Bottom line: stop falling for Russia's intimidation tactics. Russia isn't actually going to touch their nuclear arsenal in this conflict.
We thought they wouldn't invade Ukraine, either. We thought they wouldn't cut Russia off from the West, wouldn't wreck their own country, wouldn't commit inhumane war crimes on a daily basis, wouldn't... But here we are, living through all of it. The only people with any sense fled Russia long ago. Now, all that's left is a bunch of idiots brainwashed by propaganda and the poor folks who have nowhere else to go and zero cash to escape. So now they're stuck choosing between starving at home or heading to the front lines. They're going to war without even knowing why, who they're fighting, or what the hell is even happening. I have never, in my entire life, seen a more pathetic group of wretches than these mobilized soldiers. I wouldn't trust them to watch a flock of sheep, let alone hold a weapon.
The takeaway: we can expect just about anything, and we should prepare to be blindsided. Putin has proven he is willing to do absolutely any disgusting thing just to feed his own narcissistic ego.
The fiasco in Ukraine is easily explained in hindsight through corruption, incompetence, and the delusional thinking of the Russian leadership. However, it should be noted that a vast majority of Western analysts and politicians also believed Ukraine would fall very quickly.
What actually occurred was a rather unusual confluence of circumstances: from an uncharacteristically swift and sharp response from the West at a very inconvenient moment, to an incredibly effective Ukrainian defense, and finally, the almost comedic ineptitude of the Russian military.
But this is different now; Russia knows the potential consequences. No nuclear scenario allows them to escape what they have stepped into. Perhaps they are still naively hoping to stabilize the front, declare the mission accomplished, and somehow dodge sanctions enough to establish additional export corridors toward Asia. A drastic escalation currently serves Russia the least.
Melissa Peterson19 said:Maybe, but they certainly won't allow the Russian Federation to collapse or let the West seize their Siberian resources. They would rather impose the harshest possible dictatorship and trigger a global nuclear catastrophe—letting everything burn if necessary—on the gamble that their massive territory will offer them some level of protection.
Nobody wants Russia to collapse. The West, especially, does not want that; they learned their lesson in America. Look at the Iraqi clusterfuck—Shiites, Sunnis, Iran, Kurds, ISIS; every minor player in the Middle East tried to carve out some state there, so Americans obsessively insisted on borders that were far more unnatural than these European ones.
A Russian collapse is an unfathomably large problem. Who would control the resource-rich territories? Who would inherit the nuclear codes? Who would ensure that nuclear, chemical, biological, and all other weaponry doesn't end up where it shouldn't? And who, exactly, would pacify the Russians, who remain the most populous nation in Europe even without their minorities?
It is a Pandora's box that absolutely nobody on this planet needs. There are resources elsewhere.
Russia definitely won't reach for nuclear weapons, for several reasons.
1. Tactical nukes aren't particularly effective against a highly mobile enemy on the 932 miles front. I guess they don't offer much more direct military impact than the conventional gear Russia already has, like FOAB or hypersonic missiles. Plus, hitting populated cities would be a massive war crime—one you can't really hide or spin as propaganda, even back home.
2. Any detection of elevated radiation levels near the NATO border would likely trigger Article 5 automatically.
3. They run the risk that NATO isn't bluffing and actually follows through with a military response.
4. The economic fallout would be devastating. If Russia faces total isolation at every level—which could include a complete naval blockade of key transit corridors like the GIUK, Dover, Denmark Strait, Bosphorus, or the Japanese archipelago—their access to warm waters and oceans would vanish. In retaliation, Ukrainians would probably just blow up any remaining pipelines. That would strip Russia of its energy profits from Europe, which accounts for about 25% of their GDP and 33% of the state budget. It would effectively kill all maritime trade right when their economy is already stumbling.
5. China and India would likely distance themselves from Russia to protect their own image, especially if the West imposes draconian conditions. Maybe even Iran would pull away, given they have plenty of their own internal issues to deal with instead of sharing Russia's fate.
6. Using nuclear weapons without an immediate response would probably lead to a double-digit increase in the number of nuclear-armed nations in the world. Ukraine might still possess the technical expertise and hardware for some kind of nuclear or radiological device. But honestly, I suspect Russia would worry more about Germany or Poland potentially doing the same.
7. Deciding to use nuclear weapons isn't just up to Putin. According to doctrine, there are three layers: the President, the joint chiefs, and the commander of the silo, airbase, or submarine. It wouldn't be the first time a Russian officer refused a launch order. Disobeying such a command would likely signal the imminent collapse of an already shaky military chain of command.
Conclusion: ignore the Russian intimidation tactics. Russia isn't going to touch nuclear weapons in this conflict.
Traffic Sign said:The level of mythomania on this forum is staggering. It’s basically on par with Russian Telegram channels.
Putin could probably sustain a war for another 30 years if he managed to capture even just 30% of the Chinese and Indian markets.
But sure, let's pretend a Russian defeat is inevitable.
Maybe try doing some actual math for once. Consider the cost of building pipelines all the way there, the terrain they'd have to cross, and who Russia would actually back—China or India—if those two ever ended up at odds.
Anthony Perez9 said:This is basically a fight for Russia's survival because things are starting to fall apart internally. There's this growing trend of moving toward the West. They're losing pieces one by one... How does Putin stop that? By tightening control through fear and manufacturing an external enemy.
That Russian excuse about wanting a buffer zone between NATO and Russia is total nonsense.
True. But they want to freeze the borders where they are forever, not have countries breaking away on their own terms.
The most valuable stuff Ukraine has is the oil and gas in the Sea of Japan (allegedly not quite as much as Norway has) and the mineral wealth in the Donbas mines.
What's left for the Russians if they lose access to that?
So, exactly what the Russians took and are currently holding.
Basically, they grabbed their "Frontier," but the real plan was to take the whole damn cake.
Nobody cares about sunflower fields—not one side or the other.
Who are "the others"? Given its role as the world's breadbasket, Ukraine matters.
Do you really think ExxonMobil or Chevron are going to ask for concessions on sunflower fields? Americans and the British have already burned tens of billions of dollars; that's nothing compared to the hundreds of billions or even trillions in oil and gas. Zilch.
So, "the Americans and the British cooked everything up," while Putin's Russians are just innocent bystanders...
The Russians know it too. If they let the Americans and the European Union take those deposits, they can kiss selling their gas to the European Union goodbye.
Smart Russians, indeed...
So they claim they're defending themselves from, I don't know, some "conspiracy and shadow elites pulling the strings". And you don't even mention the Ukrainians, like they have any say in it. Are they just being played by the, uh, "greedy capitalists" in some conspiracy theory?
There’s zero chance Americans and Englishmen are just going to let Russia annex what they're holding right now.
Always "Americans and Englishmen" blocking someone. What exactly is this "territory Russia is holding"?
It means they raised the stakes for nothing and are folding now just when they actually have the better hand. Basically, they'll keep raising until Russia folds and asks for a truce—just enough to save face or salvage something.
"Russia asks for a truce," sure... while the US and UK won't budge an inch. Real villains, aren't they?
Just look at the kind of hardware they're sending to the Ukrainians.
What else should they send? Magic wands?
About twenty HIMARS batteries completely flipped the script on the battlefield. Now imagine if they sent three times that along with ATACMS. They have them. Anyone who knows how to play poker knows you raise the stakes when you're holding a winning hand...
What poker? What hands? Who we even talking about?
So yeah... watching how this plays out is going to be interesting.
Yeah, "interesting" to watch Russian tanks rolling over someone else's land...
Stakes are up for now, but there's plenty of room to go higher. If you're bluffing, you're busted. In my book, Russia lost the war the second they sent that first soldier into Ukraine.
And we're still waiting for them to fold. They'll fold because they ran into people who refuse to surrender, and people who were smart enough to get out of their way fast. Did the West push them into this, or did they just ignore the warnings?
Putin realized he didn't just swallow one bait, he swallowed the whole damn bucket, and he figured that out pretty much immediately after the invasion started. But hey, no turning back now...
He learned the hard way that his cronies gave him a totally skewed picture of how much Ukrainians actually care about their freedom.
The Chinese are staying quiet and playing it smart.
They've started distancing themselves from Russia, because nobody likes rooting for a loser.
Same deal with India. Iran sent over some drones and ended up getting a half-baked revolution in return, courtesy of those women's rights protests.
"A half-baked revolution" received? You're back at it again, seeing some conspiracy where A&E "gifted" Iran something? Instead of realizing Islamism just shoved those women right into a corner?
I doubt they'll be sending any more drones their way.
Because... why bother?
Americans don't make threats; the one holding the weak hand does. Putin might be a decent chess player, but he’s a terrible poker player. And this isn't chess, it's poker.
Putin is just a delusional spy with a massive Napoleon complex. ☕
I’ve posted this before, but I suppose it bears repeating:
Which "others"? As the world's breadbasket, Ukraine matters.
Ukraine accounts for just over 3% of global wheat production and ranks 5th in exports, trailing behind France.
quietcobra21 said:I’ll throw my two cents in too. This is a war over resources. That Russian excuse about wanting a buffer zone between NATO and the Russian Federation is nonsense. Just look at the map. Why aren't the Russians making an effort to seize territory along the eastern and northeastern borders? Like around Sumy, for example. The most valuable things Ukraine possesses are the oil and gas deposits in the Black Sea (allegedly a bit less than what Norway has) and the mineral wealth in the Donbas mines. Basically, exactly what the Russians have already seized and are currently holding. Nobody cares about sunflower fields—not one side or the other. You really think ExxonMobil or Chevron is going to come knocking for concessions on sunflower patches? Americans and Englishmen have burned through a few dozen billion dollars so far. What's that compared to hundreds or thousands of billions in oil and gas? Nothing. The Russians know it too. If they let the Americans and the European Union take those deposits, they can kiss their gas sales to Europe goodbye. There isn't a theoretical chance the Americans and Englishmen will just let Russia annex everything they're holding right now. It means they've raised the stakes and they aren't folding now that they have much stronger hands. They'll keep raising the ante until the Russians fold and try to negotiate a peace treaty just to salvage something. Just look at the weapons being sent to the Ukrainians. About twenty HIMARS batteries changed the entire battlefield. Now imagine if they send three times that amount plus ATACMS missiles. It's not like they don't have them. Anyone who plays poker knows you raise the stakes when you're holding a winning hand... So... watching how this ends will be interesting. The stakes have been bumped up for now, but there's plenty of room to go higher. Whoever's bluffing is the one who's going to lose. My take is that the Russians lost this war the moment they sent that first soldier into Ukraine. Putin didn't just bite the bait; he swallowed the whole bucket, and he realized that on the second day of the invasion. But hey, no turning back now... The Chinese are staying quiet and wise. India is doing the same. Iran sent drones, and in return, they got a partial revolution in the form of women's rights protests. I doubt they'll be sending many more drones. Americans don't make threats; only the person with the weaker hand does that. Putin might be a decent chess player, but he's a lousy poker player. And this is a game of poker, not chess.
I can confirm that. I rarely finish reading posts containing deleted quotes, or even pay much attention to them, since the content is usually irrelevant anyway. It’s rare to find anyone actually offering constructive or polite replies to a thread that warrants a ban, so it doesn't really matter.
Deleting posts that include parts of a removed message has been the standard procedure on this site for years now.
Commenting on moderation or moderator actions violates the rules of the Politics subforum (Article 7).
Since opening this thread violated two separate rules, the topic has been deleted. You were only issued a warning for one of those violations, so I suppose you actually got off easy.
Don't bother responding to this post with more trolling attempts; we aren't interested, and you'll just end up with more strikes. This especially applies to playing the victim. Deleting this thread and issuing a warning is simply technical enforcement of the rules, not silencing you—even if both you and we know the only real purpose of this thread was for us to delete it so you could claim, "See, I told you they'd shut me up!" If you want to be an effective troll, you probably should try being much more subtle and clever about it. 😉
Morgan Cook10 said:Honestly, I was hoping we’d give those self-proclaimed "scientists" a fair shake. I wanted to see if they could prove this wasn't just a bunch of George Soros's mercenaries peddling some outdated ideology under the guise of hard facts, but an actual, legitimate march for science.
But hey, if you think certain viewpoints aren't worth discussing... be my guest. The reality is, the whole thing has turned into a bit of a train wreck.
The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the initial claim—in this case, the group insisting that George Soros is behind everything. A discussion centered on a fundamental misunderstanding of logical concepts and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories probably doesn't belong here in the Politics subforum.
Morgan Cook10 said:Looking at comments from these "march" supporters, it’s pretty obvious they’re just trying to hawk some specific ideology while hiding behind the label of "science."☕
The real issue here is why people aren't being given a fair shot to share their thoughts on this "march." Why is the moderation on these politics forums so terrified of an actual discussion?
Not every opinion deserves attention or a seat at the table.
David Vaughn75 said:I just received my hundredth strike on politics because I was stating facts. To avoid this kind of trouble moving forward, could someone clarify which truths are considered off-limits here?
Thanks
It isn't about forbidden truths. It is more about strawman arguments—and similar logical fallacies—or labeling other users. Attempting to disguise an insult as an opinion is probably the most common tactic used on the Forum, but it is also entirely ineffective. You will likely get a strike every single time you try it.
Conservatives seem to have a real affinity for playing the victim, even when they actually hold the majority. That’s probably the only generalization I can offer right now.
Our moderation criteria are clearly laid out in the subreddit rules. We don't deviate from them. Insults, trolling, or hate speech disguised as "personal opinion" won't pass, and they never will. This isn't the first time that intense public debates over worldview issues have emboldened certain users to go on these little crusades, forget the boundaries, and end up banned. It'll happen again.
Actually, if you look at threads regarding global perspectives, the vast majority of unremoved posts are right-wing without exception. Feel free to check for yourself if you don't believe me... 🍿
Joshua Clark7 said:northernsailor8, can you explain why? We’re talking about a political topic regarding mandatory military service.I suppose you all have bad experiences with (anti)feminism on this forum, but trying to talk about military service in a country where 36,000 babies are born every year and more and more able-bodied people are leaving the country (likely for good), while simultaneously banning any discussion about women's training or combat roles, is a bit like bringing up the American Civil War but being forbidden from mentioning Stalingrad, Boise, or Slunj... Maybe we should consider an Israeli-style model given our current surroundings. If things ever get chaotic, I suspect our European Union allies might just leave us to fend for ourselves. We could end up facing a Wild West situation along the Lincoln-Washington-New York-Chicago line, forced to defend the assets of the European Union alone.
That is correct; you noticed that perfectly.
If someone wants to debate discrimination within military service, they are welcome to start a thread in the appropriate subforum. Out of three pages of this thread, one entire page was nothing but blatant trolling about gender by certain users who probably recognize themselves. It wouldn't work here. ☕
I had some obligations this afternoon, so I wasn't involved in cleaning up the thread.
Once again, many people are posting based solely on their own convictions, not to mention they seem to fundamentally misunderstand what moderation actually entails. It isn't my job to judge the truthfulness of information, unless it's being used for trolling, insults, or intentionally twisting a specific discussion. I believe you've noticed that posts aren't usually deleted frequently and that discussions—even those involving rather coarse labels for certain groups—are permitted. Feel free to research wherever you like and write about it (provided it isn't from extremist sites); frankly, I don't care.
We draw the line when things go too far, particularly when there's an excess of generalized denial or support of crimes and the harassment of those with differing views. I don't need to look elsewhere to see that; it's obvious. It should also be obvious to you that you are testing boundaries yet again, acting as if you own the thread regarding Syria. Our authority has nothing to do with the rules of civil discourse. We spent years trying to handle things politely in every way possible, but it never worked and the debates always spiraled out of control. Now, our authority stems from the banning mechanism. That isn't because of us, but because of those who stubbornly refuse to listen while constantly demanding to be heard.
I suggest you exercise some self-control; we won't be so lenient next time. This concludes the discussion on this matter.
Brenda Taylor13 said:It’s not just that this kind of garbage gets tolerated—it’s that the second you actually call it out, you’re the one getting slapped with a ban. Like, seriously?
Some uneducated, low-class hillbilly... coming from someone whose entire presence on this board is basically just a non-stop stream of insults, gutter language, and pure, unadulterated Neanderthal behavior.
I will warn you just once: do not comment on your own warnings in other threads. We have already had that discussion, and I have no desire to repeat it.
The basic issue we keep running into is this: the tolerance threshold for insulting public figures on this forum seems much higher than the threshold for criticizing other users. One user's lack of manners shouldn't be grounds for sanctions, nor should it justify being insulted by others here.
Insulting people who disagree with you goes against our community guidelines. By registering on Reddit, you agreed to follow these rules; checking those boxes and clicking "agree" constitutes a legally binding electronic contract. If you want to label that censorship, be my guest.
As I see it, this is just labeling an entire group of people as mentally unstable. My comment was directed at one specific individual—a public figure and government official whom I have personally met. This is simply my own assessment of that person based on my direct experience. Labeling unknown dissenters in such a manner is highly unacceptable, and I suppose I was actually quite lenient in how I handled it. Perhaps I shouldn't have been...
Not quite. There is a significant difference between merely critiquing someone's opinion and actually engaging in a debate about the subject matter itself.
Gentlemen, if you don't understand why discussions regarding Islamic terrorism were removed from the thread about the Pope, then I suppose you still have quite a bit to learn about how politics as a subforum actually operates.
In general, such blatant off-topic posts are subject to removal.
That isn't possible. Forum rules strictly prohibit commenting on moderation actions. If there's an issue with specific posts or bans within this subforum, there is a process for that, but nothing else.
And you can certainly post in a thread; the forum doesn't have any technical settings or features that would block unbanned users from accessing open topics. I guess you might have just misread how things work.