Occam, Trump, and Russia

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 25 Oct 2018, 11:49

Mo wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 04:40
Painboy wrote:
24 Oct 2018, 14:36
Mo wrote:
24 Oct 2018, 11:42
What's hilarious is one of the arguments being made is that Russia is cheating, so we should scrap it instead of enforcing it. That seems to set up a way to pull out of treaties and not get blamed, just cheat.
How are we supposed to enforce it?
Economic/financial sanctions against high level individuals.
I have never seen evidence that the "sanctions high level individuals" does more than inconvenience them. Remember Saddam and his numerous palaces (with $100 million in US cash behind the plaster)?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 11:56

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 7722
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Shem » 25 Oct 2018, 12:31

What about genocide? If a bunch of Hutus decide they really only want to kill Tutsis, and the OAU decides they're not that upset about that, does that mean it pretty much just happens?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 13:30

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:56
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
Yeah, we see deterrence incentives differently. You seem to feel the speedbump as a marginal deterrent in the absence of a comparable power credibly lurking behind said speedbump is a more real deterrent to overwhelming power of an aggressor.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 13:34

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:30
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:56
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
Yeah, we see deterrence incentives differently. You seem to feel the speedbump as a marginal deterrent in the absence of a comparable power credibly lurking behind said speedbump is a more real deterrent to overwhelming power of an aggressor.
Oh sorry, are we talking about an overwhelming power scenario? I thought we were still on the Russian annexation of Crimea. What were you referring to?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 13:39

Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:30
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:56
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
Yeah, we see deterrence incentives differently. You seem to feel the speedbump as a marginal deterrent in the absence of a comparable power credibly lurking behind said speedbump is a more real deterrent to overwhelming power of an aggressor.
Oh sorry, are we talking about an overwhelming power scenario? I thought we were still on the Russian annexation of Crimea. What were you referring to?
You think Russian power in total was irrelevant to that situation?

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 13:40

Shem wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 12:31
What about genocide? If a bunch of Hutus decide they really only want to kill Tutsis, and the OAU decides they're not that upset about that, does that mean it pretty much just happens?
If a regional strategic alliance failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide, then it would be exactly as effective as either the reigning global superpower or the United Nations.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 13:42

JasonL wrote:
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:30
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:56
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
Yeah, we see deterrence incentives differently. You seem to feel the speedbump as a marginal deterrent in the absence of a comparable power credibly lurking behind said speedbump is a more real deterrent to overwhelming power of an aggressor.
Oh sorry, are we talking about an overwhelming power scenario? I thought we were still on the Russian annexation of Crimea. What were you referring to?
You think Russian power in total was irrelevant to that situation?
That is, you think “here comes 30k troops” is basically the same as “here comes 30k troops with 1.2 million friends standing behind them?”

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 13:58

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:39
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:30
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:56
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 11:31
Bwaa? A regional alliance of those states couldn't credibly deter Luxembourg from invading nevermind the russian army.
Putin didn't need the Russian army. He used at most 30k troops who barely fired a shot. A regional alliance with dug-in forces and motivated by their own long-term security could have changed the cost/benefit calculus.
Yeah, we see deterrence incentives differently. You seem to feel the speedbump as a marginal deterrent in the absence of a comparable power credibly lurking behind said speedbump is a more real deterrent to overwhelming power of an aggressor.
Oh sorry, are we talking about an overwhelming power scenario? I thought we were still on the Russian annexation of Crimea. What were you referring to?
You think Russian power in total was irrelevant to that situation?
I think absolutist terms like 'irrelevant' aren't that useful in complex situations. I think Putin is strategic in the way he picks his targets and deploys his limited resources. I think there is a point at which the cost of an imperial adventure outweighs the benefits gained from it. I think mobilizing an entire army for total war is an expensive proposition not to be done lightly. I think the same ends can be achieved a lot cheaper through economic pressure, propaganda, and political manipulation.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 14:10

I mean shit, Syria is a Russian client state, and the US has a bigger force there than do the Rooskies.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 14:59

I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 25 Oct 2018, 15:00

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:58
I think there is a point at which the cost of an imperial adventure outweighs the benefits gained from it.
In a purely cost/benefit sense, yes. However, the political dynamics of imperialism force the imperial power to keep going even while the home economy is collapsing. Being seen as 'weak' invites the wolves at home to turn on you and the conquered territories to see an opportunity to revolt. Also, your own political constituency is made up of those who have profited from imperialism.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28484
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by thoreau » 25 Oct 2018, 15:06

Something worth tossing in there is that non-nuclear powers can shoot at Russians more readily than nuclear powers can. If US and Russian troops fire on each other (and in an engagement that will be hard to keep secret, not in some plausibly deniable covert engagement between people who weren't wearing proper insignia and give names that don't match personnel files in government offices), there's always a danger of an escalation that nobody wants. A non-nuclear power can fight back without the same sorts of fears.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 15:27

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 14:59
I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.
I imagine that being a citizen of the United States makes it difficult to distinguish between diplomacy and bullying, but there are plenty of countries on this planet that manage to have productive diplomatic and economic relationships with one another based on mutual interest and shared values rather than the implied threat of overwhelming force. If anything, saying "nice country you got here, it'd be a real shame if we uncovered evidence of your secret WMD program" undermines America's credibility because nobody goes into a discussion with good faith.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 15:30

Aresen wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 15:00
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:58
I think there is a point at which the cost of an imperial adventure outweighs the benefits gained from it.
In a purely cost/benefit sense, yes. However, the political dynamics of imperialism force the imperial power to keep going even while the home economy is collapsing. Being seen as 'weak' invites the wolves at home to turn on you and the conquered territories to see an opportunity to revolt. Also, your own political constituency is made up of those who have profited from imperialism.
Which is precisely why Comrade Putin is so canny about where and when he deploys his forces. He learned the lessons of Afghanistan.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 16:04

Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 14:59
I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.
I imagine that being a citizen of the United States makes it difficult to distinguish between diplomacy and bullying, but there are plenty of countries on this planet that manage to have productive diplomatic and economic relationships with one another based on mutual interest and shared values rather than the implied threat of overwhelming force. If anything, saying "nice country you got here, it'd be a real shame if we uncovered evidence of your secret WMD program" undermines America's credibility because nobody goes into a discussion with good faith.
Ahahahaa. No. Adult countries with poopheads of the non autocratic variety can do that. Those countries aren’t the ones you worry about. “What’s in my interest - owning all your shit thanks.”

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 16:35

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 16:04
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 14:59
I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.
I imagine that being a citizen of the United States makes it difficult to distinguish between diplomacy and bullying, but there are plenty of countries on this planet that manage to have productive diplomatic and economic relationships with one another based on mutual interest and shared values rather than the implied threat of overwhelming force. If anything, saying "nice country you got here, it'd be a real shame if we uncovered evidence of your secret WMD program" undermines America's credibility because nobody goes into a discussion with good faith.
Ahahahaa. No. Adult countries with poopheads of the non autocratic variety can do that. Those countries aren’t the ones you worry about. “What’s in my interest - owning all your shit thanks.”
Which is why regional defense pacts are a good idea. People with a stake in the outcome and guns right there right now is more likely to deter ambitious neighbors than is a waffley superpower half a globe away that's already waist deep in six other quagmires. Especially if there's no oil involved.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 25 Oct 2018, 16:57

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 15:30
Aresen wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 15:00
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 13:58
I think there is a point at which the cost of an imperial adventure outweighs the benefits gained from it.
In a purely cost/benefit sense, yes. However, the political dynamics of imperialism force the imperial power to keep going even while the home economy is collapsing. Being seen as 'weak' invites the wolves at home to turn on you and the conquered territories to see an opportunity to revolt. Also, your own political constituency is made up of those who have profited from imperialism.
Which is precisely why Comrade Putin is so canny about where and when he deploys his forces. He learned the lessons of Afghanistan.
Imperialism has its own logic and imperatives, which over-ride purely logical cost-benefit, even on the level of 'how much can I realistically control a situation?'
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Oct 2018, 19:10

Shem wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 12:31
What about genocide? If a bunch of Hutus decide they really only want to kill Tutsis, and the OAU decides they're not that upset about that, does that mean it pretty much just happens?
That's kind of the perfect example of how genocide makes a lousy excuse for interventionism. Genocide always gets trotted out as a justification, because not intervening would be terrible. But in practice, when the Rwandan Genocide (and pretty much every single instance of genocide or ethnic cleansing in the last several decades) actually happened, nobody did anything to stop it. France finally rolled in at the end to set up safe zones for the Hutus.

Interventionism doesn't do a damn thing about genocide.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17527
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by lunchstealer » 25 Oct 2018, 19:22

Aresen wrote:
Mo wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 04:40
Painboy wrote:
24 Oct 2018, 14:36
Mo wrote:
24 Oct 2018, 11:42
What's hilarious is one of the arguments being made is that Russia is cheating, so we should scrap it instead of enforcing it. That seems to set up a way to pull out of treaties and not get blamed, just cheat.
How are we supposed to enforce it?
Economic/financial sanctions against high level individuals.
I have never seen evidence that the "sanctions high level individuals" does more than inconvenience them. Remember Saddam and his numerous palaces (with $100 million in US cash behind the plaster)?
There's always money in the banana stand.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by JasonL » 25 Oct 2018, 22:43

Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 16:04
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 14:59
I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.
I imagine that being a citizen of the United States makes it difficult to distinguish between diplomacy and bullying, but there are plenty of countries on this planet that manage to have productive diplomatic and economic relationships with one another based on mutual interest and shared values rather than the implied threat of overwhelming force. If anything, saying "nice country you got here, it'd be a real shame if we uncovered evidence of your secret WMD program" undermines America's credibility because nobody goes into a discussion with good faith.
Ahahahaa. No. Adult countries with poopheads of the non autocratic variety can do that. Those countries aren’t the ones you worry about. “What’s in my interest - owning all your shit thanks.”
Which is why regional defense pacts are a good idea. People with a stake in the outcome and guns right there right now is more likely to deter ambitious neighbors than is a waffley superpower half a globe away that's already waist deep in six other quagmires. Especially if there's no oil involved.
It helps if the guns right there are within an order of magnitude of those held by the aggressor.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Eric the .5b » 25 Oct 2018, 23:24

So why does Finland exist?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Hugh Akston » 25 Oct 2018, 23:26

JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 22:43
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 16:04
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 14:59
I think you under appreciate the extent to which diplomacy and really all other avenues are underpinned by the credibility of a “and we can actually hurt you badly” deterrent. We are in a situation where the credibility of that threat has taken hits because we are unwilling, but any calculus must contemplate that we can do it. You dismantle force projection altogether and you have shifted the sub context to “but we can’t stop you from doing whatever you want”.
I imagine that being a citizen of the United States makes it difficult to distinguish between diplomacy and bullying, but there are plenty of countries on this planet that manage to have productive diplomatic and economic relationships with one another based on mutual interest and shared values rather than the implied threat of overwhelming force. If anything, saying "nice country you got here, it'd be a real shame if we uncovered evidence of your secret WMD program" undermines America's credibility because nobody goes into a discussion with good faith.
Ahahahaa. No. Adult countries with poopheads of the non autocratic variety can do that. Those countries aren’t the ones you worry about. “What’s in my interest - owning all your shit thanks.”
Which is why regional defense pacts are a good idea. People with a stake in the outcome and guns right there right now is more likely to deter ambitious neighbors than is a waffley superpower half a globe away that's already waist deep in six other quagmires. Especially if there's no oil involved.
It helps if the guns right there are within an order of magnitude of those held by the aggressor.
Because every war is <blink>TOTAL WAR</blink> and every conflict goes to the side with the most guns?
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Aresen » 25 Oct 2018, 23:32

Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 23:26
Because every war is <blink>TOTAL WAR</blink> and every conflict goes to the side with the most guns?
Not every conflict, but having the most guns is a definite advantage.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27368
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Occam, Trump, and Russia

Post by Warren » 25 Oct 2018, 23:39

Aresen wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 23:32
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Oct 2018, 23:26
Because every war is <blink>TOTAL WAR</blink> and every conflict goes to the side with the most guns?
Not every conflict, but having the most guns is a definite advantage.
Only if you're prepared to commit those guns and pay the costs. Hugh's point is that people defending their own homes will commit 100% to the effort, all the guns, all the lives, everything, before accepting defeat. The calculus is different if you're a relatively wealthy aggressor looking to expand your empire. I think one or two chroniclers of history have observed this in practice and made mention of it.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests