jas007

I agree in part. As I've previously indicated, Putin suspended Russia's participation the New Start Treaty s few yers ago. So I suppose the US is no longer legally obligated. In any event, you're otherwise absolutely correct. People cheering on this war and its escalation apparently have no clue what's been done or why it matters. And they certainly don't understand the ramifications of a global thermonuclear war. They can''t stay in their bunkers forever.

I got all this information from my brain. I've been to school. In another thread on April 30, in a conversation with Dinsdale, I tried to explain how diplomacy is important and why, in the context of game theory. If you can find that thread, go back in read it. Maybe I made more sense that day. "It absolutely does matter. The point is that the last thing the world needs is a destabilized situation in that part of the world. MAD only makes sense if both "players" possess an equal ability to attack and destroy the other. Do some research on game theory and why and how MAD works. In game theory, MAD is a situation where the only way to win is to not play the game. Correct? But, once the situation is destabilized by the introduction of short and intermediate range missiles close to Russia's western border and to critical parts of their early warning systems, that would give the West an advantage and make war more likely. In other words, it would be stupid to create such a situation in the first place. MAD needs a level playing field to be effective. And so yes, it really does matter where missiles are placed."

I just looked it up. From Perplexity: Vladimir Putin suspended Russia’s participation in the New START treaty on February 21, 2023, during his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly. He announced that Russia would no longer allow the United States and NATO to inspect its nuclear facilities, citing concerns over U.S. development of new nuclear weapons and NATO’s involvement in Ukraine. Putin also criticized the treaty for not covering French and British nuclear weapons. Following the suspension announcement, Russia initially stated it would continue to adhere to the treaty’s warhead limits but later ceased the notification process related to missile launches under the treaty by the end of March 2023. The suspension marked a significant setback for nuclear arms control between the U.S. and Russia, as New START was the last remaining treaty limiting their strategic nuclear arsenals.

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm no longer 25, but once upon a time, I loved big cities. And back then I'm sure I would have loved Bangkok. Today? I wouldn't live there. I thought about it, but came to my senses. I have no reason whatsoever to be there, long term. For me, an occasional week or month in Bangkok would be enough. Have fun for a while and then back to a tranquil beach neighborhood.

One big Tijuana. From what I've heard about the place, that's probably correct.

Didn't Putin suspend their agreement a few years ago?

You want to come across as someone who understands diplomacy, enforceability, and so on, but your response here demonstrates that you understand none of that or how things play out in the real world. First, you should understand how diplomacy typically operates when the issues include ending a war, and why the enforcement of any such agreement might well be problematic but not out of the question. It's not at all unusual for states to withhold security guarantees from an agreement for very real strategic concerns. When push comes to shove, as the US has so often demonstrated, countries will act in their own best interest. Guarantees don't mean much these days. Do you understand game theory? Have you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma? Do you understand why the focus on Putin is a straw man argument and why that misses the point, in any event? Ideally, guarantees operate as a deterrent because an aggressor would be unable to absolutely veto the guarantors from making good on their guarantees. The rational actor would therefore avoid the conflict. But, as you've so aptly noted, enforcement would not come without roadblocks. In the case of a referral to the Security Council, by Putin himself or his representative at the UN. However, the UN is but one of several available enforcement mechanisms. Moreover, the "loaded gun" analogy misses the mark. You're setting up an either/or situation that doesn't exist in the real world. Reciprocity and trust? You must be kidding. Look at the history of the conflict. Neither side can trust the other, and for good reasons. Russia can't trust Ukraine, given its recent history of supposed violations of the Minsk Accords. And Ukraine certainly doesn't trust Russia. A Russia that continues to hold what Zelensky calls Ukrainian territory and an Ukraine that enters into a deal under duress? In other words, it's a recipe for future trouble and that's not the goal of any agreement to end the war, is it? So, was there a genuine offer? Of course. Jut not an offer you like. And I'm sure the offer may still be on the table, in spite of yesterday's drone strikes.

Maybe you should take a break or perhaps find a thread to follow where you actually understand the issues.

You seem to want everyone to ignore the fact that there was a genuine offer from Russia and that there still is. You do this by pretending the offer by Russia required that Ukraine "effectively surrender" and was therefore no offer at all. You assume too much, I think. You're just begging the question. Just because there would supposedly be no guarantees does not make Russia's offer not a real offer. Hard or almost impossible to enforce, perhaps, but isn't enforcement of a contract always a problem? Here, it's just a matter of degree. And of course, enforcement mechanisms do exist. Referral to the UN Security Council, for example. One of several available enforcement mechanisms that you would rather we all ignore. An effective solution would be problematic, to be sure, given the geopolitical backdrop, but we are, after all, talking about an agreement to end a war.

If you ask me it's a matter of greed and delusion. Big bucks are made from war and big bucks are at stake, no doubt about it. And yet the same people trying to start this war are seemingly oblivious to the fact that if they succeed, all their efforts will be for naught. They can't hide in their bunkers forever.

That'll be next, and it will be a simple process. The technology is already available.

You're right, but after a while, much of that subsided and history moved on. As for the "free speech" issue? Probably still problematic, but then again, take a look at what the so-called USA Democrats were in the process of accomplishing. Free Speech? Nope. Anything they didn't like was labeled "misinformation." They even wanted to establish a misinformation Czar, remember? That project was shelved, at least temporarily, but they're still trying. And remember Hillary? Didn't she recently say something about re-education camps? Free speech is an issue in every country.

Alaska pics? That reminds me. I've got an entire bunch of old Alaska pictures that were taken by some guy named E. Andrews in the early 1900s. I was going to donate them to the Alaska State Library Historical Collection, but I never followed up on it and they're now in storage.

They don't understand. They're brainwashed. The USA and NATO are always right, always moral, and will always win in the end. Putin is a thug and Russia is the evil boogeyman intent on re-establishing the old Soviet Union and then some. All of Europe. That's what they believe, regardless of how silly it is. No one considers the implications. And the implications are massive. The art of war has now changed forever. Tanks, artillery, aircraft carriers. Obsolete, perhaps, at least in their present form. Drones and robots, all controlled by AI? It's no longer science fiction. And establishing a kill switch for AI won't be an easy matter. That could be impossible. The development was just a matter of time, I suppose. And the USA isn't the only nation already at work to build the best AI. Trillions are being invested. And we all know how that works. They invest that kind of money for one reason and one reason only. For war. The military complex needs war. The Western financial system needs war.

This reminds me of the propaganda used during the Vietnam era. And before that, during the era of the Domino theory. Nonsense to support the endless war. Remember Vietnam? The talking points back then were similar. If North Vietnam succeeds, Communists would run the country, Vietnam's economic system would be destroyed, thousands would be killed, and the rest "re-educated." Effective propaganda that worked. Remember all the people clamoring for a place on the helicopters that were evacuating people from the US Embassy? And yet what really happened? Nothing of the sort. Yes, the Communists run the government, but businesses in Vietnam will gladly take your Visa, Mastercard, or American Express. No one was killed, no one was "re-edcated." Life moved on. The war is history. And so the war mongers moved on as well. Now the Boogeyman is Russia. Same nonsense, different decade.

I think NATO already started it. Now we wait to see what Putin does next. Hopefully, not much. Not because he wouldn't be justified, but because one thing will lead to another until it's too late to stop.

You assume Russia wants to "take Europe"? LOL

I'm not sure why you would think that matters this point, one way or the other. But for what it's worth, what makes you think I support nuclear war? Quite the opposite, actually. There would be no winner. As for Ukraine? I feel sorry for Ukraine and its people. They're being used and abused. That's been the case for years. Many don't seem to know that. Many do, though.

For what it's worth, I absolutely do know what I'm talking about. You can believe me, or not. I know NATO provided the targeting. That's no big secret. Ever hear of Palantir? Ever hear of Starlink? All the contracts are public information. And if you understand how those companies work, you'll understand how they select targets. As for a move by Zelensky to "involve us further"? Let me rephrase that for you. It was a move by NATO to involve Ukraine further. They call it a proxy war for a reason.

Just to be clear, not all FPV drones use fiber optic cables. Just some of them and for special purposes, not without limitations.

I'm sure the US didn't like it. That much should be obvious. But I think we're now at a point where what's good and what's bad doesn't much matter. The way you win WWIII is to not play the game. Otherwise, everyone loses.

Let me guess. You're seriously asking me to post sources for an attack so secretly planned that Russia had no clue it was planned? Supposedly, it took 15 months to plan. Russia didn't have a clue, and yet you want me to post sources. LOL. If any sources were available, don't you think Russia would have seen them? They aren't stupid. Of course, it's no big secret that NATO has been involved all along. And only NATO has the technical expertise to accomplish such an attack. I assume you understand why that is so. As for a tactical purpose? Simple. Crazy madmen are desperately trying to start WWIII. And how better to do that than to attack Russia's nuclear deterrent forces deep within Russia? And for all we know, this may have been just be the opening salvo of a larger operation. What's Russia supposed to do, sit back and wait for even more secret attacks on their strategic defenses? So yes, for people intent on starting WWIII, it was a genius move.

Let's make it clear: NATO is using Ukraine. An expendable pawn in a proxy war.

Unfortunately, NATO is involved, more so than you seem to think. Who do you think provided the targeting for the drones? Who do you think supplied the drones? Who do you think orchestrated the entire attack? NATO is in a proxy war with Russia, and it has been that way since day one.

Are you serious? I'm afraid this entire discussion is over your head. I suppose you could blame propaganda. One of several explanations.