BF2S Forums Where are all the whiny peaceful "Enlightened" European now?

Anyhow, the western response...good or bad so far? Like I said, I am happy for us to give all the weapons we can to Ukraine. We should also cut off Russia from our economic system as much as we can. Only thing we haven't done so far that we should: increase domestic oil production, green energy and nuclear adoption too. Drive down the price of energy to further disrupt Russia's economy. We should also take in a lot of refugees.

I don't want a no-fly zone or something. Russia is a nuclear power after all and that is still significant. Do you think if Russia wasn't a nuclear power we would have done a Gulf War in Europe?

it's not so much 'liberal democracy' that's under threat as the rules-based international order.

as soon as big states with big militaries start swinging their dicks around and subscribing to a 'might is right' doctrine, the law-based order goes out the window and the world reverts to state of bigger powers bullying and seizing the territory of smaller powers.

taiwan is culturally alien to western liberal democracies too, and yet it's a thing worth fighting for.

as soon as china/russia/etc see that they can take what they want and the previous rules-based order has no organized response, you can bet they'll be disposed to keep taking bigger bites. the whole global order, and with it its stability and prosperity, goes out the window.

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

re: "precision bombing", i really do think that several decades of war, going back to gulf war I, has inured and lulled americans to sleep with this phrase. they've all been going to bed at night gently self-deluding themselves that their fantastic, space-age 'precision' munitions are dropping bombs directly on Bad People's heads and making them go 'poof!' into non-existence. and not, er, you know, dropping huge high-pressure munitions on urban centres full of innocent bystanders, sometimes based off very shaky intelligence.

addendum to this, from a tweet earlier:

“ i can't believe americans are seriously getting into nuclear war prepper stuff after spending the last two years being mentally unable to cope with wearing a cloth mask while in line at Dunkin's. how have we not updated our delusions??”

haha.

My two cents on that, we never stopped having preppers. They were being made fun of before covid, and during covid where some of the same people would freak out about being told to mask up.

I don't think it's a bad thing to do. Having a bunker or basement with at least a modicum of emergency supplies can be useful in a non-apocalyptic natural disaster. Government entities even recommend having emergency plans and supplies for things that could happen. It's just too bad the ability to do so is quite restricted. People can't even afford homes, let alone homes with basements or bunker installations. How are you going to keep a bunch of extra crap in a studio apartment? Best you could manage is one of those "bug-out" packs.

People who already had Costco packs of toilet paper got to skip much if not all of the covid TP panic.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Even if they do take Kiev.

The idea that you can pacify a country by taking the capital is very old fashioned I think.

a tactical … nuclear strike … on the kremlin.

isn’t putin in a bunker in the urals already? that’s where he summoned his oligarchs to this week. 

i think you’ve been watching too many superhero movies.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I didn't change avatars, signatures (certainly not calling Putin 'gay' as an insult), or anything else in my social media.

I was hoping to bring in some Russian bots to enliven the discussion.

Don't be ridiculous, of course a nuclear first strike isn't on the table. Not on any table anywhere.

The diplomatic approach does not assume that you will be able to somehow talk the Russians out of this conflict after a mere 6 days. Sadly, once fighting starts, you often need to wait for a conflict to hit certain phases in its development, preferably a stalemate, at which point diplomacy becomes a realistic option. In any case both sides need to come to the conclusion that military means will not in the end deliver the desired political results. Either because a conclusive victory is impossible, because victory would come at unacceptable cost, or for other reasons.

Once at that diplomatic table, for any solution to be possible, both parties need to also be able to walk out with a narrative that is acceptable to them and their respective political constituents.

All of this has become much more unlikely because of recent events. On our end it is fine and completely reasonable to set the goal that Russia should not be allowed to achieve its penultimate objectives through military force, and there's many various ways to go about frustrating their effort. But it would demonstrate some manner of foresight if those activities were kept secret from both the public and the Russians (even if it were a badly kept secret). In the end the Ukrainian war must be resolved in a negotiation that concludes the withdrawal of Russian forces under whatever conditions. Our goal is not to 'demilitarise Russia' or 'destroy the Russian state', though I'm under the impression some deluded politicians DO consider that their objective. The war in Ukraine, if defeat already wasn't an option for Putin, then becomes about the survival of Putin's state and himself.

In this situation, I can't see a political way out for either him or for us. While I hope this will change once the rage of the past week dies down and we're farther along in what's happening, I'm also reminded of Khrushchev's letter about 'knots of war'.

something has upset our erstwhile CAD Dirac. he’s posting all out of sorts today. lost his equilibrium.

they get like that at that age. funny turns.

Why do any of you even worry about nuclear war? I live near NYC. I am only one going to die in a first strike. Nobody is going to nuke Australia.

Before the invasion I wondered 'how many people are walking around right now with no idea they are going to die in this war?' Thinking it over, it could be us. You go 31 years in life expecting to someday grow old, marry, have children etc. but instead some manlet blows up the world because reasons

He is probably so angry because he is short. Short people are angry people.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why do any of you even worry about nuclear war? I live near NYC. I am only one going to die in a first strike. Nobody is going to nuke Australia.

As long as we're talking about theoretical risks:



… as well as the usual targeted production, infrastructure, civilian population centers. Anyway, it's not something I'm expecting will happen. Stuff like Dilbert with his "just tactical nuke the Kremlin" should be utterly mocked.

Side note, (flawed) movies like Deterrence I think were meant to highlight the grim nature of nuclear war, but hawks who saw it were all like "America, #*& ya!"



Obviously meant to be a heavy and emotional scene. The music, the character reactions, solemnity, etc. This character resigned from office shortly thereafter. Meanwhile in the uploader's video description:

Don't mess with America!

Probably not the intended take here.

There were people calling for nukes during the Gulf War and post 9/11 fighting as well. "Just glass 'em!" Ugh.

The fervor really was capitalized on, wasn't it.

It was Giuliani's moment in the spotlight of "heroism" before his Trumpian fall from grace and melting on camera like the wicked witch of the west.

Political capital jackpot.