Quote (ferdia @ Apr 26 2022 02:50pm)

I think your missing the point. The Russians are saying to the west: you are actively sending serious amounts of weapons to ukraine, and they are a clear and present danger to us. you are now giving them weapons that can attack russia itself. this is an act of war on your part and therefore its fair game as to how we respond, not to ukraine, but to you. if nato is playing a proxy war (they are) and if they are escalating (they are) then history has shown that putin will at a certain point, retaliat, other then how he is currently. what that will look like i dont know, no one knows.

but again, if the west continues on this course, and puts russia into a corner, they should not be surprised if russia lashes out. no one should want that and therefore more attempts to should be made (but will not be) to slow things down. if anything, things are speeding up.

Quote (thundercock @ Apr 26 2022 10:58pm)

No, I understand the point perfectly well. I'm just calling Russia's bluff and so is the rest of the West. There is a MASSIVE cost difference between attacking supply lines in Poland vs. Ukraine. In one scenario you risk war with dozens of countries and in the other you have the status quo. The benefit of destroying the weapons is the same regardless of where you destroy them. Are you claiming that Russia is so unbelievably stupid that they can't perform that simple of a calculation? Need I remind you that they were the first country to put a man in space?

Quote (chopstickz777 @ Apr 26 2022 04:57pm)

Ukraine is boned man. They got no fuel. No lubricants. No weapons shipments (other than small arms) that can reach the Donbass without being bombed. Now that Russia is striking the railways, military traffic is even more paralyzed. Their logistics are completely dead in the water.

Frontline troops are running out of ammo, food and water.

They need to stop sacrificing their people for nothing and make a deal with Russia. These people are dying for nothing more than Blinken and Nuland's Russophobic hatred.

Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 26 2022 02:50pm)

And those countries attacking Russia means what?
The most obvious example would be Russia supplying weapons to a proxy who uses it to sink a US navy vessel. And when that happens, will we then have to quibble over "It wasn't really Russia"
How about if Russia directly targets a convoy of weapons on the Polish side of the border, clearly to be used to fight Russia? Will NATO invoke article 5 and rush to nuclear war?

Attacking the Russian mainland, whether directly or by proxy, is such a wildly dangerous and wanton way to spark WW3 and get us all blown to smithereens. We're not talking about Russia making the first strike on a NATO country, we're talking about NATO making the first strike on Russia and trying to dance around the responsibility. Meanwhile Putin is right out in public making threats of what would occur. And we're just supposed to handwave and dismiss it as bluster, after he blustered about invading Ukraine.

Quote (ferdia @ Apr 26 2022 03:00pm)

We are playing poker with a country with Nuclear weapons.

Quote (thundercock @ Apr 26 2022 05:10pm)

With our current administration, I doubt that we'd respond directly to Russia if proxies attacked American troops. Republicans and some Democrats would huff and puff because it's politically convenient.

I think NATO'S response depends on the nature of the Russian attack and I imagine the response would be proportional because no one really wants this to escalate (most of all, Russia).

Lastly, Russia isn't going to risk nuclear war because of a few blown up bases. What a silly thing to think. But here, I will raise the stakes: If we engage in a nuclear war with Russia, we can meet up in a safe area (how about Winnipeg, Canada?) and you can personally chop my dick off. That's how confident I am. We can use Santara as a moderator and I'm happy to give him the fg to cover the flight.



And? We've been doing that for over half a century yet here we are...

Quote (Goomshill @ 26 Apr 2022 23:50)

And those countries attacking Russia means what?
The most obvious example would be Russia supplying weapons to a proxy who uses it to sink a US navy vessel. And when that happens, will we then have to quibble over "It wasn't really Russia"
How about if Russia directly targets a convoy of weapons on the Polish side of the border, clearly to be used to fight Russia? Will NATO invoke article 5 and rush to nuclear war?

Attacking the Russian mainland, whether directly or by proxy, is such a wildly dangerous and wanton way to spark WW3 and get us all blown to smithereens. We're not talking about Russia making the first strike on a NATO country, we're talking about NATO making the first strike on Russia and trying to dance around the responsibility. Meanwhile Putin is right out in public making threats of what would occur. And we're just supposed to handwave and dismiss it as bluster, after he blustered about invading Ukraine.

Quote (ferdia @ 27 Apr 2022 00:00)

We are playing poker with a terrorist organization with Nuclear weapons.

Quote (Santara @ Apr 26 2022 03:19pm)

You know of airlines that accept nerd coins for flights?

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 26 2022 03:21pm)

Your position effectively means that Russia is free to do whatever the fuck it wants to any country bordering Russia, because... *something something* "they got nukes!!"... "madman theory".

Starting a nuclear war would mean certain death for Putin and his inner circle. For obvious selfish reasons, they will not play this card until they have truly run out of better alternatives. Pressing the red button is what they would do while NATO tanks are closing in on Moscow, not while Ukrainians are beating back Russia's aggression on Ukrainian soil with Western weapons.