Quote from: paxmao on March 26, 2022, 11:44:39 PM

Quote from: DaRude on March 26, 2022, 06:08:22 AM

Quote from: paxmao on March 25, 2022, 09:37:54 AM

Quote from: DaRude on March 24, 2022, 06:28:37 AM

...

I see people using the terms carpet shelling/bombing, and encouraging escalations in Ukraine, but i'm pretty sure they don't know what those terms really mean. Just find it ironic how everyone wants to see Ukraine take on Russia, and they're even willing to sacrifice their...weapons for it. This is what US did in just 11 days (18–29 December 1972). Those that call for escalations are they really expecting Putin just to fold and not do the same thing US did? Or did Geneva convention change since 1972? Does Russia have much else to loose? What are the odds people put on Putin just folding? Sure double daring Putin with Ukraine seems like a great idea, i'm sure Ukraine will turn out just fine.
...

How does a reasonable, unbiased and feasible solution looks like for you on this war of agression:

NATO intervenes, Putin feels free to use non-conventional arsenal and attack NATO bases. Possible results:
a - Putin gets very scared, he sees that he may loose power and withdraws the army.
b - Putin goes harder, he cannot afford to loose face. Nato and Russian troops engage and by some miracle, Putin does not use any WMD. Relations are broken for decades, NATO and EU weaponize, Russia limps on a sanctioned economy.
c - Limited nuclear response (tactical or limited strategic) Ukraine radioactive for the next few decades as other bits of Europe and cities in Russia. Massive re-arming across the world, massive health and hunger across the world...
d - It escalates, first nuke fire, then second, then.... well...end of story and history.

NATO supports Ukraine with as much conventional means as to stop the ability of Putin to continue the war effectively.
a - Putin decides to keep the conquered land. He will be facing stiff opposition even funded by the West, the region may be on an undeclared war for decades.
b - Putin decides to reach a peace agreement that includes returning part of the conquered land. This looks like something that could be sustainable for both parties.
c - Putin completely withdraws in exchange for removing sanctions.
d - Putin puts all he is got and war escalates, we found ourselves on the first scenario.
e - Ukraine is not able to hold. A peace is achieve at the cost of massive loss of territory and a puppet government without military power.

On the second scenario, the chances of a massive catastrophe are much lower. And that is the better option, even for Ukraine that stands a chance of keeping large parts of the territory and have a very weakened neighbour that may not have the economics to wage further wars.

Now, consider that on the first scenario there is a chance of global or regional full nuclear destruction. Is that how a solution looks to anyone? Even if there is a 10% of that happening. It does not work for Ukraine either as they would likely be the first ones being nuked in all likelihood.

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing

[...]

I do not think I can make it more clear. Nato intervenes means clearly acts of war against Russia yes - what is the hypocrisy here? The wording?. I could not care less about how each would decide to call it, the scenario is the same. BTW, I do not complain about propaganda, I just tend to say it is propaganda.

As for the rest of your message, I am not sure I get your point - what is you realistic and feasible best case solution?

On the lateral topics you are talking, like Cuba, ... I do not think the embargo to Cuba has ever brought anyone any closer to a peaceful solution of any kind, if that is the question, nor I consider it particularly ethical.

We all agree that Albania, Hungary, Iceland etc... don't really have any say in NATO right? So in reality, US, who's officially not a party to this conflict, and under no obligation whatsoever, deciding to attack Russia under whichever flag, would probably lead to Nuclear Winter. I mean Putin would have to be a saint to just stand down and save the world. Frankly i just don't see it happening. I'm not an expert on this by any means so imagining that within minutes of the attack a single hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead lands somewhere in Poland EMP frying some airplanes and troops stationed there getting radiation poisoning. Auto MAD system and Russian Dead Hand are activated. Hundreds of thousands die, and some idiots whom humans somehow bestowed with such powers, pick up the red phones and decide if they should end our civilization.

Realistic case: US sells out Ukraine with some backhanded deal with Russia.

Best case, well that depends for who? There are always competing interests but some ideas from top of my head:
-Russia: Ukraine surrendering (4 weeks ago or second best now), and Russia getting it back under it's sphere of influence
-US: Maximize chance of collapsing Russia by maximizing its pain via a proxy up to the last Ukrainian standing
-EU: This thing just going away ASAP, receiving natural resources to keep its heavy industries from collapsing and its population fed and warm during next winter
-Ukraine: Majority of populations just want to live "better" and don't really care about politics. Ukraine was the poorest country in EU and its GDP per capita was almost 4x lower than Russia. So financially, average Ukrainian would most likely be better off, under Russia. Freedom loving part of population are better off not coming back and staying in EU countries. Pretty much just like Cuba.
-China: Costly, long, drawn out conflict requiring huge investments from US with another Marshall Plan for Europe.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on Today at 12:27:51 AM

Quote from: DaRude on March 26, 2022, 06:08:22 AM

And this is where hypocrisy lies, people complain how the other side calls it "special operation" yet are so eager to say NATO "intervenes" or sets up no-fly zone. You can't complain about BS from one side only to spit out your own BS. Both of these mean the same thing, attacking and thus starting a war with Russia.

The complaints are Russia making it a crime to call the war a war. Look at all those media outlets that had to close up shop and leave the country because they were afraid if they reported on the war truthfully they would be arrested or worse.
Don't you think that's fucked up? Wouldn't it be nice if Russian news was independent of the government and the people were free to disagree with Putin?

Russia is in survival mode. It tried to compete on the soft power field, but its sphere of influence was being taken away with cookies faster than it could grow. They were playing a game that they were meant to loose. Boat was rocked too far, and we're seeing Russia take its last stand.
Truth Is the First Casualty in War always was, and probably will be. Information warfare is a thing and is just another front. US has control over mass media and social networks, so they can just censor unfavorable coverage like this (not safe for life!) and majority would never know about this, if Russia had such soft power it wouldn't have rolled tanks into Ukraine in the first place. Yeah it's fucked up and unfortunately I'm afraid it's only the begging and I fully expect them to follow in US's footsteps like with Kent State massacre