- 20,783
- 28,301
The song is from 1994. I won't stop listening to Tchaikovsky either.PeroK said:If thine ear offend thee ...
The song is from 1994. I won't stop listening to Tchaikovsky either.PeroK said:If thine ear offend thee ...
I have just translatedfresh_42 said:I don't think this is easy to judge.
Try Led Zeppelinfresh_42 said:But I have another problem. I have had a Russian earworm for weeks ... Any ideas?
oh yes to be like van GoghPeroK said:If thine ear offend thee ...
That is like bribing a criminal at the moment when he is stealing your car, sure he might comply and take your money and then come back tomorrow to also take your car.bob012345 said:What are the odds of success of bribing the majority of Russian soldiers in Ukraine to switch sides and defend Ukraine in exchange for money and safety and Ukrainian citizenship?
@artis and @wrobel. I thought he was being candid: "our forces are dying and our country it's ..." (?). Russia needs more 'war horses' of that ilk who at least have some kind of grip on reality (unlike the TV presenter who plainly didn't have a clue!).pinball1970 said:He was shut down and they clearly did not want him to speak. Like he had details that they did not want him to expand on.
'Our forces they are out there...' 'our country it's...'
Interrupted 'no no no'
'they are dying'
Interrupted again
'they are dying..'
Some younger guy in his 30s telling what looked like an decorated war horse to shut up.
No - we all do. It's just too horrific to contemplate!anorlunda said:Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?
Yes but there is a big difference between a soldier and a murderer.fresh_42 said:I don't think this is easy to judge. Firstly, there are no excuses for those war crimes and barbaric actions. On the other hand, normal Russian soldiers, often between 18 and 20 years of age, and of whom thousands have died already, are victims, too. Guilt is an individual property, it does not apply to groups.
The US bribed a lot of people in Afghanistan and Iraq to work with the US.artis said:That is like bribing a criminal at the moment when he is stealing your car, sure he might comply and take your money and then come back tomorrow to also take your car.
They did, and some were trustworthy while others snitched of US positions and made Taliban easier to attack, is what I have heard.BillTre said:The US bribed a lot of people in Afghanistan and Iraq to work with the US.
Putin will use that fear to ultimately get everything he wants no matter the cost to Russian and other lives. I believe there are opportunities to escalate U.S., E.U. and NATO involvement while minimizing those risks. Let's not kid ourselves, the West is already at war with Russia indirectly as we are pouring weapons into Ukraine as well as troops as unofficial volunteers.anorlunda said:Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?
This reminds me of a story I read in a book written by "Mavriks Vulfsons". He was Jewish and a die hard Marxist when young and fought in the Soviet Red army during WW2, he later became opposed to Marxism and the policies of USSR and even went as far as to publicly denounce the occupation of the Baltic states by USSR after WW2, he dared to talk about this during the "perstroika" years in Moscow. @wrobel I think you might know him or at least heard of him.wrobel said:Yes but there is a big difference between a soldier and a murderer.
Long ago Soviet artist Nikulin told a story. He was a soldier in Military Intelligence at WW2. In the night his group was going along a railway mound. Suddenly they saw a German Military Intelligence group and Germans saw them. They jumped down to the slope of the mound. Germans jumped down to the opposite side. One German soldier confused in the dark and jumped to the slope where the soviet group was.
Soviets grabbed this guy by his hands and legs swung him and threw him over the mound to the German group. Both groups laughed and went to different directions without fight.
Just as they were in all the proxy wars during the USSR, so far nothing new under the sun.bob012345 said:the West is already at war with Russia indirectly as we are pouring weapons into Ukraine as well as troops as unofficial volunteers.
Which is why introducing limited combat regiments into Ukraine will not necessarily trigger nuclear war. I think the West should allow immediate provisional NATO membership (or at least Guardianship) of Ukraine, or at least the parts outside of the Donbas region for now.artis said:Just as they were in all the proxy wars during the USSR, so far nothing new under the sun.
What are the consequences if you are wrong?bob012345 said:I believe there are opportunities to escalate U.S., E.U. and NATO involvement while minimizing those risks.
Exactly:bob012345 said:Putin will use that fear to ultimately get everything he wants no matter the cost to Russian and other lives.
And I never claimed that having foreign fighters in Ukraine will trigger a war, in fact there are already quite a few from different countries including mine. So much so I know a few personally that have went to Ukraine and are now fighting there. We have historically had good relations with Ukraine , about 10k people of them already here living among us now, they call us brothers.bob012345 said:Which is why introducing limited combat regiments into Ukraine will not necessarily trigger nuclear war. I think the West should allow immediate provisional NATO membership (or at least Guardianship) of Ukraine, or at least the parts outside of the Donbas region for now.
And once you've sacrified 45 million Ukrainians, then you sacrifice 40 million Poles, then 80 million Germans and eventually hand over the USA to Russia if Putin threatens you with WWIII?anorlunda said:What are the consequences if you are wrong?
I agree. Reluctantly.PeroK said:And once you've sacrified 45 million Ukrainians, then you sacrifice 40 million Poles, then 80 million Germans and eventually hand over the USA to Russia if Putin threatens you with WWIII?
Yes, it's a risk, but there may be no future for any democracy if we've decided that fighting is not an option.
We have to fight sooner or later, so if not now when?
When the survivors eventually re-establish something that resembles a physics education the topic of Nuclear Physics will never again be taught.anorlunda said:What are the consequences if you are wrong?
Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.PeroK said:We have to fight sooner or later, so if not now when?
If you don't want to do anything that might risk nuclear war, what's your suggestion then?anorlunda said:Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.
So the answer to "if not now when?" is, we are free to war with Russia when MAD (mutually assured destruction) is no longer in effect.
Analogous questions will arise if China invades Taiwan, which has been imminent for a year or so.
Our military has been wrestling with nuclear brinksmanship for more than 60 years. There is nothing new about the situation in Ukraine. MAD imposes huge constraints on the wars we are able to wage.
If we were to attack first it takes the probability of such a war to 100%, as opposed to now (even if we are somewhat provocative), which would be a much lower probability.anorlunda said:Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike. It is less risk than letting Russia decide if and when to strike. It is less risk than a gradual escalation. It might bother our consciences a bit to kill 145 million people, but we'll get over it. --- No, that is flawed logic, I don't buy it.
What we're already doing. We used sanctions and a few weapons to help Ukraine without push Putin's/Russia's back to the wall. Escalating weapons, and calling for regime change and war crimes trials is destabilizing.bob012345 said:If you don't want to do anything that might risk nuclear war, what's your suggestion then?
Probably not, but:anorlunda said:Am I the only one here who fears escalation to WWIII and nuclear holocaust?
That's not logic that I can follow. Sorry.anorlunda said:Following that logic, our side should launch a preemptive first nuclear strike.