What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Russia vs. Ukraine Discussion - Invasion has begun *** (5 Viewers)

@Biz_Ukraine_Mag: BREAKING: Red Cross says evacuation route from Mariupol offered by Russia was mined
About the only thing keeping the rest of the world from just going in and taking Putin out are their nukes at this point. Pretty clear that, if we wanted to, we could go in and wipe out Russia’s military.

At this point we need to treat Russia like North Korea or Iran. These sanctions need to be permanent until Putin is gone. And he should be given notice that if he ever steps foot in a Hague nation ever again he will immediately be arrested for war crimes.

 
About the only thing keeping the rest of the world from just going in and taking Putin out are their nukes at this point. Pretty clear that, if we wanted to, we could go in and wipe out Russia’s military.
Putin could use his nuke anytime he wants, but hasn't.  IMO, this is just a threat to keep everyone on our side at bay.

 
He’s just a bully, and we called him on his bluff, and he won’t do anything about it.
We haven't called his bluff yet.  If we did that, we'd have NATO or at least EU troops in Ukraine in uniform.  The only reason no army has stepped in to physically help Ukraine is because of the veiled nuclear threat Putin has made.

 
We haven't called his bluff yet.  If we did that, we'd have NATO or at least EU troops in Ukraine in uniform.  The only reason no army has stepped in to physically help Ukraine is because of the veiled nuclear threat Putin has made.
Also, he may not be bluffing.

I mean, probably Putin is bluffing.  But if he's not, the downside risks are . . . large.  And we don't get a do-over if we misread him.  If there's even a 5% chance that he'll really go nuclear, then escalating things on our end is pretty clearly -EV, and there's no way anybody can intelligently say that they're more than 95% sure that this is all a bluff.

 
I think a very big part is handing Putin the political capital he needs(?) needs to ramp up.  NATO troops on the Russian border!!1! is such an easy sell to the Russian people given NATO's (i.e., U.S.'s) history.  

 
Also, he may not be bluffing.

I mean, probably Putin is bluffing.  But if he's not, the downside risks are . . . large.  And we don't get a do-over if we misread him.  If there's even a 5% chance that he'll really go nuclear, then escalating things on our end is pretty clearly -EV, and there's no way anybody can intelligently say that they're more than 95% sure that this is all a bluff.
This. Not sure how confident I am when the guy is purposefully targeting humanitarian corridors.

 
He’s just a bully, and we called him on his bluff, and he won’t do anything about it.
I’m not entirely sure that he is. If we take a more active role in helping Ukraine and Russia is pushed out and humiliated, what do you think the consequences will ultimately be for Putin? Because I’d say the chances are much greater than zero that his people turn against him and overthrow him. And if you think Putin would lose everything before doing EVERYTHING in his power to retain it, then I think we have a different read on Putin. 

 
Fun fact that I did not fact check.  So if fake news sue me.

The last time Russia shut down their stock market it did not re-open for 75 years.

 
I’m not entirely sure that he is. If we take a more active role in helping Ukraine and Russia is pushed out and humiliated, what do you think the consequences will ultimately be for Putin? Because I’d say the chances are much greater than zero that his people turn against him and overthrow him. And if you think Putin would lose everything before doing EVERYTHING in his power to retain it, then I think we have a different read on Putin. 


This - I overheard a blurb on the BBC yesterday that Russia has the "loosest" nuclear doctrine of nuclear nations.  They indicated that Russia is the only country who's doctrine allows for nuclear usage during non-nuclear conflicts, simply when there is a threat to the Russian military/government.  I'm not sure how vaguely it's worded, but the reporter indicated that most other nations require someone else to "fire first," but Russia still views nukes as tactical weapons.

 
Not sure if this has been covered (or if anyone outside the Russian power structure even knows) but I just can't imagine that Putin has the ability to unilaterally launch a nuke. 

I don't doubt that hes the decision maker, but I have to believe there's some officer somewhere who has to physically push a button/turn a key/pull a trigger (or multiple officers who have to confirm a launch code or something). And at the end of the day, I have to believe that person isn't gonna do that if they know they're only being ordered to because Putin is desperate and has nothing left to lose.

At least I hope that's the case.

 
Not sure if this has been covered (or if anyone outside the Russian power structure even knows) but I just can't imagine that Putin has the ability to unilaterally launch a nuke. 

I don't doubt that hes the decision maker, but I have to believe there's some officer somewhere who has to physically push a button/turn a key/pull a trigger (or multiple officers who have to confirm a launch code or something). And at the end of the day, I have to believe that person isn't gonna do that if they know they're only being ordered to because Putin is desperate and has nothing left to lose.

At least I hope that's the case.
I have read previously (multiple times) that it must go through a chain of channels. I can’t verify that of course but I believe it. 

 
Let's just agree to these terms and call it a day:

  • Ukraine can pursue EU, but not NATO
  • Crimea is Russia
  • The two other regions can vote for their independence under UN monitored elections
  • Russia pays reparations to Ukraine
  • Ukraine agrees to some type of certain offensive weapon limits -- but gets additional defensive weapons from allies
  • Finland joins NATO
  • NATO increases its defense spending
  • Some sanctions come off now -- others burn off over time
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have read previously (multiple times) that it must go through a chain of channels. I can’t verify that of course but I believe it. 
God I hope so. My current nightmare is that the automated response system is still active (the 'dead man's switch' that automatically launches all the nukes if it detects a nuclear explosion within Russian territory). And that it hasn't be re-calibrated to the new borders. That is, Putin decides to nuke Kyiv, the Russian auto response detects it and classifies it as a nuke of Russian soil, then launches the stockpile. Would be just about the perfect bass-ackwards way to end this planet the way things are going. 

 
Also, he may not be bluffing.

I mean, probably Putin is bluffing.  But if he's not, the downside risks are . . . large.  And we don't get a do-over if we misread him.  If there's even a 5% chance that he'll really go nuclear, then escalating things on our end is pretty clearly -EV, and there's no way anybody can intelligently say that they're more than 95% sure that this is all a bluff.


I'd say it's -EV even if the chance is .1% he goes nuclear.

 
God I hope so. My current nightmare is that the automated response system is still active (the 'dead man's switch' that automatically launches all the nukes if it detects a nuclear explosion within Russian territory). And that it hasn't be re-calibrated to the new borders. That is, Putin decides to nuke Kyiv, the Russian auto response detects it and classifies it as a nuke of Russian soil, then launches the stockpile. Would be just about the perfect bass-ackwards way to end this planet the way things are going. 
I would guess the first use of nukes would be more tactical than “let’s ruin all the world’s major cities with ICBMs from submarines.”  So for example if NATO got involved and started launching airplanes from a Polish airbase or a carrier group, those would probably be the first targets. And I wonder if the chain of command wouldn’t be so complicated for that kind of strike. 

 


We are on the precipice of something possibly.  I don't think it will happen, but the chance is higher than ever that is for sure.

 
Let's just agree to these terms and call it a day:

  • Ukraine can pursue EU, but not NATO
  • Crimea is Russia
  • The two other regions can vote for their independence under UN monitored elections
  • Russia pays reparations to Ukraine
  • Ukraine agrees to some type of certain offensive weapon limits -- but gets additional defensive weapons from allies
  • Finland joins NATO
  • NATO increases its defense spending
  • Some sanctions come off now -- others burn off over time


They make sense except that we'll be back here in again in a few years as long as Putin is still in power.

 
Two different things I'm seeing on Twitter today are-

-Russia is making slow progress but still haven't totally surrounded Kyiv

- Supposedly there's a large Russian offensive on Kyiv planned for next 24 - 48 hours.

 
Jayrod said:
4 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:
The Doomsday Clock is 75 years old this year.

Its currently at 100 seconds to midnight - the closest to midnight it has ever been.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-doomsday-clock-is-now-75-and-its-still-ticking

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russians-invasion-of-ukraine/amp/
Expand  


We are on the precipice of something possibly.  I don't think it will happen, but the chance is higher than ever that is for sure.


Closer than we were during Cuban Missile Crisis?  I'll have to come back and read Bobby's links.  Curious how the two compare.

 
The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner. The closest nuclear war threat, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, reached crisis, climax, and resolution before the Clock could be set to reflect that possible doomsday.

:kicksrock:

I hate getting old.

 
What could go wrong?

U.S. COULD CUT OFF CHINESE FIRMS FROM AMERICAN EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE THEY NEED TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS IF THEY DEFY U.S. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS - COMMERCE SECRETARY TELLS NYT

https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1501299498366246923?s=10
I’m fine with it. I’ll pay a little more for whatever.  
 

if we can become self sustainable and stop trying to maximize profits on every damn thing and start making more/everything in the US, that would be good. 

 
thanks, that reminds me...

That’s from 2015 and in Russia but if a Ukrainian farmer gets inspired by seeing it then hell yeah man
hey man @Tom Servo I was off target here - when you posted that, maybe an hour before I had witnessed several posters on Reddit "debunk" the first video of a farmer hauling off an armoured vehicle. judging by the number of times we have seen video of farm equipment hauling off abandoned Russian tanks, APCs, AA Systems, et al, clearly I was duped.

kind of makes you wonder if the Ruskies have people actively working message boards and social media trying (futilely IMO - Ukraine is crushing owning the narrative, which is little solace for the 1,500 or so civilians who have been killed murdered) to push their point of view.

anyway, my bad, I was probably wrong in my post on 2/27.

 
That whole Poland sending Migs to a US airbase for us to send them to Ukraine didn’t sound like a good idea to me. Apparently Poland announced that proposal without talking to the USA about it. 

 
That whole Poland sending Migs to a US airbase for us to send them to Ukraine didn’t sound like a good idea to me. Apparently Poland announced that proposal without talking to the USA about it. 


Is there a full media article on this? I see it on the twitters but mig laundering is something I would like more info on.  

 
Is there a full media article on this? I see it on the twitters but mig laundering is something I would like more info on.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/03/08/poland-mig-29-ukraine/

Kirby raised the prospect that Poland’s proposal could inflame tensions with Russia, which has depicted the conflict in Ukraine as one against Western aggression. Fighter jets “departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance,” he said, adding, “It is simply not clear to us that there is a substantive rationale for it.”

The move by Poland appeared intended to shift the responsibility for delivering the aircraft — and risking a potential Russian military retaliation — to the United States. It occurred as the No. 3 official at the State Department, Victoria Nuland, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“To my knowledge, it wasn’t pre-consulted with us that they plan to give these planes to us,” Nuland, the under secretary of state for political affairs, told lawmakers. She characterized it as a “surprise move by the Poles.”

 
Poland might have made a good point here. 'Yeah, yeah, Poland send those MiGs over, and we will backfill.'

Poland said, 'mmm, here you go, we will drop them at your base, you can give them a tune up, and send them to Ukraine.'

'oh, we don't want to escalate' 

'then why the eff were you telling me it was ok to send them to Ukraine?!?'

 This is just a guess personally. No one wants to be the ones to fly them into Ukraine. But at the same time: if anyone was really worried about Russia starting WW3 over some jets, they wouldn't want anyone sending them to Ukraine. 

The answer, obviously, is to send 27 green tractors 🚜 to Poland to tow them back to Ukraine, but does anyone ask me? No. 

 
thanks, that reminds me...

hey man @Tom Servo I was off target here - when you posted that, maybe an hour before I had witnessed several posters on Reddit "debunk" the first video of a farmer hauling off an armoured vehicle. judging by the number of times we have seen video of farm equipment hauling off abandoned Russian tanks, APCs, AA Systems, et al, clearly I was duped.

kind of makes you wonder if the Ruskies have people actively working message boards and social media trying (futilely IMO - Ukraine is crushing owning the narrative, which is little solace for the 1,500 or so civilians who have been killed murdered) to push their point of view.

anyway, my bad, I was probably wrong in my post on 2/27.
Eh, don't sweat, it GB. TBH, I forgotten all about this.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top