Russia invades Ukraine

[yorksrob]

Macron just has a tendency to always look like he's jumped the gun, failed to consult with his allies, misunderstood the situation and is biting off far more than he knows how to chew - he's almost Trumpian in that respect.

In general I respect people who attempt to talk peace until the last possible moment, and, like Chamberlain, I think history can misjudge them. In this case though a lot of the late stage diplomacy was based on a misunderstanding of Putin. Countries lying geographically closer to the whole situation were making it clear a week before the invasion that sanctions were required immediately, and ultimately Macron's bumbling diplomacy probably got in the way of that a little.

Possibly true. I think there is a need to be seen to expend all diplomatic options, but it hasn't stopped France acting, which is the key thing for me.

 

[adc82140]

The 'pressing of the button' is a very complicated and fail safe process. There are levels of security in there to ensure a rogue leader cannot simply do as he pleases. Generals and above can actually over rule and block decisions to use weapons of mass destruction. These are decisions of which are usually taken at military leadership level and only approved by the President or Prime Minister. Not the other way round.

Case in point Donald Trump. Mentally unbalanced and paranoid, but he went a full term as president without ordering a nuclear strike.

 

[takno]

Case in point Donald Trump. Mentally unbalanced and paranoid, but he went a full term as president without ordering a nuclear strike.

Probably just as well the nuclear codes can't be saved on a Twitter account for easy activation in that particular case

 

[GS250]

Case in point Donald Trump. Mentally unbalanced and paranoid, but he went a full term as president without ordering a nuclear strike.

Too much to lose due the concept of MAD. I think it's important the wider public is aware of this concept. Some, understandably were very upset and concerned at Putin's 'consequences' remarks and the potential nuclear connotations. Especially as he specifically mentioned the UK. Rest assured, the UK is more than capable of defending itself.

 

[coppercapped]

The 'pressing of the button' is a very complicated and fail safe process. There are levels of security in there to ensure a rogue leader cannot simply do as he pleases. Generals and above can actually over rule and block decisions to use weapons of mass destruction. These are decisions of which are usually taken at military leadership level and only approved by the President or Prime Minister. Not the other way round.

I would gently point out that European 'rules of engagement' (so to speak) are not replicated in Russia. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is none other than...

...Vladimir Putin.

As Putin has elected to start this war he cannot afford to lose it. A concern that I have is is that if his conventional forces cannot take Kyiv quickly and with minimal loses, he might be unhinged enough to nuke it.

As no NATO state was directly attacked, would any of the western nuclear powers then retaliate ?

 

[GS250]

I would gently point out that European 'rules of engagement' (so to speak) are not replicated in Russia. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is none other than...

...Vladimir Putin.

As Putin has elected to start this war he cannot afford to lose it. A concern that I have is is that if his conventional forces cannot take Kyiv quickly and with minimal loses, he might be unhinged enough to nuke it.

True...but he would surely face a massive revolt from his own senior staff....not to mention his own electorate. If only for the fact that he would be killing (educated guess) at least 500,000 Russians let alone several million Ukrainians. That's if he aimed several strategic warheads at the cities.

 

[birchesgreen]

The 'pressing of the button' is a very complicated and fail safe process. There are levels of security in there to ensure a rogue leader cannot simply do as he pleases. Generals and above can actually over rule and block decisions to use weapons of mass destruction. These are decisions of which are usually taken at military leadership level and only approved by the President or Prime Minister. Not the other way round.

Well yes i know, same as when there was hysteria about Trump

 

[adc82140]

Then there's the person who actually presses the button. There is no big red thing in the nuclear briefcase that physically launches anything. A general somewhere would actually be tasked with doing the deed. If the president is suicidal, they probably are not, and would disobey orders.

 

[Gloster]

As no NATO state was directly attacked, would any of the western nuclear powers then retaliate ?

Probably not. There would be a lot of hand-wringing and a few bits of loudly trumpeted decisive action, such as suspending Putin’s girlfriend’s Harrods charge card, but little actual action. In truth, it is a bit difficult to know what you can do against someone with the WMDs, but without any scruples/sense of self-preservation, unless you want to start a nuclear war. We have seen plenty of leaders lacking in scruple, but they hadn’t got the weapons (yet), so this is a new situation and there will be no agreement. I doubt if Britain or France would launch their rockets, but possibly the biggest worry would be Biden feeling he must retaliate in order to look tough. Even a token single rocket out in the wilds of the steppe could set the whole thing off.

 

[Ediswan]

The 'pressing of the button' is a very complicated and fail safe process. There are levels of security in there to ensure a rogue leader cannot simply do as he pleases. Generals and above can actually over rule and block decisions to use weapons of mass destruction. These are decisions of which are usually taken at military leadership level and only approved by the President or Prime Minister. Not the other way round.

Depends on the country. US has the Permissive Action Link which often features in films and on TV. UK has never had an equivalent. British Trident submarine commanders can launch without authorisation.

 

[adc82140]

Add to this Boris Yeltsin was in a drunken stupor most of the time and never launched an attack.

 

[birchesgreen]

Depends on the country. US has the Permissive Action Link which often features in films and on TV. UK has never had an equivalent. British Trident submarine commanders can launch without authorisation.

They can though the process is transparent, there was an interesting docu aboard a Vanguard sub a few years ago, any orders received about firing literally have to be paraded across the control room in plain sight.

 

[Spamcan81]

Probably not. There would be a lot of hand-wringing and a few bits of loudly trumpeted decisive action, such as suspending Putin’s girlfriend’s Harrods charge card, but little actual action. In truth, it is a bit difficult to know what you can do against someone with the WMDs, but without any scruples/sense of self-preservation, unless you want to start a nuclear war. We have seen plenty of leaders lacking in scruple, but they hadn’t got the weapons (yet), so this is a new situation and there will be no agreement. I doubt if Britain or France would launch their rockets, but possibly the biggest worry would be Biden feeling he must retaliate in order to look tough. Even a token single rocket out in the wilds of the steppe could set the whole thing off.

No nuclear armed NATO power is going to launch at Russia in order to "look tough". They would react however if they detect incoming missiles from Russia.

 

[yorksrob]

Depends on the country. US has the Permissive Action Link which often features in films and on TV. UK has never had an equivalent. British Trident submarine commanders can launch without authorisation.

They do have their sealed orders from the PM in the event of the country being incapacitated.

Whether they decide to go ahead with them in the event of the country being incapacitated, would of course depend on them.

 

[najaB]

As no NATO state was directly attacked, would any of the western nuclear powers then retaliate ?

Unlike others, I believe that there would almost certainly be a response. While the missiles wouldn't have landed in a NATO state, fallout knows no borders.

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war.

 

[Spamcan81]

Unlike others, I believe that there would almost certainly be a response. While the missiles wouldn't have landed in a NATO state, fallout knows no borders.

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war.

Fall out would be the least of your worries after a full scale nuclear exchange and any radioactive spread from a nuke of Kyiv would pale into insignificance.

 

[squizzler]

I can't believe they are forcing 59 year olds to fight.

Nobody being “forced.” Anyway weren’t half the cast of Dad’s army mostly that age?

Thats not the only way the situation seems reminiscent if Britain’s darkest hour. Anyone else think their president is starting to seem rather Churchillian? He is successfully building international grand coalition and communicates the importance of the struggle, albeit through Twitter rather than crackly wireless oratory. His words reassure his people that they can do this and they will prevail.

 

[Gloster]

I read that Patel has cancelled the visas for the Belarusian men’s basketball team’s trip to play a match in Newcastle. That’ll show ‘em. No matter that they had already said that they weren’t coming as the match had already been postponed by the basketball authorities, it makes her look tough. And it is only a minority sport: if it had been football it might have upset too many people.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m absolutely not an appeaser, however what can the West do at this point that wouldn’t simply escalate the situation?

Provide the humanitarian support, the arms and the money to Ukraine to keep going, degrade the Russian economy in any way we can, share intelligence etc.

The money's an important one. The country has effectively been forced to shut down its economy by the invasion, so providing money to replace it would go a long way.

 

[coppercapped]

True...but he would surely face a massive revolt from his own senior staff....not to mention his own electorate. If only for the fact that he would be killing (educated guess) at least 500,000 Russians let alone several million Ukrainians. That's if he aimed several strategic warheads at the cities.

It may be assumed that Putin's main target is the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky whom he called a drug-fuelled neo-Nazi in his recent TV diatribe. There is no need to nuke any other city.

Add to this Boris Yeltsin was in a drunken stupor most of the time and never launched an attack.

Absolutely irrelevant. John Simpson, the BBC's world affairs editor and a very experienced foreign and war correspondent wrote the following article a day or so ago which, to my mind, summarises the current situation. The key point is in the second paragraph:

In November 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, we believed that the old division of the world into East versus West was just history. Because the ideological conflict between capitalism and Communism had evaporated, there was a feeling that we were all basically on the same side.

The trouble was, for Vladimir Putin, the one-time KGB officer based in East Germany, the collapse of the old Soviet Union seems to have morphed into a bitter personal resentment which grew worse as the years went by. The fact that Ukraine, once a key part of the USSR, broke away from the Russian Federation was an insult to everything Putin believed in.

It didn't matter that Russia had signed an international agreement accepting the boundaries of the new Ukrainian state. By 2014 President Putin had spotted a way of taking over Crimea, the most symbolically Russian part of Ukraine, by infiltrating his soldiers into the peninsula.

They blocked it off, and after holding a referendum of the mostly ethnic Russian population he turned it effectively into part of the Russian state. It was against international law, but the West still clung to the notion that it could do business with Putin's Russia.

There were speeches and sanctions, but nothing that made President Putin or his associates have serious second thoughts.

The same thing happened when Putin's enemies, or people the old KGB and its successor the FSB, regarded as traitors, were poisoned, shot or otherwise disposed of in Britain and Europe. The West issued warnings and imposed new sanctions, but Putin's Russia was prepared to live with them.

In the past 10 years, Russia started to form a new bloc with China - not necessarily hostile to the West, but providing support for each other in the face of Western criticism.
President Xi Jinping and President Putin created a mutual support group. Now China is refusing to condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine, and people in Taiwan, the breakaway territory which Xi Jinping has always refused to say he won't invade, are starting to wonder if it could be their turn next.

Altogether, then, the world is a far more worrying place than it was a few years ago. By comparison, the old Cold War years were far simpler, and for the most part the rules were a lot more clear - if one side intruded into the other's space, there was the ever-present threat of all-out mutually assured destruction. So it never happened, even though war came uncomfortably close more than once.

But after the collapse of Communism, the old rule-book was torn up. Now the boundaries are so vague, no-one knows where the red lines run.

With hindsight, and there's starting to be a lot of that, some politicians and academics are saying that Nato should perhaps have changed its whole approach after the Berlin Wall came down - it should have avoided humiliating Moscow by taking its old satellites in Eastern Europe on board, and lining them up in a way that seemed to Putin's Russia to be confrontational.

The mere suggestion that Ukraine might one day join Nato (even though it has always been regarded as unlikely) enraged the Kremlin, and helped persuade President Putin that he must deal with Ukraine once and for all.

Everyone knows this is his policy, and his alone. Various Russian politicians and even some leading military figures came out beforehand against any invasion. But Putin wouldn't be deflected. Now it's got to succeed, and Russia has got to come out as the clear victor, if his throw of the dice is to win the game. But military adventures like this are notoriously capable of going wrong.

Putin did succeed in Crimea, eight years ago, and his position at home was greatly reinforced. Maybe he'll succeed again, carving through the Ukrainian armed forces, making some significant gains, then withdrawing quickly and holding a victory parade.

It's perfectly possible. But suppose it doesn't happen this way. If Russian soldiers start dying in sizeable numbers and the sanctions against Russia start to have an effect, then Putin's own position will suffer.

What will he do then? There is only one answer - he'll clamp down on any domestic criticism even harder than he already has, in the name of national security. Russia is, even now, a surprisingly open society compared with the past.

That, surely, would come to an end. The Russian economy would suffer, and Chinese help wouldn't make up for the loss.
So Vladimir Putin, who seems to have launched his attack on Ukraine because of his 30-year resentment over the collapse of the old Soviet empire, might turn Russia back to the days of the USSR. And the West, which has tried for so long to pretend that Russia is just another country we can do business with, might find that the old days had come right back with a vengeance.

I am a War Baby - I lived through the Cold War, I remember the Hungarian Uprising, the Prague Spring and the monstrous border arrangements along the inner-German frontier. My wife's family is German and I have seen the Stasi documents in which her family were tracked and followed when they visited the East. One of the family living in the East made some slight criticism of Erich Honecker and was sent to work in a quarry breaking stones. He was a cellist and had always taken care of his hands...

All of this was encouraged and manipulated by the KGB of which Putin was a member.

I have no time at all for any of the apologists for Putin's actions who post here or anywhere else. As far as I am concerned they are the equivalent of Stalin's (or was it Lenin's?) 'useful idiots'.

Simpson's article may be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60515342

 

[yorksrob]

Realistically, if Russia fails in Ukraine and Putin ends up repressing Russia, from a strategic point of view, terrible though that will be for Russians, that would be a lot better for us than him succeeding in Ukraine.

The West needs to be looking after its own (and I include Ukraine in "the West") interests.

Fundamentally it's for Russians to sort out their own leadership.

 

[DanNCL]

I read that Patel has cancelled the visas for the Belarusian men’s basketball team’s trip to play a match in Newcastle. That’ll show ‘em. No matter that they had already said that they weren’t coming as the match had already been postponed by the basketball authorities, it makes her look tough. And it is only a minority sport: if it had been football it might have upset too many people.

They'd not be welcome in Newcastle anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

Hmm, how big is the Russian navy compared to our Navy?

How capable is it? Answer: not very!

It’s particularly ill-suited to fighting a modern, state-of-the-art equipped enemy away from home waters.

Why would you invade when we rely far too much on imports by sea? Far easier to try to isolate us.

What by attacking or blockading vessels belonging to other countries? The truth is they won’t attack the UK it’s a no win situation for them.

The Russian airforce has been and still are probing our air space and the Russian navy are getting as close as possible to our coastal waters.

I think it’s safe to say we do the same to them. They rarely if ever actually reach our air space; they’re posturing and keeping us on our toes. In an actual conflict they’d get even less close than they do now.

 

[Gloster]

I would think that Russia is far more likely to choose a cyber war and economic sabotage. I am not up in the technicalities of the Internet, web, etc., but my understanding is that they have large numbers of hackers working, directly or indirectly, for the Russian government. If, instead of spreading their efforts across a wide range of countries, they concentrated their efforts on a careful selection of British sites, they could stuff us big time.

There is also a lot of Russian money in this country in shell companies, held through nominees, etc., and if the Russian government coordinated the action, they could use it to cause chaos and instability. Despite Johnson talking tough, this country has only limited legal means to deal with the cash and has failed to provide the authorities policing what powers there are with anywhere near adequate resources.

 

[yorksrob]

I would think that Russia is far more likely to choose a cyber war and economic sabotage. I am not up in the technicalities of the Internet, web, etc., but my understanding is that they have large numbers of hackers working, directly or indirectly, for the Russian government. If, instead of spreading their efforts across a wide range of countries, they concentrated their efforts on a careful selection of British sites, they could stuff us big time.

There is also a lot of Russian money in this country in shell companies, held through nominees, etc., and if the Russian government coordinated the action, they could use it to cause chaos and instability. Despite Johnson talking tough, this country has only limited legal means to deal with the cash and has failed to provide the authorities policing what powers there are with anywhere near adequate resources.

Indeed. They use their criminal contingent as a training pool for national cyber warfare activities.

As mentioned earlier, I hope the West has been keeping its powder dry.

 

[Annetts key]

How capable is it? Answer: not very!

It’s particularly ill-suited to fighting a modern, state-of-the-art equipped enemy away from home waters.

You may be right, however under Putin Russia has been carrying out improvements to its navy. So the answer is, we won’t know until and if such a situation arises.

But you should never underestimate your enemy. To do so would be very foolish.

What by attacking or blockading vessels belonging to other countries? The truth is they won’t attack the UK it’s a no win situation for them.

They would not need a total blockade to make life difficult for us. Obviously NATO members should help. But it’s perfectly possible that not all companies or countries would want to take the risk with their ships.

I don’t think any of this is very likely. But we are discussing possibilities, not certainties here.

The main point I’m making is that to most people, Russia is a far away place. But that is not always true for their navy or airforce.

As I said earlier, we would not be a push over. And, as part of NATO, there is no way that Putin would mount any kind of serious attack against us. But that does not mean he would not try something.

 

[adc82140]

This is worth a read from Channel 4 News:

I had no idea that NATO Article 5 was rather nuanced.

FactCheck: could UK go to war with Russia and could there be nuclear conflict?

There are a lot of barriers in the way to a hypothetical NATO-Russia war.

www.channel4.com

With Russia advancing on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, FactCheck readers are asking us two important questions.

Could the UK and its Western allies end up at war with Russia? And how close – or not – are we to a possible nuclear conflict?

Let’s take a look.

Could the West go to war with Russia?​

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the military alliance that includes Britain and the US.

That’s key because NATO rules say that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

If Ukraine had been part of the bloc, Russia’s invasion this week would have been considered an assault on all 30 NATO countries (though whether he’d have gone ahead with the invasion under those circumstances is another question.)

Western nations have been providing indirect support to Ukraine without actually deploying troops or declaring war on Russia. (Ukrainian leaders have been very critical of what they say is a feeble response from their allies.)

But if Vladimir Putin decides to take the fight beyond Ukraine and launch an assault on a NATO member – targeting, for example, nearby Poland, Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania – this could all change.

If a member state is attacked, it can invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, known as the “collective defence” clause. That means it’s entitled to assistance from the other nations in the alliance.

So would that mean the UK going to war with Russia? Not necessarily.

Dr Kenton White, lecturer in strategic studies and international relations at the University of Reading, explained to FactCheck that invoking Article 5 “does not guarantee that all the other NATO states would send their armed forces.”

“The Article is quite explicit that military action is an option which can be included in response to an attack,” he added (his emphasis).

We can see this in the broad wording of the treaty, which says each state will take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” to protect the country that has been attacked.

So strictly speaking, even if Russia did attack a NATO member, the UK would not be required to declare war or send soldiers.

Though, giving his personal view, Dr White says he “would expect Britain to honour its obligation to fight”.

Elena Korosteleva, professor of international politics at the University of Kent, told FactCheck that she believes Russia is “unlikely to attack any NATO member states, as it would be a step too far, which would result in WWIII.”

Mark Webber, professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham, told FactCheck that while there is a “danger of escalation”, his “expectation/hope is that Russia is very well aware of the danger of any such action and would desist.”

Are we at risk of nuclear war?​

Russia has nuclear weapons, but Ukraine does not – it gave them up in 1994.

Professor Webber explains that “nuclear war only becomes imaginable if Russia and NATO enter into direct conflict.”

But even if there was such a conflict, that doesn’t automatically mean it’ll go nuclear.

That’s because of a principle called “mutual assured destruction”. The phrase was coined in the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the US competitively built up their nuclear stocks.

The idea is that if one country launches a large-scale nuclear attack on another, it’s effectively a suicide mission because both nations will end up obliterated through retaliation and counter-retaliation.

That prospect is so dire that, the thinking goes, even countries that have nuclear weapons will never end up using them – so long as their enemies have roughly equivalent arsenals too.

That’s the theory as it applies to “strategic” nuclear weapons – the large missiles that, if they’re used, are intended to secure some long-term overarching objective like ending a war.

But what about “tactical” nuclear weapons? These are smaller devices designed to aid one side in a short-term battle situation, where the doctrine of mutual assured destruction doesn’t apply.

Dr White said he “would not expect Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons whilst invading Ukraine.”

There is, he says, “no need, and it would immediately turn Russia into an international pariah, far worse than a conventional attack.”

“I don’t believe China would be willing to support their use by Russia,” he added.

However, Dr White says, if “President Putin’s expansion over-reaches itself with an invasion of the Baltic States [Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania]” there is a possibility that he might use tactical nuclear weapons to avoid defeat.

Nevertheless, we are a long way from this hypothetical scenario.

FactCheck verdict​

The UK and Russia would only end up at war if Russia attacks a NATO member and the UK decides to respond with military might.

As Ukraine is not part of NATO, the UK has no obligation to make any military intervention so long as the fighting stays where it is.

And we should stress: Russia has not yet attacked any NATO member and might never do so.

Even if it did launch an assault, there’s no guarantee that the rest of NATO would declare war or take military action in response.

And even if NATO members did retaliate with force, there are plenty of barriers – not least the prospect of mutual assured destruction and major loss of life on both sides – to prevent any country involved in a hypothetical future NATO-Russia war from deploying nuclear weapons.

 

[MattRat]

Something I learnt recently is Russian appears to be trying to take control of Ukrainian nuclear reactors. This is pure speculation of cours, but if those went into meltdown, it would effectively be like a nuke, without the possibility of nukes being fired back....

 

[yorksrob]

Something I learnt recently is Russian appears to be trying to take control of Ukrainian nuclear reactors. This is pure speculation of cours, but if those went into meltdown, it would effectively be like a nuke, without the possibility of nukes being fired back....

Surely it's up to us (the West) to decide whether such an action would be considered a nuclear attack.

 

[dgl]

Going by BBC news reports, Germany now sanctions targeted use of the SWIFT banking system against Russia and has sent/is sending weapons to Ukraine.
Also it seem Russian commanders are starting to get annoyed as the Army seems to be under resourced and they are running out of fuel.