megared

Completely disagree on both counts. Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorstep, the same way we didn't want the Soviet Bloc in the Caribbean (or in the western hemisphere). Cuba housed those ICBMs to assure their defense at the time. NATO nations have 100+ nuclear weapons we own, deployed in support of their mission. Which is a capability they only have at their disposal, because of NATO. Fact of the matter is, the same way those publicly known locations of nuclear weapons are shared, others (with more mobile means of delivery) likely are as well. So the concept that anywhere we 'know' houses nuclear weapons, is the *only* place they can be deployed, isn't based in reality. That can be easily outfitted in an offensive configuration...in fact into the same retaliatory air strike capability we've used extensively over the past 30+ years...you're keying in on missiles literally being pointed, but our relationship w/ N. Korea right now, is pretty much dependent on whether we're conducting training exercises w/ ROK or not. There's also a lot of agitation with China over disputes in the S. China Sea...I could see someone picturing the Black Sea being a new playground for more cold war maneuver nonsense. Same applied to Cuba, for communism. Really don't see the point of admitting countries we really aren't intending to *defend*, and have no strategic importance to the alliance. More of a keep away move designed to agitate Russia. Well congrats, Russia's agitated. At the time of the expansion of NATO in central Europe in the '90's, it wasn't because of Russian aggression, they were reeling from the Soviet Union's dissolution and more interested in partnering with the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html

Putin's problem is the missile launchers moving closer and closer to their border via NATO's expansion. So saying NATO expanding east poses no threat to Russia just isn't true, even if it's not the intention. It's not a new position, it's not a secret, and Putin's been pretty consistent on it. If we're being honest it never made much sense to expand NATO (in the 90's) after the Soviet Union collapsed...IMO it planted the seeds for this conflict, and others.

Guess it depends on what you believe. Russia seems to believe it has 'more' than a defensive capability. MK 41s can be used in both defensive and offensive postures. So saying you're setting them up for defense when it's easy to change the configuration to fire Tomahawks isn't exactly a reassurance. Keep in mind there's treaties governing the use of land based missile systems, which NATO may or may not be following, depending on your vantage point. nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/200224-factsheet-nuclear-en.pdf NATO has ~150 B61s deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey as part of its Nuclear Weapons Sharing Program.

Aegis is in Romania, Poland, Japan with talks of expanding to Spain and potentially Guam. The ability to launch ICBMs from planes, subs, trucks and rail means silos aren't much of a thing anymore. But the nukes are still there (overseas), just not tucked in a silo. Can't discount Putin's discomfort anymore than the discomfort we had with Cuba. The concept that they'd be conducting military training exercises and flaring tensions in the Black Sea isn't that hard to picture. Letting Ukraine into NATO would be more about playing 'keep away' from Russia than any strategic advantage the country itself has for NATO.

Russia has had longstanding grievances with the expansion of NATO. He said Ukraine in NATO is a red line for him. Also since he relies on neighboring countries (like Ukraine) to transit oil & gas, doubt he wants western powers interfering with his ability to manipulate supply/prices.

He doesn't want Ukraine to be in NATO, and wants guarantees it won't happen. Doubt he'll get NATO restored to the 1990 membership level, but he has a legitimate concern about NATO's eastward expansion backing him into a corner. Seem to recall a similar situation when another superpower didn't like the idea of a neighboring country pointing missiles at them...just have to hope Ukraine is his endgame.

It was a 'regime change': and we've had plenty of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Seems like Putin's end game is a non-alignment treaty, possibly a regime change as well.

Disagree. Most of NATO is reliant on Russian oil & gas. Which is why they're still waffling on how hard of sanctions they're willing to levy...and why they consider removing Russian banks from SWIFT as the nuclear option. Russia would stop deliveries and many economies would suffer. They were never going to stick a coalition of troops in Russia's backyard, and there's a low likelihood they can substantively sanction Russia without hurting themselves.

You can't say that when his reasoning for wanting out was being left out of ownership decision making. His original unhappiness stemmed from them trading Hopkins. Do you really think Ron is going to seek his approval before he makes roster changes, or hires front office personnel? Or that Ron's going to intentionally bring in someone to tempt Snyder's worst instincts?

Don't think Watson would fit the Ron-centric setup... is Ron gonna commit to run FO decisions by Watson? That's the reason he wants out of Houston...

Dunno, man. I'm in the field, and not so convinced Republicans are poaching the best and brightest. I'm convinced the messaging is more important than any empirical underlying facts. Republicans did more analysis on messaging from a marketing perspective and used that to inform Trump's platform. I don't think anyone has attempted to do what Obama's team did then, since. Dems were overconfident in '16. I don't think anyone with a legitimate future would align themselves professionally with dudes creating forecasts of covid deaths using stock Excel trendlines to tell the most favorable possible story... Having said that, there's definitely room for improvement in the dem strategy.

Another sign of how antiquated this teams thinking is. I mean we still had/have a marching band.

I was hoping he was an up & coming guy who had some of the offensive brilliance of his dad. Norv wasn't a great leader of men, but he could scheme an offense. Seems to me like Scott rose too fast. He didn't spend much time being a QB coach in Carolina, before he was elevated to OC due to Ron's firing. Probably wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, if Norv was here as well.

Asking Alex Smith to operate in that manner, on an idyllic fall day is stupid. During a torrential downpour, with no protection is incomprehensible. It means he ignored the game, the situation, the weather, the personnel. And he ignored the fact that the line couldn't sustain a passing game of ANY kind. I can't see how anyone can look at what's unfolding and feel confident that it's ALL talent. If it's your preference to hope these things will self-resolve, fine. The other games had elements of the same mistakes, sprinkled throughout. Honestly, I don't see how he can become a successful coordinator with the volume of mistakes he's making. There's no Christian McCaffrey here to make everything you call, look good.

I'm very much into empirical evidence...but how many guys are running free? Who is exactly is operating in space? Coaches scheme...if we witness performances like Sunday, questioning whether the team was adequately prepared is fair game. Noticing dudes dancing with air or double teaming guys while someone else runs free doesn't take an understanding of the highest level of football. It's amateurish to the naked eye. Read the words again. Putting Alex Smith back there, with the D's ears pinned back, and no running game made him a sitting duck. You had to know he wasn't going to be able to protect himself. And in a downpour, you're asking him to drop back and throw, over and over. Sounds like you'd rather make excuses for guys than talk football...please help me see the light of how it was a good coaching decision. How it gave our team the best chance to compete/win? That's what we're doing now, right?