Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[jazzdude]

We shouldn't limit our thinking to only military means to achieve our strategic objectives, which can be hard for us as military officers to consider seriously (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We seem to have done very well controlling the narrative internationally on what Russia is doing, and leveraged that into widespread support for significant economic sanctions on Russia. Even to the point that historically neutral countries were convinced it to be in their interests to follow suit on sanctions.

One downside of the American way of life is that we generally are not patient and want big actions and fast results. Use of military force can be a way to get quick results, and often works much faster than the other instruments of power. But the quick response isn't always the best response.

Sanctions take time to build that pressure on the target to change behavior, but allows us to deny Russia a reason or justification to expand the fighting and drag the western world into WW3.

In the meantime, we need Ukraine to keep fighting Russia to buy time for the sanctions to work, so the western world has been funneling arms and supplies to them to support Ukraine's fight to remain independent. The cynic in me says this is also good for American defense contractors to make a good deal of money selling those arms... And furthers our goal to be the partner of choice when it comes to military equipment sales and strengthening economic ties.

The sad truth is that as a nuclear power, if and how Russia is engaged militarily matters because nukes are on the table, and they have too many for us to target and neutralize to take nuke off the table. It pushes military action to being a last resort, and only to be once the other instrument of power have failed to achieve our objectives. Even if Russia didn't maintain it's nuclear force well, there would still likely be enough useable nukes to act as a credible deterrent

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Bro, some opinion pieces aren’t solid evidence for why we should believe that Putin’s persona is justified for seeing every country around him as a threat.

But he openly says that’s the case. Lol. That’s what we’re saying it’s not just some appeasement theory, the guy has literally been telling the west what his red line was. 
 

fuck around and find out. We’re finding out. 

[BashiChuni]

54 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I actually really like JP, and will definitely give this a listen. 

2 same thanks for posting the link Prozac!

[SurelySerious]

But he openly says that’s the case. Lol. That’s what we’re saying it’s not just some appeasement theory, the guy has literally been telling the west what his red line was. 
 
around and find out. We’re finding out. 

The rest of the world doesn’t have to accept his narrative that backs his maniacal plan. Quit giving in to his bs.

[BashiChuni]

3 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

The rest of the world doesn’t have to accept his narrative that backs his maniacal plan. Quit giving in to his bs.

Im not giving into Putin. My rational argument will never defeat your emotional argument so we can agree to disagree. 

[FLEA]

5 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

The rest of the world doesn’t have to accept his narrative that backs his maniacal plan. Quit giving in to his bs.

This is where I can't grasp you. You're saying other countries interests don't matter unless they align with ours. This is a big planet though and we have to share it. I get that you don't like Russia or Putin but you don't have the power to kick him off without detrimental harm to the US. The only way I can rationalize this is if you prioritize the interest of other non-us countries over the US, such as Ukraine's interests. 

[SurelySerious]

Im not giving into Putin. My rational argument will never defeat your emotional argument so we can agree to disagree. 

I’m being the opposite of emotional. You’re the one validating his argument.

[FLEA]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

I’m being the opposite of emotional. You’re the one validating his argument.

You are definitely not the opposite of emotional lol. 

[SurelySerious]

This is where I can't grasp you. You're saying other countries interests don't matter unless they align with ours. This is a big planet though and we have to share it. I get that you don't like Russia or Putin but you don't have the power to kick him off without detrimental harm to the US. The only way I can rationalize this is if you prioritize the interest of other non-us countries over the US, such as Ukraine's interests. 

No, I’m saying that the narrative built by one megalomaniac doesn’t have to be accepted by the rest of the international community. Where the are you coming up with all the rest of these mental gymnastics to justify his “rationale”?

[SurelySerious]

You are definitely not the opposite of emotional lol. 

Says emotionally attached guy.

[FLEA]

8 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

No, I’m saying that the narrative built by one megalomaniac doesn’t have to be accepted by the rest of the international community. Where the are you coming up with all the rest of these mental gymnastics to justify his “rationale”?

The narrative he built? So you're saying he infiltrated Kissinger, in the 90s, Bush Sr, or hundreds of other national security experts in the 90s, (before he had any power mind you) to construct this narrative? 

Not sure how your justify a pervasive motif of thought in the US national security community as Putin's narrative when he wasn't even around when it was constructed. 

I say your emotional because you can't rationalize how you are going to kick Putin off the planet and protect US interests. You're driving the desire to kick him off out of anger, which is an emotion. That's fine, but recognize it, and then sit down and realize you're playing nuclear chess. We owe it to our people to be less wreckless with their lives. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by FLEA

[SurelySerious]

The narrative he built? So you're saying he infiltrated Kissinger, in the 90s, Bush Sr, or hundreds of other national security experts in the 90s, (before he had any power mind you) to construct this narrative? 
Not sure how your justify a pervasive motif of thought in the US national security community as Putin's narrative when he wasn't even around when it was constructed. 

The man is 70. He was around.

And yes, you’ve been so busy for the last 6-9 pages trying to justify validating Putin’s feelings that you’re not recognizing that the world doesn’t have to accept it. Factually.

[FLEA]

3 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

The man is 70. He was around.

And yes, you’ve been so busy for the last 6-9 pages trying to justify validating Putin’s feelings that you’re not recognizing that the world doesn’t have to accept it. Factually.

Really? What was he doing? This was all some masterminded plan over 3 decades to gain and seize power of the world? Lt Col Putin was that smart, smart enough to infiltrate the sitting White House and national security staff. Are you listening to yourself? Your in like QAnon territory level conspiracy theory shit now. 

Just answer the question. Rationalize how you're going to kick Putin off the planet and protect US interests. I'm still waiting for your calm, collected and non anger invoked response. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by FLEA

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Really? What was he doing? This was all some masterminded plan over 3 decades to gain and seize power of the world? Lt Col Putin was that smart, smart enough to infiltrate the sitting White House and national security staff. Are you listening to yourself? Your in like QAnon territory level conspiracy theory shit now. 

Just answer the question. Rationalize how you're going to kick Putin off the planet and protect US interests. I'm still waiting for your calm, collected and non anger invoked response. 

I also want to hear your really well thought out response to how Putin was able to mastermind this under the Yeltsin Kremlin. The government that was so extraordinarily pro-west they allowed all the FSUs to hold free elections to elect their freedom and separation from the Soviet Union. Like, was Yeltsin in on this too? Were the elections just a ploy to be able to invade them again later? 

[FLEA]

I like this one, this was Secret Agent Jack Matlock's (Ambassador to RUS for the US, but now we know from SurelySerious part of Putin's secret syndicate) remarks to the Senate Armed services committee in 1997 when they voted to ratify the first expansion of NATO. Remember, this is Putin's narrative. He told Matlock to say all of this!

[SurelySerious]

Really? What was he doing? This was all some masterminded plan over 3 decades to gain and seize power of the world? Lt Col Putin was that smart, smart enough to infiltrate the sitting White House and national security staff. Are you listening to yourself? Your in like QAnon territory level conspiracy theory shit now. 
Just answer the question. Rationalize how you're going to kick Putin off the planet and protect US interests. I'm still waiting for your calm, collected and non anger invoked response. 

Yeah, you’re the one making up conspiracy bs. Maybe sit this one out Donald.

[SurelySerious]

I like this one, this was Secret Agent Jack Matlock's (Ambassador to RUS for the US, but now we know from SurelySerious part of Putin's secret syndicate) remarks to the Senate Armed services committee in 1997 when they voted to ratify the first expansion of NATO. Remember, this is Putin's narrative. He told Matlock to say all of this!

Making more things up that I never said, nice strategy for rational discussion. Take a TO.

[FLEA]

Just now, SurelySerious said:

Making more things up that I never said, nice strategy for rational discussion. Take a TO.

I'm literally holding up Mr. Matlo... I mean comrade Matlock's position this whole time and youre trying to tell me I'm forwarding Putin's view point. 

[SurelySerious]

I'm literally holding up Mr. Matlo... I mean comrade Matlock's position this whole time and youre trying to tell me I'm forwarding Putin's view point. 

You picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

What you’re doing is putting (crazy ass) words in the mouth of anyone who doesn’t hold the same view as you, which is an incredibly emotionally immature argument technique.

Edit: and also yeah, when people have said that Putin’s view isn’t an acceptable reason to invade, you have 100% been an apologist for why he has.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

You picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

What you’re doing is putting (crazy ass) words in the mouth of anyone who doesn’t hold the same view as you, which is an incredibly emotionally immature argument technique.

Don't mistake passion for emotion. But if you want to take 5 steps back and clarify your position I'll give you the opportunity now. 

[SurelySerious]

Don't mistake passion for emotion. But if you want to take 5 steps back and clarify your position I'll give you the opportunity now. 

You don’t have passion, you’re just upset you don’t have a case. My position: just because Putin thinks something doesn’t mean the world has to take it as an acceptable view, whereas you keep advocating that because he views it that way it’s ok.

[FLEA]

23 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

You don’t have passion, you’re just upset you don’t have a case. My position: just because Putin thinks something doesn’t mean the world has to take it as an acceptable view, whereas you keep advocating that because he views it that way it’s ok.

First off,  yes, it is passion. As mentioned earlier, i went to school for this, I do it for my job, Ive participated on multiple projects with it. I love talking about this and I can talk about it all day. And seeing as how Ill be working 12-14 hours a day with lots of white space between tasks until this either blows over or I can separate, I have lots of time to talk on Baseops. Nothing to be upset about here because my case is validated by the points of view of former Ambassador Matlock and dozens of others. 

Now I would be interested for you to explain your case a bit more. What exactly do you mean by acceptable? Because its possible we are getting hung up on language. I've never said his views were ok. But I will uphold that every head of state has a sovereign right to advocate their country's security concerns and that his concerns are founded in historical behavior of Europe and the west, in other words, he arrived at those concerns rationally. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by FLEA

[goingkinetic]

Flea what are your quals? Let me guess you washed out of pilot training and now teach sos. You are so smart.

 

[Prozac]

C’mon. No need for personal attacks. The world’s shitty enough right now. We can disagree, even forcefully and vehemently disagree and still be decent to one another. 

[FLEA]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

Flea what are your quals? Let me guess you washed out of pilot training and now teach sos. You are so smart.

 

I was going to give you a more sincere answer but you're kind of dick about it so I'll just tell you yes I finished pilot training and flew 3 ops tours before I entered the world I'm at now. GFY. 

I literally took 10 steps back to try and bring some civility to this with SurelySerious but you want to go right back to personal attacks?