The War in Europe

I heard russian media saying Moskva is now the name of Russia's newest missile submarine presently undergoing sea trials in the Black Sea.

The BBC has the story on the MoskvaThe Russians aren’t explicitly saying the ship wasn’t hit by one or more missiles. But even if it was an accident, losing their flagship isn’t good for them. (And if it wasn’t it’s worse).

I explained why your opinions make no sense, and you seem unable to offer any evidence or argument in support, yet you hold them anyway. That's hard to fathom, like the people arguing that tens of thousands of votes were falsely cast. "Why do you think that?" they're asked. "How is that even possible?" There's no answer, but they think it anyway.Why do you think it would be suicide for Russia to attack a NATO country? No answer.What do you even mean by suicide? No answer.Why do you "feel very safe" in betting Finland and Sweden will be NATO members by 9/22/22 after all the reasons I gave for why this is unlikely? No answer.Why do you think no one cares what Russia wants/needs/demands anymore, even when provided the extremely recent example of their Baltic nuclear threat? No answer.And you just go on and on in this way, apparently not feeling the need to justify anything you say. This isn't a discussion to you where you muster evidence and argument in an effort to persuade, just a place to state your opinions while casting insults at people actually trying to carry on a discussion. You've said this before, also without offering any substance. I explained this at the time, but there was no answer then, either.--Percy

Yes you have said these things. What you don't seem to understand is that the fact that you say it doesn't make it correct or something that someone else need agree with.You've made your arguments, I've read and understood them, I disagree. I believe that's allowed.I'm not repeating earlier discussions

The true issue is that you don't know how discussion works. It goes like this. A discussion often starts when someone states an opinion. Someone else disagrees and explains why. If the first person disagrees then he responds and explains why. If the other person disagrees with that response then he in turn responds and explains why, and so on back and forth until resolution or impasse is reached.But you seem to think that a discussion ends once you state your opinion, even though it has little or no evidence or argument. Efforts to explore why you hold that opinion are met with deflection, taunts, insults, but not evidence and argument, i.e., not discussion. Of course it's allowed. What's missing is your explanation of why you disagree. You seem to think that casting aspersions at people explains your position. There were no earlier discussions. There was just an earlier version of this, you avoiding explaining why you hold the opinion you do. You're doing a great imitation of a creationist. EvC Forum creation/evolution discussions are littered with creationists making claims that they try and fail to defend, then when they make the claim again and are asked to defend it they say they already did that.Yes, I have an opinion, and you disagree. Why? Who knows, you won't say, but you feel free to keep repeating opinions you can't or won't defend. You've been kind enough to inform me of my many faults, but of why you hold the opinions you do? Very little.I see your message has three likes. I invite them to explain what they think I'm missing. Perhaps you're saying something of substance and I'm just missing it, so maybe if said in another voice I'll get it.--Percy

US has received a formal diplomatic note from Moscow that contains a warning about arming Ukraine. I'll quote sections of Russia warns U.S. to stop arming Ukraine:

quote:

---

Russia this week sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States warning that U.S. and NATO shipments of the “most sensitive” weapons systems to Ukraine were “adding fuel” to the conflict there and could bring “unpredictable consequences.”
...
“They have targeted supply depots in Ukraine itself, where some of these supplies have been stored,” said George Beebe, former director of Russia analysis at the CIA and Russia adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney. “The real question is do they go beyond attempting to target [the weapons] on Ukrainian territory, try to hit the supply convoys themselves and perhaps the NATO countries on the Ukrainian periphery” that serve as transfer points for the U.S. supplies.

​

If Russian forces stumble in the next phase of the war as they did in the first, “then I think the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably,” Beebe said. “There has been an assumption on the part of a lot of us in the West that we could supply the Ukrainians really without limits and not bear significant risk of retaliation from Russia,” he said. “I think the Russians want to send a message here that that’s not true.”

---

Summarizing, Russia is warning us of "unpredictable consequences" if we continue arming Ukraine with certain weapon systems, and one Russia analyst believes that attacks on NATO territory are possible.--Percy

I assume you're not taking any of this seriously?I mean, of course Russia is pissed off about it, and of course they're going to threaten all manner of stuff to achieve their ends.
But so far the West has steadily increased pressure by supplying increasingly good defensive arms and stopped short of becoming engaged itself. We need more and better arms to be supplied even faster.Putin is struggling now, just trying to roll over a single much smaller country, the very last thing he's going to do is risk engaging the big boys standing behind the small boy. Won't stop him shouting and waving his hands around though.

One issue may be that the tone of the discussion has become … bothersome. Difficult to point to many specifics, just a general emotion on my part that may be shared.Part of the rub I have is you insult the man by telling him his opinion is uninformed and without reason. Here he is awash in the constant vibe, the zeitgeist, of his society uncomfortably close to the action. You gotta know Tangle has more than a passing intellect. You gotta know his opinion is informed in ways yours and mine could not.To me this is disrespectful. He gave his opinions, including some reasoning, with which you disagree. He’s not required to write a tome of logical proofs to back it up.So now you castigate the guy for not wanting to continue to circle a bothersome, disrespectful, exchange.You gotta also know we love you, Percy, but, in this case, you are providing Tangle with less than optimal fun and he doesn't want to play with that toy anymore, so like go procreate vigorously somewhere.

Tangle Message 653Sounds like a well informed opinion backed by the perceived tone of statements by NATO and EU leaders over the last few months.

So what do you think we should change in light of this new threat?

This is actually an excellent example of what I'm talking about. The discussion has become bothersome, but it's "difficult to point to many specifics", so you don't bother pointing to any specifics at all. It's "just a general emotion...that may be shared."I need a little bit more to go on than that. People wishing I would just drop it without providing any reason of substance just makes me suspect that evasion is being employed because the position under examination is insupportable. Except that I don't. I ask for the support for that opinion and am told, in effect, to go pound sand, with taunts and insults thrown in along the way.As I already explained, Tangle hasn't provided support for his opinion. The best example of his failure to support a position is his claim that Russia attacking a NATO country is equivalent to suicide. He's argued for it, then against it outlining a position very similar to my own, and now for it again. He's also argued that it would be WW3, which possibly he's equating to world wide nuclear war, but I don't know for sure because he won't say.I've also asked what he means by suicide, thinking that possibly what he means by it is something that would render the suicide claim sensible, but he won't say what he means by it. Evasiveness always raises suspicion. The UK? 1600 miles away? Seriously? I guess they're all experiencing such angst over this that one of their major newspapers, The Telegraph, couldn't even get the Sweden/Finland thing right: "Sweden has decided to join Nato," it said. Tangle posted that Sweden and Finland had decided to join NATO as if had already happened, a done deal. I guess they're all just in such a tizzy over there they can't think straight. Totally unreasonable to expect anyone in the UK to support their claims with evidence and argument giving what they're facing. We don't know what he means because he won't tell us, so you think we should just say to ourselves, even about things that look self-evidently wrong, "Hey, Tangle's an intelligent guy, we'll just assume that whatever he means makes sense and leave it at that." I wish I could get my hands on some of this "benefit of the doubt" you're throwing around.Do you remember Fred Hoyle? I'm sure Tangle does since Fred was British. Hoyle figured out how elements are synthesized within stars. He was considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize at one point. But near the end of his life Fred took up creationism. Should we have given Fred the benefit of the doubt, told ourselves that "Fred has more than a passing intellect," and joined him on the creationist bandwagon on his say so? No, right? So why are you arguing that Tangle should be granted this privilege? Asking someone for their evidence and/or reasoning, or pointing out what you see as problems, is disrespectful? In a debate forum? Seriously? No one's asking for a "tome of logical proofs." I'm saying that nothing is not enough. He didn't include any reasoning, nor evidence, either. He said some glib "stuff" that had self-evident problems, and I described those problems. He could have replied constructively in any of several ways. For example, he could have explained the reasoning that showed it did actually make sense, or how my own reasoning was faulty, or how I was failing to take some piece of evidence into account, and so on. But he instead just reiterated his opinion without further elaboration. There's no circle, just a pile of unanswered questions on Tangle's doorstep. You know what's bothersome and disrespectful? Having your efforts to make sense of what someone's trying to say met with silence or insults. I will continue trying to make sense of what people say here, including Tangle. If Tangle's got some opinions that he considers off limits for discussion then he should keep them to himself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Yawn.

Already rebutted before you replied. Percy Message 655: We care very much about "what Russia wants/needs/demands." If we didn't we'd be much less circumspect in the assistance we provide Ukraine.--Percy

ditto

I don't think the possibility of Russian incursions into NATO territory are a new threat, and I don't think the article implied that. What it actually said was that "the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably." So not a new threat, just a more likely one now.And at the level of detail that the public is kept informed, there are no changes I could suggest. Hopefully the US and NATO are prepared for such contingencies in ways that keep them contained and do not escalate.The article does bear on one point I've been stressing, and that's where a Russia analyst and a Pentagon spokesperson speak of the possibility of Russian incursions into NATO territory in non-apocalyptic terms. They don't seem to believe that it would mean WW3 or suicide for Russia.--Percy