What would WW3 look like?

[cwbullet]

Yeah, at least one of these SSBN's operates out of Sub Base Kitsap, 25 mies from my Seattle home. Almost every week I see the boomers coming and going right in front of my fishing cabin.

Iran's nuclear status may be in the process of shifting, Israel and the US being vitally concerned, previous treaties having been made and torn up.

View attachment 570714

At top center may be seen the northern-most pier of Sub Base Kitsap, in the distance, the Olympic mountains of Washington State.

I have never trusted Iran's leadership and this should put serious doubt in our ability to trust them. If I were King for the day, I would support the opposition to overthrow their GOV.

 

[teepot]

WW3 could start as a Navel misunderstanding. I remember a movie. A Russian sub was acting provocatively near some US ships. A junior officer is manning the big red button. The Capitan keeps saying do not fire. After the junior officer asks if he should fire several times the Capitan says do not fire again. The junior officer only hears fire and sends an ASROC at the sub. As soon as the ASROC hits the water the sub fires a torpedo with a nuclear warhead at the ship. It's all down hill from there. I can see Putin using a nuke in Ukraine. I can't imagine that we would respond with a nuclear weapon against his forces. I can see Putin reacting to our overwhelming conventional strikes by thinking if I can't have the world no one else can either. And it all goes down hill from there.

 

[BABAR]

I think if WW3 was in the opening stage. That is before missiles start flying. There would be cyber attacks. All the state sponsored hacking going on that we hear about is likely only the tip of the ice burg. Probably some dormant stuff left behind or back doors made. Take away the other guys eyes and ears. Turn off the electricity. Just wreak havoc with anything computerized. Cause enough trouble and you might not have to use nukes. You might be able to hold a whole country that way. If WW3 turned into a nuclear exchange I think there would be areas that were untouched. Countries or parts of countries that survive initially because the fallout was washed out of the air by rain. Russia has more than 7000 warheads, the US more than 6000, China a few thousand I think. I don't see even 10% of the total being used. More like 2 or 3%. That is still enough for it to be a global catastrophe, but I don't think it would mean extinction of the human race. The human race might be knocked back to the early 1800's but would survive. Maybe something between Mad Max and The Postman.

Not that I am recommending it but it would be interesting to theorize the interaction between Carl Sagan’s nuclear winter and current global warming.

Simultaneously solves the Malthusian catastrophe, which of course only benefits the survivors.

 

[Dotini]

I have never trusted Iran's leadership and this should put serious doubt in our ability to trust them. If I were King for the day, I would support the opposition to overthrow their GOV.

Yes, There's been a proxy war over Syria's leadership going on there for ten years, and we've been supporting the opposition, no matter how unsavory. Just recently, China has brokered some kind of deal between Saudi Arabia and Syria, and so Assad is slowly being brought back into the Arab fold. Neither diplomacy nor boots on the ground seems to be working for the US in the Middle East at the moment. IMHO, we need to be building up the Army more than the Air Force and the Navy, and hasten the manufacturing of 155mm artillery shells. Our main battle tank suddenly seems obsolete with its thirsty gas turbine and 70 ton weight making it seem unsuitable for the muddy steppes of Eurasia.

Latest update from Syria:

 

[Alan15578]

WWIII will settle the best glue question once and for all!

Well, we are not going to nuke China just for emitting too much CO2 and pollution. Taiwan is still a sticky issue.

 

[boatgeek]

Yes, There's been a proxy war over Syria's leadership going on there for ten years, and we've been supporting the opposition, no matter how unsavory. Just recently, China has brokered some kind of deal between Saudi Arabia and Syria, and so Assad is slowly being brought back into the Arab fold. Neither diplomacy nor boots on the ground seems to be working for the US in the Middle East at the moment. IMHO, we need to be building up the Army more than the Air Force and the Navy, and hasten the manufacturing of 155mm artillery shells. Our main battle tank suddenly seems obsolete with its thirsty gas turbine and 70 ton weight making it seem unsuitable for the muddy steppes of Eurasia.

Latest update from Syria:

Let's not forget that Assad is just about as unsavory as it gets. Or that the "response" from the Iran-backed militias was to fire a bunch of unguided rockets at the US base. None hit, though there were some innocent civilians injured when one of the rockets went a mile or three off course.

Note also that the Abrams is being redesigned for less fuel consumption, and that a NATO war in Europe would look very different from the current war in Ukraine. For starters, we would use our air force and precision weapons against military targets.

 

[BABAR]

Let's not forget that Assad is just about as unsavory as it gets. Or that the "response" from the Iran-backed militias was to fire a bunch of unguided rockets at the US base. None hit, though there were some innocent civilians injured when one of the rockets went a mile or three off course.

too many places where, as bad as the dictator in power IS, when toppled there is no “replacement” that is significantly more palatable to U.S. interests.

We believe democracy is the best form of government (and I think we are right), but other countries and cultures either don’t want it or seem unable to maintain it. Really confirms that those guys who signed the Declaration of Independence had guts, it really WAS, “We all hang together or we will all hang separately.”

China is the best at playing “the long game”, but the Chinese people may get tired of their authoritarian government. Russia has so corrupt a system it makes ours look almost honest, and everyone knows that the way laws are made in OUR country are like making sausage, you really DON’T want to know the details.

I love this one:

Winston Churchill famously described democracy as ‘the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried’.

I am not convinced that a “limited” nuclear war will be any more “limited” than the Civil War was “civil.”

 

[bwayne64]

The only limited "Nuclear" war has already been fought and won. Well technically it was Atomic, but only one country had them, us. Now it's a Pandora's box, you never want to open. One launches, they all launch. It's Terminator, Mad Max, insert your favorite post apocalyptic movie here !

 

[Dotini]

Russia is now said to deploy front line battlefield tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Is this really an "extremely dangerous escalation" - or is it military nonsense, a meaningless distraction from existing political and military reality?

Lloyd Austin immediately went on TV and apparently suggested nothing really has changed.

 

[cwbullet]

I would not have another treaty with Russia until Putin is gone.

 

[Dotini]

I think currently we have 40,000 US troops and maybe 100,000 Polish troops in Poland. NATO is making plans to add 300,000, probably to Poland.
Note: "the US Army’s hurdles in particular paint a troubling picture for Pentagon leaders. Despite reducing its recruiting goals, the largest military service is falling more than 10,000 soldiers short this year, and is projecting a gap of at least 21,000 active-duty troops in 2023."
https://about.bgov.com/news/us-military-services-face-biggest-recruiting-hurdles-in-50-years/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/27/nato-300000-troops-high-alert-russia-threat-ukraine
Kim Iverson asks if we are not already in WW3.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think currently we have 40,000 US troops and maybe 100,000 Polish troops in Poland. NATO is making plans to add 300,000, probably to Poland.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/27/nato-300000-troops-high-alert-russia-threat-ukraine

As usual, you either haven’t read the article you posted, or you didn’t understand it, or you intentionally mischaracterized it. This article does NOT say NATO is adding 300,000 troops. Instead of posting a correction for you, I’m going to ask you to read the article yourself and post the correction yourself.

(Also, the article is 8 months old.)

 

[Dotini]

As usual, you either haven’t read the article you posted, or you didn’t understand it, or you intentionally mischaracterized it. This article does NOT say NATO is adding 300,000 troops. Instead of posting a correction for you, I’m going to ask you to read the article yourself and post the correction yourself.

(Also, the article is 8 months old.)

I see no problem other than I should have used the word "deploy" rather than "add". Sorry for the confusion.

From Politico, dated March 18, 2023
They say the first 100,000 may be prepared to move within 10 days!

The numbers will be large, with officials floating the idea of up to 300,000 NATO forces needed to help make the new model work. That means lots of coordinating and cajoling.

“I think you need forces to counter a realistic Russia,” said one senior NATO military official, underscoring the need for significantly “more troops” and especially more forces at “readiness.”

A push for ‘readiness’​

There are several tiers of “readiness.”

The first tier — which may consist of about 100,000 soldiers prepared to move within 10 days — could be drawn from Poland, Norway and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), said Heinrich Brauß, a former NATO assistant secretary general for defense policy and force planning. It may also include multinational battlegroups the alliance has already set up in the eastern flank.

https://www.politico.eu/article/nat...nsend-jr-us-one-billion-citizens-army-europe/
If all this is a go and NATO sends 100K or 300K troops to the border, then it certainly looks as though WW3 is much, much more likely than a ceasefire and peace.

 

[boatgeek]

I see no problem other than I should have used the word "deploy" rather than "add". Sorry for the confusion.

From Politico, dated March 18, 2023
They say the first 100,000 may be prepared to move within 10 days!


https://www.politico.eu/article/nat...nsend-jr-us-one-billion-citizens-army-europe/
If all this is a go and NATO sends 100K or 300K troops to the border, then it certainly looks as though WW3 is much, much more likely than a ceasefire and peace.

The difference between "deploy" (move troops we already have) and "add" (expand our existing militaries) completely changes the nature of the statement.

And gosh, golly, gee, it's shocking that when a major (well, sort of major anyway) power says that they want to invade and that they are already at war with you, you might want to move some troops to the border. And get them ready to fight. Just in case, you know, that the other party isn't lying. Especially when they've shown completel willingness to upend international order and invade weaker neighbors. Some people find that response extremely disturbing. Other people find that basic prudence.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I see no problem other than I should have used the word "deploy" rather than "add". Sorry for the confusion.

From Politico, dated March 18, 2023
They say the first 100,000 may be prepared to move within 10 days!


https://www.politico.eu/article/nat...nsend-jr-us-one-billion-citizens-army-europe/
If all this is a go and NATO sends 100K or 300K troops to the border, then it certainly looks as though WW3 is much, much more likely than a ceasefire and peace.

You are the most tiring troll in these Ukraine-related threads. Let’s go through your lies and misinformation bit by bit once again, as usual. Sigh…

You said the US has 40,000 troops in Poland. That’s a lie. The US has about 4,500 troops in Poland.

You said Poland has 100,000 Polish troops in Poland. Well, what do you mean by that? Poland has about 325,000 military personnel total in all branches of service. About 200,000 are in the reserves. About 165,000 are active duty, and of those, about 25,000 are deployed.

You said NATO is planning to add 300,000 troops, probably to Poland. Wrong! Then you said you meant “deploy”, not “add”. Wrong! NATO is not adding or deploying that many troops, and they certainly are not sending them all to Poland. Total bullshit.

Now you’ve completely mischaracterized another article. Trying to back up your previous BS about NATO deploying 300,000 troops, you said the new article says the first 100,000 troops may be ready to move in 10 days! That is NOT what the article says. That article is talking about readiness — having the personnel, equipment, supplies, logistics support, and ammo to be ready to move if given the order. And it says the first tier of readiness is to have all of that in place so that 100,000 troops could be deployed within 10 days if given the order. You are acting like they have been given the order and 100,000 NATO troops will be at the border in 10 days. That’s completely false, and I sincerely wish you would stop with the lying and BS alarmism.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If all this is a go and NATO sends 100K or 300K troops to the border, then it certainly looks as though WW3 is much, much more likely than a ceasefire and peace.

And just to reiterate. This is NOT a go. NATO is NOT sending 100k or 300k troops to the border. And WWIII is NOT much, much more likely than peace. This is not what is happening. This is just more Dotini worry-trolling.

 

[Dotini]

And just to reiterate. This is NOT a go. NATO is NOT sending 100k or 300k troops to the border. And WWIII is NOT much, much more likely than peace. This is not what is happening.

I'd like to see your explain how ceasefire and peace is more likely than escalated conflict in the immediate future. My opinion remains the alternative: Unquestionably the US and NATO are preparing for escalated conflict, and negotiations have so far been very firmly ruled out. Hence WW3 is getting closer.

The below is from a year ago. The numbers have increased since then, doubling or more in some as in Romania and the Baltic states. European NATO members are pledged to increase their budgets and troop numbers, although they are obviously having political problems and economic problems. There are now over 100,000 US troops in Europe.
.

Hundreds of thousands of NATO forces have been put on high alert while the US has increased its forces deployed across Europe from 80,000 in January to 100,000 — a level not seen since 2005.

Over a third of these US troops — 38,500 — are stationed in Germany while 12,000 are in Italy and 10,000 are in Poland and the UK each. There are 2,500 US troops in the three Baltics countries.

Figures valid on March 16, 2022.Euronews

 

[CalebJ]

I'd like to see your explain how ceasefire and peace is more likely than escalated conflict in the immediate future. My opinion remains the alternative: Unquestionably the US and NATO are preparing for escalated conflict, and negotiations have so far been very firmly ruled out. Hence WW3 is getting closer.

The below is from a year ago. The numbers have increased since then, doubling or more in some as in Romania and the Baltic states. European NATO members are pledged to increase their budgets and troop numbers, although they are obviously having political problems and economic problems
.

Figures valid on March 16, 2022.Euronews

It's interesting that your response didn't even touch on your previous posts full of made up facts and numbers. Why not address those rather than attempt further obfuscation?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I'd like to see your explain how ceasefire and peace is more likely than escalated conflict in the immediate future. My opinion remains the alternative: Unquestionably the US and NATO are preparing for escalated conflict, and negotiations have so far been very firmly ruled out. Hence WW3 is getting closer.

The below is from a year ago. The numbers have increased since then, doubling or more in some as in Romania and the Baltic states. European NATO members are pledged to increase their budgets and troop numbers, although they are obviously having political problems and economic problems. There are over 100,000 US troops in Europe.
.

Figures valid on March 16, 2022.Euronews

The numbers on that map look close enough to me. The 10,000 in Poland is more than the 4,500 I stated, but it’s far less than the 40,000 you claimed.

My point to you is that the literal reading of your recent posts would have someone believe that the US has stationed 40,000 troops in Poland (wrong), NATO is adding (meaning recruiting) 300,000 additional troops to their militaries (wrong), and they are deploying 300,000 additional troops to Poland right along the Russian border (wrong), and the first 100,000 are going in 10 days (wrong). That’s 4 big lies that give the false impression NATO is taking an aggressive posture along Russia’s border, as if NATO is getting ready to invade.

If what you said were true, it would be alarming, but it’s all utter lies. And I think you know it‘s BS, and that you intentionally distort these news stories. I don’t know your motivation, but you consistently change the facts of the stories you post to support the same lies that Putin tells, and I’m sick of having to waste time to refute your Russian propaganda. I’m looking forward to you being banned from this thread like you’ve been banned from others for doing the same thing.

 

[Dotini]

The numbers on that map look close enough to me. The 10,000 in Poland is more than the 4,500 I stated, but it’s far less than the 40,000 you claimed.

My point to you is that the literal reading of your recent posts would have someone believe thst the US has stationed 40,000 troops in Poland (wrong), NATO is adding (meaning recruiting) 300,000 additional troops to their militaries (wrong), and they are deploying 300,000 troops the Poland along the Russian border (wrong), and the first 100,000 are going in 10 days (wrong). That’s 4 big lies that give the false impression NATO is taking an aggressive posture along Russia’s border.

If what you said were true, it would be alarming, but it’s all utter lies. And I think you know it‘s BS, and that you intentionally distort these news stories. I don’t know your motivation, but you consistently change the facts of the stories you post to support the same lies that Putin tells, and I’m sick of having to waste time to refute your Russian propaganda. I’m looking forward to you being banned from this thread like you’ve been banned from others for doing the same thing.

FWIW, I confused the number of troops in Poland with the number in Germany. Sorry about that. I also was in error about the pace of the European build up. They simply can't afford it and don't really want to, but are being driven hard by the UK and the US, IMHO.

You have not explained your opinion why peace is more probable than WW3. Until you do that, I will continue to post documented facts - not opinions unless preceded by IMHO - as best I am able to, which is variable at my age, on the subject of WW3.

If you and the forum could continue to work with me, and not try to get me banned again, I would sincerely appreciate it.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

FWIW, I confused the number of troops in Poland with the number in Germany. Sorry about that. I also was in error about the pace of the European build up. They simply can't afford it and don't really want to, but are being driven hard by the UK and the US, IMHO.

You have not explained your opinion why peace is more probable than WW3. Until you do that, I will continue to post documented facts - not opinions unless preceded by IMHO - as best I am able to, which is variable at my age, on the subject of WW3.

If you and the forum could continue to work with me, and not try to get me banned again, I would sincerely appreciate it.

But you DON’T post facts. You make up lies. And it is a big pain in the ass to get it corrected. I’d personally like to not feel obligated to correct your BS so often, and if that means no more posts from you, then good riddance.

My opinion is that WWIII is an extremely remote possibility. I think by beefing up NATO’s readiness, it’s clear we are ready to punch back if punched, and that makes peace more likely, not less.

 

[Dotini]

The news piece below is from a libertarian source. I've subscribed to The American Conservative for over 20 years, and have every issue published. I was an elected delegate to the Washington State Republican Presidential nominating convention in support of candidate Ron Paul. I'm somewhere between paleo-conservative and Libertarian.

I do not think you want to ban a conservative libertarian antiwar voice from this forum, problems or not. Work with him. He is part of us.

Pentagon Leaders Say New Budget Will Help Prepare for War With China​

Gen. Milley says the budget is meant to prevent war but 'prepares us to fight it if necessary'by Dave DeCamp Posted on March 23, 2023Categories NewsTags China

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told Congress at a Thursday hearing that the Pentagon’s 2024 budget request will help the country prepare for a future war with China.

Milley insisted the Pentagon’s massive $842 billion budget request is meant to deter war but said it will also prepare the US military to fight one. He told the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense that deterring and preparing for a conflict “is extraordinarily expensive, but it’s not as expensive as fighting a war. And this budget prevents war and prepares us to fight it if necessary.”

The Pentagon identified China as the “most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security strategy” in the 2022 National Defense Strategy, and lately, US military leaders have been speaking more explicitly about how they’re preparing for a direct war with China despite the risk of nuclear war. President Biden has also vowed to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

Milley said China’s actions “are moving it down the path toward confrontation and potential conflict with its neighbors and possibly the United States,” echoing similar warnings made by Chinese officials.

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang warned earlier this month that if the US doesn’t change course on its military buildup in the Asia Pacific and other policies aimed at China, it will lead to “conflict and confrontation.” The Pentagon’s budget request will further expand the US military footprint in the region by funding a buildup plan known as the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.

“This budget includes a 40 percent increase over last year’s for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative to an all-time high of $9.1 billion,” Austin said at the hearing. “That will fund a stronger force posture, better defenses for Hawaii and Guam, and deeper cooperation with our allies and partners.”
For China hawks in Congress, what the Pentagon has asked to spend in 2024 is not enough. Including funding for other agencies, President Biden’s military spending request totals $886.4 billion. Congress is expected to add tens of billions more as it did with Biden’s 2022 and 2023 requests.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/03/23...-budget-will-help-prepare-for-war-with-china/

 

[boatgeek]

I'd like to see your explain how ceasefire and peace is more likely than escalated conflict in the immediate future. My opinion remains the alternative: Unquestionably the US and NATO are preparing for escalated conflict, and negotiations have so far been very firmly ruled out. Hence WW3 is getting closer.

Ceasefire and peace remain more likely than escalation because Russia has destroyed its army in Ukraine. They're not going to add any more whoop-ass to the cans already open against them. At least not if they're smart.

Negotiations have been ruled out because they tried negotiations early on and the Russians would not budge from a position of "We'll stop bombing civilians when you give us everything we ask for. Plus also promise to give us everything we ask for in the future." Shockingly, Ukraine was unwilling to sign up to those terms.

And just in case you missed it before, of course NATO and the US are preparing for escalating conflict. Militaries prepare for the worst case scenario. They don't know for 100% sure that Russia won't do something stupid like cross Poland's border. So they have to prepare.

 

[Dotini]

Ceasefire and peace remain more likely than escalation because Russia has destroyed its army in Ukraine.

A truly confusing opinion. Are you admitting Russia has destroyed Ukraine's army? Or are you claiming Russia has destroyed its own army? Please support your claims with acceptable evidence from an independent source, if you can.

Negotiations have been ruled out because they tried negotiations early on and the Russians would not budge from a position of "We'll stop bombing civilians when you give us everything we ask for. Plus also promise to give us everything we ask for in the future." Shockingly, Ukraine was unwilling to sign up to those terms.

Negotiations have been ruled out because Zelensky has made the precondition of a complete withdrawal from all occupied territories including Crimea. There were negotiations early in the war taking place in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson, out of office and in disgrace, went to Zelensky and "persuaded" him out of these and other negotiations.

And just in case you missed it before, of course NATO and the US are preparing for escalating conflict. Militaries prepare for the worst case scenario. They don't know for 100% sure that Russia won't do something stupid like cross Poland's border. So they have to prepare.

That the US is simultaneously preparing for WW3 on the ground in Eastern Europe against Russia and also against China on Taiwan sounds like a long, undesirable and very expensive task with a potentially swift and violent ending - for somebody or everybody. And this at a time of expensive pandemic, climate change, recession, inflation and banking system stress/failures around the globe. That this US military escalation appears to be happening right now before our eyes without a declaration of war or more than a murmur of dissent from Congress or the American people is appalling to the Constitutional conservative in me. Please tell me, if it's not too political, do you actually believe in the US Constitution to the extent it should be scrupulously followed?

 

[CalebJ]

A truly confusing opinion. Are you admitting Russia has destroyed Ukraine's army? Or are you claiming Russia has destroyed its own army? Please support your claims with acceptable evidence from an independent source, if you can.

Your two questions don't make sense as responses to boatgeek's statement or even on their own.

Negotiations have been ruled out because Zelensky has made the precondition of a complete withdrawal from all occupied territories including Crimea. There were negotiations early in the war taking place in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson, out of office and in disgrace, went to Zelensky and "persuaded" him out of these and other negotiations.

[/QUOTE]
Those are fundamentals expectations of any rational party that's been attacked on their own soil. You continue to insist that they're refusing to negotiate, but willfully missing the point.

That the US is simultaneously preparing for WW3 on the ground in Eastern Europe against Russia and also against China on Taiwan sounds like a long, undesirable and very expensive task with a potentially swift and violent ending - for somebody or everybody. And this at a time of expensive pandemic, climate change, recession, inflation and banking system stress/failures around the globe. That this US military escalation appears to be happening right now before our eyes without a declaration of war or more than a murmur of dissent from Congress or the American people is appalling to the Constitutional conservative in me. Please tell me, if it's not too political, do you actually believe in the US Constitution to the extent it should be scrupulously followed?

US policy has been to prepare for the possibility of two simultaneous wars. This is nothing new. It's as if you're making this up on the fly. But you wouldn't do that, would you?

 

[Johnly]

WW3 could start as a Navel misunderstanding. I remember a movie. A Russian sub was acting provocatively near some US ships. A junior officer is manning the big red button. The Capitan keeps saying do not fire. After the junior officer asks if he should fire several times the Capitan says do not fire again. The junior officer only hears fire and sends an ASROC at the sub. As soon as the ASROC hits the water the sub fires a torpedo with a nuclear warhead at the ship. It's all down hill from there. I can see Putin using a nuke in Ukraine. I can't imagine that we would respond with a nuclear weapon against his forces. I can see Putin reacting to our overwhelming conventional strikes by thinking if I can't have the world no one else can either. And it all goes down hill from there.

A similar scenario almost occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A group of US Naval warships surrounded a Soviet submarine that was equipped with torpedoes fitted with a nuclear warhead. This occurred in the days before PALs and the Captain of the submarine had the ability to release the weapon. The US ships attempted to force the submarine to surface and the submarine Captain was ready to go down with a fight. Fortunately for the world, the Fleet Admiral was aboard the same submarine and overruled the Captain and the submarine surfaced and was allowed to return to its home port.

 

[Steve Shannon]

That this US military escalation appears to be happening right now before our eyes without a declaration of war or more than a murmur of dissent from Congress or the American people is appalling to the Constitutional conservative in me.

It’s too bad that you’re appalled. You call that escalation, but such exercises, I believe, are what’s needed to send the kind of strong message that prevents a larger conflict and also to train for the possibility that Putin’s mad ambitions and desperation result in further aggression.
As far as your condemnation of the Ukrainians for not agreeing to negotiate away portions of their land as a reward to Putin for invading their country, I’m surprised that the lessons of Neville Chamberlain’s failed policy of appeasement are so quickly forgotten.
What’s truly appalling is that you and people like you blame anyone else except Putin.

 

[sambatterman]

A nuclear war that destroys the US and Russia as the world's breadbasket will cause China to starve to death - they import the most food.

Cyber attacks will take out the internet and GPS. The banking system will be destroyed. The EMP from nuclear weapons will blow us all back to the stone age. So, even in a "Postman" world you won't be able to listen to Tom Petty.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

What’s truly appalling is that you and people like you blame anyone else except Putin.

Not only that, he takes Russia’s side in this war and repeats Putin’s lies on this forum. According to him, the war continues because Ukraine isn’t willing to give up its land, people, and sovereignty. And to him, Russia’s war is justified because Russia is threatened by NATO’s preparations to defend itself if necessary. Those are Putin’s arguments, and @Dotini represents those arguments here and backs them up with made-up “facts”, distortions and misrepresentations of articles he posts, and other forms of lies.

 

[boatgeek]

A truly confusing opinion. Are you admitting Russia has destroyed Ukraine's army? Or are you claiming Russia has destroyed its own army? Please support your claims with acceptable evidence from an independent source, if you can.

I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess I'll spell it out. Russia has made strategic and tactical blunders in this war that have led to such major losses that they aren't even able to advance significantly against a second-to-third-rate army (though one with some modern weapons). In the process, they have lost significant fractions of their own forces, both in people and equipment. Yes, Ukraine is doing the shooting that is destroying Russia's army. But they're being helped by the Russian army's incompetence. I'll cite some more sources when I have time.

Negotiations have been ruled out because Zelensky has made the precondition of a complete withdrawal from all occupied territories including Crimea. There were negotiations early in the war taking place in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson, out of office and in disgrace, went to Zelensky and "persuaded" him out of these and other negotiations.

Please support this claim with acceptable evidence from an independent source, if you can.

That the US is simultaneously preparing for WW3 on the ground in Eastern Europe against Russia and also against China on Taiwan sounds like a long, undesirable and very expensive task with a potentially swift and violent ending - for somebody or everybody. And this at a time of expensive pandemic, climate change, recession, inflation and banking system stress/failures around the globe. That this US military escalation appears to be happening right now before our eyes without a declaration of war or more than a murmur of dissent from Congress or the American people is appalling to the Constitutional conservative in me. Please tell me, if it's not too political, do you actually believe in the US Constitution to the extent it should be scrupulously followed?

What part of the Constitution is being violated here? Sure, Washington warned against foreign entanglements. But that's not written down in the document. Let's take a stroll, shall we?
Article 1, Section 8 enumerates powers of the Congress, among them "punishing offenses against the laws of nations," governing the armed forces, and to write laws that allow them to execute their powers.
Article 2, Section 2 enumerates the powers of the President among them making treaties, serving as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

If you want to go all Rules Goblin, it's theoretically possible that Article 1, Section 2 only allows the armed forces to be used in cases of insurrection and invasion. If that's the hill you're defending, you're about 120 years too late. Given that nobody has successfully challenged having armed forces overseas in that time, I'm going to say it's settled law.

If you and the forum could continue to work with me, and not try to get me banned again, I would sincerely appreciate it.

I was trying to figure out why this sounded so familiar. Oh, yeah, it's Putin's negotiating position too. "If you would give me everything I asked for, I would sincerely appreciate it."