The War in Europe

Rather extreem reaction to semantics..

quote:

---

Well, to put it politely, BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!

​

You are DEAD WRONG there, my friend. You even used the term "aggressor", so you know the difference.

---

I'll put it down to a cock-up.

Tangle, that second quote was not from me.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Tangle continues: Correctimondo! Russia INVADED Ukraine, not the other way around. When you write NATO must ATTACK Russia in the case of NATO's Rule 5, most of the English-speaking world sees that as "NATO must INVADE Russia", not "DEFEND the country ATTACKED".In Message 477 you write just change that to: The main difference is that war crimes are not used when defending a country, but bombing hospitals and other innocent civilians can be part of being the aggressor. See Hitler, see our travesty of Vietnam, Cambodia and so on.Yes, it is semantics. But they are VERY important here. Right now it is important that the whole world sees Putin as an evil man and any sins cast upon Ukraine will compromise that effort.And I am sorry I got dragged into this mud-slinging....Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

Edited by xongsmith, : oh well...

I doubt anyone in the English speaking world - or any other world - thinks you can defend yourself against an attacker invading your country with tanks, missiles, artillery and bombs without attacking them. But if you need to leave that word unsaid - fine, I suppose.

Soz!

I assume you had a couple of pints and your eyes were floating. Next time I get to buy.

Ukraine attacks Russia in RussiaWar in Ukraine: Russia accuses Ukraine of attacking oil depotWar in Ukraine: Russia accuses Ukraine of attacking oil depot - BBC News

Used to be called "crossing the Yalu." More recently, "a line in the sand."

Translation: I'm about to state a different position but in a way that suggests this is the way I've been stating it all along. It's close enough to what I've been saying that it's not worth getting into the differences, but you worked very hard for a long while to make it far from obvious that you actually believe pretty much the same thing I do. It's nowhere close to what you had been saying unless you take advantage of the ambiguity you like so much to claim that this is really what you meant all along. What you actually said, quoting your words from several messages, was this:

quote:

---

Of course it doesn't - Russia attacking a NATO member before, now or in the future would be suicide. That's the entire point of NATO.
...
If Russia invaded Estonia NATO would be forced to attack Russia.
...
Just so you get the idea, let's say that the Ukraine had been a NATO member can you imagine ANY scenario where NATO would not physically retaliate by attacking Russia?

---

--Percy

I still have no idea what your objection to what I was saying was Percy, I haven't changed anything.You seemed to be nit-picking trivia whilst missing the only point I was trying to make - that if a NATO member was invaded by Russia it would be forced to attack the Russian invading forces both on their own and in all likelihood on Russian territory too.But as you've now agreed with me, I guess it's moot.

To me the problem isn't your use of the word "aggressor." It's your use of the word "attack" in ambiguous ways according to context. Ukraine could attack a Russian fuel depot outside of Kyiv that's fueling Russian tanks used for the Ukrainian invasion, or in Belgorod, Russia, that's also fueling Russian tanks used for the Ukrainian invasion . Diplomatically Russia can raise a bigger row over the latter than the former, but few would interpret either use of the word "attack" as implying that Ukraine is attacking or invading Russia the country.It would be more accurate to say that the attack on the Belgorod fuel depot, if indeed that's what it was, was a violation of Russia's sovereignty, a claim one would think Russia lost the right to make when they invaded Ukraine. I don't know the diplomatic niceties, but it would seem deeply unfair if by international rules that after Russia invaded Ukraine that Ukraine wasn't permitted any military incursions into Russia.But that use of the word "attack" is in a much different context than saying that Russia attacking any NATO nation would be suicide for Russia because it would force NATO to attack Russia. The impression this creates in most people's minds is that NATO must invade and defeat Russia. If all you really meant to say is that NATO would take whatever measures necessary to assure the safety and security of the invaded nation then we agree with you.But you did not convey that impression when you characterized a Russian attack on a NATO member as equivalent to suicide because of the ensuing NATO attack that that would force. Russia committing suicide by forcing a NATO attack can only mean invasion leading to defeat for the Russian military and a surrender by the Russian government.It's also kind of frustrating that you seem to savor employing ambiguity and confusion because it provides you opportunities to do something you seem to enjoy, forcing others to work hard at understanding your meaning while you cast ad hominem at them for how dense or literal they are, and so forth.--Percy

Here's the distinction I'd like to see. Measures intended to hinder or halt an invasion are defensive, no matter whose territory is affected, while measures associated with carrying out an invasion are offensive.I'm aware that this distinction is not without its problems. For example, one way to halt an invasion would be to bomb the invading nation's capital. Is that defensive or offensive?The problems with the word "attack" are obvious. For example, if a force is defending a town against an attacking force, when they fire on that attacking force are they attacking it? I think Tangle would say yes, and many would agree, including me. That's why the word "attack" is problematic. It should not be employed without qualifying it in some way.An example of the word "attack" being used in a defensive context appears in many articles about the Ukraine conflict. For example, Ukrainian anti-tank missiles are frequently described as "attacking" Russian tanks, and everyone knows what this means in the context of the article, but if the article were in the same paragraph to talk about a possible Ukrainian offensive attack into Russian territory, now it's using "attack" in a different context with a very different connotation. That has the potential to be very confusing.--Percy

You have no idea how grateful I am for that. An invasion by one country on another, is an attack on it.
In defending against that attack, the invaded will attack the invaders.
It's not remotely ambiguous, it's what's being played out in real time now.The invaded will attack wherever they have to inorder to defend themselves. In modern warfare that means attacking the enemy's supply lines, landing strips, launch pads, artillery that are being used to attack them wherever they happen to be, including the attackers home country if they possibly can.I'm really struggling to understand the problem here.

No, it creates that impression in your mind, erroneously.You don't like the word "attack". But that is what an aggressive defense is. Attack the opposing force regardless of what side of the border it is on.If that means staying home fighting a gorilla war around your capital then so be it. If it means marching on Moscow then so be it.If you don't like the word attack, or invasion, then use necessary military maneuver. The semantical differences are nil. And close your eyes to the border since, in war, it not longer exists.

This is practically an ideal example of your use of ambiguity to create excuses for calling people dumb when all they did was make a fairly obvious interpretation. You just claim you meant something different and call dumb those who thought anything else.In this case, as I just quoted in a recent message, you said that a Russian attack on a NATO member would force a NATO attack of Russia, which could only be an invasion to defeat their military and force their government into surrender because you called the Russian attack equivalent to suicide. Adding those comments to how you described it in Message 467 just makes this interpretation more certain:

quote:

---

My position is that NATO would crush Russia in a conventional war (and a nuclear one for that matter but then no-one wins). Russia knows this so it will not set foot in any NATO country. It would be suicide, so it's not going to happen.

---

As does how you described it in Message 471:

quote:

---

Of course it doesn't - Russia attacking a NATO member before, now or in the future would be suicide. That's the entire point of NATO.

---

While I think it's true that you never used the word "invade", the vocabulary you did use made concluding that you meant "invade" unavoidable. Language is infinitely flexible. For example, we could talk about "intercourse" all day without once using the word.But there's no need to argue anymore about what you meant and when you meant it. I think we've established that we all pretty much agree.--Percy