Russia and Ukraine

[Dundee]

You're too kind, thanks.

I get your point about SEAD, though I think that would be very difficult anyway given that most Ukrainian AD is in the form of MANPADs. For this reason, I was thinking more along the lines of attacking Ukrainian airfields harboring combat planes or repair facilities with stand-off missiles in the opening minutes of the war.

They may well be husbanding their more advanced aircraft in order to address any potential NATO intervention, too.

Russia held back her air force for the obvious reason,  to hold it at highest possible state of readiness in case of NATO intervention.    The moment it is committed on any significant scale for other goals, its reserves of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, reliable sortie capacity before maintenance and overhaul, and unfatigued flight and ground crew will begin to drain away, and it’s state of readiness will decline.  

If the Russian airforce already has a couple of weeks of intense operation behind it, and NATO enter the fray fresh, Russia will be at a great disadvantage starting from the moment of contact and there is no way to make it up.

---

Indeed if a bad economy is a justification for invading nations. Then I guess the G7 nations have the right to invade the whole third and developing worlds.

---

Let's sum it up 

1. Ukraine has the right to join any organization it wants without fear of military retaliation and if Russia is threatened by this its job is to increase defenses within its own borders. Invading other countries is not a valid response 


2. The presence of fascists within a nation is not a justification for invading other countries and endangering the lives of people who have nothing to do with said fascists


3. Being the same ethnic group is not a justification for invading other countries. It wasn't when Hitler did it and isn't now.


4. Formerly owning a place doesn't give you rights to it. otherwise, every former colonial power could claim any place they use to own.


5. Ukraine's abuses of ethnic Russians are a matter of international law and are not a justification for invading other countries.


6. American wars of aggression do not justify Russian ones

All those are interest for the kindergarten and not at all how the world does work or how it can work.

Why should this be "kindergarten"?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Russia held back her air force for the obvious reason,  to hold it at highest possible state of readiness in case of NATO intervention.    The moment it is committed on any significant scale for other goals, its reserves of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, reliable sortie capacity before maintenance and overhaul, and unfatigued flight and ground crew will begin to drain away, and it’s state of readiness will decline.  

If the Russian airforce already has a couple of weeks of intense operation behind it, and NATO enter the fray fresh, Russia will be at a great disadvantage starting from the moment of contact and there is no way to make it up.

---

All those are interest for the kindergarten and not at all how the world does work or how it can work.

Why should this be "kindergarten"?

Because he has no counter-argument so he must resort to insults

[Anomalocaris]

Russia held back her air force for the obvious reason,  to hold it at highest possible state of readiness in case of NATO intervention.    The moment it is committed on any significant scale for other goals, its reserves of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, reliable sortie capacity before maintenance and overhaul, and unfatigued flight and ground crew will begin to drain away, and it’s state of readiness will decline.  

If the Russian airforce already has a couple of weeks of intense operation behind it, and NATO enter the fray fresh, Russia will be at a great disadvantage starting from the moment of contact and there is no way to make it up.

---

All those are interest for the kindergarten and not at all how the world does work or how it can work.

Why should this be "kindergarten"?

because no adolescent would be so naive as to think major power that follow these, as oppose to cynically making hay for pretending to follow them when circumstances suits, and throwing them away like the rubbish they are when circumstances don’t,  could really survive for long.

this is a rubbish system because it is incapable of really rewarding those who follow it, instead in practice it rewards those who are most successful in cynically pretending in championing it while ruthlessly ignoring it.  

In effect the system outlined is one of foxes guarding the hens that particularly rewards the fox that succeeds in killing the other foxes so it can devote more of the hens itself, set up under the pretense of being for the benefit of the hens.

[Deesse23]

Why should this be "kindergarten"?

because no adolescent would be so naive as to think major power that follow these, as oppose to cynically making hay for pretending to follow them when circumstances suits, and throwing them away like the rubbish they are when circumstances don’t,  could really survive for long.

this is a rubbish system because it is incapable of really rewarding those who follow it, instead in practice it rewards those who are most successful in cynically pretending in championing it while ruthlessly ignoring it.  

In effect the system outlined is one of foxes guarding the hens that particularly rewards the fox that succeeds in killing the other foxes so it can devote more of the hens itself, set up under the pretense of being for the benefit of the hens.

You are not even trying to take part in a honest conversation.
When repeatedly asked (and then, after giving no intelligible answers) told what is the right thing to do, you evade by "thats the way it is". You are, pretty much on purpose, mixing up the "is" and "ought". Then, like in this answer above, accusing everybody, but of course Putin, for how the "is" is. Your dishonesty is blatantly obvious.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Way to not answer his question and instead engage in your bizarro world version of international affairs 

---

because no adolescent would be so naive as to think major power that follow these, as oppose to cynically making hay for pretending to follow them when circumstances suits, and throwing them away like the rubbish they are when circumstances don’t,  could really survive for long.

this is a rubbish system because it is incapable of really rewarding those who follow it, instead in practice it rewards those who are most successful in cynically pretending in championing it while ruthlessly ignoring it.  

In effect the system outlined is one of foxes guarding the hens that particularly rewards the fox that succeeds in killing the other foxes so it can devote more of the hens itself, set up under the pretense of being for the benefit of the hens.

You are not even trying to take part in a honest conversation.
When repeatedly asked (and then, after giving no intelligible answers) told what is the right thing to do, you evade by "thats the way it is". You are, pretty much on purpose, mixing up the "is" and "ought". Then, like in this answer above, accusing everybody, but of course Putin, for how the "is" is. Your dishonesty is blatantly obvious.

No his issue is he's wrong and his only response is to go into unhinged rants like the one above. To try and make Russia's utterly unhinged actions seem sane

[pocaracas]

Let's sum it up 

1. Ukraine has the right to join any organization it wants without fear of military retaliation and if Russia is threatened by this its job is to increase defenses within its own borders. Invading other countries is not a valid response 

If you ask me, this invasion is just one more reason why Ukraine should join an alliance that would help them in case something like this ever happens again.

2. The presence of fascists within a nation is not a justification for invading other countries and endangering the lives of people who have nothing to do with said fascists

Fascists exist everywhere.


Let's nuke the world!

3. Being the same ethnic group is not a justification for invading other countries. It wasn't when Hitler did it and isn't now.


4. Formerly owning a place doesn't give you rights to it. otherwise, every former colonial power could claim any place they use to own.

Ahem.... Jews in Israel? Remember how they got there after WW2?
Have you noticed how quiet Israel has been?

5. Ukraine's abuses of ethnic Russians are a matter of international law and are not a justification for invading other countries.

Kinda like the Uyghurs in China. Should the Taliban invade China?

6. American wars of aggression do not justify Russian ones

No, but they do point to the "hypocrisy of the West", as they call it.
But it looks like we've gone into kid territory in this thread.... the kids who have no grasp for nuance and then ask "If he can do it why can't I??"

[Anomalocaris]

because no adolescent would be so naive as to think major power that follow these, as oppose to cynically making hay for pretending to follow them when circumstances suits, and throwing them away like the rubbish they are when circumstances don’t,  could really survive for long.

this is a rubbish system because it is incapable of really rewarding those who follow it, instead in practice it rewards those who are most successful in cynically pretending in championing it while ruthlessly ignoring it.  

In effect the system outlined is one of foxes guarding the hens that particularly rewards the fox that succeeds in killing the other foxes so it can devote more of the hens itself, set up under the pretense of being for the benefit of the hens.

You are not even trying to take part in a honest conversation.
When repeatedly asked (and then, after giving no intelligible answers) told what is the right thing to do, you evade by "thats the way it is". You are, pretty much on purpose, mixing up the "is" and "ought". Then, like in this answer above, accusing everybody, but of course Putin, for how the "is" is. Your dishonesty is blatantly obvious.

Is can at least be in principle by objective,  Ought can ever be more than subjective at best and worse then worthless when impracticable or manifestly self defeating in practice.    Your ought is not someone else’s ought.   Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

[The Architect Of Fate]

See what I mean ....Unhinged 

[Deesse23]

You are not even trying to take part in a honest conversation.
When repeatedly asked (and then, after giving no intelligible answers) told what is the right thing to do, you evade by "thats the way it is". You are, pretty much on purpose, mixing up the "is" and "ought". Then, like in this answer above, accusing everybody, but of course Putin, for how the "is" is. Your dishonesty is blatantly obvious.

Your ought is not someone else’s ought.

You do think countries should be allowed to invade other countries?

  Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

But your "is" does, right?
The "needs" of Russia, as you stated, do, right?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is can at least be in principle by objective,  Ought can ever be more than subjective at best and worse then worthless when impracticable or manifestly self defeating in practice.    Your ought is not someone else’s ought.   Ought does not excuse, change or mitigate the material consequence of its pursuit.

Might-makes-right isn't a good recipe for international relations.