Even if you blow up an ICBM at 30,000 feet it still does a lot of damage on the ground, does it not, in terms of fallout?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter kristiang85
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Apparently pro-Putin anti-NATO scumbags have tried to hijack events at Trafalgar Square today:
Shame on them, and if they tried that in York I'd give them a right mouthful as I am sure would many others.
Shame on them, and if they tried that in York I'd give them a right mouthful as I am sure would many others.
I guess it would, but surely not in the same league as if one actually went off in a ground or air burst scenario?
I’m thinking about the difference between a Chernobyl style radiation disaster as it breaks up and the fragments land and an actual warhead going off (both bleak but one significantly bleaker).
brad465
Veteran Member
I doubt they'll get anywhere, and I think the best thing we can all do is ignore them; protests after all are about gaining attention to a particular cause, so if ignored long enough they'll give up.
DustyBin
Established Member
That’s my understanding too, however Putin appears somewhat atypical……
I believe the idea is that it won’t actually detonate. The radioactive material will still obviously land somewhere but the impact would be comparatively minor. Destroying the missile in space looks to be the best option but if we have that capability it’s definitely classified!
So he's making a mistake - a serious one; we agree.
In the West, most people shrugged because that move had, unusually, popular support in Crimea. The fact most of the inhabitants of Crimea liked Russia and identified as Russian is exactly the same rationale Britain has for keeping its own overseas territories, one of which we fought a (just, and victorious) war over. There wasn't even a thread on here at the time it happened.
No, but they should still not be a NATO member. Accepting such a basket case into NATO brings risks to the rest of the alliance we don't need. They don't meet the requirements (the head of the navy defected to Russia when they came to Crimea!) and they shouldn't be in the EU either. It was folly for the West to entertain either; Russia was *already* occupying a significant portion of Ukraine and Article 5, and hence potentially World War 3, would have been invoked on day one of their membership.
It seems we are finding out now what happens when you seek NATO membership while also being very unfriendly with Russia, whom you share thousands of kilometres of flat, open-ground border with, and who occupy your best port, and which stole 54 of your naval vessels, and, and... I could go on. Ukraine was in trouble from before the little green men appeared in Crimea.
It is not their raison d'etre. We must only risk our servicepeople and materiel if it is tactically wise. Engaging Russia in combat is unwise. Besides, you should not engage the enemy while they are making a mistake, and Russia certainly is at the moment. Putin is acting against Russia's long term strategic interests; us going to war and "having it out" is pointlessly machismo pub chatter and not an argument I read very often from anyone who has any experience in risking their own life for HM Forces.
It is impossible for Russia to ever be a "normal country". It is vast, sparse, and its history pockmarked by invasions, conquests and strongman leaders. It has borders with 14 countries. Our failure to even acknowledge Russian paranoia in the West has meant we have treated it in a manner which has been against our interests since 1991. Russia is an angry, humiliated, and very proud country. See the treaty of Versailles for what happens when countries feel humiliated. there have been numerous occasions for a detente with the Russian federation since Putin's accession, not least the issues of extremist Islamic terrorism which could have been sharply decreased with Russian co-operation.
Russia does not get scared very easily; it has a crisis of existence which permeates its history. Life is much cheaper in Russia than it is in the West.
I am not sure when it comes to complex ethnic conflicts it is wise to point and say "you started it", especially if you choose the start point to be the annexation of Crimea just a few days after the conclusion of a violent revolution.
We have watched on the sidelines before as Russia has killed non-Europeans and Muslims, what is different this time?
I think a divided Ukraine is inevitable, or at the very least some sort of recognition Crimea is Russian. It is inconceivable for Putin not to come away with anything.
The blunder in Ukraine may force Russia to realign its aspirations and "phsyche" more with reality. As I said, potentially its Suez moment.
We lost an empire as well. Does that give us the right to go around invading former colonies that wish to remain independant ?
Nowhere have I suggested that Russia has a right to do any of this. Nonetheless, it helps us to understand that Ukraine was not a colony and many Russians consider Kiev to be the cradle of Russian identity, rather than an outpost gathered through conquest.
What else did we think would happen in these conditions? The West has inched ever closer to Russia over 30 years. Why do you think the West left Ukraine alone all that time?
I don't get all of this anger and humiliation that they have. They haven't been invaded, no ones forced them to adopt western ways, as can be seen by the dreadful way the country is run.
It's purely down to the fact that they want to still run their neighbours, and their neighbours don't want them there. There's a reason why neighbouring countries have been adopting western institutions, and that reason is the overbearing, belligerant nature of Russia itself, as can be seen with recent events.
You'd maybe be looking at a small dirty bomb issue where the actual physics package (or remains of) land. A nuclear weapon is multiple sub critical and stable lumps of radioactive material that only explode when they are forced together in a very precise way by a directed conventional explosion. Disintegration of a warhead wouldn't set it off.
You've got the US/Israel Iron Dome system which is very good at shooting down missiles but a) I'm not sure if it's deployed anywhere except Israel and b) I don't think it's really for ICBMs. If Ukraine had it it would be brilliant for shooting down the MLRS rockets Russia are firing. You've also got the US Aegis system which has in tests managed to shoot down ICBMs and is meant to be the pointy part of NATOs European missile defense system. Primarily it's a ship based system mounted on various navy's ships in the Med but as part of its deployment various (Poland and Romania to start) are meant to have land based systems soon. If those are currently active and functional is a different matter.
That's on you, then.
It's probably a bit late now but I very much recommend a visit to Russia at some point to see how benign and wonderful the ordinary Russian person is, but also the deep and masochistic psychological scars the country has.
That, and the dysfunctional, kleptocratic nature of Russia itself. Make no mistake, it is a basket case, but it did not have to be that way.
There are better ways of dealing with deep and masochistic psychological scars than invading your neighbour, particularly as Ukraine wasn't responsible for those scars in the first place.
Whatever the cause, Russia has truly poisoned the relationship with most of it's neighbours now. It will have to negotiate through the deep and psychological scars it has caused to its neighbours for a very long time.
That is a matter of opinion. Many Ukrainians would say that it was ruled by Russia as a colony. Russians may claim Kyiv (and the ancient state of Rus) as Russian, but other east slavs disagree and would say that modern Russian identity developed after the period of Mongol domination. Rus was not Russia, or Ukraine or anything else - these came later.
The ordinary Russian person is neither more nor less benign and wonderful than the ordinary anyone else. Sweeping generalisations about whole nations are rarely helpful.
And there is the reason that the "The West hates us" narrative that has kept Putin in power works so well.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Indeed the US has been obsessed with finishing off Russia since WW2 and we seem to want ignore what we agreed with them at Potsdam. Of course the ultimate prize for the US was to see off communism and when that opportunity presented itself they squandered it and when it was obvious Russia was regressing again the US goes out of its way through its proxy NATO to wind them up and then double down.
Of course we believe in our of way life but why do we believe its the only way and we need to impose on others come what may.
Reality here is much wider than Ukraine there is a real risk of global disorder breaking out all over the place from the economic impacts especially if West get proper serious with sanctions and tells them we don't there oil and gas anymore the price will rocket. This will lead to many developing countries suffering serious economic consequences leading to more migration to rich countries.
Yes, it's an ethnic disagreement, not dissimilar to what we've seen in the Balkans, Ireland, Africa and so on. There is very little objective truth around (what, for example, is "Britishness" even?), but it is important to understand the Russian perspective, as very few in the West seem willing to attempt.
I did not say they were, merely pointing out that the average Russian is actually no different, to a poster who has spent most of the last 48 hours ramping up his anti-Russian rhetoric.
Perhaps - the West correctly believes that Russia can never be fully normalised but incorrectly believes the Russians are irredeemably dysfunctional. We will look back on the errors of 1991 and beyond as a lost opportunity. I should add, lest I be called an apologist, that none of this excuses Russia's flagrant disregard for international norms, its illegal and evil invasion of a sovereign country, and Russia has the agency to stop it and act in a more upstanding way.
Indeed. A lot more could have been done to help Russia integrate into the global system rather than keep them on the outside.
As the saying goes: keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.
Unfortunately we're not dealing with the "average ordinary Russian". In fact they seem to be quite a long way down the chain of command in the Kremlin with a large proportion of belligarent pro-invasion types sat underneath Putin. I don't see how that is going to change.
Either way, having a Russian army marauding around the European continent is not going to be in the West's interest under any circumstance, so I imagine that there will be a lot more military activity and kit in the area to prevent that going forward.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They had the same opportunies as all the other Eastern European countries.
cactustwirly
Established Member
I think a lot of people are being Naive and blaming NATO expansion.
They don't understand the politics of Eastern Europe. These countries have basically been messed around by the USSR for over 50 years. They hate the idea of being a puppet state for Russia.
Being part of NATO and the EU helps preserve their democracy as free countries.
This all started when Ukraine overthrew the pro Russian government in 2014. They don't want to be a puppet state like Belarus.
Then you have Russia ruled by a delusional dictator that wants to rebuild the USSR. Covid has shown he is not immortal, so he has decided now is the time to invade.
I'm convinced this would have happened regardless of Ukraine trying to be part of NATO.
I don't see how this ends, both sides will never give in.
Unless a certain dictator finds a bullet in their skull.
The West cannot intervene because we cannot be sure Putin won't press the red button. He is unpredictable and completely out of his mind
They don't understand the politics of Eastern Europe. These countries have basically been messed around by the USSR for over 50 years. They hate the idea of being a puppet state for Russia.
Being part of NATO and the EU helps preserve their democracy as free countries.
This all started when Ukraine overthrew the pro Russian government in 2014. They don't want to be a puppet state like Belarus.
Then you have Russia ruled by a delusional dictator that wants to rebuild the USSR. Covid has shown he is not immortal, so he has decided now is the time to invade.
I'm convinced this would have happened regardless of Ukraine trying to be part of NATO.
I don't see how this ends, both sides will never give in.
Unless a certain dictator finds a bullet in their skull.
The West cannot intervene because we cannot be sure Putin won't press the red button. He is unpredictable and completely out of his mind
Sometimes opportunity isn't enough by itself. The Eastern European countries had half a century of domination by Russia to provide an impetus to join the west. What was Russia's encouragement?
(My bold) So in one breath you mention that being in NATO is the solution, then in another you vacillate against military intervention on the grounds Russia may launch a nuclear strike.
If Ukraine was a NATO country, and, as you believe, the invasion would have happened anyway, would you be happy with our position of having to declare a (potentially nuclear) war on Russia as would be our obligation?
Please, let us have some clarity in our thinking here.
I read the post you are quoting as saying that Ukraine's *attempt* to join NATO wasn't the trigger - that the invasion would have happened even if they hadn't sought membership.
It seems that Russia's establishment has gotten too used to doing the dominating.
As a country we often stand accused of being too obsessed with our imperial past and WW2 etc. Russia seems to have that issue to a far greater extent.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Potsdam 1945 agreed to Russia's political sphere of influence and actually Churchill had front run this when he met Stalin in 1944. This was the basis of moving forward after WW2 but the US was never happy with it and have antagonised the USSR ever since including using NATO as a proxy.
The Wests view of how the globe should be run can't be the only philosophy that is allowed in the world and that any other philosophy is to be overturned.
This won't end until Putin goes but before that happens we risk contagion round the world from the economic impact that this will have and the refugee crisis now emerging in Ukraine will emerge in other countries that can't afford to buy the food to feed there people due to the price increases.
No one forced Russia to become Western. The fact that it clearly hasn't illustrates that (I say that, rather it picks and chooses the bits of western philosophy that allows its establishment to enrich itself while ditching anything it doesn't fancy). It's just that it doesn't like other countries being able to choose to become more western.
Perhaps that's the problem here. The Russian establishment wants to have its cake and eat it. Why should we let it access all of our markets and systems if it's not prepared to adopt the other bits of western philosophy that contribute to stability.
It seems Ukraine sought to acquire Iron Dome. Israel has the right of refusal. They refused. The article is dated 15th Feb 2022.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israe...e-to-ukraine-fearing-russian-reaction-report/
That is what I alluded to earlier in the thread - we were quite happy to help Russia become more capitalist, but we didn't encourage social liberalism and democratic society.
Unfortunately I think Ukraine will be a hotbed of conflict for many years to come. The last two Ukrainian presidents who have preferred the Kremlin over the EU and NATO were quickly gotten rid of by the Ukrainian people. Yet Pro European presidents feel the wrath of Russia. I worry there is no end to this fighting as there will be no solution acceptable to both sides
Surely its up to the country in question to become more socially liberal and democratic ?
As I said earlier, what more could the west have done to "encourage" another country to become more socially liberal and democratic ?
Of course it is.
Encouraging cultural exchanges, scholarships at Western universities for regular people rather than elites, big media portraying Russians as heroes, easing visa requirements for travel to the West...