Have they lost? Unfortunately no, they’re going to throw death and suffering at this conflict they started until they get what they want or they (somehow) run out of bodies to throw.
Imagine Vietnam-era US, but it was willing to sacrifice every warm body within its borders to win.
Like the US, I think Russia is on a collision course with failure. But they’re going to take it a lot farther before waving a white flag. So much so that it will take the country decades to recover.
And Ukraine won’t be looking too hot at that point anymore, either.
Yeah that “every warm body” doesn’t work and will be Russian undoing.
You see, in the real world you have a very limited amount of “warm bodies” to throw to begin with. Realistically speaking, only males between, say, 15 and 45, and a few women who are more fit than average. Anything else gets useless very quickly.
Unfortunately this is also the group that forms a large part of your work force. Yes, you’ll have women left, but realistically you don’t see women picking up garbage at night.
Russia already has a huge gap in employable people because of the bodies they threw, and the bodies that decided to bugger off and flee before the draft got to them. especially those that fled were the more intelligent ones, the (future) scientists and engineers that you need to grow your country.
Russia is FUBAR for the next 5 decades thanks to Putin
Yep. The Romans fucked themselves sideways doing this a few times. You can have all the soldiers or you can have some farmers and skilled laborers. You can’t have both.
Not… really. The cost of pulling out of Ukraine isn’t just a silly little failed investment or something, it means Russia gains a stronger foothold into Europe
As opposed to letting an authoritarian state gain more power and influence? Methinks people in other parts of the world must have thought it is a sunk cost fallacy as well to support Britain when they were left standing alone when France fell to the Nazis. But I have to admit as to why some would be reluctant to provide more support for Ukraine considering much of the world is experiencing cost of living crisis. Although many countries, including the US, at the start of World War II were just reeling from the Great Depression either and yet still provided support for Britain.
Ukraine today and Britain then received billions of dollars of support, which is a lot for the common folks, but the truth is that they’re chump change relative to entire budget of the US government back then and now. Though again, I recognise that these are chump change in billions of dollars could make a massive difference to the lives of people on the domestic front. However, I would like to remind others that a lot more billions of dollars will be lost if Russia is allowed to win and if the Nazis back then had won. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of UN Charter to respect national sovereignty and borders. What we have built in the past 70 years or so to maintain peace will be for nothing and we’d be back to the more Wild West-style international relations that led to the Second World War. Letting Russia could collapse the UN and lead to World War III.
Kind of, yeah. A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
And it’s not even meddling, they are asking for help.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
Uhm, where did you get that from?
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn’t really stop at borders for most people.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
If it’s to stop an authoritarian state from taking over a democratic state it’s good for me. If it’s because of other less ulterior motives (and let’s not kid ourselves, it’s at least partly because of that), I don’t mind. Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?
Actually, I messed up. I thought al-Quaeda was created in response to US’s invasion of Iraq, but it was actually formed a couple years earlier in response to Soviet-Afghan war. Still, the point stands as the guys got very offended by western forces presence on what they considered holy land
Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?
It would be very bad if the doctor is some kind of pervert who is only treating patients as a cover up for his obsession
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn’t really stop at borders for most people.
The point is, morality doesn’t stop, but can be different across (abeit, blurry) cultural, religious, political or ideological lines. The US and allies cross a little more of those than Russia in this conflict, but that’s a topic I’d rather not dive into. What I’m arguing here is against Putin’s rhetoric which tells that “The only thing the collective west wants is to destroy Russia”, so…
let’s not kid ourselves, it’s at least partly because of that
I’d advise at least pretending that it’s not and it’s just being “the good guys”. Fuckers like RT, Z-bots and other scum often take such comments and blow them into loudhailers to rally the support for the war. Trust me, “these guys just want to fuck you over” is quite a convincing argument. Besides, there’s plenty of other reasons to support Ukraine
The reason I’m said this because it sounds like “preventing Russia from prospering is a good cause”, as if we’re still at cold war or something. Probably not what you’ve meant, just pointing at possible confusion in interpretation. Helping a little guy, sure, but helping only to fuck the big guy is what Putin was rambling about in his justifications about war.
Lol, nowhere between the lines does my comment alludes to “preventing Russia to prosper”. Russia is already prosperous if they want to without having to invade Ukraine. Corruption prevents them from being so.
Did people back then think Britain would lose to Nazis?
Well, Ukraine proved more than capable and Russia proved to be less so despite the huge manpower and military advantages. Even if Russia win, it will be a Pyrrhic one as they already have significantly reduced international image and have become reliant on China to keep them going due to sanctions. After the war, Russia might even be beholden to China. Future generations of Russians will be paying for the cost of war, both financially and on personal level, just as now the Russians have paid then and still today for the cost of Afghan war in the 1970s. The Russian/Soviet intervention in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and arguably life in the Soviet Union might even be better than the current kleptocratic regime of Putin. More people have emigrated post-Soviet Russia than they did during the Soviet Union. As a consequence of this, even before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia is facing a demographic crisis. Russia have had to mobilise just for the current war, taking people away from work. Many Russian factories have also complained of staff shortages. Hundreds of thousands of Russians fled the draft. And more importantly, more Russians died in the war in Ukraine than during the Afghan war. So, even if Russia win, or get some concessions, or the war led to a stalemate they have already lost a great deal too. After the war, Russia will be facing an economic hardship from financial and human cost. Somehow, you did not think that sunk cost fallacy applies to Russia too.
Are they lost? Yes
Have they lost? Unfortunately no, they’re going to throw death and suffering at this conflict they started until they get what they want or they (somehow) run out of bodies to throw.
Imagine Vietnam-era US, but it was willing to sacrifice every warm body within its borders to win.
Like the US, I think Russia is on a collision course with failure. But they’re going to take it a lot farther before waving a white flag. So much so that it will take the country decades to recover.
And Ukraine won’t be looking too hot at that point anymore, either.
Yeah that “every warm body” doesn’t work and will be Russian undoing.
You see, in the real world you have a very limited amount of “warm bodies” to throw to begin with. Realistically speaking, only males between, say, 15 and 45, and a few women who are more fit than average. Anything else gets useless very quickly.
Unfortunately this is also the group that forms a large part of your work force. Yes, you’ll have women left, but realistically you don’t see women picking up garbage at night.
Russia already has a huge gap in employable people because of the bodies they threw, and the bodies that decided to bugger off and flee before the draft got to them. especially those that fled were the more intelligent ones, the (future) scientists and engineers that you need to grow your country.
Russia is FUBAR for the next 5 decades thanks to Putin
Yep. The Romans fucked themselves sideways doing this a few times. You can have all the soldiers or you can have some farmers and skilled laborers. You can’t have both.
They have strengthened their ability to pull from prisons too which opens up hundreds of thousands of more bodies for the front lines.
The west needs to double down and double down again in support of Ukraine.
Sunk cost fallacy.
Not… really. The cost of pulling out of Ukraine isn’t just a silly little failed investment or something, it means Russia gains a stronger foothold into Europe
You must not know what the sunk cost fallacy is.
As opposed to letting an authoritarian state gain more power and influence? Methinks people in other parts of the world must have thought it is a sunk cost fallacy as well to support Britain when they were left standing alone when France fell to the Nazis. But I have to admit as to why some would be reluctant to provide more support for Ukraine considering much of the world is experiencing cost of living crisis. Although many countries, including the US, at the start of World War II were just reeling from the Great Depression either and yet still provided support for Britain.
Ukraine today and Britain then received billions of dollars of support, which is a lot for the common folks, but the truth is that they’re chump change relative to entire budget of the US government back then and now. Though again, I recognise that these are chump change in billions of dollars could make a massive difference to the lives of people on the domestic front. However, I would like to remind others that a lot more billions of dollars will be lost if Russia is allowed to win and if the Nazis back then had won. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of UN Charter to respect national sovereignty and borders. What we have built in the past 70 years or so to maintain peace will be for nothing and we’d be back to the more Wild West-style international relations that led to the Second World War. Letting Russia could collapse the UN and lead to World War III.
That’s one weird argument. Are you implying that meddling with other state’s affairs is justified if it’s to keep it from gaining power and influence?
That’s one weird argument. Are you implying morality stops at borders?
And it’s not even meddling, they are asking for help.
Kind of, yeah. A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
I’m okay with helping Ukraine. I’m not okay if it’s helping only to fuck with Russia.
Uhm, where did you get that from?
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn’t really stop at borders for most people.
If it’s to stop an authoritarian state from taking over a democratic state it’s good for me. If it’s because of other less ulterior motives (and let’s not kid ourselves, it’s at least partly because of that), I don’t mind. Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?
Actually, I messed up. I thought al-Quaeda was created in response to US’s invasion of Iraq, but it was actually formed a couple years earlier in response to Soviet-Afghan war. Still, the point stands as the guys got very offended by western forces presence on what they considered holy land
It would be very bad if the doctor is some kind of pervert who is only treating patients as a cover up for his obsession
The point is, morality doesn’t stop, but can be different across (abeit, blurry) cultural, religious, political or ideological lines. The US and allies cross a little more of those than Russia in this conflict, but that’s a topic I’d rather not dive into. What I’m arguing here is against Putin’s rhetoric which tells that “The only thing the collective west wants is to destroy Russia”, so…
I’d advise at least pretending that it’s not and it’s just being “the good guys”. Fuckers like RT, Z-bots and other scum often take such comments and blow them into loudhailers to rally the support for the war. Trust me, “these guys just want to fuck you over” is quite a convincing argument. Besides, there’s plenty of other reasons to support Ukraine
That’s one weird argument to say that supporting a defender, unprovoked, from an aggressor is “meddling”. It’s meddling for your side, amirite?
The reason I’m said this because it sounds like “preventing Russia from prospering is a good cause”, as if we’re still at cold war or something. Probably not what you’ve meant, just pointing at possible confusion in interpretation. Helping a little guy, sure, but helping only to fuck the big guy is what Putin was rambling about in his justifications about war.
Lol, nowhere between the lines does my comment alludes to “preventing Russia to prosper”. Russia is already prosperous if they want to without having to invade Ukraine. Corruption prevents them from being so.
You don’t know what the sunk cost fallacy is.
You seem to have this idea that Ukraine can win the war if the US gives enough support.
Do you think it’s possible for Ukraine to lose even if they got all the information and equipment the US was able to give?
Did people back then think Britain would lose to Nazis?
Well, Ukraine proved more than capable and Russia proved to be less so despite the huge manpower and military advantages. Even if Russia win, it will be a Pyrrhic one as they already have significantly reduced international image and have become reliant on China to keep them going due to sanctions. After the war, Russia might even be beholden to China. Future generations of Russians will be paying for the cost of war, both financially and on personal level, just as now the Russians have paid then and still today for the cost of Afghan war in the 1970s. The Russian/Soviet intervention in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and arguably life in the Soviet Union might even be better than the current kleptocratic regime of Putin. More people have emigrated post-Soviet Russia than they did during the Soviet Union. As a consequence of this, even before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia is facing a demographic crisis. Russia have had to mobilise just for the current war, taking people away from work. Many Russian factories have also complained of staff shortages. Hundreds of thousands of Russians fled the draft. And more importantly, more Russians died in the war in Ukraine than during the Afghan war. So, even if Russia win, or get some concessions, or the war led to a stalemate they have already lost a great deal too. After the war, Russia will be facing an economic hardship from financial and human cost. Somehow, you did not think that sunk cost fallacy applies to Russia too.
Paragraphs, motherfucker.
Use them.
Cope.
Lol, easy block.
And you don’t use paragraphs if there is just one line.
deleted by creator
Davey Jones? That’s just crazy enough to work…