re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

guess I should max out my credit cards and buy bitcoin.


Definitely do the later since that’s untouchable. I know I have invested a significant portion of my worth into it.

---

Crypto is banned in 8 countries.

And I could definitely see a "Much Greener Newer Deal" banning crypto mining because of unnecessary energy usage.

quote:

---

Supplying fighter aircraft, possibly armed taking off from a NATO country will 100% be considered an act of war and will likely trigger a response that is reasonably justified.

---

“Declarations of war” are always in the eye or the beholder to some degree, I’ll admit. But there are established precedents for why arms shipments are not *usually* considered unofficial declarations of war. (Eg, Lend-lease under FDR. Obviously, Hitler didn’t consider arms shipments to UK as worthy of stirring up trouble by declaring war on the United States...although, there was a tacit understanding that once a ship made it into the Atlantic, all bets were off for the safety of the ships from the U-boats. Obviously, Putin has already signaled his side’s belief that these arms shipments are permitted as no NATO countries in along the publicly acknowledged shipment corridor has been attacked.)

And why is there this tacit agreement? Because without it, warfare can spiral out of control. Are we going to start interpreting financial aid to certain countries in the middle of a war as overt involvement? How about fuel supplies? Diplomatic support?

It’s a tricky dance. But it seems for right now that Putin is operating sanely and that he won’t declare war on NATO for the mere shipment of arms.

(Hitler didn’t even declare war on the US until forced to by the action of an ally. He conceivably would never have done so.)

quote:

---

What I am hearing is nonsensical, and can’t be right, must be a error or something. Not repeating it, thought maybe something online could shed some light on it but nothing.

Sorry for asking, must be bad info

---

Go masturbate somewhere else.

quote:

---

Crypto is banned in 8 countries

---

Why can’t the US do a “training exercise” in UKraine and bomb a 40 mile highway? With their approval.

quote:

---

“Declarations of war” are always in the eye or the beholder to some degree, I’ll admit. But there are established precedents for why arms shipments are not *usually* considered unofficial declarations of war. (Eg, Lend-lease under FDR. Obviously, Hitler didn’t consider arms shipments to UK as worthy of stirring up trouble by declaring war on the United States...although, there was a tacit understanding that once a ship made it into the Atlantic, all bets were off for the safety of the ships from the U-boats. Obviously, Putin has already signaled his side’s belief that these arms shipments are permitted as no NATO countries in along the publicly acknowledged shipment corridor has been attacked.)

And why is there this tacit agreement? Because without it, warfare can spiral out of control. Are we going to start interpreting financial aid to certain countries in the middle of a war as overt involvement? How about fuel supplies? Diplomatic support?

It’s a tricky dance. But it seems for right now that Putin is operating sanely and that he won’t declare war on NATO for the mere shipment of arms.

---

Were talking about flying 75 (IIRC) fighter jets from NATO bases to Ukraine. That's a pretty overt act no matter which way you want to spin it in your head. Y'all are trying to wiggle your way out of this, but this is the type of stuff y'all have been advocating for.

quote:

---

Why can’t the US do a “training exercise” in UKraine and bomb a 40 mile highway? With their approval.

---

This is where the established precedents for the rules of war governing the behavior of ostensibly neutral countries breakdown. If these are actual armed weapons, whether flown by NATO personnel or flown by Ukrainian personnel flying out of NATO airspace, at that point, participation is in effect and there is zero doubt that Putin would declare it an act of war.

quote:

---

Were talking about flying 75 (IIRC) fighter jets from NATO bases to Ukraine.

---

And I’ve said on at least 5 occasions during the course of this thread that I don’t see how these jets could fly into Ukraine from NATO airspace without it being a crystal-clear, night and day, overt action by NATO establishing themselves as participants.

I'm just confused as to why the people who have been screaming about how NATO needs to go kinetic are now sheepish about doing exactly that.

If they really want that, then what does it matter if we send Migs or AA batteries or troops or multicam track suits?

quote:

---

And I’ve said on at least 5 occasions during the course of this thread that I don’t see how these jets could fly into Ukraine from NATO airspace without it being a crystal-clear, night and day, overt action by NATO establishing themselves as participants.

---

You don't support giving them those necessary and much needed fighter jets?