The War in Europe

Why the fuck are you guys arguing about this inane bullshit?

Beats me, I've given up.

Yes. We agree now that a Russian attack on a NATO country would not mean suicide for Russia.But about this: But you did change something. You originally said it would mean suicide for Russia, and what you're describing now is much more measured and doesn't in any way imply that an attack on a NATO country would be a suicidal action. You can't say now that you never meant suicide for Russia because you very clearly did. I quoted you saying it would mean suicide for Russia. What were you imagining the NATO response to be when you said Russia would be committing suicide? What impression did you think saying it would mean suicide would create in other people's minds? If it isn't obvious to you that "suicide" strongly suggests that Russia would not survive as a country or if it survived then it would be as a much diminished country, and that that could only happen through invasion (leaving the nuclear option aside), then that's a problem with language that would explain your proclivity for ambiguity.--Percy

Tanypterix asks because, as I said in Message 558
and i also said in that reply - which is where my sins cast upon one side or the other came from.

Percy I have changed nothing.An attack by Russia on NATO WOULD be suicide. It would either end in Putin's defeat and many deaths or WW111/III/3 - most likely the latter, unless there was a palace coup..But I'm done arguing silly word games.

Yeah, I get it. I just hate seeing people I respect engaging in pointless squabbles...

Yes. Not to the rest of us.

Because we were attacked by Percy and we need to defend ourselves by attacking his castle in turn.Or something like that.

I was just listening to a retired high-ranking military guy commenting on the current situation.Ukraine has fought off the invasion of Kyiv and the Russians are retreating. Ukraine has taken back 30 towns and the airport.The new strategic battle is about whether Putin can regroup to chop off the East of Ukraine.The general thought that there was now an opportunity for the West. If it armed Ukraine with longer range missiles and artillery, heavy tanks and more offensive weaponry there is a chance that it could push Russia back out of Ukraine.He believed that the West has to stand up to Putin now and be prepared to risk retaliation. Whether the West has the balls to take the risk is question, though there's rumours of Biden sending Russian made tanks that the Ukrainians know how to use.

quote:

---

The Biden administration will work with allies to transfer Soviet-made tanks to bolster Ukrainian defenses in the country’s eastern Donbas region, a U.S. official said on Friday.

​

The decision to act as an intermediary to help transfer the Soviet-made tanks, which Ukrainian troops know how to use, comes in response to a request from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the official said. It marks the first time in the war that the United States has helped transfer tanks.

​

The official said the transfers would begin soon, but declined to say how many tanks would be sent, or from which countries they would come. They will allow Ukraine to conduct long-range artillery strikes on Russian targets in Donbas, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

---

U.S. Will Help Transfer Soviet-Made Tanks to Ukraine - The New York TimesEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I can't access your New York times link, but where are they getting Russian made tanks? Russian tanks look like they are crap. It seems like, sooner or later the Ukrainians are going to ask why we sent them crap instead of stuff that works.

Hopefully replying to this will be a positive step toward helping you see the ambiguity: By this definition, any use of military hardware is an attack. Now you need to distinguish between defensive attacks and offensive attacks. Since you never used these modifiers or any similar ones, your use of the word attack was ambiguous.But of course, once you used the word "suicide" it removed much ambiguity. Russia committing a suicidal attack on a NATO country could only mean that the NATO response would be an aggressively offensive attack intended to wipe out Russia as a nation or at least diminish it greatly. I've already said that with the inclusion of the "suicide" qualifier that it's not ambiguous, but it doesn't mean the same thing, either. It changes your argument while you simultaneously claim you haven't changed your argument. Yes, I know, I just said something like this in a recent message. In firing on attackers the defenders are themselves attacking, perhaps even while in full retreat. Without qualifiers, the word "attack" can lead to a lot of ambiguity, and you mostly use it without qualifiers. You've already used it to mean a variety of things, among them both attacking Russia in a defensive way to halt an invasion, and attacking Russia in an offensive way to wipe it out as a nation. Yes, of course, but when you use "attack" in conjunction with achieving Russia's "suicide by attacking a NATO country" it means a lot more. It's dissembling to imply that it really means the defensively oriented measures I just quoted you describing.I understand that if you succeed in arguing that the "suicide" qualifier doesn't change the meaning that therefore you weren't wrong, but it's pretty hard to add or remove "suicide" without changing the meaning.--Percy

I don't know why I can see it - I'm not a subscriber, but here's the full storyNo idea where the tanks are coming from and if I did, I wouldn't tell you. The Ruskies do have some cool shit too - they just don't seem to be terribly good at using it at the moment.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration will work with allies to transfer Soviet-made tanks to bolster Ukrainian defenses in the country’s eastern Donbas region, a U.S. official said on Friday.

​

The decision to act as an intermediary to help transfer the Soviet-made tanks, which Ukrainian troops know how to use, comes in response to a request from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the official said. It marks the first time in the war that the United States has helped transfer tanks.

​

The official said the transfers would begin soon, but declined to say how many tanks would be sent, or from which countries they would come. They will allow Ukraine to conduct long-range artillery strikes on Russian targets in Donbas, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

​

The tanks’ arrival could be another signal of a new phase in the war, which is five weeks old and has been dominated by Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities and installations from the air, and a stalled Russian advance on the ground. Earlier this week, Russian officials indicated that they were refocusing their efforts on eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting Ukrainian soldiers since 2014.
Mr. Zelensky called on Sunday for NATO allies to provide tanks and planes, in addition to the antitank and antiaircraft weaponry that have become a staple of the arms transfers to Ukraine from the West. Frustrated at what he views as a slow pace of weapons transfers, Mr. Zelensky asked specifically for tanks, in remarks a day after President Biden met with senior Ukrainian officials in Poland.

​

An angry Mr. Zelensky criticized the West for what he called its “Ping-Pong” about weapons transfers. “I’ve talked to the defenders of Mariupol today,” he said, in a reference to the besieged city that has been under an onslaught from Russia for four weeks. “If only those who have been thinking for 31 days on how to hand over dozens of jets and tanks had 1 percent of their courage.”

​

Dig deeper into the moment.
Special offer: Subscribe for $1 a week.
In the past, the Biden administration has taken pains to call the weapons it is providing to Ukraine defensive, and has focused on smaller, easily portable arms. But as the war has progressed, the definition of defensive has become more elastic.

​

Ukraine had already found one source of tanks, capturing at least 161 from Russia on the battlefield, according to the military analysis site Oryx, though Russia has also destroyed a number of Ukrainian tanks. For its part, Russia has captured 43 Ukrainian tanks, according to analysts who study photos and videos on social media.

​

The decision to help transfer the tanks comes as the Ukrainian military has continued to turn back Russia’s ground advance. Pentagon officials have been quick to point out that Russia’s pivot to Donbas and away from capturing Kyiv, the capital, might be a necessity for Moscow after Russian forces stalled out in the central part of the country.

​

On Wednesday, Biden administration officials, citing declassified U.S. intelligence, said that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had been misinformed by his advisers about the Russian military’s problems in Ukraine. The intelligence, American officials said, also showed what appeared to be growing tension between Mr. Putin and his defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, who was once among the most trusted members of the Kremlin’s inner circle.

​

Russian officials have disputed the allegations, with the Kremlin on Thursday calling it a “complete misunderstanding” of the situation that could have “bad consequences.”

---

Thanks.NYT says I have to pay, but I hardly ever pay for subscriptions after the freebies.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Let's quote a bit more of what I said. The part I added that wasn't in your message is in italics: Your response boils down to, "You're wrong," which tells me nothing. Please explain how I am wrong. It seems pretty clear to me that a suicidal attack by Russia on NATO means that the consequences for Russia must be pretty dire. It isn't like "suicide" in this context contains much ambiguity. I mean, it contains a little ambiguity of course. Does "suicide" mean Russia ceases as a nation? Or does it mean Russia survives as a much diminished nation? Or does it mean its government and institutions are replaced in a way similar to Japan after WWII? But achieving outcomes like these all require invading and defeating Russia, something Tangle is now denying he ever meant. There's nothing wrong with the word "attack." What's wrong is using it ambiguously. Tangle's effort to equate two opposite interpretations of his use of the word make clear the ambiguity. First he used attack in conjunction with suicide, then when he saw that was untenable he stopped saying suicide while claiming he still meant the same thing. Again, I have no problem with the word attack. Language is infinitely flexible. Tangle could have said the exact same thing with the exact same amount of ambiguity using other words.The real problem is with ambiguity, which Tangle is attempting to use to obfuscate that he ever argued contradictorily.--Percy

There's a principle involved, that lies and misrepresentation should be called out because of the importance that people's thinking be informed by what is true. Times like these emphasize for us just how important this principle is. That you're asking this question tells us just how much it's been compromised, and how easy it is for the Trumpian approach of "never admit error" to succeed.This subthread isn't an issue of national importance, it's just a bulletin board discussion, but the principle still holds.--Percy