The Kremlin is burning?

[Sardaukar]

5 minutes ago, mkenny said:

I believe you..............I really really do.........honest I do.........

Who GAS about what you think.

You just exposed yourself to all.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Sardaukar said:

What is wrong with you and this child-thing? And personal attacks? 

Feeling bad about you trying growing a pair? 

And yes, Oct 41 didn't matter since USA (Roosevelt) would have been hard-pressed to send anything significant to USSR without Germany's declaration of war.

 

It just that you argue that way. You use personal attacks constanly -> That is exactly why you sound like a child.

 

Oct 41 matter exactly because decision matters. Even if Germany would not declare war, eventully aid would been too much it to win anyway.

[Sardaukar]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

It just that you argue that way. You use personal attacks constanly -> That is exactly why you sound like a child.

 

Oct 41 matter exactly because decision matters. Even if Germany would not declare war, eventully aid would been too much it to win anyway.

And tell me where I used personal attacks?

Telling you that you have head-in-sand is not personal attack.

[urbanoid]

59 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Looking for history is not helping you. Again, simple question. Do you have any real facts or reason why RUS would start war with NATO when even they know they would lose it?

Putin = Hitler comparidons make you look just child. I would have hope that we have better officers in FDF

Because NATO might be in a crisis that would make it hard or impossible to respond and Russia might want to exploit it. Even if some funny business was done in one or more of the Baltic States and NATO failed to respond, it would have been effectively the end of NATO. Such scenarios were being considered in Poland years before 2014 even.

Due to NATO getting new members and quite massive remilitarization of the Eastern flank such a scenario should be far less likely in 5-10 years, even with minimal support from further West. Having most of Ukraine on our side rather than chained to Russia would be very helpful in such case as well. 

The other thing is a general rule that appeasement of the aggression invites more aggression. Looking back Russia should have been bitchslapped every time she acted out of order long before Ukraine. The ultimate goal here is not killing Russians, but killing their hope of changing international world order to the one more to their liking - and they'd love to kick the US out of Europe, they've been saying it for years, scenario from the first paragraph would likely greatly help in that. With NATO effectively disabled they might try to strike a deal with Western Europe, 'just between us great powers', which would likely leave everyone between Germany and Russia fucked over. 

[Sardaukar]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It just that you argue that way. You use personal attacks constanly -> That is exactly why you sound like a child.

 

You need to give me examples where I personally attacked you?

Unlike you did, calling me names.

Appeaser and head-in-sand are not insults even thought fitting. 

[mkenny]

6 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

 

You just exposed yourself to all.

Last time I did that I got 6 months imprisonment................

[Sardaukar]

And what @urbanoid said.

[urbanoid]

Just now, mkenny said:

Last time I did that I got 6 months imprisonment................

You could have claimed LGBTQ oppression by evil heteropatriarchal forces.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Sardaukar said:

You need to give me examples where I personally attacked you?

Unlike you did, calling me names.

Appeaser and head-in-sand are not insults even thought fitting. 

Oh, overall not just ne. Ie calling other ”just a bully”,  ”appeaser. Must hurt”, etc.

 

like or not, makes you look like a child.

[Sardaukar]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

Oh, overall not just ne. Ie calling other ”just a bully”,  ”appeaser. Must hurt”, etc.

 

like or not, makes you look like a child.

If description fits, it's not me, it's you.

Those are not insults like you did.

Deal with it. 

Have you ever been in military even? 

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Because NATO might be in a crisis that would make it hard or impossible to respond and Russia might want to exploit it. Even if some funny business was done in one or more of the Baltic States and NATO failed to respond, it would have been effectively the end of NATO. Such scenarios were being considered in Poland years before 2014 even.

Due to NATO getting new members and quite massive remilitarization of the Eastern flank such a scenario should be far less likely in 5-10 years, even with minimal support from further West. Having most of Ukraine on our side rather than chained to Russia would be very helpful in such case as well. 

The other thing is a general rule that appeasement of the aggression invites more aggression. Looking back Russia should have been bitchslapped every time she acted out of order long before Ukraine. The ultimate goal here is not killing Russians, but killing their hope of changing international world order to the one more to their liking - and they'd love to kick the US out of Europe, they've been saying it for years, scenario from the first paragraph would likely greatly help in that. With NATO effectively disabled they might try to strike a deal with Western Europe, 'just between us great powers', which would likely leave everyone between Germany and Russia fucked over. 

But even that scenario expect that NATO has failed and RUS can realistically win. I dont see any indication anywhere where RUS expect to win against NATO.

[MiGG0]

Just now, Sardaukar said:

If description fits, it's not me, it's you.

Those are not insults like you did.

Deal with it. 

Have you ever been in military even? 

Like what insult? Child? But that is how you sound with arguments like that.

 

And yes.

[Sardaukar]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

But even that scenario expect that NATO has failed and RUS can realistically win. I dont see any indication anywhere where RUS expect to win against NATO.

And how you know that?

There are plenty of scenarios that Russia is trying to implement in Europe right now.

Mainly sowing dis-unity in EU and NATO.

[Sardaukar]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

Like what insult? Child? But that is how you sound with arguments like that.

 

And yes.

I find it hard to believe.

You cannot take critical words at all. 

But who really cares, it's mind over matter. I don't care and you don't matter. 

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

But even that scenario expect that NATO has failed and RUS can realistically win. I dont see any indication anywhere where RUS expect to win against NATO.

Please read what I wrote once again. I think it's straightforward enough.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Please read what I wrote once again. I think it's straightforward enough.

I did, but I dont see how it answer my question? RUS to attack NATO would still need belief from RUS that they can win. Original context was after UKR have lost war (so somewhere In future) RUS will attack NATI according to some

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

I did, but I dont see how it answer my question? RUS to attack NATO would still need belief from RUS that they can win. Original context was after UKR have lost war (so somewhere In future) RUS will attack NATI according to some

IF the Rus feel there's a weakness they may exploit, quite possible. And IF they're successful, it effectively means the end of NATO, which in turn opens Pandora's box of consequences. 

It doesn't even have to be a full invasion, it might be cyber+missile attack on something. Or a limited invasion. Or any combination of those things. 

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

And how you know that?

There are plenty of scenarios that Russia is trying to implement in Europe right now.

Mainly sowing dis-unity in EU and NATO.

I dont, but Im not the one that claim RUS will attack NATO if UKR loses. That they wont id much more likely.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

You continuously want to appease dictator because of moral coward mindset.

I think the point of negotiation has passed and that things will accelerate towards a general war from here. 

[MiGG0]

4 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

IF the Rus feel there's a weakness they may exploit, quite possible. And IF they're successful, it effectively means the end of NATO, which in turn opens Pandora's box of consequences. 

It doesn't even have to be a full invasion, it might be cyber+missile attack on something. Or a limited invasion. Or any combination of those things. 

And more likely is that NATO will respond similar way. And in escalation cycle RUS will lose until Nukes get involved

Edited May 30, 2024 by MiGG0

[Sardaukar]

Just now, glenn239 said:

I think the point of negotiation has passed and that things will accelerate towards a general war from here. 

"Let lose the dogs of war".

Thing is, there are always people who think they can use violence to take something from you.

 

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

And more likely is that NATO will respond similar way.

Then they'll likely back off, provided they kept the hostilities on a level that makes it relatively easy to do so. 

Continued support for Ukraine sends a message that we mean business, sometimes even when non-NATO members are concerned. Ending it at this point would send a message of weakness. And that you can get away with things we don't like. It would be a bad, bad message. 

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Then they'll likely back off, provided they kept the hostilities on a level that makes it relatively easy to do so. 

Continued support for Ukraine sends a message that we mean business, sometimes even when non-NATO members are concerned. Ending it at this point would send a message of weakness. And that you can get away with things we don't like. It would be a bad, bad message. 

Yes and Im not arguing about that. Only about view that RUS will attack NATO if UKR loses (which it will eventually unless NATO directly intervene).

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

Yes and Im not arguing about that. Only about view that RUS will attack NATO if UKR loses (which it will eventually unless NATO directly intervene).

'Is far more likely' would be more acceptable to you than 'will'. For me it's good enough, anyway.

I disagree about the latter, though we may differ on what we perceive as 'Ukrainian loss'.

[Sardaukar]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes and Im not arguing about that. Only about view that RUS will attack NATO if UKR loses (which it will eventually unless NATO directly intervene).

Something would be "very more likely".

Why you are so adamant that Russia should have it's way?