So we have moved from "quoting" to "paraphrasing". Also, still waiting to see where he called for Nuclear war.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So we have moved from "quoting" to "paraphrasing". Also, still waiting to see where he called for Nuclear war.
the stories of Vietnam.. the long hours lying in brush wondering was a mine about to go off, the other side living in tunnels for weeks on end with no sight of sunlight. just insane levels of human suffering and endurance
In addition to what @Boavista said, this was probably also about how fast it was possible. Once they decided to bind to the western treaties, it was always simpler to join a military pact that has little requirements, while adjusting politically and economically to the EU takes more time.
That doesn't mean that nuclear weaponry will immediately come to the forefront. Yes we can all be afraid of the Russian nuclear bear, and with good reason, but if Putin keeps chatting shit then at some point the world will tell the Russian bear to go feck itself.
Last edited:
Partially quoted, reformatted within its actual (effective) context. You can infer the last part as NFZ equals declaration of war which equals nuclear escalation. You didn't understand that I was quoting/paraphrasing Zelenskyy and jumped on the comment thinking it removed from the context. Partially my fault for assuming everyone was up to date. Partially yours for misunderstanding my intent. No more to it.
It doesn't absolutely mean anything, unless participants deliberately escalate. The Russians and US are well versed in deconfliction after Putin decided to barge into Syria and could do the same here.
were gonna end up in a situation where ukraines status is pretty much where it started, with perhaps more certainty about the eastern areas being quasi-independent. almost like federal states. in the meantime the arms industry will have made 10s of billions and defence budgets will have grown for countries in the east and west by a significant margin. and then the massive aid / spend / tax dollars on refurbing all the major cities. new oil / gas fields in the north sea and fracking becoming financialy viable. our leaders can cosplay being generals as well. oh yeah and thousands killed / maimed and millions displaced. champagne and cognac all around.
That's true. The formulation is prior to the ratification. But I know for a fact that Sweden and Finland ratified the treaty with no reservation regarding this clause. Our former defense minister said that we are obliged to help our baltic neighbors (if they invoke 42.7) in the same way any NATO country would be (via article 5). I think Ireland & Austria might have formulated something about neutrality, keeping them off the hook in such a situation.
Yes only Croatia fall directly into 42.7... But the 2004 and 2007 enlargments were probably made with this in mind. The treaty of Lisbon made the defense obligatory, but I think it was implicit in the old treaties that the Union had some sort of security responsiblity for its memeber states. And it is better to take a country that's already under the US/NATO umbrella than one without it. If Georgia had been a member state in 2008 it would have been a disaster for EU.
Imagine if the USSR submarine commander responsible for overriding the nuclear launch during the CMC thought like that (keep chatting shit and at some point the US will have to get fecked).
Syria is no precedent for a war on Russia's border. There were great efforts taken to avoid direct US/Russian conflict in Syria. It would be impossible to replicate that in the context of Ukraine with US pilots flying over an active Russian warzone.
I don't give a feck what the USSR or Russian commander thinks. If Putin keeps saying the words' nuclear war' too many times, nobody will believe him after a while.
He's already desensitising me to it.
No, I understood the context perfectly in the beginning. I asked you why you were appropriating a quote from MLK to joke about nuclear war. Zelensky clarified he had a need, not a dream, in his speech. He understood the power of that speech in the American psyche while you apparently think it is great material for shitty standup.
Yes, but Ukraine wouldn't want to opt out of EU defence policy. And the EU defence situation is changing - likely every EU country will now increase its defence spending, and I'm pretty sure the EU - with Ukraine as a member - would now be willing to take on defence responsibility for Ukraine. This would be more than enough to deter another Russian invasion.
It wasn't a joke. He was using MLK to frame his call for a NFZ which leads to nuclear escalation. It wasn't intended to be funny.
Not read the thread or news today and just heard this, is this new or the same old news?
Ukraine and Russia draw up neutrality plan to end war
Fifteen-point draft deal would involve Kyiv renouncing Nato membership ambitions in return for security guarantees
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
Ukraine and Russia draw up neutrality plan to end war
Fifteen-point draft deal would involve Kyiv renouncing Nato membership ambitions in return for security guarantees
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
It wouldn't be hard at all given that there is already a deconfliction line set up and in use right now.
It doesn't necessarily mean a nuclear war, but it hugely increases the risk of escalation ending in nuclear war. Given the consequences of the latter, the risk equation is clear: no fly-zone
Alright body language experts, do you see changes in Putin?
This is a great "quote" from you. I am glad you can admit it.
Do you support a NFZ scenario where US pilots will come into direct conflict with Russian pilots? We all know that NATO will establish air superiority because they (the US mostly) possess far superior aerial weaponry. That means downing a lot of Russian planes. How does that not escalate? With Russia's only go-to being its nuclear stockpile.
This won't work because it wouldn't satisfy Putin's desire to control Ukraine to prevent his own existential struggle of democracy reaching Russia. This, plus the inconvenient reality that he's a highly accomplished liar who has already ditched the Budapest agreement, which is one of the reasons he was incentivized to invade in the first place. He would've thought twice if Ukraine retained their nukes.
It could escalate but it also may not. The participants are both incentivized to not allow it to for fear of triggering article 5, which is why it could well work.
You're taking something impersonal personally. The topic is a proposed NFZ. I think it would be disastrous and would lead to nuclear escalation. You don't. That's fine.
We're still lacking that feature to put staff members on the ignore list it seems.
What a cnut…
Retired Generals are a terrible source of information. If you quote Michael Flynn next you'll probably learn that Q predicted that the Deep State would try to overthrow Putin the Saviour.
The only scenario I see where it doesn't lead to nuclear escalation is a limited NFZ confined entirely to the (far) East and excluding Kiev. But it's all very risky especially if you take the view that Putin is basically deranged.
It wasn't Michael Flynn, it was someone rational.
If they reach a deal with Russia forcing them to write "Neutrality" into their constitution then they'll have to opt-out of the defence pact when joining the EU. For Ukraine, the main goal of joining the EU is to gain access to the funds, the investments and the common market.
Opting out will not prevent the EU (or even NATO, via UN's article 51) from defending them if necessary. The EU will have a stronger motive to defend them. And in itself will be a deterrent. While at the same time giving Russia some assurances that Ukraine territory won't be used against Russia's interests (in Belarus or Crimea).
This whole is just hypothetical, taking into account the perspective of Russia's regime (assuming Putin and his gang stay in power). As it seems they are really convinced that Ukraine was being prepared to play a big role in some plots against Russia's interests.
Again assuming what I think and don't think. Your level of disingenuousness and condescension in this short exchange is something to behold.
Flynn is a terrible example. The Generals on CNN have provided more insight and fidelity of Russian and Ukrainian military actions than most journos on the ground
You're basically just going ad hominem and accusing me of being disingenuous at the same time. I'm staying on topic, which is the point.
I think this is what most are discussing. Something in the west to create some degree of a humanitarian corridor for safe passage. Not to chase Russian jets around the rest of the country.
That could work but obviously there would have to be back-channel discussions with the Russians beforehand expressing the range of the operation. I still don't think the WH goes for it.
He did that in 2014 though, and the failure to react strongly enough back then is one of the main reasons we are witnessing this tragedy now. And the regrets from that "timid" reaction are also at play in the unprecedented sanctions (economical war) that have been implemented this time.
The theory that Putin wants to prevent democracy from reaching Russia makes sense. Democracy aspirations in a certain cultural sphere are very contagious. But is it worth waging another war after the price his regime is being made to pay for this war? That's very doubtful.
Its an option. I don't think Biden has the courage to do it at this time because the Russians are generally bogged down and unable to make progress. He is probably banking on the infusion of US and EU weapons getting into the hands of Ukrainians, in the hope that it will gradually turn the tide. That would of course need to happen before the Russians carpet bomb Kyiv into submission and take other cities like Mariupol.
He's not behaving like the rational actor we thought he was is he ? If he was, he would've sought a path of self-preservation by not invading and building more soft power along the way. The fact that he has freaked out and invaded Ukraine suggests an act of desperation driven by fear and paranoia.
It's fine you think that. I also think that, but don't go claiming paraphrases are quotes or that paraphrases heavily imbued with your own inferences are "highly accurate". Just state your opinion and stop with the sophistry.
This is what he said:
This is what you claimed he said and then claimed was a "highly accurate" paraphrase:
Just stop, or even better, be honest.
I don't think that the weapons given to the Ukrainians will turn the tide in any conventional sense (at least in the short-term). They're digging in for a long-term insurgency which seems to me to take the shelling and carpet bombing of Kiev into account. The assumption being that Russia may commit warcrimes but cannot possibly hold Ukraine and so will have to retreat at some stage while casualties stack up.
I paraphrased the first and derived the second with the added input of various generals and commentators on mainstream American news networks (that input being that a NFZ equals a declaration of war which equals nuclear escalation).
Zelenskyy: I have a dream... [for a NFZ].
Generals: A NFZ is a declaration of war by the US on Russia and will lead to nuclear escalation.
That's the context of my comment, there's nothing dishonest or disingenuous about it. Using MLK (a pacifist) in the context above is far more disingenuous than anything I've ever said.