Oddbean new post about login | logout When someone like Scott Ritter wants to travel to Russia to speak at a conference, he isn't technically aiding and abetting the enemy because the US has not declared Russia to be an enemy (despite all that has happened so far). But if he was a former intelligence agent, restricting his travel is understandable. But the kremlin spokesperson has now called the United States an enemy nation. I do not know if that is equivalent to declaring war. But if the US declares war on Russia, my language about this conflict will change because under wartime, free speech can be far more supressed and and consequences for speech can be far more serious, and I'm a practical kind of guy that doesn't walk in front of tanks (no disrespect to Tank Man). Call me a coward, I'll call myself "still alive". Anyhow, here is my question. Russia has sent ships to the Caribbean to do "drills". But Russian ships in the Black Sea have been somewhat easy to sink with surface drones. Couldn't the US sink Russia's ships in the Caribbean with Ukrainian-level low-tech surface sea drones? That would be kinda funny if the US did this and acquired the drones from Ukraine.
Can you explain why Russia is the enemy?
Not really, no. I suspect the people in charge are older than I am, and their "memory" of Russia being the enemy during the cold war defined how they permanently think about Russia. Once you setup an organisation, even if its purpose ceases to exist, that organisation takes on a life of its own. NATO is one such organisation. Nobody chooses to terminate their own job. So NATO just grew and dreamed about controlling everything, making the whole world peaceful eventually.... but except not Russia, Russia wasn't allowed (they are tricksters! can't trust 'em! or so some people think).
Perhaps NATO was never designed to control Russia? Or even if it was, its sole purpose now is to control Europe.
Would you say that Russia, NATO, intelligence & government controlled media and the military industrial complex is similar to the climate change establishment? We posited that anthropomorphic climate change is not only possible (obviously it is) but that it is an existential threat (this is speculation) and now that entire generations have been brainwashed believing that not only is climate change a threat to our survival (deforestation, blight, overpopulation, etc.) but it is imminent, and we must, we sacrifice throughout our daily lives to appease the nature spirits but our very existence is so evil and destructive of the delicate ecosystem we must continuously express these outward signs of penitent virtue like buying solar panels, riding bicycles, living in dense sky rises, and recycling aluminum and plastic (superstition-driven behaviors) and "working together" by centralizing government power to the intellectual dictatorship managerial class (environmental pantheistic theocracy) who are trained and paid to churn out a continuous stream of "scientific" studies to reinforce our superstitious behavior and unprovable beliefs.
Russia has had submarines with nuclear missiles on both US coasts for a while now, waiting. Let’s just assume that they would react if the US did something stupid on the Caribbean, like declaring a war by attacking those ships.
Russia will escalate in the smallest way possible that is still effective. Launching nukes from those subs would not be a small escalation and it would be retaliated against while those nukes were still flying upwards. But I agree with you that the US won't react to the provocation by attacking Russian ships, but they probably will shadow their ships with ships and airplanes of their own.
Agreed that based on earlier events, Russia would not respond with nukes. But, attacking those ships would be a declaration of war regardless. Perhaps a more realistic response would be them to destroy a selected US naval base with hypersonic missiles that have conventional but still powerful warheads, launched from either those said subs or ships on the surface. It also should be noted that the ships Ukraine managed to destroy on the Black Sea were mostly older, smaller vessels without decent AD systems. And maybe not adequately prepared for drone attacks. That would not be the case with the ships that are in question now. It’s an extremely dangerous game they are playing here, approaching a Cuban missile crisis 2.0, if you will.
After comparing NATO expansion to the Cuba missile crisis and talking about the Monroe doctrine for YEARS, the West remains deaf, completely ignores it. So I think Putin can't "talk" to the West anymore. They don't hear him. The only thing they hear is the movement of weapons and ships, etc. So he is basically saying the same thing he has been saying since at least 2009, just with ships this time.
Russia has said that if these provocations continue, they will arm the Houthis and the other members of the axis of resistance. If that happens, all US bases in the middle east will be destroyed as will Israel. The Russians aren't screwing around anymore. Can you imagine what the US would do if the Russians trained an army in Canada or Mexico to directly attack the US? For gawds sake, that's what we've been doing in Ukraine after managing the coup in 2012! Russia is showing great restraint, until now. Directly attacking Russia with supplied NATO weapons that require a NATO soldier to configure and select a target is a redline for Russia. Someone in the US administration has got to play the grown-up and stop these extremely dangerous escalations FFS!
Yes I heard this too. I think it is a very reasonable response because it doesn't risk direct conflict, but it is clearly Russia hurting the West in retaliation for the West clearly (though not directly) hurting Russia, so it would be an effective deterrant towards further Western escalation and something to put on the negotiating table.
All Russia is doing is giving the US the same treatment as they're experiencing on their borders. Many Americans don't seem to understand that the US practices bombing runs every day on the Russian Federations borders. Using an attack profile is extremely dangerous when practiced against a nation with nuclear capabilities. That's how reckless NATO has been! The fools think Russia is bluffing. I wouldn't be taking that chance. Why is Putin the only adult in the room for fucks sake!?
why not take up bounty for double agent
Scott seems suspicious to me, like he did exactly that. His rhetoric is too far one-sided, and apparently that kind of disinformation works on far too many people.
the key to long life is eating less not worrying more