Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Sep 22, 2026 11:32 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:So Zelenskyy making a mutual agreement to not hit civilian infrastructure and then doing so anyway is fine. No problem he lied, and no care how ulterior his motive.

Not telling the truth? From a Trump supporter that seems rather rich.

Where have I lied? @_@
You know, beyond just not agreeing with reality as you see it.

Quote:Putin could stop his invasion with a phone call .. Zelensky can't do that .. he needs to encourage Putin to make that phone call. You point out that you don't like what Zelensky is doing but you don't want to encourage Putin to make that phone call .. fine!

How exactly? Be specific. Should we threaten nuclear war? @_@

(Sep 22, 2026 11:58 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Putin could stop his invasion with a phone call .. Zelensky can't do that .. he needs to encourage Putin to make that phone call. You point out that you don't like what Zelensky is doing but you don't want to encourage Putin to make that phone call .. fine!

How exactly? Be specific. Should we threaten nuclear war? @_@

Putin thinks he's a strong man who won't back down. So he's fallen for the usual pitfall of "an Escalation of Commitment" where he's painted himself into a corner and can't get back out easily. Thats why in his perspective the only way is through.

It should of been identified that he could of easily backtracked without appearing weak, that wasn't done in a timely fashion so it's a no go now.

Piling on sanctions is the only real weapon of choice for those that don't want to ravage the world with further escalation into warfare, however the problem is that if something gives even in the smallest way, then the sanctions are shut down and put on a back burner. This means Putin knows that as soon as there is hardship elsewhere in the world, people will be after his oil/gas.

Those sanctions need to be harsher and they need to be maintained for Decades to come. It shouldn't be assumed that just because either he reaches his object or Russia loses, that suddenly those sanctions will be removed. Trump a number of times previously has been weak in dealing with that by capitulating to letting people get away with dealing with Putin. If Russia was to offer him something, he'd likely lessen the sanctions again, which defeats the point of them in the first place.

The problem is that Russia was use to being in the cold. It was use to running smuggling and bootlegging operations while the Soviet Union. A lot of those original oligarchs made their money in that. So to force them into an isolated state will only work if they can actually be isolated, however they've been building up their connections such as with North Korea, Iran to a lesser extent and China.

It's not a simple solution to just apply a bit of pressure, it needs to be unanimous and absolute to have any chance of working.

How would Putin have backed out of the immediate Russian casualties? @_@

NATO Estimates: At the end of March 2022, a senior NATO official estimated that between 7,000 and 15,000 Russian troops had been killed in the first four weeks of fighting.
- gemini

Would he just say to his own people, "oops, 15,000 Russians died and we accomplished nothing."

One temporary easing of sanctions for "Russian-origin petroleum products already in transit" is a far cry from weakening sanctions overall:

Continuous tightening: Rather than laxening, U.S. policy has overwhelmingly trended toward escalation, marked by massive sanction tranches targeting hundreds of entities, major banks, Rosneft, Lukoil, and shadow-fleet tankers.
Recent legislation: Congress passed the sweeping "Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026" to further choke off Moscow's energy revenues.
- gemini

And then there's this:

The UK is still importing products made from Russian oil, but strictly through an indirect, legally permitted avenue known as the "refining loophole." While direct imports of Russian crude oil and refined products have been banned since 2022, the UK continues to purchase substantial amounts of diesel and jet fuel derived from Russian crude.
- gemini

And:

The U.S. has secondary sanctions designed to attack this loophole at its root, primarily by penalizing the third-country intermediaries (like India and Turkey) that process Russian oil before it reaches Western markets.
- gemini

So the US is doing more than the UK. Should the US sanction/tariff the UK more, to make you toe the line? @_@

If the UK or even Zelenskyy won't play ball with the US, that undermines anything the US attempts to do... making it your own fault. Not only for buying Russian oil through the refining loophole but also by encouraging Zelenskyy to keep making stupid decisions that help keep the war going (but not at your expense, so you don't really care).

The UK doesn't even want to help with Iran... except weakly and begrudgingly. Until the US can get full support from our "allies," any "unanimous and absolute" pressure is only being thwarted by those refusing to support the only world power capable of doing anything about it.

If Russia wasn't exporting fuel then bombing refineries inside Russia would have no effect on the world market. In the real world .. the only way to stop Russia exporting fuel is for them to have no fuel to export.

(Sep 23, 2026 01:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]How would Putin have backed out of the immediate Russian casualties? @_@

NATO Estimates: At the end of March 2022, a senior NATO official estimated that between 7,000 and 15,000 Russian troops had been killed in the first four weeks of fighting.
- gemini

Would he just say to his own people, "oops, 15,000 Russians died and we accomplished nothing."

China and India had a flare up in recent years resulting in a number of Indian deaths, however they managed to deal with their issues and didn't escalate it further.

It proves that flare ups that involves deaths can be gotten over if of course people are willing to do so, however Putin had plans ever since he pulled his forces from Syria (and collapsing the regime there through removing their support).

Syne Wrote:One temporary easing of sanctions for "Russian-origin petroleum products already in transit" is a far cry from weakening sanctions overall:

Continuous tightening: Rather than laxening, U.S. policy has overwhelmingly trended toward escalation, marked by massive sanction tranches targeting hundreds of entities, major banks, Rosneft, Lukoil, and shadow-fleet tankers.
Recent legislation: Congress passed the sweeping "Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026" to further choke off Moscow's energy revenues.
- gemini

The US has been resistant towards any form of involvement implying they don't have a dog in the fight. Trump originally went out of his way to undermine anything that could of been used to stem this from day one (out of his resentment from Ukraine originally dealing with Biden. He'll spin some fake news another way but it really is just him and a personal begrudgement that fuelled his counter agendas)

Syne Wrote:And then there's this:

The UK is still importing products made from Russian oil, but strictly through an indirect, legally permitted avenue known as the "refining loophole." While direct imports of Russian crude oil and refined products have been banned since 2022, the UK continues to purchase substantial amounts of diesel and jet fuel derived from Russian crude.
- gemini

I'm pretty sure that is stale news, outdated and plain libellous if continually used. Jet fuel has actually been purchased more from the US in the last year (especially due to the Middle Eastern cock-up that your Trump created.)

Syne Wrote:And:

The U.S. has secondary sanctions designed to attack this loophole at its root, primarily by penalizing the third-country intermediaries (like India and Turkey) that process Russian oil before it reaches Western markets.
- gemini

Again when was this information placed?, what date?, what has been done since then? The information is stale.

Syne Wrote:So the US is doing more than the UK. Should the US sanction/tariff the UK more, to make you toe the line? @_@

If the UK or even Zelenskyy won't play ball with the US, that undermines anything the US attempts to do... making it your own fault. Not only for buying Russian oil through the refining loophole but also by encouraging Zelenskyy to keep making stupid decisions that help keep the war going (but not at your expense, so you don't really care).

Stale data means you're concerns should be re-examined. (Stale news is as good as fake news, which as good as Trump Truths which are all useless.)

Syne Wrote:The UK doesn't even want to help with Iran... except weakly and begrudgingly. Until the US can get full support from our "allies," any "unanimous and absolute" pressure is only being thwarted by those refusing to support the only world power capable of doing anything about it.

So if I punched Trump in his mouth and then complained that you Syne weren't there to support my attack on him, how would you feel? (This is not a plan, it's a hypothetical as I have no intension of harming your fake president with physical violence.)

Trump assumed that NATO is Americas proxy army. He was without any doubt WRONG!. NATO as I've mentioned before is based upon countries aligned with a defensive pact. If you want an aggressive pact then you have to create a new group just for that. Never the twain shall meet.

As an "ally" (Which to be honest has been proven time and again by the UK and other European countries) we'd require a heads up rather than just some propaganda driven fussball where you kick the ball down the table claiming that we weren't there to push it further, yet planned communication of actions was drawn up to allow logistics to be placed into a position of support. Basically Trump wanted leverage on his "Allies" so trying to make them look bad for "Not being there" is his psychopathic way to brainwash the home crowed, but to be honest he just looks plain dumb for not planning responsibly to begin with.

(Sep 23, 2026 12:12 PM)stryder Wrote: [ -> ]

(Sep 23, 2026 01:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]How would Putin have backed out of the immediate Russian casualties? @_@

NATO Estimates: At the end of March 2022, a senior NATO official estimated that between 7,000 and 15,000 Russian troops had been killed in the first four weeks of fighting.
- gemini

Would he just say to his own people, "oops, 15,000 Russians died and we accomplished nothing."

China and India had a flare up in recent years resulting in a number of Indian deaths, however they managed to deal with their issues and didn't escalate it further.

It proves that flare ups that involves deaths can be gotten over if of course people are willing to do so, however Putin had plans ever since he pulled his forces from Syria (and collapsing the regime there through removing their support).

You mean the 20 Indian and 4 Chinese deaths in the 2020 Galwan Valley clash?
You're ridiculous.
Even with those small casualties, both sides still compromised.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:One temporary easing of sanctions for "Russian-origin petroleum products already in transit" is a far cry from weakening sanctions overall:

Continuous tightening: Rather than laxening, U.S. policy has overwhelmingly trended toward escalation, marked by massive sanction tranches targeting hundreds of entities, major banks, Rosneft, Lukoil, and shadow-fleet tankers.
Recent legislation: Congress passed the sweeping "Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026" to further choke off Moscow's energy revenues.
- gemini

The US has been resistant towards any form of involvement implying they don't have a dog in the fight. Trump originally went out of his way to undermine anything that could of been used to stem this from day one (out of his resentment from Ukraine originally dealing with Biden. He'll spin some fake news another way but it really is just him and a personal begrudgement that fuelled his counter agendas)

Trump did the most to bring that war to an end, but Europe, UK, etc. gassed up Zelenskyy into believing he could get everything he wants without any compromises. Trump was the peacemaker and Europe has been the war hawks. That's just the facts.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And then there's this:

The UK is still importing products made from Russian oil, but strictly through an indirect, legally permitted avenue known as the "refining loophole." While direct imports of Russian crude oil and refined products have been banned since 2022, the UK continues to purchase substantial amounts of diesel and jet fuel derived from Russian crude.
- gemini

I'm pretty sure that is stale news, outdated and plain libellous if continually used. Jet fuel has actually been purchased more from the US in the last year (especially due to the Middle Eastern cock-up that your Trump created.)

Nope. Straight from the horses mouth, the UK won't have a "full ban on diesel and jet fuel made from Russian crude" until "1 January 2027": https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to...-countries
That literally means they are still importing Russian oil through the refining loophole... right now.
Quit coping. Try keeping up with what your own country is doing, instead of making up excuses.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:And:

The U.S. has secondary sanctions designed to attack this loophole at its root, primarily by penalizing the third-country intermediaries (like India and Turkey) that process Russian oil before it reaches Western markets.
- gemini

Again when was this information placed?, what date?, what has been done since then? The information is stale.

Timeline of Secondary Sanctions and Tariffs

August 6, 2025: President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order imposing secondary tariffs (initially a 25% duty) specifically on India for its continued importation of Russian crude oil.

October 22–23, 2025: The U.S. imposed direct sanctions on major Russian oil firms Rosneft and Lukoil, carrying secondary sanctions implications for global counterparties and major buyers like India and Turkey.

November 21, 2025: The sanctions and secondary enforcement provisions on Rosneft and Lukoil formally went into effect after the wind-down period.

February 2026: The U.S. and India temporarily scaled back the tariff penalties after diplomatic agreements, though waivers and subsequent energy crunches caused fluctuating enforcement and temporary license renewals through mid-2026.

August/September 2026: The U.S. Congress further advanced and passed new legislative amendments to mandate up to 100% secondary tariffs on top importers of Russian crude and gas.
- gemini

Quit talking out of your ass.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:So the US is doing more than the UK. Should the US sanction/tariff the UK more, to make you toe the line? @_@

If the UK or even Zelenskyy won't play ball with the US, that undermines anything the US attempts to do... making it your own fault. Not only for buying Russian oil through the refining loophole but also by encouraging Zelenskyy to keep making stupid decisions that help keep the war going (but not at your expense, so you don't really care).

Stale data means you're concerns should be re-examined. (Stale news is as good as fake news, which as good as Trump Truths which are all useless.)

I've demonstrated that your "stale data" excuse is just a lie. Quit making up total bullshit to prop up your shit country and TDS.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:The UK doesn't even want to help with Iran... except weakly and begrudgingly. Until the US can get full support from our "allies," any "unanimous and absolute" pressure is only being thwarted by those refusing to support the only world power capable of doing anything about it.

So if I punched Trump in his mouth and then complained that you Syne weren't there to support my attack on him, how would you feel? (This is not a plan, it's a hypothetical as I have no intension of harming your fake president with physical violence.)

Using airbases is a far cry from demanding active military participation. Quit making up bullshit.
As much as you'd like to pretend it isn't so, Iran as a nuclear power would be a threat to NATO countries.

Quote:Trump assumed that NATO is Americas proxy army. He was without any doubt WRONG!. NATO as I've mentioned before is based upon countries aligned with a defensive pact. If you want an aggressive pact then you have to create a new group just for that. Never the twain shall meet.

Trump never demanded that anyone send their own military to help with strikes on Iran. Hence, not a "proxy army." Quit making up TDS nonsense.
Yes, defense against the threat of a nuclear Iran. The UK apparently can't quit making the Neville Chamberlain mistake. Too bad they can't produce people like Churchill, or even Thatcher, nowadays.

Quote:As an "ally" (Which to be honest has been proven time and again by the UK and other European countries) we'd require a heads up rather than just some propaganda driven fussball where you kick the ball down the table claiming that we weren't there to push it further, yet planned communication of actions was drawn up to allow logistics to be placed into a position of support. Basically Trump wanted leverage on his "Allies" so trying to make them look bad for "Not being there" is his psychopathic way to brainwash the home crowed, but to be honest he just looks plain dumb for not planning responsibly to begin with.

Sure, if suckling at a teat is a "proven ally."

The United Kingdom relies significantly on the United States for critical defense capabilities, intelligence sharing, and high-end military hardware, though parliamentary committees and former defense chiefs have warned that this reliance has become a strategic vulnerability.
- gemini

No one made the UK look bad but the UK. Quit coping over your pantywaist country.