Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

World Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    It appears Ukraine has stuck inside Russia:
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...-ammo-26587639
    Apparently it turned out to be human error and not Ukrainian fire?


    https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...y-town-1693286

    ​​​​​​Considering the Russian's biggest success in this whole ****-show has been accidentally creating Europe's 5th largest army in Ukrainian Farmers, I could see this being a goof on their part, especially since I would have thought they would use this as a false flag action.
    "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

    "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

    Comment


    • #32
      Not sure I buy Russian Defense reporting. How does no one get hurt in an explosion like that if it is negligence?

      Comment


      • #33
        https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispa...odies-in-bucha

        Comment


        • #34
          Can't imagine the reality of that.

          I know none of this should come as a surprise considering the Russians have done this in the past but when it is all out there everyday it makes me wish we had a way to stop it without sparking a nuclear war.

          Comment


          • #35
            The flagship of the Black Sea Fleet (which would have led the fleet that got told to go F itself at Snake Island) has now been sunk, per Russia:

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moskva-...issile-strike/
            Last edited by Sandman21; 04-14-2022, 06:06 PM.
            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

            Comment


            • #36
              Since it's pretty clear Ukraine wasn't going to rollover for Putin, and the question I asked wondering why Putin didn't try to win over Ukraine with sugar rather than salt seems never to have been on table... It leaves open the question: Why? Is it really to expand Russia/Russian influence? ...Occupying a nation that doesn't want you there doesn't seem like you're exporting too much influence, as much as tying up resources.

              Or is it self-preservation by creating an enemy and looking to rally countrymen to the cause? Did Putin worry his days were numbered and his ability to thwart domestic enemies were waning? Chinks in the armor? Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this if you didn't think you could win, or at least be able to get something you could call victory. So, it's still questionable...
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Since it's pretty clear Ukraine wasn't going to rollover for Putin, and the question I asked wondering why Putin didn't try to win over Ukraine with sugar rather than salt seems never to have been on table... It leaves open the question: Why? Is it really to expand Russia/Russian influence? ...Occupying a nation that doesn't want you there doesn't seem like you're exporting too much influence, as much as tying up resources.

                Or is it self-preservation by creating an enemy and looking to rally countrymen to the cause? Did Putin worry his days were numbered and his ability to thwart domestic enemies were waning? Chinks in the armor? Obviously, you wouldn't want to do this if you didn't think you could win, or at least be able to get something you could call victory. So, it's still questionable...
                it's hard to explain...best guess i've seen is he didn't get realistic info from his intelligence people about how easy it would be (whether because they feared to give an honest assessment or they were incompetent)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by dal9 View Post

                  it's hard to explain...best guess i've seen is he didn't get realistic info from his intelligence people about how easy it would be (whether because they feared to give an honest assessment or they were incompetent)
                  You'd have to wonder if he did a lot of the strategy planning himself (or with a yes man or two) and that is where the disconnect was on his advisors not wanting to tell him his plans wouldn't work. It doesn't seem like it would've been that hard to tell him the Ukrainians would make this mission difficult and there was a risk of extensive outside help for the Ukrainians.
                  I'd think that type of assessment could've been given to him without saying anything negative about Russian forces or equipment.

                  Of course maybe this is a training mission and losses and steps are simply seen as an education on what they need to improve for larger future military expansion goals.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bball View Post

                    You'd have to wonder if he did a lot of the strategy planning himself (or with a yes man or two) and that is where the disconnect was on his advisors not wanting to tell him his plans wouldn't work. It doesn't seem like it would've been that hard to tell him the Ukrainians would make this mission difficult and there was a risk of extensive outside help for the Ukrainians.
                    I'd think that type of assessment could've been given to him without saying anything negative about Russian forces or equipment.

                    Of course maybe this is a training mission and losses and steps are simply seen as an education on what they need to improve for larger future military expansion goals.
                    I think he betted on Zelensky running away when his life was threatened leaving a vacuum of leadership he hoped to fill with a proxy. Personally I have no doubt that Putin has been lied to in the fact that the military has not been upgraded or modernized to the point that he thought it was. I am not sure though how much Putin realized that Ukraine's military strategy/design is superior to theirs. Meaning how they structure their units and how they have trained their officers.

                    As for if this a training session for making improvements I think that is a bit much. They have killed off some of their best units and got 9 generals killed so if you can see that as a military purge as improvements then sure.. I would consider it a complete disaster and one that will keep them from getting soldiers to buy into the military service long term.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                      I think he betted on Zelensky running away when his life was threatened leaving a vacuum of leadership he hoped to fill with a proxy. Personally I have no doubt that Putin has been lied to in the fact that the military has not been upgraded or modernized to the point that he thought it was. I am not sure though how much Putin realized that Ukraine's military strategy/design is superior to theirs. Meaning how they structure their units and how they have trained their officers.

                      As for if this a training session for making improvements I think that is a bit much. They have killed off some of their best units and got 9 generals killed so if you can see that as a military purge as improvements then sure.. I would consider it a complete disaster and one that will keep them from getting soldiers to buy into the military service long term.
                      If Putin thinks his military needs to improve, modernize, and upgrade, I doubt he cares about any deaths along the way. Especially of leadership that he would consider failed leadership.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Bball View Post

                        If Putin thinks his military needs to improve, modernize, and upgrade, I doubt he cares about any deaths along the way. Especially of leadership that he would consider failed leadership.
                        To me that doesn't make sense. The elite units are a big investment in time and money. We aren't talking about losing conscripts or easily replaceable ground soldiers. The guys they lost initially were guys like our Navy Seals or other special op forces. They also lost them not because those guys weren't elite or had not proven themselves in the past but simply because they were spread out too far and too thin.

                        I mean there is a long list of dictators making a gigantic errors in military operations and I think the answer is just that. Putin thought Ukraine was rip for the picking and he was wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                          To me that doesn't make sense. The elite units are a big investment in time and money. We aren't talking about losing conscripts or easily replaceable ground soldiers. The guys they lost initially were guys like our Navy Seals or other special op forces. They also lost them not because those guys weren't elite or had not proven themselves in the past but simply because they were spread out too far and too thin.

                          I mean there is a long list of dictators making a gigantic errors in military operations and I think the answer is just that. Putin thought Ukraine was rip for the picking and he was wrong.
                          It makes as much sense as invading Ukraine in the first place.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bball View Post

                            It makes as much sense as invading Ukraine in the first place.
                            How so? Many people think he invaded Ukraine in 2015 to take over Crimea since Russia needed a port in the black sea that would be operational year around for its military. They got little resistance from that land grab from Ukraine or from the international community.

                            Basically Putin was hardly punished for that land grab so he did it again thinking the outcome would be the same.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post

                              How so? Many people think he invaded Ukraine in 2015 to take over Crimea since Russia needed a port in the black sea that would be operational year around for its military. They got little resistance from that land grab from Ukraine or from the international community.

                              Basically Putin was hardly punished for that land grab so he did it again thinking the outcome would be the same.
                              Yes, but getting that port makes more logistical sense. That has economic and military value, and arguably could be worth the costs in lives and money to Russia (assuming they didn't meet too much resistance). True, letting it happen more easily than it should've (or could've) might've given him a false sense of security and expansion desires, but taking over the whole of Ukraine shouldn't make him think it would be as easy. And even if it was, he could've tried expanding in smaller bites and testing the waters on expansion rather than painting himself into a corner of going all in on the country.
                              It's not like his military buildup on the border went unnoticed nor without world reaction. So, an off-ramp could've been built in before he was totally painted into a corner.

                              Let alone, I have a hard time thinking in 2021 that just taking over Ukraine was necessary on military levels versus just entangling them in business deals and financial supports that they could become addicted to. Of course, I guess entanglements like that work both ways...
                              Does Ukraine really have anything that Russia needs?
                              Are the countries on Russia's eastern borders actually a threat to them?
                              If the goal is just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, there seems better avenues for that. And even the THREAT of the military might be all they needed, along with some diplomatic olive branches.

                              Trump spent 4 years doing his part in weakening NATO. Putin, who wanted it weakened, managed to re-strengthen it in only a few weeks. That would be the definition of "blowback".

                              I think the speculation is valid that Putin wanted Trump to have a 2nd term to weaken NATO even more. Even have the US leave NATO. Definitely, have the US not be a strong leading voice in asking NATO to support Ukraine.
                              It makes sense Putin waited until now to not split the GOP up into Trumpists and 'regular' GOP during the election to keep Trump's chances as high as possible without a foreign policy issue like 'what is the correct American response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?'. We can know what Trump's response would've been... We can see and hear it in his words and his minions on Fox even now.
                              And worst case scenario, Putin would still have a divided America with Trump loyalists not wanting to rally around aid to Ukraine. Even if the current administration gives it anyway, it's still better to have a fractured USA political field rather than a cohesive and collective one.
                              And maybe he even misjudged that? Maybe his worst case scenario was a Trump loss but continued political distractions that he thought would weaken and paralyze the US response anyway, versus a best case scenario of a Trump second term and getting the US to leave NATO and guaranteeing how that would go. Figuring he could have his cake and eat it too, either way.

                              I dunno... just random speculation as I watch this all spiral out of control and not seeing many off ramps for Putin at this point that don't involve 'defeat'. And the world isn't sure how a nuclear power reacts to a 'defeat' in this way.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bball View Post

                                Yes, but getting that port makes more logistical sense. That has economic and military value, and arguably could be worth the costs in lives and money to Russia (assuming they didn't meet too much resistance). True, letting it happen more easily than it should've (or could've) might've given him a false sense of security and expansion desires, but taking over the whole of Ukraine shouldn't make him think it would be as easy. And even if it was, he could've tried expanding in smaller bites and testing the waters on expansion rather than painting himself into a corner of going all in on the country.
                                It's not like his military buildup on the border went unnoticed nor without world reaction. So, an off-ramp could've been built in before he was totally painted into a corner.

                                Let alone, I have a hard time thinking in 2021 that just taking over Ukraine was necessary on military levels versus just entangling them in business deals and financial supports that they could become addicted to. Of course, I guess entanglements like that work both ways...
                                Does Ukraine really have anything that Russia needs?
                                Are the countries on Russia's eastern borders actually a threat to them?
                                If the goal is just to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, there seems better avenues for that. And even the THREAT of the military might be all they needed, along with some diplomatic olive branches.

                                Trump spent 4 years doing his part in weakening NATO. Putin, who wanted it weakened, managed to re-strengthen it in only a few weeks. That would be the definition of "blowback".

                                I think the speculation is valid that Putin wanted Trump to have a 2nd term to weaken NATO even more. Even have the US leave NATO. Definitely, have the US not be a strong leading voice in asking NATO to support Ukraine.
                                It makes sense Putin waited until now to not split the GOP up into Trumpists and 'regular' GOP during the election to keep Trump's chances as high as possible without a foreign policy issue like 'what is the correct American response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?'. We can know what Trump's response would've been... We can see and hear it in his words and his minions on Fox even now.
                                And worst case scenario, Putin would still have a divided America with Trump loyalists not wanting to rally around aid to Ukraine. Even if the current administration gives it anyway, it's still better to have a fractured USA political field rather than a cohesive and collective one.
                                And maybe he even misjudged that? Maybe his worst case scenario was a Trump loss but continued political distractions that he thought would weaken and paralyze the US response anyway, versus a best case scenario of a Trump second term and getting the US to leave NATO and guaranteeing how that would go. Figuring he could have his cake and eat it too, either way.

                                I dunno... just random speculation as I watch this all spiral out of control and not seeing many off ramps for Putin at this point that don't involve 'defeat'. And the world isn't sure how a nuclear power reacts to a 'defeat' in this way.
                                Crimea was taken from what I read for the port but it was cut off from a land corridor. Meaning it is hard to supply and it got caught off from its clean water supply. That is one reason they hit the south so hard. Basically Russia did take bits and pieces of Ukraine already in 2014 but they couldn't secure it with their proxy army in the East. The only way they could secure it was with invading with heavy weapons.

                                Its all random speculation though that I agree with you but to me they have tried dangling carrots but it didnt work with the last two Ukrainen presidents so now they went to plan B.

                                As for what does Ukraine has that Russia wants I think that boils down to how a former USSR KGB guy looks at it. All the infrastructure Ukraine has was Russia's at one point in time. In Putins mind Ukraine shouldn't exist as a democratic state. It was apart of Russia and it should remain a part of Russia. It is symbolic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X