Russia invades Ukraine

[Peterthegreat]

Indeed they aren't in military terms, though individual countries (US and UK primarily) need to stop the pointless rhetoric and just get on with supplying arms on the quiet. The rhetoric is pointless escalation. If we want to escalate, we need to do it using troops and planes, but if we don't we need to keep it quiet.

Absolutely agree. There is no benefit in publicly saying we will supply arms or type of arms. Nor is there any purpose to be gained by saying Ukraine should strike Russia. It makes an increasingly "threatened" regime even more nervous.

 

[tommy2215]

Thank you for helping make my point for me.

And I agree, I was just referring to those wanting to escalate the situation, which I feel may have been misunderstood.

So we should just bend over backwards to whatever Putin says? And no the alternative is not nuclear devastation. Putin will not go nuclear unless against the West unless Russia's existence is under threat. If Putin were to nuke the West, even if NATO did not fire back the consequences for Russia would be catastrophic. On balance doing nothing which you want is the far worse option.

I haven't really been following what the government have been doing in this respect (I prefer to limit my exposure to coverage of the war in all honesty, for my own sanity) but sadly the US and UK have long-standing form in this respect. I agree that quiet help to Ukraine is the best thing to do. Sabre-rattling won't scare Putin, I suspect, so has little purpose.

Indeed they aren't in military terms, though individual countries (US and UK primarily) need to stop the pointless rhetoric and just get on with supplying arms on the quiet. The rhetoric is pointless escalation. If we want to escalate, we need to do it using troops and planes, but if we don't we need to keep it quiet.

Suppling arms on the quiet? How do you propose to do that? Its a crazy and impractical idea on so many levels!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So we should just bend over backwards to whatever Putin says?

We may need to, yes.

And no the alternative is not nuclear devastation. Putin will not go nuclear unless against the West unless Russia's existence is under threat.

A dying man may not care about the effects on Russia.

If Putin were to nuke the West, even if NATO did not fire back the consequences for Russia would be catastrophic. On balance doing nothing which you want is the far worse option.

What I want is for us to do what we are presently doing but NOT intervene with troops/planes and stop issuing rhetoric.

Suppling arms on the quiet? How do you propose to do that? Its a crazy and impractical idea on so many levels!

You just supply them and say nothing about it to the media etc. I'm talking about the US coming out with rubbish like "we want to see a weakened Russia". Yes, we know you do, but it is grossly unhelpful and escalatory to actually say that, and gains nothing at all.

 

[JamesT]

Doesn't supplying arms publicly to Ukraine rather on the quiet make the point to Russia that they can't expect to wear their opponents down?
If Ukraine was alone then Russia would expect to win eventually having the larger army to start with. But now they know the West is resupplying then attrition won't work.

 

[tommy2215]

We may need to, yes.

We most definitely do not.

A dying man may not care about the effects on Russia.

Even if what you were saying is true, which is dubious, there is not a big red button in front of Putin that he can press anytime to nuke the West. Firing a nuclear weapon is a complex process that involves multiple people.

What I want is for us to do what we are presently doing but NOT intervene with troops/planes and stop issuing rhetoric.

Dangerous rhetoric would be threatening nuclear war. Only one side has done that.

You just supply them and say nothing about it to the media etc. I'm talking about the US coming out with rubbish like "we want to see a weakened Russia". Yes, we know you do, but it is grossly unhelpful and escalatory to actually say that, and gains nothing at all.

Again, that is totally impractical! If the Government don't tell our media, then they will find out independently. And if our media don't then foreign media will. And how on earth do you think we'd be able to ship/fly huge amounts of military equipment over to Ukraine without anyone noticing?? Its such a bizarre idea!

 

[REVUpminster]

When the alternative may be "global nuclear annihilation" there is a chance that that is actually the best choice, particularly as he appears to have serious health issues and as such may die soon.

Don't know about you, but if someone has a knife or gun to my throat they can have my wallet and phone. Whereas if they just threatened me with their fists (analogous to conventional weapons) I'd possibly fight back.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2022 ==



Well, it is, because we could put boots on the ground and planes in the sky. But that's then WW III, which Putin may take nuclear, and then we all die. The latter is a "worst possible" outcome which must be avoided at all costs. Even Putin taking over the whole world (which isn't going to happen) is less bad than that.

Well we'd be living in the Third Reich and it would last a thousand years!!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, that is totally impractical! If the Government don't tell our media, then they will find out independently. And if our media don't then foreign media will. And how on earth do you think we'd be able to ship/fly huge amounts of military equipment over to Ukraine without anyone noticing?? Its such a bizarre idea!

You're not actually listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying none of the rhetoric. Clearly Putin will know we've done it, but shouting about it is unnecessary and negative.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2022 ==

Well we'd be living in the Third Reich and it would last a thousand years!!!

Don't know about you but I'd rather live in the Third Reich than die with millions of others in a nuclear explosion. If people are alive, insurgency can later remove him.

Nuclear weapons, sadly, change everything. If they didn't exist I would advocate we did declare conventional war and get stuck in to remove him from Ukraine.

 

[tommy2215]

You're not actually listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying none of the rhetoric. Clearly Putin will know we've done it, but shouting about it is unnecessary and negative.


Don't know about you but I'd rather live in the Third Reich than die in a nuclear explosion. If people are alive, insurgency can later remove him.

Putin would very likely react even worse if we were doing it in secret....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putin would very likely react even worse if we were doing it in secret....

I doubt that, as it's what we did for the first few weeks.

 

[REVUpminster]

You're not actually listening to what I'm saying. I'm saying none of the rhetoric. Clearly Putin will know we've done it, but shouting about it is unnecessary and negative.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Apr 2022 ==



Don't know about you but I'd rather live in the Third Reich than die with millions of others in a nuclear explosion. If people are alive, insurgency can later remove him.

Nuclear weapons, sadly, change everything. If they didn't exist I would advocate we did declare conventional war and get stuck in to remove him from Ukraine.

Provide your Arian and not a Jew or Gypsy. Perhaps those living on Jersey in WWII had a nice life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Provide your Arian and not a Jew or Gypsy. Perhaps those living on Jersey in WWII had a nice life.

I think many people don't get the fact that nuclear war is an extinction event. There is by definition nothing worse than it. Literally every single bad thing that's happened to humanity ever, including all of WW II, is not as bad as nuclear war.

I've had this on another forum, and it seems hard for people to accept, but "everybody dies" is by definition worse than "some people die", even if neither is palatable.

 

[GS250]

So we should just bend over backwards to whatever Putin says? And no the alternative is not nuclear devastation. Putin will not go nuclear unless against the West unless Russia's existence is under threat. If Putin were to nuke the West, even if NATO did not fire back the consequences for Russia would be catastrophic. On balance doing nothing which you want is the far worse option.

I'd suggest at least double the amount of warheads would be heading back towards Russia before a single Russian weapon had even detonated on NATO soil. I'm sure Russia's nuke force does work to a degree, plenty enough to cause NATO severe problems. However if it did ever come to that....I wouldn't put it past NATO firing first if the intelligence suggested a Russian attack was about to happen. Especially if they believed they could wipe out the majority of their launch infrastructure in one go.

Its all hypothetical though. As even if NATO did launch a relatively uncontested attack....the catastrophic after effects would pretty much make life hell for the rest of the planet.

 

[nw1]

Well we'd be living in the Third Reich and it would last a thousand years!!!

Whereas with nuclear, none of us would be living at all. Nuclear war is absolutely the worst outcome of any conflict, bar none.

 

[tommy2215]

I doubt that, as it's what we did for the first few weeks.

No we did not. We publicly imposed sanctions and sent arms supplies to Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk...rther-military-support-pm-johnson-2022-02-23/ And of course he would react worse if he found out we were doing in secret, any world leader would! Just how like admitting you cheated on your spouse is better than your spouse finding out themselves after months of secretly cheating.

I think many people don't get the fact that nuclear war is an extinction event. There is by definition nothing worse than it. Literally every single bad thing that's happened to humanity ever, including all of WW II, is not as bad as nuclear war.

I don't think you get the fact that nuclear war being an extinction event makes it extremely unlikely even the worst dictators will start one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think you get the fact that nuclear war being an extinction event makes it extremely unlikely even the worst dictators will start one.

But if that dictator is, for instance, dying of cancer...

 

[tommy2215]

But if that dictator is, for instance, dying of cancer...

As I said before, there is no red button that Putin can press anytime to fire nukes. Its a complex process that involves multiple people and multiple stages. I'm not in favour of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, as that will escalate things. But publicly arming Ukraine or saying we want to see Russia weakened is not going to start a nuclear war.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think many people don't get the fact that nuclear war is an extinction event.

That's speculation, not certainty. Nuclear war would certainly kill many millions - depending on how big the war was, maybe hundreds of millions, of people. Yes it may well be the worst thing that's ever happened to humanity. And it would make life unpleasant for - maybe - some decades - for many more people. But making us extinct is pretty unlikely. I don't think that kind hyperbole is helpful.

Besides, your analogy is not correct. You are comparing the tiny, tiny, possibility that further careful involvement might lead to nuclear war, with the near-certainty that not being willing to defend Ukraine adequately would lead to something somewhat comparable to the 3rd Reich across much of Europe (although probably not quite as bad).

(Although I do appreciate you're arguing in support of broadly the level of support we're currently giving Ukraine).

 

[Yew]

But if that dictator is, for instance, dying of cancer...

And where is the evidence of that?

 

[Cloud Strife]

But if that dictator is, for instance, dying of cancer...

Then he would be quietly retired to his dacha in the best Russian tradition.

Transnistria is worth keeping an eye on over the next few days. It seems that Moldova has openly accused the FSB of being behind the attacks there, while Transnistria itself appears to have been saying one thing to the public (evil Ukrainians) and another thing towards Moldova (leave it, we'll deal with it ourselves, we're not happy with this). It is quite conceivable that if Russia loses Kherson, then Ukraine might pre-emptitively attack Transnistria in order to liberate it from the Russian "peacekeepers".

At this moment, my gut feeling is that Kherson is really key to this entire war. There are reports that the Ukrainians have reached the outer suburbs of Kherson, and there's also been at least two high profile assassinations there in the last few days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Besides, your analogy is not correct. You are comparing the tiny, tiny, possibility that further careful involvement might lead to nuclear war, with the near-certainty that not being willing to defend Ukraine adequately would lead to something somewhat comparable to the 3rd Reich across much of Europe (although probably not quite as bad).

I don't believe that's true. The incompetence of Russia's conventional military is there for all to see. He hasn't even managed to take all of Ukraine, but once he got to Poland he'd be repelled by the full (conventional) might of NATO at the border.

 

[Ferret]

Remind me: was it Russia than sent their tanks and troops in across the border, is it Russians killing indiscriminately and committing war crimes, is it Russia shelling and bombing Ukrainian cities or is it "NATO and others" attacking Russia?

I mean, what does he expect? Russia invades a sovereign nation on the edge of Europe, and the rest of the world stands idly by and lets him get on with it? Make no mistake, if the world hadn’t got involved now, Putin would’ve had aimed at other European nations next. Still might.

It’s fascinating to see how Corbyn fans are still so delusional. Embarrassing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And where is the evidence of that?

There's plenty of video and photo evidence of apparent poor health, though whether that's terminal is for debate. It's quite feasible that he only even started it (with Russia's military evidently not being prepared for it) as a means of trying to get his legacy before he dies.

Then he would be quietly retired to his dacha in the best Russian tradition.

One can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

 

[gg1]

It’s fascinating to see how Corbyn fans are still so delusional. Embarrassing.

It's been mentioned before in this thread but those on the right wing fringes are just as bad.

The overwhelming majority of Putin apologists definitely seem to be from the 5% at either end of the Left wing > Right wing spectrum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's been mentioned before in this thread before but those on the right wing fringes are just as bad.

The overwhelming majority of Putin apologists definitely seem to be from the 5% at either end of the Left wing > Right wing spectrum.

I think you need to differentiate between Putin apologists (i.e. people who don't believe he is doing anything wrong), and people like myself who feel that all-out war is not the best way to deal with the threat due to the high (nuclear) stakes and limited ability for Putin to go much further given how badly Russia has performed in Ukraine so far. These two things are very, very different from WW II.

It's also of note that the best likely outcome for the rest of the world may conflict with Ukraine's interests.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There's plenty of video and photo evidence of apparent poor health, though whether that's terminal is for debate. It's quite feasible that he only even started it (with Russia's military evidently not being prepared for it) as a means of trying to get his legacy before he dies.

One can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

The videos are absolutely shocking to me. Putin has been presented as a real man's man for many years, and to see him in such obvious poor health is mindblowing. I actually find myself wondering about your hypothesis, that the war was solely about securing his legacy. Either way, at this minute, it's very obvious that Russia is now in an unwinnable war.

On related news, the Croatian President has said that Croatia must block Finnish/Swedish accession to NATO if the election law in Bosnia isn't dealt with. Croatia is really missing the leadership of President Grabar-Kitarović, who was an unashamed pro-NATO Atlanticist. Fortunately, the President doesn't have a majority in the Sabor, so his options are rather limited.

One can only hope that happens sooner rather than later.

The problem for me is that Russia is steadily gaining territory. They clearly are going nowhere fast, but they are making progress.

 

[gg1]

I think you need to differentiate between Putin apologists (i.e. people who don't believe he is doing anything wrong), and people like myself who feel that all-out war is not the best way to deal with the threat due to the high (nuclear) stakes and limited ability for Putin to go much further given how badly Russia has performed in Ukraine so far.

Absolutely, when I say 'Putin apologist', I mean those who as you say, don't think he's done anything wrong at all, plus those who believe Ukraine and/or NATO are MORE to blame for the situation than Putin.

I share your concerns about how far escalation could take us.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely, when I say 'Putin apologist', I mean those who as you say, don't think he's done anything wrong at all, plus those who believe Ukraine and/or NATO are MORE to blame for the situation than Putin.

Fair enough. For the record I think Putin is entirely to blame for it, though I don't think rhetoric from NATO countries not backed up by force helps a lot and may hinder.

 

[Ferret]

It's been mentioned before in this thread but those on the right wing fringes are just as bad.

The overwhelming majority of Putin apologists definitely seem to be from the 5% at either end of the Left wing > Right wing spectrum.

The political horseshoe theory is real.

 

[GS250]

It's also of note that the best likely outcome for the rest of the world may conflict with Ukraine's interests.

Sadly you are right here. If Putin had won a 'lightning war' with Ukraine and Belarus had simply handed themselves over to Russia...what would have really changed due the West? It would have guaranteed more funding into NATO armed forces budgets. More than likely, more NATO forces would have been deployed longer term to the borders. But apart from that? I guess instability as far as oil, gas and produce prices go.

Most people frothing over Ukraine, displaying flags etc probably couldn't have even pointed to Ukraine on a map before this conflict. Nor would they have realised this has been brewing for 8 years. Zelensky has been portrayed as an absolute hero...but I still know nothing about him or whether he's a puppet to a higher authority.

I think turning a blind eye to the whole thing would have been a viable option...but what message does that send to Putin?

 

[TheEdge]

I think turning a blind eye to the whole thing would have been a viable option...but what message does that send to Putin?

That he is free to press any claim he wants on any nation he feels belongs in his Russia? Georgia and Moldova may as well have just joined up to avoid their own war. And perhaps even the various -stans in Asia would start making nervous looks towards Moscow. They are all ex-SSRs after all and seemingly thats all you need to be "liberated" by Moscow.