The War in Europe

Sure you have. So you're back to this again. Just double down on the error. Your phrasing is a little ambiguous, so I'll state that I'm assuming you still mean that Russia would be committing suicide if it were to attack a NATO member. The question is what you mean by suicide, which you go on to clarify: So if Putin loses a war to NATO, that's akin to suicide for Russia? Okay, sure, if it turns into a battlefield war. So if Russia loses many soldiers in battle, that's akin to suicide for Russia? They've already lost a higher percentage of their army in Ukraine than were lost by the allies at the Battle of Normandy. Since obviously they haven't committed suicide yet, how many more soldiers are you thinking they have to lose for it to be suicide for Russia? Most likely? Curious. Anyway, this would indeed be a dire outcome, for the entire world. The analog is not suicide but a suicide bomber. So if Putin falls out of power, that's akin to suicide for Russia?No possibilities that end short of something akin to suicide for Russia?No diplomatic possibilities?Weren't you arguing just before for something far short of suicide for Russia, such as this from your Message 546:

quote:

---

Any attack on a NATO country would result in NATO defending that country using whatever force necessary to stop the attack succeeding.

---

I thought we were in agreement when you said this, but now you're back to (paraphrasing), "Russia would be committing suicide if they invaded a NATO country." I don't get you.--Percy

I stand by my position that you substitute mockery for substance and make claims unsupported by facts.--Percy

OK, but standing off to the side watching, you guys all seem to agree on all the principals at play here regarding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Except how NATO will respond to an attack against a member state. NATO has never fought a war with the Soviet Union or Russia and after the Trump anomaly many wonder if the US, NATO's strongest member, can be counted on to help protect Europe, or if any members will risk nuclear annihilation...After dozens of posts in this subthread, there does not seem to be a better understanding of what any of you are saying. There just seems to be increasing acrimony. Maybe it's time to give it a rest...Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Because they know how to use it. A new MBT M1 Abrams would take months to train. Not fight, but the big part, maintain. The Ukes already have plenty of spare parts for russian tanks laying all up and down their roads.

When is the line crossed? What do we do? I have no answers. Just outrage right now.

Tanypteryx writes: Well, I would hope that the US and all of NATO would be united in defending Ukraine here, even if they are not an official NATO member yet, same as if they were Estonia or even Poland.A problem would be how to counter the lies Putin has been telling his people via his news media. It is difficult to convince people they've been lied to. That is another reason for using language carefully here or anywhere.

There are calls to expel the Russian Orthodox Church from the World Council of Churches.

quote:

---

A growing number of global Christian leaders, including Pope Francis, Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and General Secretary Ioan Sauca of the World Council of Churches, has appealed to the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, to use his office to persuade Vladimir Putin to end his war against the Ukrainian people.

​

However, because Kirill hasn’t followed their counsel, some are going a step further, urging the WCC to expel Kirill’s Moscow-based church body for acting contrary to the WCC mission of fostering Christian unity, peace and justice.

​

Kirill was initially silent as Putin’s military campaign developed on the Russian side. However, once forces crossed over into Ukraine, Kirill seemed to justify the action blatantly. In a Feb. 27 sermon, he said the move was due to the West imposing secularism on Ukraine, including a requirement for the country to accept “gay pride parades.” He also dubbed the conflict “metaphysical” in nature, arguably turning it into a religious war.

---

The World Council of Churches must act with courage and expel Kirill, Russian Orthodox ChurchI just listened to the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury - a kind of pope for the Anglicans - arguing quite strongly that Kirill was promoting religious nationalism and supporting the regime and the war.

I hope so too. I was stunned by Trump's pro Putin anti-NATO bullshit. Propaganda endangers all of us. It has rotted the brains of 75+ million Americans.

This war is, of course, top of the news here pretty much everyday being in our backyard, is it the same in the US?

I don't seem able to muster the strength of will necessary to ignore being mocked and called names while merely trying to figure out what some people actually mean. That you don't perceive the seriousness implies some cognitive lack on your part.I of course did not mean that last sentence. It's there to give you that pulse of anger and resentment that most people experience when unjustly attacked for no reason. When given that jolt multiple times it tends to make one strongly reluctant to "give it a rest."Back in the days when there was moderation the name calling would have been noted and cautioned. In the absence of such restraints it's being used now to deflect and blunt and obfuscate serious points while abusing the person making those points. No, I can't let it rest.About other's not being able to follow what Tangle, AZPaul3 and I are talking about, I can believe that. It's very difficult to follow any discussion where one or more parties are using Red Queen style arguments.--Percy

Did the Allies attack Germany?Did the Allies invade Germany?

Let's say we have a town under attack by Russian forces, call it Bucha, that is defending itself by firing on tanks, transport vehicles, supply depots, etc., that they happen to be able to spot from within the town. What impression would it create in your mind if you saw a news report that read, "Forces in Bucha today attacked Russian forces outside the town."Now let's say we have a different town under attack by Russian forces, call it Irpin, which mounts an offensive consisting of troops, tanks, etc., to try to break through Russian lines and end the Russian hold on their town. What impression would it create in your mind if you saw a report that read, ""Forces in Irpin today attacked Russian forces outside the town."Exact same wording employing the word "attack" without qualifiers that describes completely different realities. See the problem now? I can only guess that we're looking at this at different levels of detail.--Percy

I don't know who this is addressed to, and there's no explanatory text so I'm not sure what interpretation to take, but in this context I would ask the question of whether the Luftwaffe was under British attack during the blitz? What impression would it create in most people's mind if they read, "Last night the British armed forces carried out an attack on the German Luftwaffe in the skies over London. The attack destroyed an astounding 4 German bombers while only 900 British citizens lost their lives and only 250 houses were destroyed."I've been trying to poke through the veil of ambiguity employed by some to claim that their words mean whatever they need them to mean at the time, that their meaning was obvious all along, and anyone who sees a problem is lacking in some way that at times they've been fairly specific about. We've seen recently that these people possess the ability to express themselves clearly and thoughtfully and unambiguously, it's just that in instances when they haven't they lack the ability to say, "I wasn't sufficiently clear. What I actually meant was...," or even "I thought I was very clear, but to make it even more clear let me add..."What I usually get is the Trumpian tactic of doubling down on the error and repeating it.--Percy

My answer?Yes, the Luftwaffe was under British attack during the blitz. In fact, the RAF primary goal was to attack the incoming German planes before they could get across the coast and the British spent lots of money and effort creating the infrastructure that allowed them to attack incoming German planes.AbE:The post was directed at everyone that has been in the discussion.The goal is to provide short simple words that each participant can define.Once they answer 'yes' or 'no' they can then elaborate on what THEY are saying rather than trying to guess what others might be saying.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Make yourself look at the pictures and videos coming out. We cannot understand the horror unless we see it with our own eyes.Evgeny Finkel is a political scientist and historian at Johns Hopkins University. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in political science and international relations from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a PhD in political science from University of Wisconsin-Madison. Edited by Theodoric, : Subtitle