|
Concerned Citizen posted:Not really. When US intelligence states that Russia could attack during the winter Olympics, it implies that they believe the Russian build-up is advanced enough to conduct an invasion. "Could". Not "will". I could hit myself in the groin with a hammer or marry Kate Upton, but I'm not going to.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:The point at which that becomes more credible than an invasion is when Russia starts significantly pulling back its forward deployed forces. Right now there are no signs of such activity, and the signs all point to them continuing to prepare for an invasion. If the purpose of this is to use their troop deployment to create a crisis, they would be giving up their leverage by pulling back their forces. They can just sit them there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:If the purpose of this is to use their troop deployment to create a crisis, they would be giving up their leverage by pulling back their forces. They can just sit them there. Not indefinitely they can't. This isn't a Paradox game where you can keep your units on a border without effecting anything else. The Russians know this, and they know that everyone else knows this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:"Could". Not "will". I could hit myself in the groin with a hammer or marry Kate Upton, but I'm not going to. OK. They could, but didn't. Why? Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not indefinitely they can't, this isn't a Paradox game. They know this, and they know that everyone else knows this. They don't have to sit them there indefinitely. They've made no commitment to invade, they have no credibility to lose. They've sat them there and said "we aren't going to attack" while simultaneously having a deployment large enough to pose an existential threat to Ukraine. If the goal was to get the West to the table, they've done that. And if the West doesn't concede anything, oh well, keep destabilizing Ukraine through the myriad ways they can do so and try again later. But the ambiguity is the point - they could do it, so the West has to deal with it or risk a massive foreign policy disaster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:OK. They could, but didn't. Why? The west isn't at the table yet. Biden has agreed "in principle" to meeting with Putin, but only after lots of lower-level meetings to set up the agenda, which will take a few weeks, minimum. The clock is running on Putin and Biden is stalling him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The west isn't at the table yet. Biden has agreed "in principle" to meeting with Putin, but only after lots of lower-level meetings to set up the agenda. The clock is running on Putin and Biden is stalling him. That's a decision by Putin, though. He could say "nah" and attack. Choosing to hold back implies he believes he can achieve his objective without an invasion, which, as I said, is more likely than not the entire point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The west isn't at the table yet. Biden has agreed "in principle" to meeting with Putin, but only after lots of lower-level meetings to set up the agenda, which will take a few weeks, minimum. The clock is running on Putin and Biden is stalling him. the clock is not running on putin
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:the clock is not running on putin The window of opportunity for actually invading Ukraine is closing in a few weeks, once the snow starts melting. Meanwhile, it's costing a fortune to keep troops in forward deployed positions. He can't afford to just sit there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The west isn't at the table yet. Biden has agreed "in principle" to meeting with Putin, but only after lots of lower-level meetings to set up the agenda, which will take a few weeks, minimum. The clock is running on Putin and Biden is stalling him. Putin could also just….not invade Ukraine proper. Crazy I know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
There's a clock if only that deploying an army like this is very very expensive
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
I would be interested to know some ballpark estimate on the cost per day to mobilize that many troops. I assume it's both nothing relative to Russia's total military budget and also an ungodly amount of money in absolute terms. Also as previously mentioned itt, there's lots of infrastructure and logistics costs when you deploy that many vehicles that add up really fast -- probably not fast enough to seriously affect Putin's bottom line in the very short term, but I think the "they can just sit there for however long they feel like" takes are also probably wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The window of opportunity for actually invading Ukraine is closing in a few weeks, once the snow starts melting. Meanwhile, it's costing a fortune to keep troops in forward deployed positions. He can't afford to just sit there. No, but he can come back next year and the year after that. It's not the U.S. that he has to wear down; it's Ukraine. Polls show that centrists like Zelensky are not benefiting electorally from this episode; ultra-nationalist and pro-Russian factions are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:OK. They could, but didn't. Why? This question is only valid if you believe that Russia never intends to attack. This is an unwarranted assumption. Majorian posted:No, but he can come back next year and the year after that. To rapidly diminishing returns each time for reasons which should be all too obvious. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
eke out posted:I would be interested to know some ballpark estimate on the cost per day to mobilize that many troops. Whatever it costs to deploy all those troops, it's probably a lot less than it costs to invade Ukraine. I don't think finances are the issue here. They don't need to literally keep troops there forever, just long enough to extract what they want or conclude that the gambit didn't work this time. The fact that they *can* do it is what matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This question is only valid if you believe that Russia never intends to attack. This is an unwarranted assumption. Huh? It goes to the heart of the matter. If he *can* invade, as in Russia has the capability and the troops to easily overrun Ukraine right now, why not just get on with it? Why go through this rigamarole with summits and whatnot if they intend to attack anyway? People in here are saying the clock is ticking and they have to attack before it gets too muddy - OK, so what's the hold up? I've seen like 10,000 false flags in this thread, so it seems like there's no problem with ginning up a justification for moving in today if they needed to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:To rapidly diminishing returns each time for reasons which should be all too obvious. Not so sure that's the case. It seems to me like Ukraine stands on a precipice right now. Unless Zelensky really turns things around in the country, its politics are going to be a slugfest between ultra-nationalist and pro-Moscow parties for the foreseeable future. That sort of chaos is a win for Putin, since it means Ukraine becomes more isolated from the West and reliant on his government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Whatever it costs to deploy all those troops, it's probably a lot less than it costs to invade Ukraine. I don't think finances are the issue here. They don't need to literally keep troops there forever, just long enough to extract what they want or conclude that the gambit didn't work this time. The fact that they *can* do it is what matters. This would be a lot more convincing if the Russians had actually specified what they actually want. Instead they made ludicrous demands like moving NATO troops back behind the Rhine which implied they were not serious about seeking a diplomatic solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:the clock is not running on putin By clock they probably mean "costs to keep troops deployed". That's not cheap. However, with rapidly rising energy prices, it's no longer a huge issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This would be a lot more convincing if the Russians had actually specified what they actually want. Instead they made ludicrous demands like moving NATO troops back behind the Rhine which implied they were not serious about seeking a diplomatic solution. That just implies that that particular demand wasn't serious, not that all of the demands weren't serious. It's a pretty common tactic in negotiations: ask for everything under the sun, then make your opponent argue you down to the demands that you really care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:By clock they probably mean "costs to keep troops deployed". That's not cheap. However, with rapidly rising energy prices, it's no longer a huge issue. yeah i'm comparing it to waiting until NS2 is online also has anyone mentioned 150k troops to invade the entirety of ukraine is hilariously, woefully inadequate and russia is surely aware of this
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1495609646253768707
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This would be a lot more convincing if the Russians had actually specified what they actually want. Instead they made ludicrous demands like moving NATO troops back behind the Rhine which implied they were not serious about seeking a diplomatic solution. Ludicrous demands that you know won't be accepted are still used in negotiations quite often.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That just implies that that particular demand wasn't serious, not that all of the demands weren't serious. It's a pretty common tactic in negotiations: ask for everything under the sun, then make your opponent argue you down to the demands that you really care about. living under democrats in the US has convinced people that that strategy just isn't an option
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This would be a lot more convincing if the Russians had actually specified what they actually want. Instead they made ludicrous demands like moving NATO troops back behind the Rhine which implied they were not serious about seeking a diplomatic solution. Why would they do that publicly? That would create no space for a deal. Instead, they can demand things that are unacceptable and let everyone sweat it out a bit. If a deal is reached, everyone has the ability to say they won something. Putin can say "I got so-and-so and didn't even intend to invade" and Biden can say "I stood up to Russia and got them to stand down." Which wouldn't be possible for Biden if it was just him conceding to a list of Russian demands made at the outset.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
what if one of them clicked the attachment and told us about it
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Russia has had the ability to attack for quite some time. We have been repeatedly told an attack is imminent. So why haven't they yet? It doesn't actually make sense to continue to delay unless you are genuinely seeking a deal. Every ten seconds it's field hospital this or attack formations that, perpetually. At some point it is simply more credible to see that Russia thinks its deployment gives it enough leverage to get what they want, whatever that is. Because drills are almost indistinguishable from the real thing until the second they are not. It's the buildup to that attack than can create the best diplomatic offers. I mean zelensky is now at the point where he's weighing concessions to Russia. Which was off the table completely even two weeks ago. That's why. Elongating the process causes an issue for Putin and a benefit. If the west or Ukraine make a definite diplomatic agreement with Russia it won't matter that his troops are literally boozing themselves to death while also robbing Belarus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Because drills are almost indistinguishable from the real thing until the second they are not. It's the buildup to that attack than can create the best diplomatic offers. I mean zelensky is now at the point where he's weighing concessions to Russia. Which was off the table completely even two weeks ago. That's why. Elongating the process causes an issue for Putin and a benefit. If the west or Ukraine make a definite diplomatic agreement with Russia it won't matter that his troops are literally boozing themselves to death while also robbing Belarus. Right, sure, that's exactly my point. It is entirely advantageous for Putin to simply sit there all threatening with his troops while trying to achieve a diplomatic solution. In fact, it's way better than not having troops there and trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, and it's also a lot better than actually invading. It's possible that he is simply probing out whether he can get a deal without invading, in which case an attack is probably not imminent. It's also possible that he never intended to invade, but only wants to create a crisis that gives everyone an impetus to give him stuff that he wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:also has anyone mentioned 150k troops to invade the entirety of ukraine is hilariously, woefully inadequate and russia is surely aware of this I'll agree that's it's not enough to occupy long term. It's more than enough to invade with "modern" (sorta) hardware and force the gov't to fall. What are partisans going to do against tanks and jets? You blitz to Kiev and threaten its destruction, force gov't to surrender and go into exile, install a new puppet gov't. Can be done in 2-3 days when you have complete air superiority. Although that's getting back into the unnecessary media frenzy fueled war speculation when the actual invasion is still highly unlikely. This situation is very different from Georgia, and won't be as easy to get away with. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:what if one of them clicked the attachment and told us about it Fox News brings down the US by opening all of the obvious ransomware emails at once, thus creating some sort of internet viral singularity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:15
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:what if one of them clicked the attachment and told us about it Didn't you learn anything from 2016? Geez!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:I'll agree that's it's not enough to occupy long term. It's more than enough to invade with "modern" (sorta) hardware and force the gov't to fall. What are partisans going to do against tanks and jets? You blitz to Kiev and threaten its destruction, force gov't to surrender and go into exile, install a new puppet gov't. Can be done in 2-3 days when you have complete air superiority. And than what? The puppet will be kicked out the second that Russians leave. So you either need occupation or you accomplished nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:24
|
|
|
Avynte posted:lol at anyone who was naive enough to think they were just all going to go back home hey on the plus side, at least they aren't leaving belarus to go to Ukraine! yet
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:I'll agree that's it's not enough to occupy long term. It's more than enough to invade with "modern" (sorta) hardware and force the gov't to fall. What are partisans going to do against tanks and jets? You blitz to Kiev and threaten its destruction, force gov't to surrender and go into exile, install a new puppet gov't. Can be done in 2-3 days when you have complete air superiority. that's not how COIN works. your third sentence says it all: quote:What are partisans going to do against tanks and jets? imagine afghanistan where everyone has high explosives in their floorboards
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:What are partisans going to do against tanks and jets? both the russians and the americans ended up leaving afghanistan with thousands of dead and tens of thousands maimed, and absolutely nothing show for it despite having all the tanks and jets in the world to face a bunch of partisans with AKs
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:And than what? The puppet will be kicked out the second that Russians leave. So you either need occupation or you accomplished nothing. You leave but cause chaos, economic collapse, and remove any chance of NATO ascension for another couple of decades. Overall though, I agree that there's no good plan for "then what", hence why the invasion is very unlikely to happen. Rad Russian fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Feb 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:36
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Overall though, I agree that there's no good plan for "then what", hence why the invasion is very unlikely to happen. this is my opinion. russian tanks rolling into lvov is frankly impossible
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 06:44
|
|
|
Rad Russian posted:Overall though, I agree that there's no good plan for "then what", hence why the invasion is very unlikely to happen. The deployment without invasion would also be a "this wasn't a good plan" -- so this isn't as compelling as it needs to be as a point of evidence that Russia is unlikely to attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Kavros posted:The deployment without invasion would also be a "this wasn't a good plan" -- so this isn't as compelling as it needs to be as a point of evidence that Russia is unlikely to attack. I would say the deployment has been pretty successful at causing enormous issues for Ukraine while simultaneously not subjecting Russia to any additional sanctions from the West.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
i say swears online posted:what if one of them clicked the attachment and told us about it That would be very much bad computer security practice so I am sure someone already did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
i've literally never sent one of these so-called e-mails before but i assume you can just hover over the attachment and see if it's a jpeg or exe or zip file
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2022 07:27
|
|