We should stop misleading people to think that we will change Putin and Russia or change Afghanistan or change Iraq or change N.Korea or change China.
All we need is the West/United Nations and NATO.....the good guys..... to gang up on and put pressure on them and they will have no choice but to see the light.
They see all those things too but are willing to risk EVERYTHING to take another path.
This isn't a movie, where you can write the script to have a happy ending based on good winning over evil.
In the real world......evil does win sometimes.
This isn't the US justice system that prosecutes evil and holds them accountable in court and takes away their ability to keep practicing evil in the US.
Powerful evil sometimes can't be stopped. You can penalize evil with sanctions or other actions but you absolutely cannot stop evil.
Historically, evil did horrendous damage and we look back and think........wow, today's world has progressed beyond that and doesn't tolerate such behavior and is globally connected with enough good guys to prevent evil from doing bad things.
But there are absolute limitations. Yes, we can prevent Russia/China from acting like Germany/Japan on a global scale but we can't stop them from being that way in their own backyards............where THEY set the rules.
And it's a good thing they are keeping it in their own backyards. If it ever went outside that and Putin got desparate enough to use nuclear weapons because Russia was being decimated by economic sanctions....we would be wishing we could rewind and just have it THIS bad..........the way that it is right now with just Ukraine involved.
We can't believe that Russia would do this, then expect him to react rationally to economic sanctions.
There's a good chance that Putin will interpret this as the West/UN/NATO that he hates with passion, are uniting to attack his country economically. He will see this as them declaring war economically on Russia. He obviously can't fight back with anything, right?
Except that he is more powerful than any other country in one realm. Nuclear weapons.
If it was me or you or the West deciding whether to go nuclear, of course it would never happen.
But ask yourself this. Why did Putin amass the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet?
It wasn't because he didn't have anything better to do with Russia's money. It was so that it made Russia more powerful than any other country in a realm that could be used in a conflict with other country's.
These events are the first ingredients in the recipe for the start of a nuclear war. The West is working on creating narratives to bolster support for their side and convincing the world to unite against Putin.
Putin is absolutely viewing this as an attack on him, Russia and what belongs to Russia.
Putin is absolutely not thinking about the point where he will cry uncle and give in to "The New World Order" as he referred to it a few days ago.
For Putin, this is a matter of principle and he will do everything to defend it.......especially because he feels its a defensive posture.
That's exactly why he piled up all those nuclear weapons. For situations just like this.
We shouldn't be asking ourselves the question "Will Putin use his nuclear weapons? because he will.
The question should be, "How far can he be pushed before he uses them"
If we think that we know and try to push him to the brink because we are representing good and he is evil....... but are off just a bit and he gets pushed just past that..........we will wish the situation could be rewound to where we are today, to re-calibrate the risks and change the strategy.
But it will be too late and instead of thousands dead....it could be many millions.
Of course Putin knows this and is smart enough to know that it would also wreck Russia and would never go down that path.
You can convince yourself of that. I think there's an impossible to calculate chance that he would do this and we can never embrace/understand his mindset accurately.
If this were a chess game, it would have to feature your opponent having more than just the chess pieces on the board. It would be somebody unpredictable that when losing in the past, was known to refuse to follow the chess rules and would even turn the chess board upside down in anger/frustration rather than let his opponent beat him on the chess board using Chess Federation rules.
This is Putin.
And this is NOT rated chess using rules that both sides agree too.
Even a 1% chance that he could unleash nuclear weapons because he perceives that he's being attacked is 100 times too high to take.
I actually think that under the wrong circumstances, the chances are in the double digits of him going nuclear.
This is exactly why we don't want countries to get nuclear weapons. When they have rogue dictators that will do extreme things to keep power........they could use them.
This is exactly why Putin piled up the nuclear weapons.
What is it that isn't crystal clear applying to Putin right now?
Yes, there is extreme evil in the world and sometimes........we have to let them win a little bit if the consequences of enforcing OUR RULES might be 10,000 timesd more costly.
If somebody robs you at gunpoint, you call the cops and report the crime.
They find the person, arrest them and they go to jail.
When Putin commits a crime.......it doesn't go that way. He is the police for Russia and Ukraine.
We can say......."Putin, we are the GLOBAL police and we will not allow this" to which he can say..........."screw you, this is Russia, you don't tell me what to do".
And he is right. Not right ethically or morally but right that no matter how wrong we know that he is...........he is right about calling the shots for Russia/Ukraine.
metmike: They don't know. Stop pretending.
New deployments risk undoing years of nonproliferation progress.
Suddenly, the “unthinkable” is unfolding before our eyes. This is how a regional conflict turns into a global nightmare.
A good summation of nuclear weapons’ conventional wisdom for decades has been: trust that cooler heads will prevail. In the past, leaders of European countries shrugged their shoulders as Nobel-winning organizations, like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations, warned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences and increasing risks of nuclear weapons use.
We are now seeing that it is not a gamble we should be taking with the fate of the world. To put this all in context, new deployments of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe could station U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons closer than at any time in history. This would not be a second Cuban Missile Crisis but a far more volatile situation.
Russia has the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons with a 6257-strong fleet which include 527 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.
ICBMs can get up to a top speed of four miles per second in about ten minutes after launch, meaning the weapons could potentially reach the UK from Russia within 20 minutes.
metmike: But we don't have to worry (-: many of the experts, that can read Putin's mind tell us that he won't be using nuclear weapons. After all, you would have to be some sort of crazy, nationalist dictator, with a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, that felt their country was under attack to do something like this (-:
OF COURSE he could do it! This is one situation that COULD lead to that.
He probably won't do it but before this conflict, we could confidently say there was almost no chance. We can't say that anymore.
The propaganda on this goes both ways.
I don't want to appear to defend Putin, which is what happens when I point out all the propaganda from the West.
The West doesn't want us to fear Putin's potential use of nuclear weapons!
Why is that?
Because that's exactly what Putin wants. It gives him power. Instilling fear into billions of people that he will go nuclear will cause them to want us to BACK OFF on Russia.
Should we back off to lessen his threats to go nuclear?
1. If we back off, then we will never know how serious he really was.......but we don't get to maximize the pain and suffering to his country as punishment for behaving this way.
2. If we tighten the screws and maximize the pain and suffering.........we get to find out how serious those threats are. Unless he suddenly has some sort of miraculous metamorphose and says "OK, I'll do what you want me to do".....if we increase the pain/damages to him, he WILL see that as an attack and the nuclear threats WILL elevate because that's the only powerful thing that he has to match the threats from the West and negotiate.
Then we get to play a game of chicken.
It could end up with the West, getting him to sign some sort of nuclear arms agreement and ends up giving in to some of his Ukraine demands to prevent a nuclear war.......after the West, suddenly realizes DANG HE REALLY IS GOING NUCLEAR!!!!
Yeah, Putin knows this too. That's why he might go nuclear.
seems to me that Russia gets nearly 1/2 its economy from energy and wheat. Why can't the libs give up their fake environmental/global warming agenda for the good of the world and esp America. We need to pump crude like never before and drown those bastards til crude dips lower than 50 dollars. It would end a lot of evil going on right now.
Here's one way to reduce evil right here in our own country that we can actually control(controlling Putin may not be possible).
Get this evil person as far away from anything that matters.
Give him zero support, even if he has some good ideas. Shun him in every way possible.
Hold him 100% responsible for what he did after the 2020 election, especially on Janurary 6, 2021 even if the mentality that he manufactured, still exists in the minds of tens of millions of republicans and we can't prosecute him for the astronomical damage inflicted that remains more than a year AFTER 1-6-21.
State Department Addresses Trump's Praise of Putin: 'I Have No Words'
On Tuesday, Trump celebrated Putin's aggression against Ukraine as "genius" and "wonderful," lauding Putin as "tough" and patriotic while speaking on the conservative talk radio program The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.
metmike: There are dozens of stories with this exact title out there.
I have always agreed with the position of not poking the bear (Russia).
Having said that, I do believe in the justness of self government (democracy).
I recognize that those 2 statements are somewhat of a contradiction.
Putin has said that the dissolution of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Think about that for a minute. 50 million people died in WWII but the dissolution of the communist dictatorship was the biggest tragedy.
If Putin were to stop at annexing eastern Ukraine by force and the West were to stop at "measured sanctions" in response, I suppose that would be the best outcome at this point.
But what if Putin actually wants to recreate the USSR? He believes it is Russia's neighborhood. Poland? Sorry, we can't help you. What then?
And what about internal opinion in Russia. Up until the invasion Putin had majority support. But early indicators are that everyone (except state run media) is baffled by Putin attacking "brotherly Ukraine". Does that internal dissent mean anything? Or shall we not take that into consideration.
As for the nuclear weapons, I am less worried than you but I concede that it should be on our radar. When it comes to nukes I've always been more worried about Jihadists who have a suicidal streak in their mission than I worry about dictators, who want to die comfortably in their old age. Unless Putin is even less stable than I realize, I don't think we are heading down that path.
Thanks for some solid thoughts and mentions of many different elements that I'd not thought of and don't get mentioned but are very important to dial into the big picture thinking.
Shows how complicated this is.
I agree with everything.
On the risk of nuclear, maybe I'm giving it so much analysis that it appears that I think its likely.
Under the right/wrong conditions, I think the chance could go well above 10%.
Right now, just to assign an extremely wild guess, to understand my thinking.......not represent reality, I might say 1%.
When people do things, if there's a 99% chance against a 1% chance, you'll make the choice that has the 99% probability.
People that do sports betting will understand my thinking on this.
If we have 100 to 1 odds for an event, it's worth risking $1 to place a bet on it. It's a risk/reward sort of thing.
On Ukraine, the risk/reward is a bit more complicated and unknown.
The hoped for reward can take several different forms.
1. Contain Putin further............seems plausible but we don't really know where he plans to go next.
2. If this is all he wants and he is never going to relinquish, no matter what, sanctions will do nothing, the rewards are near 0.
3. If he has more in mind but is waiting to see how much resistance there is......the rewards might be very worth it. This seems to be what everybody wants to assume but we really don't know.
4. He could give up some things that he already has in Ukraine after he takes it over. This is what everybody hopes for that make sanctions worthwhile but realistically, many people know that it will be tough to ever get Putin to actually give in. I think that realistically, he could give up some elements of Ukraine if it includes them NEVER joining NATO and other things that involve the interests of Russia.
5. On the risk element, which can take several forms but the most extreme one involves nuclear weapons. The worst case scenario, which seem like a long shot in most minds would be a nuclear apocalypse. Putin did what he's doing because he totally knew he could do it. And he was right. So he loses thousands of soldiers and turns the world even more against him. Hey, now we're suddenly thinking about the risk/reward for Putin, not just the West..................which is what this is really all about.
6. A total nuclear war, as we all have been told, assures mutual destruction of both sides. Putin would have nothing in the end, so he will avoid it at any cost. My point is that if sanctions intentionally push Putin closer to feeling that his current rewards are close to nothing because the West is taking everything away from him, potential destruction doesn't look as bad to him...........because HE HAS LESS TO LOSE!
7. Getting back to the West's risk/rewards. Mutual destruction for the West is likely to be much MUCH MUCH worse because the West isn't likely going to obliterate innocent people in Russia to defend the interests of Ukraine without considering the damage to innocent lives seriously but Putin, wouldn't hesitate to kill unlimited innocent people, anywhere if it advanced his interests.
8. If you disable his ability to maintain interests using his non nuclear vehicles, he could use his last resort, the one that everybody, everywhere recognizes him the most powerful with.......nuclear weapons.
9. The harder we push, the more likely he will be to go there. This correlation is irrefutable. The only area that people disagree on..........and it has a massive/wide range........is how far does Putin get pushed before some legit nuclear threats are right around the corner or imminent unless the West pulls back.
“Finland and Sweden should not base their security on damaging the security of other countries and their accession to NATO can have detrimental consequences and face some military and political consequences,” Zakharova said in a viral clip of a press conference."
metmike: This is what it's really about!
A majority of Americans polled - 59 percent - also said they believed that the Russian president moved on Ukraine because Putin saw weakness in President Biden, while 41 percent said that it was not a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
It's very unlikely that Putin would have done this under Trump but nobody understands what's really going on and the reason is the complete opposite of what everybody thinks.
It's because of Biden's strength!!!
That's exactly right. The day he became president, he signed the US back up with the Climate Accord and vowed to be the leader of it's agenda to obliterate fossil fuels, Russia's life blood, especially the economy-they are #1-natural gas, #2-coal and #8-crudg oil.
The UN and NATO are absolutely tied to this objective and Biden is taking a leadership role in all those entities..........while Trump trashed them.
Trump was vehemently AGAINST the climate accord and its mission to destroy fossil fuels. His position had ZERO to do with Russia but it is the exact same view as Russia and China(countries that WILL benefit the most from the fake climate crisis/climate optimum that is resulting from the increase in the building block for life, CO2 that's greening up the planet).
If everything was exactly the same....except Biden also opposed the Climate Accord/NATO/UN, making them very unlikely to success............Putin would not have felt nearly as threatened about the declared war on the fossil fuel that are the life blood of his country.
OR, if Trump had Bidens position on the Climate Accord/UN/NATO, then he still probably would have done this.
NATO only just survived the presidency of Donald Trump. Once in office, Trump—who had distinguished himself from virtually all US presidents since the Second World War in his active hostility towards the alliance during the presidential campaign—repeatedly toyed with the idea of withdrawing from NATO, and was on the verge of doing so publicly at the 2018 NATO summit.1 But while the president withdrew the United States from the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Paris Climate Agreement and UNESCO, and undermined the WTO, WHO, UN Refugee Agency and Green Climate Fund from within, he eventually changed his public position on NATO in 2019. In his State of the Union speech in February, he described his tentative change of mind: ‘For years, the United States was being treated very unfairly by NATO—but now we have secured a $100 billion increase in defence spending from NATO allies’; and at the London leaders' meeting in December, he declared that ‘NATO serves a great purpose’.2
Given that the United States is the de facto indispensable power within the alliance, the intuitive explanation for NATO's survival would be that it successfully adapted to Trump's demands. However, the empirical record suggests that NATO only partially adapted to Trump's demands for greater transatlantic burden-sharing and resisted his calls for closer relations with Russia. Two specific questions therefore emerge. First, why did Trump change his stance on transatlantic burden-sharing, even though increases in allied defence spending remained significantly below his demands? Second, why did the United States go so far as to reinforce NATO's defence and deterrence posture vis-à-vis Russia, despite Trump's calls to the contrary?
But NATO is more than a narrow military alliance held together by common threat perceptions: it is a security organization, undergirded by strong institutions, interdependencies and shared foundational values.10 Indeed, recent contributions to the scholarship affirm the growing importance of NATO senior officials,11 echoing an emerging wider research agenda on the significance of secretariats in fending off contestation.
This is the first time that scientists from Ukraine are involved in an IPCC report as lead authors, Politico reported.
One of the departing Ukrainian scientists told Chloé Farand, a senior reporter for Climate Home News, that "we need to think about [the] safety of our families and it is not possible to concentrate on the wording of the summary for policymakers under attack and bombing," Farand tweeted on Friday (Feb. 25).
According to the prior IPCC report released in August 2021, global climate change is "widespread, rapid and intensifying," with Earth experiencing climate disruptions that are unprecedented in thousands of years — and the role of humans in driving these changes is "unequivocal,"
The upcoming IPCC report is gleaned from more than 34,000 scientific publications and over 62,000 review comments; and it is authored by 270 scientists representing dozens of countries, IPCC representatives said in a statement. This is the first time that scientists from Ukraine are involved in an IPCC report as lead authors, Politico reported.
While the earlier report in 2021 outlined evidence of recent climate change and predictions for how that will continue to reshape our world in the coming decades, the upcoming report will focus on pinpointing critical ways in which human communities and natural ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change, and will outline options for mitigation and adaptation, according to the IPCC"
metmike: So they can't go to safety and use the stored information on their computers and in their heads???
I don't buy it. They dang well know what this war is about (the fake climate crisis and fossil fuels) and that Putin will put a price on their heads for playing a role as lead authors in the war against Russia's life blood!!!!
I don't care if there are a million scientists in the report, claiming that we are having a climate crisis. This independent, objective atmospheric scientist knows that its a climate OPTIMUM, greening up the planet because I HAVE THE DATA!
Yes, we've had 1 deg C of global warming, mainly in the coldest places and heavier rains because +1 deg. C air can hold +7% more moisture. But most of the changes have been beneficial to life. The planet is greening up NOT dying.
Climate Reality discussions
15 responses |
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
However, despite the climate OPTIMUM for life, we ARE killing the planet in many other ways:
The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources(metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019
The war in Ukraine would NOT be happening if there was no war on fossil fuels (Russia's life blood) by the UN/NATO/IPCC and the Climate Accord!
It could very well be that Putin had already justified this in his head for all the reasons we hear about and this was the straw that broke the camels back but the reality is..........it's the only actual reason compared to the other ones that is scientifically and global energy market justified.
What does that mean?
It means that in a just/honest world, Putin could actually show how his country is being victimized by the war on fossil fuels because of a fake climate crisis that is actually wrecking the planet with environmentally damaging fake green energy.
Fossil fuels are the greatest green energy source in history..........by a wide margin.
Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!
11 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
However, can you imagine if that was his actual public position? That he's doing this to destroy the planet with fossil fuels because they enrich Russia? That IS his position............except THAT interpretation we would hear would have one thing completely backward........ fossil fuels are not destroying but are greening up the planet and the greatest gift to life(CO2 is the building block for life) that humans have ever given our planet. The optimal level for life is around 900 parts per million.....more than double this.
We rescued life from dangerously LOW levels of CO2!
You can take your bazillion scientists stating otherwise. I'll stick to the data, science, evidence and truth.
Optimal CO2 for life more than double current level: See the proof with thousands of studies. Showing Scientific American.....and mainstream science sold to us........ to be wrong about plants and the affects from Climate Change. December 2020