351–360 of 714 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you basically described India.
So, a country where the incumbent party loses its parliamentary majority and has to rely on smaller regional parties is fascist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also worth pointing out that whatever nonsense the terrorists were on about will now just get reinforced. You could be talking about a more agitated situation with even more terror attacks. This is how bullshit like this escalates. They should have coordinated with Pakistan to run the strikes. I also thought the Ukraine war wasn't "really" going to happen. Humans will human.
Pakistan is not a rational state. The stated sole purpose of their intelligence agency ISI is the destabilization of India. The terrorists are backed, sheltered and armed by the government. There’s a reason bin Laden successfully hid there for so long.
There is a lot of Indian English-language media on YouTube and Twitter. There the war drums have been sounding strongly for the past weeks. They seem to draw a parallel between India/Kashmir/Pakistan and Israel/Gaza/Iran - seeing India as the superior and morally just super power against a weak corrupt dysfunctional terrorist-sponsoring Pakistan. So in that thinking right now there is an opportunity to get a final so…
"..there is an opportunity to get a final solution on Kashmir and throw a punch against Pakistan so strong that it will fall apart for good." So let's escalate and see if one side decides to push the nuclear button? I hope there are saner people than you, making the decisions.
I am just describing what I have seen in Indian media.
I believe it's mostly overstated. Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, and India is not interested either. However, the Modi government wants to project strength. They were unable to locate the terrorists even after two or three weeks and needed a distraction. So, they targeted some areas in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). In response, Pakistan claimed to have shot down four Indian air…
> Pakistan is not economically strong enough to participate in a war, Pakistan has nothing to lose. So there are lots of incentives for Pakistan army to go rogue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy While Putin is undoubtedly deranged, I think his goals with invading had much more to do with delusions of grandeur and trying to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire than wanting the "benefit" of a "wartime economy". Russia was drastically unprep…
I agree with most of this except maybe the "soviet empire" bit. His recent mentions of it (within the last 3 years) has been about how the fall of the Soviet Union broke up the "historical russian" borders. For Ukraine specifically he compared himself to Russian Czar Peter the Great. A long time ago he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union which is especially hilarious as he was very likely involved in and vultured o…
Military officials knew with no doubt whatsoever that the Ukrainians would fight like hell, and that they were better man-for-man, dollar-for-dollar, than the Russians.
NATO officials' first-hand knowledge of the Ukrainian will to fight is why they begged their governments to allow shipments of materiel to Ukraine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>delusions of grandeur How do you come to this conclusion - have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Did you see his recent interview on Croatian TV where he discusses this specifically? EDIT: hey downvoters - is it not valid to study world leaders' directly rather than going through a third party .. ?
> have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Yes. By his ex ante metrics, his war has thoroughly backfired. By the current aims, it's absolutely delusionally revanchist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. > You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position Putin is sort of like Trump in that he messages multiple messages. We cannot know what is in his mind. But Putin has repeatedly made revanchist nonsense statements about Russia's sphere of influence…
>No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. Fine, but what were those goals, where/when did he set them out and what is the current status? I'd like to study this issue myself - so any sources you can provide? >We cannot know what is in his mind. Yet you claim to know, which is why I'm interested - if you don't believe his words, what basis do you have to make the assertion that you know hi…
Is that why the best Russian forces attacked Kyiv, including a paratroop landing to capture Antonov airport, which is in the Kyiv suburbs? You don't do that kind of thing if you're not expecting to capture the city. Also, why did Russia need to mobilise if it got what it wanted?
Add in Russia's claims that they're just removing the Ukrainian government, which it accused of being neo-Nazis.
> Putin's address was aired during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on the situation in Ukraine that began on the evening of 23 February.[14][15] At the meeting itself, Vasily Nebenzya, Russia's representative to the UN, stated: "We are not carrying out aggression against the Ukrainian people, but against the group that seized power in Kyiv."[16]
> Our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_conducting_a_special_milita...
That's called delusional backpedaling by both the Russians, and people like you who seem intent on giving them the benefit of the doubt for no apparent reason. Russia is not a rational actor, and no, nothing that has happened has been to plan, unless you believe their plan included having to mobilise, and losing the Black Sea fleet to a country with no navy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Zero chance. The problem is China As I mentioned previously, the China factor is significant but overstated. And I'm fairly hawkish about China. UAE and KSA have equally as much if not more leverage on Pakistani elite than China. Majority of Pakistan's trade is devoted to the UAE and KSA, and most leadership (military, political, and business) has family and financial relations in both countries. In addition, the U…
Nobody is threatening to topple Islamabad. UAE and KSA have interests, but insufficient influence to force outcomes. The relevant players are in Beijing and Washington. > India and Pakistan can normalize relations, and sincere attempts have been made by both sides, but inter-factional competition amongst Pakistan's elite has undermined it India has less motivation for war. But it’s also done nothing to negotiate a pe…