Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,517
In Reply To
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
Subj: Yeah, I wasn't speaking hypothetically or normatively.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 at 10:31:52 pm EDT (Viewed 155 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I wish I had your confidence about this.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 at 09:29:09 pm EDT (Viewed 148 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    LGDB: You seemed to suggest it, yes. I'll leave it to others whether this mischaracterizes your position.

No, let's not leave it to others that have a poor track record. I understand that you try your best and so I'll explain.

You: "Meanwhile, much of the people that live in the south and the east of the Ukraine identify as ethnically Russian, primarily speak Russian, and generally show political support for Russophilic leaders. I think it might be a reasonable compromise to cede this territory to the Russians. [Along with reestablishing that series of buffer states between Russia and NATO like Finland, Ukraine, etc.] Especially when it's conceivable that many of those Ukrainians would prefer to be governed by Russia."

Me: "If the Ukrainians are unwilling to fight for their country despite the endless resources (armament and oil) the West is willing to provide, then perhaps there's not much we can do. But I'm assuming they're determined to continue fighting; and so long that this assumption is true, I don't support giving Putin/Russia an inch of Ukrainian soil."

You: "It seems in bad taste to believe that should the Ukrainians fail it was for lack of willingness on their part."

---------

As you can see, my comment was addressing your input that there's possibly a sizable number of Ukrainians in the South and East who are sympathetic to Russia; and so my response was a hypothetical while making clear that my assumption was otherwise. Do I need to break it down further why you're wrong? Also, it would be nice if you apologized.


    Quote:
    LGDB: What do you mean it's a chance you're willing to take? I don't think either one of us is in on the decision making here.

What a strange point you just made, like I did something taboo to message boards. Obviously, we're not the decision makers and we're speaking for ourselves. Are you thinking we're doing otherwise?


    Quote:
    Regardless, what would make you think it would be reasonable to assume that high placed government or military officials who you can expect have expressed nothing but loyalty to Putin (and would likely be ideologically in agreement with him) would disobey him?

I already told you the general gist - I don't believe Russia has a culture where Putin is revered as a god and his people are willing to follow him into the gates of hell. That's why! Not even Hitler, who was able to control all propaganda and was revered as a god could prevent his people from trying to assassinate him. I just can't picture Russian soldiers, who've now been exposed to what Americans and the West are really like for the past 30 years, pushing nuclear buttons and starting Armageddon out of blind loyalty to a man who may not even be all that popular in Russia. 


    Quote:

    LGDB: Stupidity has nothing to do with it. It's whether or not they thought there was a credible threat to their power or way of life. And I didn't mean in the case of our financing the Ukrainian war effort. I meant should we begin down the road of direct military escalation. Like with for instance setting up a no fly zone in Ukraine. And do you have any articulatable reason to think they're bluffing? Again, this seems like a lot to stake on intuition.

Why would they think there's a credible threat if there's no invasion on their soil? That's what my intuition is based on: that there's no invasion to make them feel their "way of life" is threatened. You think it's me but I say it's you who's making the strange intuitions.


    Quote:

    LGDB: Yeah, you're conflating our own military expanse (which is greater by orders of magnitude) with what we can reasonably expect Ukraine will be armed with even in a best case scenario. Literally no one is suggesting that the arms or supplies that the West will be providing will being to approach Russia's capabilities. 

Literally Jocko suggested that very thing! Stop these asinine statements! You've already been corrected on this.


    Quote:
    Again, I want to be clear, to my knowledge no one is suggesting that even our ample military support is going to give the Ukrainians a reasonable chance to repel this invasion. It's far more likely if anything this is to help fuel a Ukrainian insurgency. And failure of leadership or not, the West will not be inflating Ukraine to anything in the neighborhood of 5th most powerful military (to give an arbitrary designation) which is what they'd need to have a prayer here.


Jocko Willink is suggesting it.


    Quote:
    LGDB: Yeah you understand that this is pretend, right? lol This is what Jocko WOULD do if we he was the leader of the United States. Supposedly.

Sigh. No shit! He's obviously not the president. But he was pretending about what he WOULD say, meaning it's his assessment of Ukraine's capability with the full support of the West. Which EXACTLY matches my position! Do you get it?


    Quote:
    Now leaving aside that Jocko's expertise wasn't exactly in state craft; and leaving aside I'm not sure this WWE promo would be all that compelling to anyone at the Kremlin... did you catch the part about where Jocko was talking about sending three aircraft carriers, special operations, and infantry units, air support and so on? You understand this isn't what's actually going to happen, right? I think at best he's being aspiration here. You can argue all you like about whose failure it is, but the White House has been unequivocal about it. None of these things are on offer.

Way to switch the argument. You said nobody was saying what I'm saying - I corrected you. Now you're saying that there's no way we'd do what I / Jocko am / are saying, which is not the argument. The argument is that if we DID do what I / Jocko am / are saying, Ukraine would definitely win. And if Ukraine falls, it's Biden's failure.


No, let's not leave it to others that have a poor track record. I understand that you try your best and so I'll explain.

You: "Meanwhile, much of the people that live in the south and the east of the Ukraine identify as ethnically Russian, primarily speak Russian, and generally show political support for Russophilic leaders. I think it might be a reasonable compromise to cede this territory to the Russians. [Along with reestablishing that series of buffer states between Russia and NATO like Finland, Ukraine, etc.] Especially when it's conceivable that many of those Ukrainians would prefer to be governed by Russia."

Me: "If the Ukrainians are unwilling to fight for their country despite the endless resources (armament and oil) the West is willing to provide, then perhaps there's not much we can do. But I'm assuming they're determined to continue fighting; and so long that this assumption is true, I don't support giving Putin/Russia an inch of Ukrainian soil."

You: "It seems in bad taste to believe that should the Ukrainians fail it was for lack of willingness on their part."

---------

As you can see, my comment was addressing your input that there's possibly a sizable number of Ukrainians in the South and East who are sympathetic to Russia; and so my response was a hypothetical while making clear that my assumption was otherwise. Do I need to break it down further why you're wrong? Also, it would be nice if you apologized.


LGDB:  I stand corrected! lol  I was wrong for sure.  I definitely DID misunderstand what you meant.  I didn't realize what you were referring to in my original post; I think mostly because it didn't register that what you meant by "if [they] are unwilling to fight for their country,'' you meant because they want their country to be Russia.  

As far as apologies... I think I'd be behind you in that line lol




What a strange point you just made, like I did something taboo to message boards. Obviously, we're not the decision makers and we're speaking for ourselves. Are you thinking we're doing otherwise?


LGDB:  No not a taboo, I just thought what you said was weirdly phrased, "a chance I'd be willing to take."  My thought was, neither of us is taking any chances.  As I said, regardless...





I already told you the general gist - I don't believe Russia has a culture where Putin is revered as a god and his people are willing to follow him into the gates of hell. That's why! Not even Hitler, who was able to control all propaganda and was revered as a god could prevent his people from trying to assassinate him. I just can't picture Russian soldiers, who've now been exposed to what Americans and the West are really like for the past 30 years, pushing nuclear buttons and starting Armageddon out of blind loyalty to a man who may not even be all that popular in Russia. 



LGDB:  Yeah I heard you, but I still don't understand where you get this much confidence about the Russian leadership.  Like where did you develop this sense of things?  It seems like a pretty dangerous outcome to stake on whether you can picture it or not.   And Russian soldiers certainly seem willing to slaughter Ukrainians on Putin's order.  And again, I think that you're skipping a lot in terms of the process of escalation.   I don't think anyone is worried that Putin would of nothing give an order to some sub commander to launch nukes at the West.  A more realistic scenario is if we get into a sort of escalatory feedback loop where the levels of aggression are, like that of a pendulum, ramped up in such a way that neither side could stop.  For one because of internal political reasons, but also because as the aggression increases mutually, either side literally does become an increasingly greater threat to the other.





Why would they think there's a credible threat if there's no invasion on their soil? That's what my intuition is based on: that there's no invasion to make them feel their "way of life" is threatened. You think it's me but I say it's you who's making the strange intuitions.


LGDB: Like I said, I agree IF there's not escalatory actions like I described earlier, such as a no fly zone; or if they feel like our sanctions will cripple them so much it represents an existential threat at a society level; or if they interpret a certain level of munitions as an act of war; or someone accidentally hitting the wrong sensitive target or them hitting some kind of embassy  unintentionally; or what have you.  Or some sort of false report of use of illegal biological weapons or something that encourages us to take a more direct and active role in the theater.   And the relevance of this was relevant because if there's no significant military intervention by NATO then Ukraine has virtually no chance of repelling the invasion.



Literally Jocko suggested that very thing! Stop these asinine statements! You've already been corrected on this.


LGDB:  I really don't want to ban you, so you should consider cooling off.  Also I don't know what you're talking about with respect to what very same thing Jocko suggested.  Care to elaborate?




Jocko Willink is suggesting it.

LGDB:  Dude lol  I meant no one in a position of power, or anyone purporting to speak on behalf of or describe any one in a position of power.  Jocko is making a normative claim.  I'm making a descriptive one.  Context clues.





Sigh. No shit! He's obviously not the president. But he was pretending about what he WOULD say, meaning it's his assessment of Ukraine's capability with the full support of the West. Which EXACTLY matches my position! Do you get it?




LGDB:  Again, watch your language.  Last warning.  Don't let your ego be the reason you can't post anymore.


And secondly, we're speaking past one another.  I was never talking hypothetically or normatively here.  If you and I were going to argue about what we OUGHT to do, I think we'd have to begin far closer to the beginning.  I'm talking about what is realistically going to happen.   And I didn't correct you about your opinion that if we supported Ukraine to the degree being indicated we could or couldn't defeat Russia militarily.  Again, none of this speaks to the danger of nuclear war, but my point is that this isn't going to happen regardless of what we think ought to happen.  What is going to happen given our actual circumstances is that we're going to give Ukraine some military aid, and that will be necessarily insufficient to the task of repelling the Russian invaders.  

 Suffice to say the amount of support we'd have to offer the Ukrainians in order to make an adequate impact would likely be seen as escalatory and lead to a direct military confrontation with the Russians.  Even take nukes off the table, most of the American people don't want a hot war with Russia, which (among other things) probably explains why Biden's White House won't be offering sufficient support to turn the tide in Ukraine.   Again, I'm only talking about what the realistic outcomes are, not whether I think Biden or some other president SHOULD do something or other. 





Way to switch the argument. You said nobody was saying what I'm saying - I corrected you. Now you're saying that there's no way we'd do what I / Jocko am/are saying, which is not the argument. The argument is that if we DID do what I / Jocko am / are saying, Ukraine would definitely win. And if Ukraine falls, it's Biden's failure.


LGDB:  Yeah you're mistaking what I said with where you thought I was coming from.   What I said was:   "Literally no one is suggesting that the arms or supplies that the West WILL BE providing will begin to approach Russia's capabilities."  I wasn't talking about some Ukrainian hypothetical wishlist or the total munitions you or me or Jocko or anybody else would prefer.  I was talking about what we'll ACTUALLY be sending.



cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake



Posted with Google Chrome 99.0.4844.51 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software