made by senior Russian officials!

So in the interest of abandoning my instinctive skepticism and just being a sport for the sake of this discussion, what should our strategy be, hen?

If Russia is gonna nuke London and Washington and Berlin and Kyiv, what should we do to counter it?

[ousdahl]

So again I’ll ask, what point is it that you think you’re making when you (accurately) point out that we are (realistically) walking back expectations?

well one point is, if we're walking back expectations, then that kinda makes the hardline rhetoric sound unrealistic, and a little silly now.

I mean, isn't this also you?

In your opinion, should Ukraine be expected to give up one inch of its land (including Crimea)?

I have to think, based on your unwillingness to answer, that you believe the answer is something OTHER than an unqualified “no”. And to me, that’s (1) ludicrous, and (2) pro-Putin.

oh, and for the record - I was not unwilling to answer. I did answer. And that answer of course was an unqualified "no."

In hindsight maybe I sounded a little silly too.

You are missing - intentionally or otherwise - the through-line again.

how do you reconcile realistically walking back expectations with that unqualified no?

[ousdahl]

and, not to change the subject, but considering the reach of this thread...


...well, somebody is bombing Lebanon again.

[jfish26]

I certainly don't mean to dismiss the unequivocal wrongness of Putin's war on Ukraine. It's wrong, unequivocally!

and I don't mean to dismiss threats on NATO. Even when made by senior Russian officials!

So in the interest of abandoning my instinctive skepticism and just being a sport for the sake of this discussion, what should our strategy be, hen?

If Russia is gonna nuke London and Washington and Berlin and Kyiv, what should we do to counter it?

I never said that Russia "is gonna nuke London and Washington and Berlin and Kyiv."

But dismissing the threat out of hand is kinda dumb when Russia is two years into an unjustified, conventional war of aggression on Ukraine's civilians.

And it is very obvious that, to the extent there is a threat of Russian aggression against NATO, of fucking course the best defense is for Russia to not learn from is war on Ukraine that following through on threats results in happy endings for Russia.

[jfish26]

well one point is, if we're walking back expectations, then that kinda makes the hardline rhetoric sound unrealistic, and a little silly now.

I mean, isn't this also you?




oh, and for the record - I was not unwilling to answer. I did answer. And that answer of course was an unqualified "no."

In hindsight maybe I sounded a little silly too.

You are missing - intentionally or otherwise - the through-line again.

how do you reconcile realistically walking back expectations with that unqualified no?

Why are you twisting yourself in knots on basic questions?

How can you not see the difference between principle (which remains that Ukraine should not be expected to give up one inch of its land) and pragmatism (which is that, because the House GOP has been captured by the guy whose lies you also find compelling, it is presently unrealistic to expect that what SHOULD happen is what WILL happen)?

[ousdahl]

well if it's the Putin-captured House GOP that's holding all this up, what's stopping Biden from simply bypassing Congress to approve weapons sales to our imperial allies?

[DCHawk1]

and, not to change the subject, but considering the reach of this thread...


...well, somebody is bombing Lebanon again.

Now...why would that be?

[jfish26]

well if it's the Putin-captured House GOP that's holding all this up, what's stopping Biden from simply bypassing Congress to approve weapons sales to our imperial allies?

Why do you do this?

And yes, I know that you are (again) trying to compare Ukraine/Russia to Israel/Hamas on a 1:1 basis, but they are simply not comparable on that basis. And so trying to force it just detracts, not adds, from whether what you say is worth taking seriously.

(Unless you are trying to say that Ukraine is "imperial," which would just be a different kind of unserious.)