• 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

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,649
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You can’t have it both ways. Either Ukraine should be able to defend itself by whatever means it can, including, if another country agrees, by assistance of their resources which may include their military forces, or it can’t.

Ukraine can do what it likes. The issue is that if NATO gets involved the war will widen to become a NATO-Russian war which will likely be nuclear.

I'm not quite sure why that's difficult to understand? NATO clearly agrees or they would be involved on the ground/in the air by now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,816
Location
West is best
Ukraine can do what it likes. The issue is that if NATO gets involved the war will widen to become a NATO-Russian war which will likely be nuclear.

I'm not quite sure why that's difficult to understand? NATO clearly agrees or they would be involved on the ground/in the air by now.
But you already know that N.AT.O. cannot lead the defence of a non-N.A.TO. country as a organisation, as N.AT.O. is a defensive alliance that exists to defend N.AT.O. member countries.

That does not stop any country from assisting Ukraine. And yes, this could include a N.AT.O. member country. Being a member of N.AT.O. does not affect a member country independence and control of their own forces.

I acknowledge that currently no N.AT.O. member countries are willing to help Ukraine. And most of them when asked are indeed giving the reason as not wanting to widen the war.

What is annoying is that these same countries are being very public in their outrage over the large number of civilians that are being killed (apparently breaking the normal ‘rules’ of war, hence being referred to as war crimes). But apart from supplying a limited amount of military equipment and some funding, don’t want to do anything else to help Ukraine in the war it finds itself in with Russia.

Yes, there will ALWAYS be a risk in ANY decision or non-decision (that’s life). There is a risk that by Biden calling Putin a war criminal, it could escalate the war. There is a risk by continuing to increase the sanctions on Russia, that this could escalate the war.

It’s not just about the worst outcome as seen from our perspective. It’s also about making Putin think about what the consequences are for him and Russia. If the western countries are serious about stopping Putin’s Russia, we have to have the balls to call him out. Not hide behind ‘we risk widening the war’ and doing nothing much militarily.

The ‘weak’ western countries not helping militarily is exactly what Putin is counting on. Which is exactly the reason that the west should not play his game.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
No, I have not answered my own question. And I never mentioned N.A.T.O. either. My question was a point of principle, not about a specific country helping Ukraine, or a N.A.T.O. country helping Ukraine (although it could be a country that is a member of N.A.T.O.).

The principle is that Turkey used it’s own military to defend its own airspace; I’m not sure why you can’t see the difference? As for not mentioning NATO, who do you think is going to act unilaterally? Poland maybe? And when Russia starts attacking Polish airbases then what? The same applies to any other member. Unless you think Moldova should give it a go……

It does not matter what the dispute is about, or indeed even if Russia officially recognises Ukraine as an independent country. Ukraine defending itself is already happening. It’s already firing on Russian forces.

Correct, but Ukraine and Russia are at war so firing on each other’s forces is to be expected.

You can’t have it both ways. Either Ukraine should be able to defend itself by whatever means it can, including, if another country agrees, by assistance of their resources which may include their military forces, or it can’t.

Ukraine should be able to defend itself and is doing so. If another country attacks Russian forces in aid of Ukraine that country may well find that Russia retaliates. This isn’t about what’s fair and just, it’s about preventing an already terrible situation escalating any further.

Ukraine can do what it likes. The issue is that if NATO gets involved the war will widen to become a NATO-Russian war which will likely be nuclear.

I'm not quite sure why that's difficult to understand? NATO clearly agrees or they would be involved on the ground/in the air by now.

Clearly some people think Russia will pack up and go home at the first sight of NATO forces, or are happy to find themselves on the front line of a wider conflict. As you say NATO clearly agrees that the risk of escalation is too high or they’d have been in/over Ukraine by now.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
But apart from supplying a limited amount of military equipment and some funding, don’t want to do anything else to help Ukraine in the war it finds itself in with Russia.
I might be off in the numbers, since I'm going by memory - Ukraine's annual military budget is something like $5B. Since December the USA alone has provided over $2B worth of armaments.

You can’t have it both ways. Either Ukraine should be able to defend itself by whatever means it can, including, if another country agrees, by assistance of their resources which may include their military forces, or it can’t.
I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand or if you're trolling...

Russia and Ukraine are at war. Their aircraft and ground to air systems are already firing at each other. There is a NOTAM to that effect which tells everyone to avoid the area as they may be attacked without warning - this applies equally to civilian and military aircraft.

If a NATO military aircraft enters Ukrainian airspace and is shot down, Russia will have done nothing wrong and would not have acted in an escalatory manner.

NATO and Russia are not at war. If a NATO military aircraft attacks a Russian aircraft then NATO has acted in an escalatory manner and, in a very real manner, started a war with Russia.
 

Noddy

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
1,654
Location
UK
In other news, Putin's rodeo clown Vladimir Zhirinovsky has died.

One of his more bizarre proposals was to build giant fans on the border to blow radioactive waste into the Baltic states; he also got into an orange juice fight with Boris Nemtsov in 1995.

Very interesting that in December he ‘predicted’ Russia would invade Ukraine on the 22 February. He was two days wrong. Clearly everyone seems to have known what was going to happen but significant parts of the ‘west’ were in complete denial.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
But you already know that N.AT.O. cannot lead the defence of a non-N.A.TO. country as a organisation, as N.AT.O. is a defensive alliance that exists to defend N.AT.O. member countries.

That does not stop any country from assisting Ukraine. And yes, this could include a N.AT.O. member country. Being a member of N.AT.O. does not affect a member country independence and control of their own forces.

Do you really think Russia will see it this way, and do you expect them to therefore be OK with said country attacking their forces?

Again, if Russia retaliates and Article 5 is triggered you have a NATO-Russia war.

I acknowledge that currently no N.AT.O. member countries are willing to help Ukraine. And most of them when asked are indeed giving the reason as not wanting to widen the war.

That is the reality.

What is annoying is that these same countries are being very public in their outrage over the large number of civilians that are being killed (apparently breaking the normal ‘rules’ of war, hence being referred to as war crimes). But apart from supplying a limited amount of military equipment and some funding, don’t want to do anything else to help Ukraine in the war it finds itself in with Russia.

It’s possible to be outraged without wishing to put your own population in the same position (or worse). Again, that’s the harsh reality of the situation.

Yes, there will ALWAYS be a risk in ANY decision or non-decision (that’s life). There is a risk that by Biden calling Putin a war criminal, it could escalate the war. There is a risk by continuing to increase the sanctions on Russia, that this could escalate the war.

But risks are calculated and in regard to direct military intervention the risk is clearly too high.

It’s not just about the worst outcome as seen from our perspective. It’s also about making Putin think about what the consequences are for him and Russia. If the western countries are serious about stopping Putin’s Russia, we have to have the balls to call him out. Not hide behind ‘we risk widening the war’ and doing nothing much militarily.

The ‘weak’ western countries not helping militarily is exactly what Putin is counting on. Which is exactly the reason that the west should not play his game.

What the West has done is give Ukraine the ability to stop Russia. Your argument was far more compelling at the start of the conflict when “who’s next?” was the worrying question, however Russia has failed to overrun Ukraine so it’s a moot point at this stage. And I think Putin is shocked by the severity of the sanctions imposed to date; the West hasn’t been weak in its response in my opinion, it’s been firm but measured.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Ukraine can do what it likes. The issue is that if NATO gets involved the war will widen to become a NATO-Russian war which will likely be nuclear.

You seem to have missed out the words 'might' and 'small chance' in your reply. You're basically taking something that, awful as it would be, really has only a very tiny chance of happening, even if we (and it would likely be individual countries, not 'NATO') did act to defend Ukraine, and falsely presenting it as if it was a near-certainty.
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,816
Location
West is best
I might be off in the numbers, since I'm going by memory - Ukraine's annual military budget is something like $5B. Since December the USA alone has provided over $2B worth of armaments.
And what percentage of that military equipment is capable of hitting and destroying Russia mobile conventional artillery, Russia mobile unguided rocket launchers and Russian cruise missile launchers, the vast majority of which are going to be well behind the Russian ’front line’ ?

As it is these that are currently doing the most damage against the Ukrainian infrastructure and their forces.

Normally ground attack aircraft would be used to deal with the artillery and unguided rocket launchers.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,649
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You seem to have missed out the words 'might' and 'small chance' in your reply. You're basically taking something that, awful as it would be, really has only a very tiny chance of happening, even if we (and it would likely be individual countries, not 'NATO') did act to defend Ukraine, and falsely presenting it as if it was a near-certainty.

I don't agree. And I have faith in NATO's strategists who appear to agree with me over random people on Internet forums.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
And what percentage of that military equipment is capable of hitting and destroying Russia mobile conventional artillery, Russia mobile unguided rocket launchers and Russian cruise missile launchers, the vast majority of which are going to be well behind the Russian ’front line’ ?

As it is these that are currently doing the most damage against the Ukrainian infrastructure and their forces.
Increasingly more and more. The initial job was to stop the Russian advance - which meant anti-armour guided missiles and short-range air defence weapons were the priority.

Now that the advance on Kyiv has been repelled, the bulk of the assistance will be in the form of more offensive weaponry. For example, there are reports that Ukrainian troops are in the USA receiving training on Switchblade drones which would allow them to hit targets some distance behind the enemy lines.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,436
Location
London
Ukrainians are being put off coming to the UK, which is what the UK government was hoping.


A Ukrainian family has given up on moving to the UK after claiming their application took too long to process.

His relatives had permission to stay anywhere in the European Union and spent the first few weeks in the Netherlands and Belgium.
With their UK application taking so long to be processed, they decided to go to Ireland because English is the first language there.
He said they had been warmly welcomed and were staying at a hotel with other Ukrainian families.

Mr Mandziuk said his family now planned to stay in Ireland after what has already been an arduous journey - a decision he found "really disappointing".

Going to Ireland makes a lot of sense. It is an EU country and therefore you would end up with EU citizenship if you decided to stay. Going to the UK means you end up with a citizenship with fewer benefits.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,243
Location
UK
Russia and Ukraine are at war. Their aircraft and ground to air systems are already firing at each other. There is a NOTAM to that effect which tells everyone to avoid the area as they may be attacked without warning - this applies equally to civilian and military aircraft.

If a NATO military aircraft enters Ukrainian airspace and is shot down, Russia will have done nothing wrong and would not have acted in an escalatory manner.

NATO and Russia are not at war. If a NATO military aircraft attacks a Russian aircraft then NATO has acted in an escalatory manner and, in a very real manner, started a war with Russia.
Doesn't Vladimir routinely say that it's not a war?
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
"He can call it Bob if he wants, but if it looks like a war and quacks like a war..."
...it's kind of a military operation. But word on the street is this one's special.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,939
Location
Fenny Stratford
Normally ground attack aircraft would be used to deal with the artillery and unguided rocket launchers.
or by counter battery fire from your own artillery ( the Ukrainians have been using drones to locate targets and direct fire)

Ukrainians are being put off coming to the UK, which is what the UK government was hoping.
That is exactly what they want - they have tried to suggest to decent people they are helping all the while winking at their followers and saying sotto voce: dont worry we aint letting none of them forigns in.

Yes, there will ALWAYS be a risk in ANY decision or non-decision (that’s life). There is a risk that by Biden calling Putin a war criminal, it could escalate the war. There is a risk by continuing to increase the sanctions on Russia, that this could escalate the war.
The risk here is a widening conflict escalating, potentially, to nuclear war. The risk may be small but it is a risk nonetheless and it is risk we as a country aren't prepared to run. This is deterrence in action. It is why we don't bin our Trident systems. If this were a non nuclear power we would be involved. The reasons we cant get involved is clear to all, even you. I know you don't want to accept that but it is reality.

Shooting down one Russian plane wont launch Armageddon, but eventually as the tit for tat escalation spirals upwards we may reach that point. It is hard to get out of the spiral once you start it as each action demands a firmer reaction. Public/media reaction in the UK would demand we respond harder each time meaning Russia must respond even harder each time to our actions with each of us hitter bigger and more important targets as we step up the spiral. You must see at some point in that spiral the only option is surrender or the big red button.

As a leader how could you get off that spiral once you start to climb it? You would be thrown out of office as the public would consider you a coward or an appeaser and want you replaced with someone who had the balls to stand up to the Russians. You must see that, surely.

As it says in Wargames: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play
 

tommy2215

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2017
Messages
346
What is annoying is that these same countries are being very public in their outrage over the large number of civilians that are being killed (apparently breaking the normal ‘rules’ of war, hence being referred to as war crimes). But apart from supplying a limited amount of military equipment and some funding, don’t want to do anything else to help Ukraine in the war it finds itself in with Russia.

Yes, there will ALWAYS be a risk in ANY decision or non-decision (that’s life). There is a risk that by Biden calling Putin a war criminal, it could escalate the war. There is a risk by continuing to increase the sanctions on Russia, that this could escalate the war.

It’s not just about the worst outcome as seen from our perspective. It’s also about making Putin think about what the consequences are for him and Russia. If the western countries are serious about stopping Putin’s Russia, we have to have the balls to call him out. Not hide behind ‘we risk widening the war’ and doing nothing much militarily.

The ‘weak’ western countries not helping militarily is exactly what Putin is counting on. Which is exactly the reason that the west should not play his game.
A military intervention will only make the situation worse for reasons others have stated. And when we do attack militarily and things don't go how exactly how we were hoping there is no undo button to avoid the consequences.

Also two bits of good news this morning, the UN has voted to kick Russia out of the Human Rights council and Pakistan's pro-Putin prime minister who has been helping Russia to lessen the impact of the West's sanctions is on the cusp of being removed.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,719
the UN has voted to kick Russia out of the Human Rights council
This vote clearly shows that the Russia-Ukraine war is seen rather differently in many parts of the world outside Europe and its allies.

The council has 193 members

93 voted to expel Russie (ie less than half)
24 voted against expulsion - including China and Vietnam
58 abstained including Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
18 didn't turn up to the vote including Morocco
 

tommy2215

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2017
Messages
346
This vote clearly shows that the Russia-Ukraine war is seen rather differently in many parts of the world outside Europe and its allies.

The council has 193 members

93 voted to expel Russie (ie less than half)
24 voted against expulsion - including China and Vietnam
58 abstained including Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
18 didn't turn up to the vote including Morocco
The last vote to condemn Russia had 75% of countries voting against Russia. This vote was not about condemning the invasion. It was about the response to it. And most countries who voted against in this vote did it because they have close ties to Russia, not because they support the invasion.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
A sign that the Russian leadership are looking to change their narrative?
Russia has admitted suffering "significant losses of troops" in Ukraine, as the invasion enters its 44th day.

Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told British channel Sky News the casualties were "a huge tragedy for us".

He said he hoped Moscow would reach its war goals "in the coming days".

Mr Peskov's comments followed Russia's expulsion from the United Nations Human Rights council on Wednesday.

The "in the coming days" makes me think (hope?) that they are simply going to declare "mission accomplished" in the next few weeks no matter what the situation on the ground is. They really don't want to be fighting and losing even more soldiers by the time of the Victory Day parade (May 9th).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,649
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
A sign that the Russian leadership are looking to change their narrative?


The "in the coming days" makes me think that they are simply going to declare "mission accomplished" in the next few weeks no matter what the situation on the ground is. They really don't want to be fighting and losing even more soldiers by the time of the Victory Day parade (May 9th).

That or they'll do something really bad like chuck a nuke at Kiev.
 

Shrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
1,355
What is annoying is that these same countries are being very public in their outrage over the large number of civilians that are being killed (apparently breaking the normal ‘rules’ of war, hence being referred to as war crimes). But apart from supplying a limited amount of military equipment and some funding, don’t want to do anything else to help Ukraine in the war it finds itself in with Russia.
I know a lot of your point is focussed on the West being scared of military involvement, but with regard to the particular aspect as above here, both the politicians and the population ought to be taking a good look at themselves. We know that politicians are guilty of the most appalling double standards as Partygate has proved, and when it comes to Rishi Sunak's wife finding ways to pay vast sums in tax to a country which consistently refuses to say anything bad about Putin, rather than to the country where they have made their home and their very comfortable lifestyle, well for now I'll leave that for others to judge.

But the rest of the population? Well most people are quick to condemn the Russians and to claim they support Ukraine, but what about actual action? Yes, some people make donations, some even travel out to Ukraine on mercy missions, and others have offered their homes to accommodate refugees, and all of these things are to be commended, but the real plank in the eye is the continued purchase of Russian oil and gas by "The West", which continues to pay around 25 times as much to the Russians every day, as is given to the Ukranians in all forms of aid. Yes read that last bit again to let it sink in!!! Everyone should be asking themselves, how much they would actually be prepared to compromise their own lifestyles and comforts in order to not pay for Russian oil and gas. But instead, just look at the airports today and the vast numbers of people desperate to travel, which inevitably uses vast amounts of fuel, which then inevitably feeds the Russian coffers. As do most of our car journeys, and I've certainly seen no evidence of our roads getting any quieter recently, as a way of cutting off the funding of Russia.

Food for thought?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
But instead, just look at the airports today and the vast numbers of people desperate to travel, which inevitably uses vast amounts of fuel, which then inevitably feeds the Russian coffers. As do most of our car journeys, and I've certainly seen no evidence of our roads getting any quieter recently, as a way of cutting off the funding of Russia.

Food for thought?
If you're speaking specifically of the UK then it would make very little difference. We extract the majority of the oil that we use from the North Sea and the vast majority of our imports come from Norway and the USA. I believe that Russian oil imports were something like 3% of our total usage.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,378
Location
Yorks
A sign that the Russian leadership are looking to change their narrative?


The "in the coming days" makes me think (hope?) that they are simply going to declare "mission accomplished" in the next few weeks no matter what the situation on the ground is. They really don't want to be fighting and losing even more soldiers by the time of the Victory Day parade (May 9th).

Possibly the Russian State's attempt to garner international sympathy, even though the terrible tragedy is entirely of the Russian state's own making.
 

Shrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
1,355
If you're speaking specifically of the UK then it would make very little difference. We extract the majority of the oil that we use from the North Sea and the vast majority of our imports come from Norway and the USA. I believe that Russian oil imports were something like 3% of our total usage.
I'm speaking of the whole of The West, since that's where the outrage is coming from. But, when it comes to making personal sacrifices to help, the question remains the same, are we actually prepared to do it?
 

Annetts key

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
3,816
Location
West is best
… but the real plank in the eye is the continued purchase of Russian oil and gas by "The West", which continues to pay around 25 times as much to the Russians every day, as is given to the Ukranians in all forms of aid. Yes read that last bit again to let it sink in!!! Everyone should be asking themselves, how much they would actually be prepared to compromise their own lifestyles and comforts in order to not pay for Russian oil and gas. But instead, just look at the airports today and the vast numbers of people desperate to travel, which inevitably uses vast amounts of fuel, which then inevitably feeds the Russian coffers. As do most of our car journeys, and I've certainly seen no evidence of our roads getting any quieter recently, as a way of cutting off the funding of Russia.

Food for thought?
For over 17 years, primarily due to climate change, I’ve been trying to reduce my fossil fuel usage. This includes driving a petrol/electric hybrid car and trying to drive it sensibly (I typically average 50 to 53MPG).

Alas due to personal circumstances with a family member, in the last couple of months I have had to increase the amount of driving I do. But this is partly compensated by the reduced amount of driving to work now that the train service is nearly back to normal (most of my commuting to work is by train).

For heating and domestic hot water, my home uses gas. The heating uses a thermostat and a time switch. Both of which are used to limit the temperature. I’ve already doubled the insulation in the loft. And the house already has double glazing. All lights (apart from in the loft spaces) are energy efficient types.

For a while now, I have been trying to avoid buying products that come directly from China, or which are made in China. But this is very difficult.

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine this year, I am also trying to avoid buying products that come directly from Russia, or which are made in Russia.

But yes, I get your point. For many people, they don’t think how their own life has a wider affect. The U.K. imports gas, as output from the North Sea has fallen over the years, and is set to continue to fall I believe.

But our imports could be reduced, if people reduced their energy use. If more houses, homes and other buildings were insulated better, energy use for heating could be significantly cut.

Similarly, we could cut the amount of oil, petrol and diesel consumption if we reduced our use of the car. And if more people changed to either hybrid or electric road vehicles.

And reducing energy usage is cheaper overall, as well as reducing our dependence on fossil fuels (including imported fuels).

And all of this can apply to other countries, not just the U.K.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
I'm speaking of the whole of The West, since that's where the outrage is coming from.
Which other countries in "The West" have you been monitoring the roads in to see if they're quieter?

Picking Germany as an example, and Tom Tom's traffic congestion report as a data source, it would appear that German cities were, on average, about 3% less congested in 2021 than in 2019. Which strongly suggests people are driving less.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,714
Location
Scotland
Doing so wouldn’t achieve anything. Honestly, for your own sanity try and put the thought aside.
I agree it's unlikely, but I can definitely see a scenario play out in which they stage some form of false flag NBC attack as 'proof' that they were right to go in and 'save' the people of Ukraine.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
I agree it's unlikely, but I can definitely see a scenario play out in which they stage some form of false flag NBC attack as 'proof' that they were right to go in and 'save' the people of Ukraine.

Don’t get me wrong I’m aware of what Putin is capable of, but it’s easy to preoccupy oneself with worst case scenarios which isn’t healthy.
 

Top