Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

[AmosTrask]

Ok, magic up the... 700 billion dollars for the equipment and land. Oh, and while you're at it magic up the skilled workforce.

That is exactly what I was implying about Taiwan gradually building capacity in the USA. You don't have anyone that can do smaller than 7nm at the moment. You also don't have the patents for that chip constructor. The Dutch government owns that company and patent. It is a major income stream for the country. I highly doubt they'll risk that patent with overseas plants that can be infiltrated.

 

[King Arts]

Go psy-op someone who will fall for those lines of bullshit.

I mean you aren't wrong, even if I don't think 'conservatism' per se is the common thread behind UA support. More like having some critical thinking skills and not being a dedicated and prideful contrarian is the common thread I've seen in UA support.

It's the reactionaries on the Right who are most opposed to UA aid, along with a few lolberts who shouldn't be so naive, and the Hamas-friendly faction of the Dems who are mostly just Muslim Brotherhood 5th column.

You are an idiot. "go psyops somewhere else!"

This is not an insult you really don't have all your faculties up there if you believe that ANY nation that becomes a hegemony on earth will ever go into space at anything close to a reasonable timeline.
In the cold war we had many lunar missions. Now ever since the 90's there has not been ONE manned moon mission.
There is no need to. If you compete with someone else though who is a rival who can upstage you then yes you will put in resources towards practical things, but you will also build monuments and do things to prove your superiority. That won't happen with a hegemony that is just interested in being world police and fighting insurgents and criminals.

The ONLY kind of innovation you'd see is what is good for controlling people and making a panopticon so pretty much what is good for ending freedom and spying on citizens.

Dude...
I should reply with that every time you say yet another stupid thing about politics.
As i said, you have no idea about these things and it shows, not even the basic information.
It's like asking if Austria is part of Germany.
It's a fucking separate country...

It literally says it was part of Romania, until the Soviets took it after ww2? The people speak Romanian, the flag has the same colors. And Romania itself also has a region(inside the current political borders of Romania) called Moldavia.

Western Moldavia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So forgive me for thinking that it should be part of Romania, that way it would be a part of NATO anyway.

Who knows. But they wouldn't, because Finland was in EU, and that has certain defense implications too, weaker ones than NATO but still risky territory.

So then there isn't anyone else worthy of being into NATO.

 

[Bassoe]

Ok, magic up the... 700 billion dollars for the equipment and land. Oh, and while you're at it magic up the skilled workforce.

Well, my first step would be to take money from the rest of the MiC and throw it at building said equipment, buying said land and fixing the educational system to train Americans as said skilled workforce.

 

[Marduk]

This is not an insult you really don't have all your faculties up there if you believe that ANY nation that becomes a hegemony on earth will ever go into space at anything close to a reasonable timeline.
In the cold war we had many lunar missions. Now ever since the 90's there has not been ONE manned moon mission.
There is no need to. If you compete with someone else though who is a rival who can upstage you then yes you will put in resources towards practical things, but you will also build monuments and do things to prove your superiority. That won't happen with a hegemony that is just interested in being world police and fighting insurgents and criminals.

Again you demonstrate you can only mold surface level facts of very complex subjects and forcefully shape it into mostly senseless combinations clearly designed to support your pre-existing and generally silly ideas on how geopolitics work.
First off, you are wrong already because China exists and is playing the "prestige" game with space program, secondly the idea with now dominant private space exploration is that above all, in the long run, going to space is about making big fucking money (and if you ask generals, taking the ultimate high ground), not about expensive dickwaving. Half the point of the expensive dickwaving was to test technologies meant to help develop the aforementioned.
Secondly, your narrative is wrong because manned lunar missions ended in 1972, long before the cold war did.
And thirdly, your narrative is wrong because USA and China both have scheduled manned lunar missions, and USA had them scheduled even earlier - but there is simply not that much to do with manned missions there relative to the cost and risk involved.

The ONLY kind of innovation you'd see is what is good for controlling people and making a panopticon so pretty much what is good for ending freedom and spying on citizens.

Much advances in robotics, biology and electronics happened since 1991. If you don't know such things, well, it says something only about your knowledge.

It literally says it was part of Romania, until the Soviets took it after ww2? The people speak Romanian, the flag has the same colors. And Romania itself also has a region(inside the current political borders of Romania) called Moldavia.

Western Moldavia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you a friggin time traveler?
Austria was part of Germany for some time too...
This is the same level of argument.

So forgive me for thinking that it should be part of Romania, that way it would be a part of NATO anyway.

I will not forgive trying to make big brained schemes how to do NATO geopolitics around Russia and expect people to take them as not a joke while you don't fucking know what Ukraine bordering potential hot spots in Eastern Europe are independent countries and whether they are in NATO or not.

So then there isn't anyone else worthy of being into NATO.

Then you are not worthy of talking about *anything* NATO related if you think that is a valid line of thinking. I think a LLM would make more sense about this stuff than you.

Well, my first step would be to take money from the rest of the MiC and throw it at building said equipment, buying said land and fixing the educational system to train Americans as said skilled workforce.

Yeah, let DEI infested government run such complex and cutthroat commercial industries, why not hire some chinese communists to do it for us while at it, wouldn't make it worse...
With "geniuses" like that on our side we don't even need the left as our enemies.

 

[Bacle]

Well, my first step would be to take money from the rest of the MiC and throw it at building said equipment, buying said land and fixing the educational system to train Americans as said skilled workforce.

Or we could just seize and sanction all of Russia's foreign assets and use those to fund a renovation of the US space industry and education pipeline.

Why shouldn't the US make our enemies rightfully seized assets fund our own renovation?

 

[King Arts]

Are you a friggin time traveler?
Austria was part of Germany for some time too...
This is the same level of argument.

Austria also has cultural differences and a history of being seperate from Germany hell it existed before Germany it wasn’t created by Russia post 45.

I will not forgive trying to make big brained schemes how to do NATO geopolitics around Russia and expect people to take them as not a joke while you don't fucking know what Ukraine bordering potential hot spots in Eastern Europe are independent countries and whether they are in NATO or not.

Are you unable to read English? Romania has a region called Moldavia and high is not an independent nation state. So yes one can ask why that nation exists and is not part of Romania as it sounds like a fake nation Russia created for imperial ambitions.

Then you are not worthy of talking about *anything* NATO related if you think that is a valid line of thinking. I think a LLM would make more sense about this stuff than you.

No I can talk and ask why do small nations that don’t provide much like the Baltics should be allowed to join our alliance?

Why do they deserve it? Sure Russia might invade them sucks for them.

 

[Marduk]

Austria also has cultural differences and a history of being seperate from Germany hell it existed before Germany it wasn’t created by Russia post 45.

So does Moldova.

Are you unable to read English? Romania has a region called Moldavia and high is not an independent nation state.

So what? Greece and Macedonia were in the news for having that debate.
If you ever looked at a map of the region you would know, and if you don't even look at the map of the region, how are you supposed to know what you are talking about.

So yes one can ask why that nation exists and is not part of Romania as it sounds like a fake nation Russia created for imperial ambitions.

You think that country has no encyclopedia articles on every site like wikipedia, britannica, or CIA world factbook?

No I can talk and ask why do small nations that don’t provide much like the Baltics should be allowed to join our alliance?

Because many small nations add up, there is no notable special cost to the alliance for adding 5 small nations vs 1 big, and on top of that they can be used to map paint by blocking potential avenues of attack for the other side.

Why do they deserve it? Sure Russia might invade them sucks for them.

Alliances are not a reward that some presumably neutral judges decide to bestow on nations judged to be deserving of it, not even barebones strategy games have a mechanic this stupid.
Alliances are expanded when it suits the interests of existing and potential members, and in this case it does, for example by letting the alliance station forces in strategically useful positions while denying them to rivals.

 

[King Arts]

So does Moldova.

No it doesn’t. Wallaciha and Moldavia used to be independent principalities that paid tribute to the Ottomans. Later they united into Romania but still had to deal with bullshit from Germans and Russians. Including Russia taking a part of Moldova. World war 1 happened and Romania got all of its land that had Romanians in it. Then ww2 happened and the Soviets took that part of Moldova back then the Soviets fell and Moldova broke off from the Union but hasn’t gone back to Romania yet.

So what? Greece and Macedonia were in the news for having that debate.

So you don’t think someone could get confused on what you are talking about especially when there are territories with the same name close to each other?

If you ever looked at a map of the region you would know, and if you don't even look at the map of the region, how are you supposed to know what you are talking about.

You have no idea what you are talking about. A map won’t tell you anything except that those are the borders. I gave the basic history above so tell me Mr geopolitics expert and why is Moldova a real nation and not part of Romania?

Because many small nations add up, there is no notable special cost to the alliance for adding 5 small nations vs 1 big, and on top of that they can be used to map paint by blocking potential avenues of attack to the other side.

Alliances are not a reward that some presumably neutral judges decide to bestow on nations judged to be deserving of it, not even barebones strategy games have a mechanic this stupid.
Alliances are expanded when it suits the interests of existing and potential members, and in this case it does, for example by letting the alliance station forces in strategically useful positions.

Yes alliances are expanded when it benefits the existing members. You deserve to come into NATO if you coming in benefits the current members before you. Stationing troops like that next to Russia is not in our interest unless we plan to attack Russia. The alliance is a defensive alliance. We don’t want to be dragged into war. So having troops there so that they die if Russia invaded and we have to respond is against our interests.

 

[Marduk]

No it doesn’t.

Yes it does you just know nothing about it, much like you know nothing about many other things yet think that you do.

Moldova and Romania: A Long and Complicated Relationship | Origins

Both politically and culturally, Romania and the Republic of Moldova have never been closer. The partnership between Bucharest and Chișinău has grown since Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine in 2022.

origins.osu.edu

Wallaciha and Moldavia used to be independent principalities that paid tribute to the Ottomans. Later they united into Romania but still had to deal with bullshit from Germans and Russians. Including Russia taking a part of Moldova. World war 1 happened and Romania got all of its land that had Romanians in it. Then ww2 happened and the Soviets took that part of Moldova back then the Soviets fell and Moldova broke off from the Union but hasn’t gone back to Romania yet.


So you don’t think someone could get confused on what you are talking about especially when there are territories with the same name close to each other?


You have no idea what you are talking about. A map won’t tell you anything except that those are the borders. I gave the basic history above so tell me Mr geopolitics expert and

A map will also tell you that there is an independent country by that name, so in context of international politics that's almost certainly what everyone is talking about.

why is Moldova a real nation and not part of Romania?

It is because it is recognized as such by the UN and all the world's countries, you're not paying me for history lectures and it is not the thread for them anyway.

Yes alliances are expanded when it benefits the existing members. You deserve to come into NATO if you coming in benefits the current members before you.

No, there is no such thing as deserving to be in the alliance, no remotely competent person in such matters even uses such a term for that reason. In some cases merely the fact that a country occupies a certain place on the map makes it desirable in the alliance.

Stationing troops like that next to Russia is not in our interest unless we plan to attack Russia.

People who don't know what things such as "strategic depth" and "military geography" mean and how critical they are to defensive warfare being allowed to make such extremely, amazingly, and breathtakingly idiotic statements as the above is not in our interest regardless of what we plan to do either, yet we have to suffer it.

The alliance is a defensive alliance. We don’t want to be dragged into war.

99% of people who use the term "dragged into war" in context of NATO and Ukraine conflict are Russian shills and/or not qualified to talk about wars.

So having troops there so that they die if Russia invaded and we have to respond is against our interests.

Would you prefer more NATO troops and civilians die elsewhere due to benefiting from less strategic depth, as long as the elsewhere in question is in a country whose territory you deem deserving enough for NATO membership?

You know jack shit about the interests of your or any other country, thanks for demonstrating that yet again.

 

[King Arts]

Yes it does you just know nothing about it, much like you know nothing about many other things yet think that you do.

For some, Moldovan identity was created by the Soviet Union, a process that stripped Moldovans of their "real" Romanian identity. Moldovan Sandu and her pro-EU party (The Party of Action and Solidarity, PAS) have worked to embrace Moldova's Romanian heritage. Sandu routinely marks the Day of the Romanian Language and has banned symbols glorifying Russia and the Soviet Union.

Well would you look at that your liberal source says it there it was made up by the Soviets so there would be nothing wrong with Romania retaking it.

Yes there might be some problems with transnistia but it’s better to rip the bandaid off and if needed just remove all the Russians in the area.

It is because it is recognized as such by the UN and all the world's countries, you're not paying me for history lectures and it is not the thread for them anyway

It being recognized by the UN doesn’t make it a non fake country. Do you recognize Palestine? It’s recognized by the UN don’t use bad faith arguments.

No, there is no such thing as deserving to be in the alliance, no remotely competent person in such matters even uses such a term for that reason. In some cases merely the fact that a country occupies a certain place on the map makes it desirable in the alliance.

No what you said was very stupid. Tell me if NATO decided to “bring in” Afghanistan into the alliance after Russia said they were going to go in would you support that? Us risking ourselves for some shithole we don’t care about?

People who don't know what things such as "strategic depth" and "military geography" mean and how critical they are to defensive warfare being allowed to make such extremely, amazingly, and breathtakingly idiotic statements as the above is not in our interest regardless of what we plan to do either, yet we have to suffer it.

In modern war all of that doesent matter. If Russia is dumb enough to invade Poland or Romania I’d advocate for immediate full scale nuclear launch. Would you do otherwise? War with nukes outclasses anything else.

I mean conventional forces almost don’t matter let’s pretend this happened and you were the NATO commander and the war stayed conventional but somehow NATO was losing badly, and the Russians side stopped after taking half of Germany the French want to sue for peace. Would you be ok with that? Wouldn’t you want nukes launched instead of accepting defeat?

99% of people who use the term "dragged into war" in context of NATO and Ukraine conflict are Russian shills and/or not qualified to talk about wars.

I think you are the one whose not qualified since you underestimate nuclear weapons.

Would you prefer more NATO troops and civilians die elsewhere due to benefiting from less strategic depth, as long as the elsewhere in question is in a country whose territory you deem deserving enough for NATO membership?

You know jack shit about the interests of your or any other country, thanks for demonstrating that yet again.

If the nukes fly does it matter if the soldiers die in Latvia or Poland? Again if a NATO member is invaded the first response should be nukes.

 

[Marduk]

For some,

I don't care about the "some", what about majorities, governments, people in power.

Moldovan identity was created by the Soviet Union, a process that stripped Moldovans of their "real" Romanian identity. Moldovan Sandu and her pro-EU party (The Party of Action and Solidarity, PAS) have worked to embrace Moldova's Romanian heritage. Sandu routinely marks the Day of the Romanian Language and has banned symbols glorifying Russia and the Soviet Union.

Well would you look at that your liberal source says it there it was made up by the Soviets so there would be nothing wrong with Romania retaking it.

Yes there might be some problems with transnistia but it’s better to rip the bandaid off and if needed just remove all the Russians in the area.

Again, this is irrelevant, Romanian government does not officially claim Moldova, no one cares if you or your "some" think they should, as things stand they don't.
If Romania and Moldova want to unite peacefully, Moldova joining NATO helps, if they want to unite forcefully Romania would veto its NATO bid, and if they don't want to, who has the right to make them.

It being recognized by the UN doesn’t make it a non fake country. Do you recognize Palestine? It’s recognized by the UN don’t use bad faith arguments.

Conveniently you skipped the other part of who recognizes it, Palestine is not recognized by 3 of 5 UNSC permanent members among other important countries, don't act dumber than you are.

No what you said was very stupid. Tell me if NATO decided to “bring in” Afghanistan into the alliance after Russia said they were going to go in would you support that? Us risking ourselves for some shithole we don’t care about?

Afghanistan is in fact some shithole, and if you haven't noticed, it doesn't even come close to bordering any part of NATO, so its utility is questionable on that account alone.
But that obviously does not apply to Moldova, which is in Europe and has well above average importance for security of NATO member Romania which it borders.
Do you even know what is the most militarily significant geographic feature of Moldova?

In modern war all of that doesent matter. If Russia is dumb enough to invade Poland or Romania I’d advocate for immediate full scale nuclear launch. Would you do otherwise? War with nukes outclasses anything else.

LMAO.
Congratulations, you are having controversial yet innovative ideas... by the standards of late 1940's/early 1950's. Come back to talk to me once you get at least 40 years ahead in history of nuclear warfare doctrine.
In reality Korea killed this doctrine and Vietnam put a stone monument on its grave.

I mean conventional forces almost don’t matter let’s pretend this happened and you were the NATO commander and the war stayed conventional but somehow NATO was losing badly, and the Russians side stopped after taking half of Germany the French want to sue for peace. Would you be ok with that? Wouldn’t you want nukes launched instead of accepting defeat?

Obviously that's a completely different scenario as opposed to relying purely on nukes in any, even small or "it's complicated" hybrid war situations. If this scenario has arisen, probably due to people like you demanding conventional forces be neglected "because nukes outclass everything else", leaving us with only shitty options, then taking the nuclear shitty option is very much on the table.
People like me want there to be more than just shitty options on the table.

I think you are the one whose not qualified since you underestimate nuclear weapons.

Not falling to retarded leftist's and Russian shill's nuclear scaremongering is in fact a minimum qualification, and if you know as much about them as about the other things you have talked about here, that's not something you can judge.

If the nukes fly does it matter if the soldiers die in Latvia or Poland? Again if a NATO member is invaded the first response should be nukes.

Which will get nukes in response. Checkmate. In real politics that will mean plan A that the leaders won't follow up on, and no plan B. Hence your plan is grade A natural fertilizer.
And i'm supposed to be the one not qualified to talk about this because nuclear warfare?

 

[AmosTrask]

To get to Moldova, Russia has to attack Romania and conquer it. Or subjugate Ukraine completely. They can't use air, rail or water to get there because all three require one of the previously aforementioned conditions. NATO and European territory is closed to Russia. @King Arts whatever it is you're smoking please let us know so I can avoid it.

Russian nukes will only get through NATO Air Defence if they carry out a mass launch. Fucking AEGIS is an anti-satellite capable laser. And that is the lowball declassified specs that's published. I known enough US AD battery soldiers from the NATO base here to know what is declassified is decades out of date.

 

[AmosTrask]

Russell "Texas" Bentley an 64 year old American who joined Russian fighters of the Vostok Battalion in Donetsk in 2014, married a local Russian and became a Russian Citizen, an awarded medals by Putin. Was kidnapped, tortured and gang raped to death by Russia's Fifth Guards Tank Brigade while he was providing first aid for the wounded last week during Ukrainian shelling. I'm not posting the video his Russian wife posted

These are the people you're cheering for @Agent23 and @DarthOne

 

[DarthOne]

Russell "Texas" Bentley an 64 year old American who joined Russian fighters of the Vostok Battalion in Donetsk in 2014, married a local Russian and became a Russian Citizen, an awarded medals by Putin. Was kidnapped, tortured and gang raped to death by Russia's Fifth Guards Tank brigade while he was providing first aid for the wounded last week during Ukrainian shelling.

These are the people you're cheering for @Agent23 and @DarthOne

Interesting claim.

Because what I’ve found says he fought FOR Putin. And there’s no mention of him being ‘raped to death’ that I have been able to find.

 

[Zachowon]

Interesting claim.

Because what I’ve found says he fought FOR Putin. And there’s no mention of him being ‘raped to death’ that I have been able to find.

It is up in the air.if he was. Since Russia would never admit jt

 

[Vyor]

Well, my first step would be to take money from the rest of the MiC and throw it at building said equipment, buying said land and fixing the educational system to train Americans as said skilled workforce.

Oh, now you're magicking up the required patents now too.

 

[LordsFire]

Stationing troops like that next to Russia is not in our interest unless we plan to attack Russia.

I know that your mind is made up, and you're not going to be persuaded to change it.

I know that trying to get you to learn from history is pretty pointless.

But maybe, maybe you can realize that the way that you argue does nothing but make you look ignorant, and your position look stupid?


The quoted statement isn't just ignorant of how war IRL works, it's ignorant of how works in almost every piece of fiction, almost every board game and video game, that uses war and conflict as part of its format.

There are many, many used for troops on the border of a hostile nation, and the fact that you'd say something like this, shows that you aren't just ignorant of how contemporary warfare is executed, but how Hollywood, novelists, and game-makers portray it. It makes you come across as someone who isn't just uninformed about how warfare and military deployments work, but someone who is proactively ignorant on the subject.

If you want to do anything other than undermine your own position, you should probably stop arguing about it for a week or two, and instead spend your time gaining some basic comprehension of the subject.

 

[King Arts]

Again, this is irrelevant, Romanian government does not officially claim Moldova, no one cares if you or your "some" think they should, as things stand they don't.
If Romania and Moldova want to unite peacefully, Moldova joining NATO helps, if they want to unite forcefully Romania would veto its NATO bid, and if they don't want to, who has the right to make them.

If Romania wants to force Moldavia Romania would veto it? What?

Anyway MANY Romanians hell most want Moldova back, and there are even political groups the conservatives want to regain all the lands of the Romanians that were lost.

Why are you acting so against it? If Romania a NATO ally wants to get it back, and it won't cause too many issues to it's allies there is nothing wrong with it.

Conveniently you skipped the other part of who recognizes it, Palestine is not recognized by 3 of 5 UNSC permanent members among other important countries, don't act dumber than you are.

So? There are many fake countries like in Africa that are "recognized" but are just lines on a map that have ethnic issues because there are multiple tribes or tribes split apart, etc.

What makes a country real is if the people in that country think it is legitimate. They truly see themselves as a seperate group of people.

Afghanistan is in fact some shithole, and if you haven't noticed, it doesn't even come close to bordering any part of NATO, so its utility is questionable on that account alone.
But that obviously does not apply to Moldova, which is in Europe and has well above average importance for security of NATO member Romania which it borders.
Do you even know what is the most militarily significant geographic feature of Moldova?

I thought we were talking about general NATO growth not specifically Moldova? I don't have a problem with Moldova being brought in NATO. Again maybe it will make a future union with Romania easier, and it does not directly border Russia.

LMAO.
Congratulations, you are having controversial yet innovative ideas... by the standards of late 1940's/early 1950's. Come back to talk to me once you get at least 40 years ahead in history of nuclear warfare doctrine.
In reality Korea killed this doctrine and Vietnam put a stone monument on its grave.

That idea is valid, the only reason it has not been put into practice is because the leaders of both the US, and Soviet Union wanted MORE than just to not be attacked and invaded. They had Imperial ambitions to spread their ideology around and for that they needed more conventional forces.

Obviously that's a completely different scenario as opposed to relying purely on nukes in any, even small or "it's complicated" hybrid war situations. If this scenario has arisen, probably due to people like you demanding conventional forces be neglected "because nukes outclass everything else", leaving us with only shitty options, then taking the nuclear shitty option is very much on the table.
People like me want there to be more than just shitty options on the table.

Wait it's "an option on the table"? I'm saying in that case we should launch a full scale nuclear attack on Russia and you are saying maybe we should maybe we shouldn't? So you are losing the conventional war and what you consider surrender to avoid nuclear devastation? Are you really Polish? I would think that sending Russia into nuclear winter would be a dream to you.

Also any serious war between nuclear powers will go nuclear. So you might as well launch because all postponing and fighting conventionally will do is make you die tired.

Listen I'm not willing to accept defeat and loss and conquest of NATO allies. In that case I'd use nukes if we can't win conventionally. I'm assuming that the Russians aren't bigger pussies than me and are willing to launch if they are attacked and they can't repulse it militarily. That means the best thing is for both sides to stay in their own sphere of influence. If that does not happen nuclear war is inevitable because that's what I'd do.

I put myself in the other sides shoes. I don't want my country to lose, be humiliated and weakened and broken. I assume that a Russian, or Chinese, or Iranian would feel the same towards his home.

Not falling to retarded leftist's and Russian shill's nuclear scaremongering is in fact a minimum qualification, and if you know as much about them as about the other things you have talked about here, that's not something you can judge.

How did I fall for the scaremongering? If I fell for it wouldn't I be advocating for completing disarmament or surrendering if another nuclear power beats us conventionally? I'm arguing to launch that's the opposite of accepting the left's scaremongering, it's going against what they would want.

Which will get nukes in response. Checkmate. In real politics that will mean plan A that the leaders won't follow up on, and no plan B. Hence your plan is grade A natural fertilizer.
And i'm supposed to be the one not qualified to talk about this because nuclear warfare?

Yes it will get nukes in response, just like Russia should have known that attacking NATO and taking it's territory and beating us conventionally will have us send nukes in response, and then they would launch. If they did not want Fallout to be reality they should not have attacked a nuclear power. That's what MAD is.

To get to Moldova, Russia has to attack Romania and conquer it. Or subjugate Ukraine completely. They can't use air, rail or water to get there because all three require one of the previously aforementioned conditions. NATO and European territory is closed to Russia. @King Arts whatever it is you're smoking please let us know so I can avoid it.

Russian nukes will only get through NATO Air Defence if they carry out a mass launch. Fucking AEGIS is an anti-satellite capable laser. And that is the lowball declassified specs that's published. I known enough US AD battery soldiers from the NATO base here to know what is declassified is decades out of date.

I know that Russia has to get through Ukraine first.

Also why are you saying I'm high? From what I know most Romanians want Moldova back, I'm saying they should be able to get it back why is that crazy?

I know that your mind is made up, and you're not going to be persuaded to change it.

I know that trying to get you to learn from history is pretty pointless.

But maybe, maybe you can realize that the way that you argue does nothing but make you look ignorant, and your position look stupid?


The quoted statement isn't just ignorant of how war IRL works, it's ignorant of how works in almost every piece of fiction, almost every board game and video game, that uses war and conflict as part of its format.

There are many, many used for troops on the border of a hostile nation, and the fact that you'd say something like this, shows that you aren't just ignorant of how contemporary warfare is executed, but how Hollywood, novelists, and game-makers portray it. It makes you come across as someone who isn't just uninformed about how warfare and military deployments work, but someone who is proactively ignorant on the subject.

If you want to do anything other than undermine your own position, you should probably stop arguing about it for a week or two, and instead spend your time gaining some basic comprehension of the subject.

@LordsFire please listen to me every modern war after world war 2 has not been a "real war" for the nuclear powers. It has been police actions, or using third parties for a conflict. In every war from Korea, to Vietnam, to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, to our invasion of Afghanistan.
The powers that be have fought with one arm tied behind their back. They did not bring their full force to bear against the enemy they always held back.
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate power in a total war they make conventional forces obsolete just like how rifles make spearmen obsolete.


If we station troops in the Baltics for instance and they get attacked by Russia there are two possible outcomes. First they are defeated and that territory is taken from us. In that case I'd suggest just launching the nukes now, sure our leaders may decide to send more conventional forces to retake it. But that is just postponing what will happen. Because if we can't take it back then we either have the choice of abandoning our ally or going with the ultimate force we have. If we do win conventionally then we go to option two.

The second option is that the forces there repel the Russians, if this happens we could be happy to deescalate. But will the Russians want to? They obviously thought attacking another nuclear power and risking the apocalypse was a good idea for whatever reward there is. Why wouldn't they launch nukes if they were that invested in that territory or conflict? That's why I say putting the troops there is a waste. It does not matter if they win the conventional war or not. The loser in a war between nuclear powers will launch, if they are not willing to launch then they never would have attacked another nuclear power.

 

[mrttao]

@LordsFire please listen to me every modern war after world war 2 has not been a "real war" for the nuclear powers. It has been police actions, or using third parties for a conflict. In every war from Korea, to Vietnam, to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, to our invasion of Afghanistan.
The powers that be have fought with one arm tied behind their back. They did not bring their full force to bear against the enemy they always held back.
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate power in a total war they make conventional forces obsolete just like how rifles make spearmen obsolete.


If we station troops in the Baltics for instance and they get attacked by Russia there are two possible outcomes. First they are defeated and that territory is taken from us. In that case I'd suggest just launching the nukes now, sure our leaders may decide to send more conventional forces to retake it. But that is just postponing what will happen. Because if we can't take it back then we either have the choice of abandoning our ally or going with the ultimate force we have. If we do win conventionally then we go to option two.

The second option is that the forces there repel the Russians, if this happens we could be happy to deescalate. But will the Russians want to? They obviously thought attacking another nuclear power and risking the apocalypse was a good idea for whatever reward there is. Why wouldn't they launch nukes if they were that invested in that territory or conflict? That's why I say putting the troops there is a waste. It does not matter if they win the conventional war or not. The loser in a war between nuclear powers will launch, if they are not willing to launch then they never would have attacked another nuclear power.

well, that seems reasonable.

How did I fall for the scaremongering? If I fell for it wouldn't I be advocating for completing disarmament or surrendering if another nuclear power beats us conventionally? I'm arguing to launch that's the opposite of accepting the left's scaremongering, it's going against what they would want.

arguing to immediately launch nukes now though is not so reasonable though

 

[Marduk]

If Romania wants to force Moldavia Romania would veto it? What?

Yeah, if Romania would want to invade Moldova in the future, it can veto Moldova from joining NATO.

Anyway MANY Romanians hell most want Moldova back, and there are even political groups the conservatives want to regain all the lands of the Romanians that were lost.

It's one thing to want it, it's another if they want to have the economic and political problems that come with it, and yet another if they are willing to fight about it.
As i said, if they do want it, both being in NATO and EU would make it easier than any other way.

Why are you acting so against it? If Romania a NATO ally wants to get it back, and it won't cause too many issues to it's allies there is nothing wrong with it.

Am i? Why are you insisting that they should not do it in cheaper and more convenient ways?

So? There are many fake countries like in Africa that are "recognized" but are just lines on a map that have ethnic issues because there are multiple tribes or tribes split apart, etc.

Still their government exists and as long as it holds power and manages foreign policy, they functionally exist.

What makes a country real is if the people in that country think it is legitimate. They truly see themselves as a seperate group of people.

It's up for them to decide if and why they want to be independent, not for you. If South and North Koreans don't want to be united, who are you to tell them otherwise. Even if the North overthrows their Dear Leader and has a democratic referendum to join the South, if the South decides that it will be too expensive to unfuck the place right now and maybe they will think about it in 50 years, they will still be separate countries.

I thought we were talking about general NATO growth not specifically Moldova? I don't have a problem with Moldova being brought in NATO. Again maybe it will make a future union with Romania easier, and it does not directly border Russia.

Moldova always was, is, and provided no big changes in Russian policy, will remain just one major Russian operational success in South Ukraine away from neighboring Russia.

That idea is valid, the only reason it has not been put into practice is because the leaders of both the US, and Soviet Union wanted MORE than just to not be attacked and invaded. They had Imperial ambitions to spread their ideology around and for that they needed more conventional forces.

Everyone wants more than just technically not being invaded. Like not getting nuked. Having better trade opportunities than North Korea. Being richer than North Korea.
No one cares what works for your theoretical people with no wants, they don't exist.
Not even commies would have engineered a Soviet Man into that.

Wait it's "an option on the table"? I'm saying in that case we should launch a full scale nuclear attack on Russia and you are saying maybe we should maybe we shouldn't? So you are losing the conventional war and what you consider surrender to avoid nuclear devastation? Are you really Polish? I would think that sending Russia into nuclear winter would be a dream to you.

What is it with your ideas consistently promoting raw blindness and stupidity over any alternative?
Of course any option of winning the war without also getting nuked into ruin is better. Like going to tactical nuclear escalation first and either regaining the upper hand or getting the other side to back down, starting a civil war on the other side, whatever. Strategic nuclear exchange with no caveats is the option of last resort.
Your "valid" idea makes the last resort the only option for anything.
Perun's video on deterrence does justice to the basics of benefits and limits of nuclear deterrence, i recommend you start with that, nuclear specific starting at 35 minute mark:

Also any serious war between nuclear powers will go nuclear. So you might as well launch because all postponing and fighting conventionally will do is make you die tired.

Again, it's not early Cold War anymore, yet your ideas of what may or may not happen are frozen there. Learn some shit. There already is technology making it so that in some scenarios, if that happens, one side will die, and the other may lose a few city districts.
MAD is not written in stone as a result, it is written in force compositions instead. If one side gets enough defenses, or the other neglects their offense enough, all sorts of other results are possible.

Listen I'm not willing to accept defeat and loss and conquest of NATO allies. In that case I'd use nukes if we can't win conventionally. I'm assuming that the Russians aren't bigger pussies than me and are willing to launch if they are attacked and they can't repulse it militarily.

Well you are outright saying that you don't want to put any effort in means and ways to win conventionally, so...

That means the best thing is for both sides to stay in their own sphere of influence. If that does not happen nuclear war is inevitable because that's what I'd do.

And here we go back to massive, amazing and incomrehensible stupidity.
Did the eastern block "stay in its sphere of influence" when invading Korea?
Vietnam?
Cuba?
Yet no one launched.
"Staying in your sphere of influence" is for useful idiots, either leftist pacicuck or idiots on Putin simping right and retarded isolationists who actively refuse to know anything about geopoltiics, economy and logistics.
On the other side, that's a fun concept for idiot westerners. For their side, it's a job for interesting agency's workers to wonder every day what they can snap from the other or neutral countries.
Like the weakened by WW2 spheres of influence of France and Britain in third world countries, Soviets and Chinese grabbed a big chunk of those, yet didn't get nuked.
For all who talk about "spheres of influence", it is to be taken for granted that "western" one is meant to stay the same or shrink, while anti-western ones are meant to at worst stay the same and increase whenever possible.
And so we know who those idiots are being useful for.

I put myself in the other sides shoes. I don't want my country to lose, be humiliated and weakened and broken. I assume that a Russian, or Chinese, or Iranian would feel the same towards his home.

Did they launch at Afghanistan, make a desert, and call it peace?
China-Vietnam?
In those cases they honestly would not even get nuked back, but they took a humiliation over the international political consequences, about which they care way less than western peoples already.

How did I fall for the scaremongering? If I fell for it wouldn't I be advocating for completing disarmament or surrendering if another nuclear power beats us conventionally? I'm arguing to launch that's the opposite of accepting the left's scaremongering, it's going against what they would want.

No one cares what you argue, the fact is that if that's your last and only resort, the other side will attempt to make the war a complex political scenario over which most won't be willing to launch.

Yes it will get nukes in response, just like Russia should have known that attacking NATO and taking it's territory and beating us conventionally will have us send nukes in response, and then they would launch. If they did not want Fallout to be reality they should not have attacked a nuclear power. That's what MAD is.

Again, stop being in 1950's and learn what hybrid warfare and related concepts are, and what they are for.