Ukraine Thread

[Montmorency]

Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate. As I said, the problem lies in actually finding one before someone's population gets frenzied enough to force some "gambit".

[Gilrandir]

Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

If you mean military resistance, then I do agree with you. Why I shoudn't?
But there is an essential "but": many people here who are of the like mind with you were keeping their fingers crossed hoping that it would not come to blows. And it didn't - for many reasons, primarily because such an attack from "strategic partners and brehtren" was incredible in the eyes of Ukrianian soldiers, because many of those soldiers were locals from the Crimea, because everyone didn't wish for any "fratricidal" bloodshed... You had what you prayed for. And now you sound contemptuous that the Ukrainians didn't offer any (military) resistance. Would it make you happier if they had?

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards.

Putin himself now and again adds to this much-hated (by you) comparison. About a week ago in Russia a film was released to celebrate the Crimea's annexation - I'm sure you are aware of it. It is called "The Crimea: the road to Motherland". Do you know the name of the film released in 1941 to justify/celebrate Danzig's annexation? - "Heimkehr". Deliberately or involuntarily Putin - both by his actions and by his propaganda techniques and devices - follows the pattern set eighty years ago. So it is natural for people to draw the comparison mentioned.

Do you know something we don't?

I see the pattern of the EU reactions to events in Ukraine and make conclusions.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.

I would say the opposite - the more he is allowed to do, the more it whets his appetite. But at the same time he is aware that he can't vomit out what he has already swallowed - because of the reputational damage. So it is a dead end for him - he can't digest the piece he has in his stomach, but he can't get it out without being ridiculed and despised by his electors.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

People who live in the close vicinity to a superpower are likely to hate it. The Middle East hates the USA by proxy - as the country supporting their local superpower - Israel.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate.

Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

[Montmorency]

Putin had plenty of chances to, yet he didn't use any of them, and I'm afraid he will not.

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

So of course there are risks like that in international relations. But in this particular situation, there are hopefully many more factors encouraging the players to end the game (i.e. the "active" crisis), cut the losses, and plan for future strategic maneuvers (i.e. economic, political, and, yes, military development and policy tweaking).

[Montmorency]

having started the offensive (accompanied by the propaganda frenzy) Putin can't just say: "Now we will stop supporting the oppressed Russian-speakers and Russians suffering from depredations of Kiev junta". He is to push it till he can report to the nation that the enemy is worsted. Until there is a halt in the propaganda, he can't hope to explain such a U-turn to his people. And right now the propaganda shows no signs of slackening. When we see the latter it may be a hint that Putin indeed wishes to de-escalate.

Well yeah, as we discussed with commitment and all. Putin's disadvantage as an autocrat is that all these risks and gambles he is taking are very personal ones.

[Gilrandir]

Though as pointed out it isn't up to just him, there is an important cautionary tale here.

In 1969, everyone (in power) wanted the Vietnam War to end. However, Nixon and Kissinger escalated military activity and at various points rejected overtures for peace from the North Vietnamese.

Why? Because they wanted to negotiate from a more advantageous strategic position at the inevitable peace conference.

What happened? In 1973, both sides came to the table with basically the same cards as in 1969 - but with hundreds of thousands more in dead.

According to the dating in your tale we still have around a couple of years of the crisis ahead of us.

[Husar]

Lethal means "bringing/causing death". You can't bring more death - a human dies only once. You can speak of something causing more casualties.

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

[Montmorency]

You can bring more death, by killing two humans, I thought I made that clear.
They call someone the most lethal sniper because he is the sniper who killed the most humans, not because he killed one human more than all the other snipers killed one human. Therefore making a bomb more lethal means giving it the potential to kill more humans, for example by making it more accurate so that it won't land on the periphery of the intended target.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathmatch

consecutive kills: when a player kills a combatant within 5 seconds after a previous kill, a consecutive kill occurs. The timer starts ticking anew, allowing a third kill, a fourth kill etc. Alternatively, killing several enemies with a mega weapon (such as the Redeemer, which resembles a nuclear rocket) also counts as consecutive kill. The titles of these kills are: Double Kill (2), Multi kill (3), Ultra kill (4), Megakill (5), MONSTERKILL (6; 5 in the original Unreal Tournament). For comparison, id Software's "Quake III Arena" tracks double kills, but a third kill soon after results in another double kill award.

Killtacular, Killamanjaro, etc.

Like that?

[Husar]

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health...ds-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm...238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

[Gilrandir]

Not entirely, but war can be more lethal:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...=3737864&uid=2

Ebola can become more lethal:
http://consumer.healthday.com/health...ds-695692.html

And even Al Qaeda can become more lethal:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/tm...238&no_cache=1

None of those imply that people who get killed get *more* killed, it usually means that out of a certain group of targeted people, fewer survive if something or someone becomes more lethal. Indirectly that means if someone or something kills more people, it or she is more lethal, after all the "target group" can be defined as e.g. all people of a certain city, so the more cityzens a nuke can kill, the more lethal it is. Therefore making a nuclear bomb more accurate to make it more likely to hit the point of a city where it causes the most deaths makes it more lethal. Just like Britain's most lethal sniper is the one who killed the most insurgents where the insurgents are the target group. Being the most lethal sniper implies that he is more lethal than all other snipers and therefore more lethal in the sense of killing more people is a thing, q.e.d.

I repeat: it is called "causing more casualties".

[Husar]

I repeat: it is called "causing more casualties".

I repeat: I've shown six links that prove my point that it can also be called "more lethal", your opinion is inferior to mine.