Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

div414 t1_itko8dr wrote

Reply to comment by Jopelin_Wyde in Ukraine asks Fingrid for help - Finland's grid operator says Ukraine has requested parts to rebuild critical energy infrastructure damaged by recent drone strikes. by Vegeta9001

I understand that you feel this way. I’m just telling you it’s wrong.

The doctrines are very clear, and we’re dealing with a dangerous man stuck in a corner with no way out.

2

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkozmk wrote

Hey, and I understand why you are feeling the way you do and I'm telling you it's wrong.

We are dealing with a moron doing typical Soviet-style negotiations (aka ask for 200% of what you want and compromise at 150%) combined with China's Final Warning. That's it.

−4

div414 t1_itkp2qd wrote

Dont be coy, that isn’t it.

Historically, you’re also wrong.

1

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkppcn wrote

That's really it. Putin just plays a cornered rat to push Ukraine's allies back into the status quo so they wouldn't send weapons or assist Ukraine in fear "to escalate". That's exactly the reason for the "political cover" you mentioned in your first comment. The West needs it so that Putin's escalations in Ukraine cannot be blamed on the West. Although he still blames the West, lol.

Also, a tip to you, don't use "historically" if you are not going to elaborate.

−5

div414 t1_itkqar8 wrote

There are numerous instances of near-nuclear engagements in history, specifically with Russia.

Here’s a list.

My bad for assuming you had a perspective of history on nuclear engagements and their doctrines.

You’ve just explained why NATO is acting this way.

Why are we arguing this anymore?

Good on you for realizing your initial argument is unfounded.

5

Jopelin_Wyde t1_itktazp wrote

Have you really shifted the responsibility to prove YOUR point to me? LOL, you just raised a major "I am arguing in bad faith" flag. Point me to a specific precedent when Russia followed up on its nuclear threats for the Russian-occupied territory of the country with internationally recognized borders. If you won't I will consider that you had no actual idea what you were talking about when you wrote:

>Historically, you’re also wrong.

That has nothing to do with the consequences of the NATO military intervention though. It's unknown if Russia will actually escalate if NATO intervenes, you just choose to believe that they will double down citing "omg I spent an hour reading about military doctrines, trust me bro" while I choose to believe that they will retreat because it just isn't rational to start a conventional or nuclear war against NATO. Perhaps it will be some combination of both so Putin can "save face", but all-out nuclear war or WW3? Definitely nope.

1

div414 t1_itkto47 wrote

May I suggest investing in the stock market or lottery ticket with such a unique crystal ball? :)

3