O/T:- Betting odds for US Election [The USA Politics Thread]

[andy6025]

The reason that Russia and the west all generally agree that firing ATACMs and Storm Shadows, etc., into Russia is/was seen as an escalation is because it is for all practical purposes NATO attacking Russia on Russian soil. Putin made that clear that that?s how it would be viewed by Russia, and the west appeared to acknowledge that until recently. One may well argue that NATO ought to do so, or that it?s well within its rights to do so. What is difficult to argue is that it?s not an attack by NATO into Russia.

Some of you may think, ?well, so what?? I guess that depends on how Russia responds. As has also been clear, Russia has changed its nuclear doctrine (ie. the conditions on which it may use its nuclear deterrent) to include such a scenario. Does that mean they will automatically use nuclear weapons? Of course not. Does it mean they possibly will? Yes. The only ones who know if they actually will are the Russian leadership. The rest of us are all just trying to look into a crystal ball.

As one who follows the war not from the perspective of the MSM, but rather from ?pro-Russian? analysts, I find that even they are divided into two camps.

One camp believes that the authorization to strike ?deep? into Russia it yet another ploy to make the Russians suddenly do something rash and stupid that will in turn draw the west closer into the war (as if they need an excuse), as well as turn off all the countries that are sympathetic to Russia (such as the global south). This will make it harder for Trump to negotiate peace without looking like a chicken or traitor who likes giving ?Putler? oral sėx, instead of going toe to toe with him. However, according to this camp, Putin and his entourage are too clever to fall for any of this. They are methodically beating the Ukrainians and will continue to do so at their own pace until their victory objectives are achieved. The Russians, as per this theory, don?t care who?s in the White House. After all, the leaked versions of Trump?s supposed peace plan already show that it?s not something even close to what the Russians will accept? and when they reject it, the US will continue to back Ukraine as they?ve always done. So as far as they?re concerned, these analysts hold, it is and will continue to be business as usual. Ukraine is on the ropes, and there?s no point the Russians taking their eye of the ball now? especially when the western media is reporting that the west barely has a handful of ATACMs left.

The second camp takes a very different line. This camp believes that Putin?s war cabinet already decided long ago on how it would respond to various circumstances, and that an attack by NATO into Russian territory, which the Russians rightly hold this to be, is one such scenario that has already has a pre-determined response. This camp believes that there must and will be a very significant response. And while the camp doesn?t know specifically what the response will be, they believe that it may not be limited to Ukraine. If the Russians don?t respond, they say, then the next red line crossed by NATO will be NATO air defences protecting Western Ukraine, followed by an attempt to impose a no fly zone over a portion or all of Ukraine (which means direct air to air combat between NATO and Russian planes). So, what does this camp guess Russia will respond? Apparently Russia has some new (and old) bombs that they?ve yet to display in a combat situation - among them are the R26, and another one of which is called ?the father of all bombs?. This camp believes we will likely see these used soon. Some reports suggest it might even be tonight. I don?t know much about the latter of these bombs, but apparently it goes boom moreso than any conventional bomb, but glows less than a nuclear bomb. I think it supposedly contains aluminum or zinc powder or something like that that ignites and causes more fire than ordinary convection munitions. Supposedly it?s more of a city leveller than merely a building or block buster. Escalations beyond that would bring us to the brink of a nuclear exchange, as there aren?t many escalators moved left - maybe taking out some satellites first, or enabling the Houthis to sink a carrier or two.

I have no idea whose crystal ball is right, but there is a report this morning that US intelligence believes something big is going to happen in Ukraine today/tonight. It?s well possible, but like so many other reports of a similar nature, I won?t be surprised if the night passes without anything unusual happening.

[andy6025]

No idea why my apostrophe?s were replaced by question marks. But I won?t bother trying to fix it.

[lunaspie]

[QUOTE=andy6025;40605575]
One camp believes that the authorization to strike ?deep? into Russia it yet another ploy to make the Russians suddenly do something rash and stupid that will in turn draw the west closer into the war (as if they need an excuse), as well as turn off all the countries that are sympathetic to Russia (such as the global south). This will make it harder for Trump to negotiate peace without looking like a chicken or traitor who likes giving ?Putler? oral sėx, instead of going toe to toe with him. QUOTE]

'I hate you Putler'

Good old Plakey.

[BigFatPie]

It doesn’t seem to have occurred to either of our two Kremlin correspondents that Ukraine are firing missiles Russian territory to try to reduce the number of missiles Russia fires into Ukrainian territory. Why Biden has cleared it now is also probably quite simple; he’s demob happy and is thinking why not? Putin won’t do anything to escalate now that his pet is moving back into the White House.

[Lullapie]

The former Kiwi prime minister was saying you'd have to be stupid to move to Australia from New Zealand but even the most stupid kiwis are more intelligent than Australians. It was a great quip that bantered two sets of people, great quip

It was. Muldoon wasn't much good at anything else, apart from being 'The Narrator' in the Rocky Horror Show.

[SmiffyPie]

It doesn?t seem to have occurred to either of our two Kremlin correspondents that Ukraine are firing missiles Russian territory to try to reduce the number of missiles Russia fires into Ukrainian territory.

They know it but won't admit it.

[andy6025]

They know it but won't admit it.

Oh I fully admit that NATO can attack Russia however they please. The quest is whether it will produce the outcome they desire. In fact, do they even know what outcome they desire?

[SmiffyPie]

Oh I fully admit that NATO can attack Russia however they please. The quest is whether it will produce the outcome they desire. In fact, do they even know what outcome they desire?

But that wasn't what my answer was relative to was it.

[Lullapie]

They know it but won't admit it.

If it wasn't for the weakness of the US government and their woke, military agenda, I will admit that Putin wouldn't have even thought about invading the Ukraine.

If Biden-apologists look at the recent history of Putin and his expansion plans, none of those happened while Trump was in power. Only under Obama and Biden. To me, that says it all.

[drillerpie]

If this situation is a win-win for Trump, why did the Dems set it up for him to benefit no matter what? Seems a rather strange "favour" to grant an incoming president. If you genuinely see it that way, why did the Dems choose to do it now and now earlier?

I understand your point that these missile strikes are technically a way for Ukraine to defend itself and not a full-on offensive strike. In football terms, "attack is the best form of defence." It is escalation nonetheless. If I understand correctly, these missiles cannot be fired without a load of additional hardware and technical infrastructure - i.e. satellites - that must be provided and presumably operated by the US. It's not a simple weapon that you can just hand over to anyone. It may well be permitted under international law, but it's a sign of the West a) wanting to prolong the war, and b) wanting to play a more hands-on role in the war.

Fair point about my "deep into Russia" comment. Can't argue with that.

Happy to debate stuff if it remains cordial. To be honest, I know very little about warfare and statecraft - I'm just a peasant Notts fan. All I know is that this war has to end one way or another. It can end with talks and concessions from both sides, or it can end with more bloodshed and destruction, the extent of which we cannot know. I prefer the first option always and would support any world leader looking to push forward peace talks rather than upping the ante with more weaponry. I understand that might be seen as naive.

I don't think everything the Dems do is to make life more difficult for Trump. I don't think the move to allow the missiles to be used in Kursk is to sabotage the Trump presidency, the same way they are not sabotaging the economy or any other aspect of government. As I see it, I just perfectly fits the pattern of giving Ukraine what they want and need about 6-12 months too late, and usually with even more restrictions to 'avoid escalation'. In my opinion this doesn't avoid escalation but actually encourages it.

If you've ever played poker, the Biden administration is doing the equivalent of waiting as long as possible each round before agreeing to call - never raising. Maybe it's a stupid example but I think the psychology is the same - the opponent thinks "this guy is really not sure, I'm gonna raise big to scare him into folding" and that is what we see from Putin, and we have seen a perfect example of that in the last few days.

Again I would disagree with your choice of language. The fact that Ukraine is defending itself is in no way a technicality. They have been invaded and they are defending themselves. There is no way Ukraine does anything on Russian territory without Russia having invaded. I would say the same for helping Ukraine defend itself being a sign of wanting to prolong the war. I think all Ukrainians and all the countries supporting Ukraine would be extremely happy if Putin ordered his troops to turn round and go back home tomorrow.

Sorry if this is an oversimplification but if somebody breaks into a mate's house, rapes the women in there and takes the valuable stuff - then your mate fights back even though outnumbered and sends you a message to get round there quick - what do you do? Are you escalating the conflict by going there? Semantically you could argue yes, but really no, of course not.

To carry on with this clumsy analogy, even if your mate does decide to negotiate, what do you do when the robbers not only refuse to give anything back but also demand stuff from other houses on the street they haven't even burgled yet? If you don't let them have everything on the streets they have chosen, are you reallly the ones escalating?

I think wanting peace is a noble aim - you don't like seeing people die in war because you care about human life. That's a good thing.

I think naivety comes into it a little bit if you ignore where we have ended up in the past with American isolationism and European democracies being OK with expansionist dictators taking what they believe belongs to them. The answer is not less war.