Europe at War

[Todd]

Factually incorrect, to the point of being utterly comedic. Also typically disingenuous, but that's obvious enough that l hesitate to even mention it.

Todd, in all seriousness you should simply admit that you're on Putin's side, and want him to annihilate Ukraine's national identity and re-establish imperial Russia. It would make matters here easier for everyone, including you.

You are confused.

[Madiel]

You are confused.

Incorrect.

[prémont]

When he's not being a troll he's just being a brick wall.

Correct.

Now if you want to know how DANES pronounce the letter V, the answer is... where possible they don't so much pronounce it as kind of glide over it, like it's a brief catch in the stream of vowels.

Yes, a funny description with a lot of truth in it.    We are somewhat sloppy with the pronunciation of consonants and like to eat them whenever possible. And that's why I preferred to compare the English pronounciation with the Dutch or German pronounciation.

[Madiel]

Correct.

Yes, a funny description with a lot of truth in it.    We are somewhat sloppy with the pronunciation of consonants and like to eat them whenever possible. And that's why I preferred to compare the English pronounciation with the Dutch or German pronounciation.

This is a classic first shown to me by my Danish teacher. https://www.reddit.com/r/languagelearning/comments/7ch3e2/how_to_pronounce_any_danish_word/

[Que]

Progress:

Ukraine war: Germany won't block export of its Leopard 2 tanks

[Jo498]

Russia will win this war when it can do with Ukraine as it pleases.

you are correct insofar that the power with the world's largest nuclear arsenal cannot lose this war, unless they voluntarily do not use at least the threat of nuclear power (i.e. the opponent is at their goodwill and mercy not to use the nuclear option).
But if the West was not so mad to imagine they could bring such a nuclear power to their heels by a few dozen more tanks, there could be a solution without the physical destruction of Ukraine (and economic devastation in a lot of Western Europe).
I am pretty sure that Russia would agree to keeping Crimea, Donbass (basically the regions where the conflict raged since 2014) and some treaty leaving the remaining of Ukraine neutral. (So Russia could not do as they please.) But this would be seen as Russia having won. (Correct in a sense, but who has one if instead the whole of Ukraine is devastated and Western Europe economically crippled?)
Therefore we "have to" prolong this war and increase the risk of a potentially nuclear world war. I am really stunned how almost everyone here seems in favor of this, especially people living in Europe. To save the ambitions of an utterly corrupt country like Ukraine or "teach Putin a lesson"? These are understandable motivations but irrational from a geopolitical PoV and cannot lead to an end of war.

[Florestan]

I am pretty sure that Russia would agree to keeping Crimea, Donbass (basically the regions where the conflict raged since 2014) and some treaty leaving the remaining of Ukraine neutral. (So Russia could not do as they please.) But this would be seen as Russia having won.

This will be the inevitable outcome of the war, whether it ends tomorrow or after ten years.

[Madiel]

Is the world's largest nuclear arsenal actually functioning? Asking for a friend.

[Fëanor]

you are correct insofar that the power with the world's largest nuclear arsenal cannot lose this war, unless they voluntarily do not use at least the threat of nuclear power (i.e. the opponent is at their goodwill and mercy not to use the nuclear option).
But if the West was not so mad to imagine they could bring such a nuclear power to their heels by a few dozen more tanks, there could be a solution without the physical destruction of Ukraine (and economic devastation in a lot of Western Europe).
I am pretty sure that Russia would agree to keeping Crimea, Donbass (basically the regions where the conflict raged since 2014) and some treaty leaving the remaining of Ukraine neutral. (So Russia could not do as they please.) But this would be seen as Russia having won. (Correct in a sense, but who has one if instead the whole of Ukraine is devastated and Western Europe economically crippled?)
Therefore we "have to" prolong this war and increase the risk of a potentially nuclear world war. I am really stunned how almost everyone here seems in favor of this, especially people living in Europe. To save the ambitions of an utterly corrupt country like Ukraine or "teach Putin a lesson"? These are understandable motivations but irrational from a geopolitical PoV and cannot lead to an end of war.

Spoken like a true @Todd clone.  Well, dah, giving in to Russian demands would end the Ukraine "special military operation": likely so.

But there are a few problems with that:

• Ukraine forfeits all its national sovereignty;
• Reduction of Ukraine to national serfdom won't be the end of Putin's aggression which would subsequently turn to Moldova, then the Baltics, then maybe Poland;
• It would set the president that nations with nuclear weapons could demand almost anything they want and get it with impunity.

Personally, short of a direct invasion of Russia, I think Putin is unlikely use nukes.  The reason is simple and is just a continuation of the Cold War "MAD" standoff.  If Russia uses nuke, the USA will respond, possibly in-kind.  (This illustrates the critical role of the USA in NATO:  the only significant nuclear power in that organization and a counter to its nuclear opponents.)

[Jo498]

Is the world's largest nuclear arsenal actually functioning? Asking for a friend.

I guess you in Australia can be so "heroic" (still wearing face masks?) to take that risk. I am not. I would have been turned to radioactive dust from "friendly nuclear missiles" if the Cold War had become hot in the 1980s (living between the Rhine and the Fulda gap) and I don't care for the prospect.

[Todd]

Progress:

Ukraine war: Germany won't block export of its Leopard 2 tanks

The imperial overlord applied irresistible pressure.  That is the antithesis of progress.

Ukraine forfeits all its national sovereignty;

So?  One thing I would surely like to see is an explanation of how this negatively impacts US security and interests.  Any response would need to keep in mind that the US does not need to engage itself in wars choice.

Reduction of Ukraine to national serfdom won't be the end of Putin's aggression which would subsequently turn to Moldova, then the Baltics, then maybe Poland;

This does not follow.  It is fearmongering combined with warmongering. 

It would set the president that nations with nuclear weapons could demand almost anything they want and get it with impunity.

The US has shown that for decades.

Personally, short of a direct invasion of Russia, I think Putin is unlikely use nukes.  The reason is simple and is just a continuation of the Cold War "MAD" standoff.

The corporate press has reported that US policymakers have purposely withheld sending certain equipment and approving certain military actions by Ukraine precisely because of the risk of escalation.  This goes well beyond MAD because the war is right on Russia's border.  People cannot see the most basic realities right in front of their eyes.  Hell, even Biden said that we are closer to a nuclear exchange than anytime since 1962. 

I guess you in Australia can be so "heroic" (still wearing face masks?) to take that risk. I am not. I would have been turned to radioactive dust from "friendly nuclear missiles" if the Cold War had become hot in the 1980s (living between the Rhine and the Fulda gap) and I don't care for the prospect.

On this forum, the most ferocious combatants almost to a man come from the smallest, weakest countries.

[Jo498]

Spoken like a true @Todd clone.  Well, dah, giving in to Russian demands would end the Ukraine "special military operation": likely so.

Whose clone are you? I certainly don't need a cynical American to think for myself. (FWIW I think I disagree with Todd that the US is not benefitting from this war; Russia is weakened, so is the EU (our industry is hampered and we become dependent on "clean, green" US LNG. I mean, we are so wimpily weak that we have to ignore a hostile act of sabotage against a pipeline worth billions!)

But there are a few problems with that:

• Ukraine forfeits all its national sovereignty;
• Reduction of Ukraine to national serfdom won't be the end of Putin's aggression which would subsequently turn to Moldova, then the Baltics, then maybe Poland;
• It would set the president that nations with nuclear weapons could demand almost anything they want and get it with impunity.

None of this follows, except the last point that didn't need this particular case as an illustration. (The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. The Melians only wanted to remain neutral, they weren't even enemies of the Athenians - sometimes one cannot remain neutral as a weak state in between.)
Russia tolerated the red lines being crossed in case of the Baltics, Poland, Romania but the Ukraine was obviously one line too many. But they have their hands quite full with Ukraine and certainly not the power to attack other countries, especially not NATO members that were never part of the SU (like Poland).
Ukraine was rejected by the EU because they were corrupt even beyond what the EU-corruptocrats were willing to tolerate (or the corruption was already too much bound up with Bidens or Russians, so there was not enough in there for the EU). Then they wanted to join some customs union with Russia and Kazakhstan. Than Nuland etc. orchestrated that coup and installed anti-Russian puppets. Then Russia took Crimea and civil war began in the Eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately Europe apparently then fell asleep for 7 years and ignored that conflict, so they were caught unawares by the escalation a year ago. For whatever reason (probably they are just forced as vassals by the US) they are now willing to sacrifice almost everything for a country that less than 10 years ago they found too corrupt to have closer relations with.

In a war that country cannot win, IF "winning" means getting Crimea back. Of course, there has to be some face-saving solution with a few districts being shuffled between future West-Ukraine and the Eastern parts. And there will be treaties to ensure that (West)Ukraine is not a Russian vassal but neutral. I don't see any alternative, Russia will not give Crimea back and if they become too weak to hold the Donbass regions they want, the conflict would also continue. Likewise with more secret US/NATO stuff going on in a Western-associated Ukraine (although Russia might be content with the future "East Ukraine" as buffer, not sure). How can you expect the conflict to become solved if the situation that led to the conflict in the first place (casus belli) remains?

Unless you prefer World War III what is your alternative proposal? Hope to wear down Russia over many years (and hope they remain "nice" and don't use nuclear?) and the collateral damage of an economically devastated (and thus probably politically unstable) Western Europe will be worth it?

[Jo498]

On this forum, the most ferocious combatants almost to a man come from the smallest, weakest countries.

It's the same with German politicians and journalists. The conscientious objector hippies of the 1980s-00s (and also many women like our pretty puppet of a foreign minister who of course didn't even need a conscience to avoid the military service) have become the worst warmongers since decades. Because it's cheap and easy, no skin in the game.
(Even in the cold war it was only far right "old comrades" or the "rather dead than Red" faction who came close to such warmongering but they usually at least knew to some extent what they were talking about, having living memories of a war.)

[Todd]

I mean, we are so wimpily weak that we have to ignore a hostile act of sabotage against a pipeline worth billions!

When it occurred and Russia was blamed, the corporate press described the destruction of the pipelines as an act of war and a war crime.  Now that the evidence is not conclusive, the corporate press is mum.  Take from that what you will.

Also, I hasten to add that I have been clear that certain US interests benefit mightily from this war, but that is different than the US as a whole benefitting.  Let's take LNG exports.  Clearly the gas producers, pipeline operators, LNG facility owners, shipping companies, insurance companies, and banks and other financial companies that finance the operations are gaining.  However, some markets in the US have seen sharp increases in gas prices, which harms everyday Americans.  (My local gas utility is more properly regulated, so my monthly gas bill went up $14, no biggie.) Basically, the US is experiencing a comparatively mild form of war profiteering in energy.

Because it's cheap and easy, no skin in the game.

QFT.

[Fëanor]

Whose clone are you? I certainly don't need a cynical American to think for myself. (FWIW I think I disagree with Todd that the US is not benefitting from this war; Russia is weakened, so is the EU (our industry is hampered and we become dependent on "clean, green" US LNG. I mean, we are so wimpily weak that we have to ignore a hostile act of sabotage against a pipeline worth billions!)
None of this follows, except the last point that didn't need this particular case as an illustration. (The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must. The Melians only wanted to remain neutral, they weren't even enemies of the Athenians - sometimes one cannot remain neutral as a weak state in between.)
Russia tolerated the red lines being crossed in case of the Baltics, Poland, Romania but the Ukraine was obviously one line too many. But they have their hands quite full with Ukraine and certainly not the power to attack other countries, especially not NATO members that were never part of the SU (like Poland).
Ukraine was rejected by the EU because they were corrupt even beyond what the EU-corruptocrats were willing to tolerate (or the corruption was already too much bound up with Bidens or Russians, so there was not enough in there for the EU). Then they wanted to join some customs union with Russia and Kazakhstan. Than Nuland etc. orchestrated that coup and installed anti-Russian puppets. Then Russia took Crimea and civil war began in the Eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately Europe apparently then fell asleep for 7 years and ignored that conflict, so they were caught unawares by the escalation a year ago. For whatever reason (probably they are just forced as vassals by the US) they are now willing to sacrifice almost everything for a country that less than 10 years ago they found too corrupt to have closer relations with.

In a war that country cannot win, IF "winning" means getting Crimea back. Of course, there has to be some face-saving solution with a few districts being shuffled between future West-Ukraine and the Eastern parts. And there will be treaties to ensure that (West)Ukraine is not a Russian vassal but neutral. I don't see any alternative, Russia will not give Crimea back and if they become too weak to hold the Donbass regions they want, the conflict would also continue. Likewise with more secret US/NATO stuff going on in a Western-associated Ukraine (although Russia might be content with the future "East Ukraine" as buffer, not sure). How can you expect the conflict to become solved if the situation that led to the conflict in the first place (casus belli) remains?

Unless you prefer World War III what is your alternative proposal? Hope to wear down Russia over many years (and hope they remain "nice" and don't use nuclear?) and the collateral damage of an economically devastated (and thus probably politically unstable) Western Europe will be worth it?

For one thing, I'm not America.  Despite, (or maybe because of that), I can concede the importance of the USA in world affairs without resentment.  Further, I can be grateful for the fact that the USA believes that democracy and rule-of-law are, not only just, but also in its self-interest.

What possible reason is there for Ukrainian "neutrality" other than to placate Russian/Putin's ambitions?  There is nothing natural about Ukrainian subservience to Russia -- certainly not when there is the option of profitable association with the EU for instance.

I don't actually hope to "wear down Russia over many years" -- I wish Russian and Russians well.  I only wish to thwart the Soviet revanchist ambitions of Putin.  Russia would have been much better off today if it had sought and earned EU association

I really am beginning to wonder if covert Russian Internet operatives have discovered and infiltrated this site.  The pro-Russian, anti-American sentiments expressed by a small number here are so outré that they seem to beg that explanation.

[Todd]

Russia would have been much better off today if it had sought and earned EU association

Eurocentrism is very powerful and it misleads.

I really am beginning to wonder if covert Russian Internet operatives have discovered and infiltrated this site.  The pro-Russian, anti-American sentiments expressed by a small number here are so outré that they seem to beg that explanation.

Since this is clearly aimed at me, perhaps you can explain how I am either pro-Russian or, more particularly, anti-American. 

[Florestan]

Putin's aggression which would subsequently turn to Moldova, then the Baltics, then maybe Poland;

That's highly unlikely.

[Florestan]

Personally, short of a direct invasion of Russia, I think Putin is unlikely use nukes. 

Yes but we have to take into account the fact that, in Putin's view, Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk "popular republics" are Russian territory.

[Fëanor]

Yes but we have to take into account the fact that, in Putin's view, Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk "popular republics" are Russian territory.

Yes, that is what he says.  But I suspect he would not risk using nukes to defend them because, I would say, he believes the Russian hoi-polloi are not will to accept nuclear war to defend them and because losing them would have minimal effect on his grip on power.

In general Putin would like the NATO and the West to any assertive action in Ukraine could lead to nuclear war:  I'm saying that that is not so.  (Send in the Leopards and Abrams.)

[Todd]

Send in the Leopards and Abrams.

Keyboard Kombat.