metalslug

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    1,160

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by metalslug

  1. 4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

    It’s kind of bothering me more and more that we’re willing to let Kyiv (or some other random Ukrainian city — I guess they’re all the same, right?) be bombed into oblivion, or even nuked. But then we (and here I’m talking about the global we, not the US specifically) were OK with the Syrian situation, the Hutus massacring the Tutsis, the various groups in northeastern Africa, all whale away at each other.

    Where does “not our business” end and “STOP IT” begin? Not genocide (Rwanda) — white genocide (well, consider the internal purges in 1930’s USSR). Only when it’s physically close? There isn’t a right answer necessarily, because you just don’t want a hard and fast line — someone WILL exploit it. Or is it the danger to one’s self? In which case, maybe it IS happening the way is normal. European countries are at risk. We are allied with them.

    Wendy P. 

    It's a discussion often raised and often answered by "Cant save every puppy in the pound." and "Cant be the world's police force forever" and both of these are very valid positions. I can't reliably say where the line should be but do think I know where it is and where it will be;

    For the USA, and likely for other NATO members, it's down to Article 5 of their membership that they all signed. It's an obligation that's politically unsurvivable for members who don't honour it. It's also politically unsurvivable for a country to join an avoidable war if they have no mandate from their voting citizens to do so.

    I believe this is also why Taiwan will be taken by China before 2028, with zero direct military intervention by 'the west' because Taiwan too is not an actual NATO member and because China is significantly stronger than Russia.

  3. · Edited by metalslug

    54 minutes ago, olofscience said:

    Military buildup around Ukraine started around March 2021.

    So this indicates Putin had already decided, or at least seriously considering an invasion a full year ago.

    This means that he's probably plotted what he'll do next year.

    With all that planning, things haven't quite gone Putin's way. I expect he would have had to rethink a lot of things in the last two weeks. I doubt he has the resources to go further, not for a while, for all the reasons you mentioned yourself earlier, the cost of the Ukrainian engagement and the bite of sanctions. If Putin does invade Finland (an unlikely but theoretical scenario) ;  NATO have been clear that they won't escalate for the benefit of a non-NATO member, it would be seen as a double-standard if they did escalate for Finland but not for Ukraine. I rather expect that Russia will eventually take Ukraine and stop there for a long time. They will hold it until they gradually go broke (and if sanctions persist to get them there), facing.guerilla-style attacks from whatever is left of the Ukrainian forces for months or even years. I do actually believe that there is no nuke risk if NATO remains passive during this time.

  4. 2 hours ago, olofscience said:

    As said here many times - Putin has never needed any provocation before, and he won't need any provocation in the future.

    I suspect that's a minority opinion, certainly not shared by NATO. They have repeatedly cited concerns over 'escalation', which is synonymous with provocation in this context.

    Quote

    Russia, with their economy already smaller than Italy before the invasion, will be going bankrupt even without counting the ongoing military expenses. They probably have until June at the latest. They'll run out of ammo, out of money, and out of friends.

    When this happens, what do you suppose Putin may do next? Pack up his troops and withdraw? ...maybe launch a nuke?  Would you expect that direct military action by NATO within Ukraine right now would change Putin's action decisions either way ? ...if you believe that provocation absolutely doesn't factor into his decision making.

  5. 4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    The defense and state departments along with the political leadership seem to be on different pages here. There is a battle brewing I think.

    It does seem odd to me that they would be not be on same page before making any promises of this magnitude. Is there a chance that this was always to be a token gesture to placate a desperate request?; "Hey, we tried, but the other guys said no. The US almost got you jets."

    4 hours ago, ryoder said:

    It is September 1939 and the free world is tip-toeing around, afraid that if they upset the Nazis, the war might spread beyond Poland.

    The 'madman with multiple nukes' scenario is what separates this from 1939. If Putin is bluffing then his bluff is strengthened by the likely expectation that western nuclear powers would hesitate to return fire with WMDs to punish the actions of one man, hence M.A.D. is now also less of a deterrent. 'Tip-toes' might be only way to go for quite a long while still.

    The Putin ambition may certainly spread beyond Ukraine but, if unprovoked, I'm less convinced at this stage that the war will. Not anytime soon, not without help from his friends. To Olof's earlier comment; I suspect the Ukrainian engagement has cost him and weakened him much more than he expected and he still has to hold that ground after, while the sanctions bite down. 

  6. 7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

    Interesting that you think it was mercenaries, not Ukrainian forces, that killed the officers with what must have been American made .50 Caliber sniper rifles. 

    Interesting that you think .50 cal was used for those kills. You don't suppose Ukrainian snipers are more familiar with their own smaller caliber weapons in much longer service?  The .50 cal M107 variants might look great in movies but are typically applied as anti-materiel rifles rather than anti-personnel. A recent report of a Ukrainian sniper (allegedly of some renown) now entering the conflict carries a Zbroyar Z-10 rifle in a comparatively modest 7.62x51mm caliber.

  7. On 3/1/2022 at 2:48 AM, billvon said:

    That's pretty authoritative.  I mean, a rent-a-cop is no trucker, and certainly no comedian-pro-wrestling-commentator-turned-conservative-hero, but it still makes you think "wow, those are words."

    Well, so long we're being acerbic; that rent-a-cop's profile and opinion from their personal experience (likely including some very candid settings) is no less valid than the folks who post in this forum. A security agent's job is to protect their charge however they can, perhaps even sliding in under them at super-speed to catch a doomed elbow, but they're not obliged to like the charge or the detail.

  8. 9 hours ago, billeisele said:

    Spain March 2 - 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifles, and machine-gun rounds and light machine guns.

    I did a 'double-take' when I read that and had to look it up. As suspected, there's a misplaced comma in there, possibly lost in translation;

    "Spanish Defense Minister said that it will send 1,370 anti-tank grenade launchers, 700,000 rifles and machine-gun rounds in the first shipment"

    That's 700000 ammo for rifles and MGs, not 700k rifles. Still useful though. Thank you, Spain.

    • Like 1

  9. 7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    “These prices are absolutely off the charts,” said James Stevenson, an analyst who tracks the coal industry at Oil Price Information Service. “This means people are really desperate for prompt coal delivery.”

    Where are the “coal is dead” guys now?

    From a 'greenies' perspective;  I expect they're not disappointed that coal is expensive, only disappointed that it's not yet expensive enough.

  10. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Switching more rapidly to EV's would strenghen our position against Putin.  We get ~2% of our oil from Russia; a minor increase in the number of EV's on our roads would reduce demand to the point where we don't need to import any.

    Using more ethanol is another way to accomplish that.  Increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline in some states would have an instant effect.  Ethanol is a terrible fuel; it takes a lot of energy to produce and it's far worse than (say) biodiesel.  But during wartime, it's a fast and easy way to reduce our need for foreign oil.  The infrastructure is already in place.  And that also means money straight to US farmers (which is why it's popular the rest of the time.)

     

    Err.. OK, I accept all that as plausible, but my question was more in line with global sea level rise within the scope of the OP. -2% oil from Russia within the USA would probably not do much for the total global sea level rise. It's hence a much broader question of absolutely everything that impacts that. If these eastern powers are aware that the rest of the world is pouring trillions into green initiatives, they could still proceed with their cheaper, faster fossil options to undermine the green benefit, keep the west's spending up and potentially be quite pleased when parts of their ('the west') coasts get flooded. Yes, their own coastlines may flood too, but who loses more by that? Yes, China is probably inconvenienced by the need to import much of it's energy, although they are increasingly doing that from Russia, who looks to be their longer term ally at this point with like-minded thinking.

  11. · Edited by metalslug

    1 hour ago, lippy said:

    Many on here don't have the Fox News talking points decoder ring...I think you're referencing the "if Biden hadn't canceled Keystone, we'd be producing more oil and Russia wouldn't have as much leverage in the energy game" talking point....Is that what you're trying to say?

    That forms part of it, although I had intended to include central & western Europe in the context of the question too. I'm aware it's been said that Biden doesn't single-handedly control all oil production in the US, although government energy policy and sentiment certainly leaves it's mark on those that do.

    More significantly; Is it is any way feasible that emerging eastern superpowers may use climate change as an ecological and economic weapon of sorts against potential enemies (which seems to be most of the world at the current rate), and are working on the equation of 'who stands to lose more' and 'who cares more' ?

  13. · Edited by metalslug

    We've already had a glimpse of how green energy policies in the west have weakened their energy positions vs eastern dictators. Is there not perhaps a concern that reports such as these, the west's ocean rise predicament (or even perceived predicament) will only motivate future enemy leaders to go harder and faster at driving that trend? Does Russia and China, for example, stand to lose more than the rest of world due to ocean rise around their own countries? They don't seem genuinely concerned at this point.  At what point is the balance reached between saving a coastline vs saving an entire country?

  14. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Good that he condemned the attack.  He has complimented Putin on the invasion in the past; is he now condemning him as well?  Or is it more of a "the Russian attack is appalling; Putin's generals are incompetent" sort of thing?

    Other than referring to Putin as 'genius' and 'savvy', what were the other comments that specifically complimented the invasion action ?  A compliment to one's adversary is really not uncommon , it doesn't imply that one wishes them victory or success. That Trump would refer to Biden as 'weak', to me, is worse than complimenting Putin, as that's a partisan smear of his own country for domestic political points in the face of a foreign danger. I have said many times on this forum that I think Trump is an arse, but that position doesn't merit making stuff up about him or intentionally hiding (not publishing) any positive comments he might make.

  16. 11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    ...several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

    I don't think the Russians would make a distinction between Polish AA weapons & personnel inside Ukraine, or missiles fired from Poland at Russian aircraft over Ukrainian airspace. If such an engagement occurs, Poland would be in a de-facto state of war with Russia, probably not something they want.

    • Like 2

  17. 17 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

    Speaking of which. Has anyone heard trump condemn the attack on Ukraine, or Putin? Or is that a dumb question.

    Yes he has, but you wont find it reported in the lefty US media as it doesn't fit their narrative for Trump. "The Russian attack on Ukraine is appalling. We are praying for the proud people of Ukraine. God bless them all" . 

    Perhaps much like some other members here who have disregarded the left-wing nutters that support Russia, found a small handful of right-wing nutters that support Russia, even falsely asserted that a particular R supports Russia and seem to absurdly infer that R's, as general rule, support Russia. 

  18. It's been nearly two weeks since our last joke (although these advertised shirts are very real) and I expect we could all use some levity this month.NBMW.jpg.3182cd317ea6aec700f871786b29aafc.jpg

    Ah, c'mon, you laughed a little bit. Right ?

  19. 11 minutes ago, kallend said:

    Unfortunately some people learn history from John Wayne movies instead of from history books.

    The Greek resistance in 1941 delayed Barbarossa by 5 weeks - enough to prevent the Wehrmacht from reaching Moscow before the onset of the Russian winter and no doubt changing the outcome of the war.  But you don't hear the Greeks crowing about how they saved the world.

    Is yours the John Wayne movie version?  To be fair; not all historians agree with the account above; citing reports of late spring floods from heavy rains in eastern Poland and western Russia, delaying the planned start date to June 22, which is indeed when it started. The Greeks fought well and can take credit for slightly reducing the number of military units that the Wehrmacht had hoped to mobilise, but not for the pivotal delay that you infer.

  21. I absolutely support Ukraine's position in this conflict, but I believe they do need to take care in maintaining 'clean hands'. There have been incidents of broadcast video of captured Russian soldiers lamenting their fate and dismay at their own Russian leaders. I wasn't previously aware myself but this apparently violates an aspect of law (Geneva convention?) that prohibits captured POW's being used for propaganda, regardless of it's truth. Additionally; Ukrainian Special Operations Force has vowed to not accept (and hence execute) surrendering Russian artillery forces if such surrenders should occur, again a potential violation of the convention. I empathise with their anger but if Ukraine hope to see Russian leadership prosecuted at a future date, it becomes important to stay clean themselves.

  22. 10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    There are some people everywhere who take the side of the authoritarian. In the US those people are almost exclusively R supporters.

    Almost indeed. Are many here aware of Russell Bentley?  Several online links, all quite disturbing and at least one that paints him as a 'leftist'. (Heeey, he's pro-communism, anti-nazi, so he must be a lefty... ) 

  23. 37 minutes ago, billeisele said:

    One has to wonder if there have been discussions about "removing Putin."  Are there specific laws that prevent that?  

    I'd be fine to be corrected on this, but are heads of state not usually considered to be civilian (as opposed to military) ?  Targeting a politician for a lethal strike would then imply 'targeting civilians', would it not ?  Beyond that; do heads of state not also benefit from the Vienna convention ?  Sergey Lavrov is currently in Switzerland. As much as he may deserve a particular fate along with Putin, it would set a very awkward precedent if he were 'targeted'.

  24. 2 hours ago, billvon said:

    Former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (under Trump) Monica Crowley laments that poor Vladimir Putin is being cancelled:

    "Look, Russia is now being canceled. Right? I mean, between the fierce Ukranian resistance, and the widespread international financial sanctions and boycotts, and Russian teams being barred from international competitions, Russia is being canceled."

    O won't someone think of poor Vlad?  I mean, he's not evil like Colin Kaepernick.  He's just a white autocrat who is being unfairly cancelled by the left wing media for being white and powerful, and what American conservative can't relate to that?  (And for killing hundreds, and for crushing democracy, but that's not the issue here.)

    Monica Crowley has a curious take on the term 'cancelled' relative to it's woke ideology origins. The left don't own the term 'cancelled', the right has 'cancelled' things too. In the context of her entire statement and body language she doesn't seem sympathetic to Putin at all.  If you're now spinning that as sympathy for Putin, then you've either been duped by a headline or simply drafted your own asinine theatre for a preferred narrative.

  25. 1 hour ago, billvon said:

    Because traffic tickets are just like invading a country and killing over 100 people.

    Certainly, the Ukrainian situation is nothing like Canada (well, maybe the protests by Russians in Russia are), but if you think Canada invoked emergency powers to write a few traffic tickets then you're a bit behind on events there.