Russia invades Ukraine

[TheEdge]

When was the last time that strong action was taken by the 15-member United Nations Security Council under the terms of their writ?

Rather academic when Russia can veto the Security Council.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rather academic when Russia can veto the Security Council.

The question that I asked was....

"When was the last time that strong action was taken by the 15-member United Nations Security Council under their writ".

I had hoped someone far more knowledgeable than I could have answered my question. I made no mention of any veto, just asking a historical question.

 

[GS250]

A lot of this is willy waving by Putin, not only to the West, but also to those back in Russia who are already plotting a coup d'etat ready to take over from Putin if the war does not reach a speedy conclusion.

Putin knows that he will be removed from office if he fails in his objectives, and he is trying to make it appear as though he is is control of the situation when it is quite obvious he is not.

There were many plots on Hitler's life during the Second World War, and Putin knows he is in a similar position to Hitler.

I don't quite understand the mindset of these Russians who appear to be casually advocating the use of nuclear weapons against Britain especially. Even if they are bluffing...are they surely not aware that retaliation is guaranteed? Attack Britain = we all get a new career as fertiliser also = no more Russia.

 

[Chingy]

Flight radar showing a Turkish airlines flight bound for Moscow, flying directly over Ukraine?

 

[najaB]

Flight radar showing a Turkish airlines flight bound for Moscow, flying directly over Ukraine?

The dotted line indicates that it's not being tracked and is an estimated location. The flight is now showing over Azerbaijan:

 

[brad465]

Biden is seeking to provide $33bn in various forms of aid to Ukraine, which if approved would be a major provision of support:

Biden proposes $33bn to help Ukraine in war

The major increase in US support would include $20bn in military assistance, plus economic aid.

www.bbc.co.uk

President Biden is asking Congress for $33bn (£27bn) in military, economic and humanitarian assistance to support Ukraine - although he insisted that the US was not "attacking Russia".
Mr Biden said it was "critical" for US lawmakers to approve the deal, which he said would help Ukraine defend itself.
The proposal includes more than $20bn in military aid, $8.5bn in economic aid and $3bn in humanitarian aid.
"It's not cheap," Mr Biden said on Thursday.
"But caving to aggression is going to be more costly if we allow it to happen."
Although the US has already announced help for Ukraine, the proposals are a significant ramping up of aid.
President Biden said US military support to Ukraine has so far amounted to 10 anti-tank weapons for every tank that Russia has deployed to Ukraine.
But despite his strong rhetoric, he said the US was not attacking Russia. "We are helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression," he insisted.
On Thursday, a spokesperson for Russia's Foreign Ministry said Western military support for Ukraine threatens "the security of the continent".

 

[najaB]

Without much progress, I can see a tactical nuclear strike being carried out to force surrender.

I know you've expressed this a few times, but I really can't see it happening.

Putin knows that he needs good relationships with the west, and that there's zero chance of that if he starts lobbing nukes. And it won't be commanders on the ground going rogue - that was a risk in the darkest days of the cold war when frontline troops were routinely equipped with SADMs and similar.

And I'm not convinced that it would even have the effect of convincing the Ukrainians to surrender. It worked against Japan because they were on the back foot: the Allies were going to win either way - be it by a massive conventional invasion or atomic destruction.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I'd be more concerned about what it might hold for Ukraine. Without much progress, I can see a tactical nuclear strike being carried out to force surrender. I doubt NATO would chuck anything back if such an attack wasn't on NATO territory, but it would be terrible for Ukraine and its people and would also encourage China to threaten the same against Taiwan if it "worked".

On the other hand, using a tactical weapon would almost certainly ensure an immediate and devastating response by the Ukrainian side. I wouldn't underestimate the ability to put a few lorries packed with fertiliser bombs into major Russian cities, just as a few farmers with a couple of rifles terrorised the British Army in the early 1990s.

Russia appears to be unable to stop 'people playing with matches' in their cities, and a nuclear strike would only encourage the UAF to attack unconventionally. At that point, Russia would be facing a terrible decision to either completely flatten Ukraine, or calling off the war.

 

[DustyBin]

I’d stopped getting notifications for this thread so apologies for the multiple quotes!

Whilst this shouldn't be taken as a defence of Truss I would note that the UK has been near the top of the Russian and Soviet targeting lists since they got nuclear weapons. The idea that Truss might influence that with her statements is laughable. We've always been a top priority target and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Doesn't mean she shouldn't engage brain before speaking. Or even better be replaced by someone competent.

I suspect that her statement was sanctioned/approved by various people both within the UK “establishment” and probably within NATO/NATO partners before she delivered it. My initial reaction was “that’s strong rhetoric!” but I think it was calculated and deliberate. It’s often said that Putin only respects strength and statements like that leave him in no doubt as to the West’s resolve. It’s possible that there’s even a little “escalate to deescalate” at work here from both sides, of the rhetorical variety (fortunately).

On a wider point don't let the media headlines spook anyone. Brutal reality is that whilst we all liked to pretend the nuclear threat went away in 1991 it really didn't. We've been under threat of nuclear attack at varying levels of seriousness since the 50s. The change is just suddenly everyone has remembered nukes are a thing.

Putin blathering on about how impressive their missiles are is so much chaff. The Soviets had missiles that could have done the job, the new ones don't bring anything fundamentally different to the table. Equally this guff about interference is just that guff. He won't use nuclear weapons just because we sent supplies to Ukraine.

Don't let the media or Putin wind you into a frenzy.

I completely agree. The tabloid media are all over this putting out clickbait headlines on a more-or-less daily basis. It’s utter drivel, just like the statements coming out of Russia (the majority of which are coming from well known hardliners, aka nutters).

What I didn’t realise is quite how many times Putin has casually dropped nuclear threats into statements over the years. A poster on another forum has compiled a list and it makes for interesting reading! Basically every time Russia has been involved in a conflict on Putin’s watch, every time a country has joined or threatened to join NATO, or in a couple of cases during minor diplomatic disputes, he’s made nuclear threats. It’s actually quite incredible!

Don’t read that hogwash.

Absolutely, and I really think the media need taking to task over it. This rubbish is having a very real impact on peoples mental health which is wrong. There needs to be some level of responsibility/accountability.

I really don't mean this to sound patronising in any way at all, but it is just another bloody war. You'd think after thousands of years of conflict that we humans would finally learn to try to get on with eachother a bit better, but somewhere in the world there will always be some kind of strife. Nobody wins, other than the shareholders of the various arms manufacturers, of course

I’ve commented previously that in many ways this war is comparable to many other recent wars, some of which are ongoing right now. The two key differences are it’s in Europe, and it involves the old enemy Russia, who we’ve been conditioned to fear over the years, even since the end of the Cold War (which I’m too young to remember). Don’t get me wrong it’s unsettling, but it doesn’t inevitably mean wider conflict.

I don't quite understand the mindset of these Russians who appear to be casually advocating the use of nuclear weapons against Britain especially. Even if they are bluffing...are they surely not aware that retaliation is guaranteed? Attack Britain = we all get a new career as fertiliser also = no more Russia.

Some probably aren’t, others will claim they simply don’t care. You’ve hit the nail on the head when you say “I don’t understand the mindset” as it’s very different to ours, and I can’t claim to fully understand it either. I view it as an extremely OTT display of machismo, which I think is probably correct.

 

[uglymonkey]

Unfortunately after Levingson Sp? report nothing was done re regulation, so they can write what they like and dare someone to sue.

 

[GS250]

Some probably aren’t, others will claim they simply don’t care. You’ve hit the nail on the head when you say “I don’t understand the mindset” as it’s very different to ours, and I can’t claim to fully understand it either. I view it as an extremely OTT display of machismo, which I think is probably correct.

The lack of logic behind the statements though is baffling. Its similar to a muscle bound athlete lobbing a shot put 20m directly above his head and turning round for applause whilst apparently unaware of what will come next.....

 

[yorksrob]

The lack of logic behind the statements though is baffling. Its similar to a muscle bound athlete lobbing a shot put 20m directly above his head and turning round for applause whilst apparently unaware of what will come next.....

Put simply, he's a meat head and so are his followers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely, and I really think the media need taking to task over it. This rubbish is having a very real impact on peoples mental health which is wrong.

I would never, ever buy it, but as it's showing up in Apple News - it's the Scum that's doing the worst of this, and given how influential it is on its readers (it can be argued that it is that "newspaper" that decides the outcome of general elections) it does indeed need to pack it in, but I don't hold out much hope.

The BBC is being pretty balanced, so anyone who's losing sleep over this should consider getting news from there alone for now.

 

[mike57]

Putin knows that he needs good relationships with the west, and that there's zero chance of that if he starts lobbing nukes.

The problem is I think he doesn't care about the West, he thinks he can go it alone, and he probably can in a way, as long as he can explain the drop in living standards to the Russian population. If Russia used nuclear weapons would the response from the west actually make much difference, the only down side is that an already embittered Ukrainian population would probably start to take the fight into Russia by unconventional means and he will be storing up years of trouble, think Irish troubles on steroids. But I dont think he will care, he will be looking for a quick 'gain' to look good. The worst possible outcome for the west would be a sudden collapse in Ukraine, as Putin would no doubt start looking at his next target. There will come a point I suspect where the west will have to stand up to him directly, but until that time comes...

 

[Cloud Strife]

If Russia used nuclear weapons would the response from the west actually make much difference, the only down side is that an already embittered Ukrainian population would probably start to take the fight into Russia by unconventional means and he will be storing up years of trouble, think Irish troubles on steroids.

I would seriously expect Ukraine to blow up Russian cities indiscriminately as the only way of defending themselves. Russia could nuke Ukraine into next week in response, but the cost to the Russian public would be enormous.

The more likely scenario is that Russia introduces conscription followed by the WW2 model: throw untold thousands of men at Ukraine until the war is won. People would be forcibly conscripted and sent straight to the front, they'd be mowed down in their millions, but they would eventually win by sheer numbers.

 

[nw1]

I would seriously expect Ukraine to blow up Russian cities indiscriminately as the only way of defending themselves. Russia could nuke Ukraine into next week in response, but the cost to the Russian public would be enormous.

The more likely scenario is that Russia introduces conscription followed by the WW2 model: throw untold thousands of men at Ukraine until the war is won. People would be forcibly conscripted and sent straight to the front, they'd be mowed down in their millions, but they would eventually win by sheer numbers.

One would, in an ideal world, hope that if that happened the conscripted army would ignore Ukraine and turn on Putin instead. Wishful thinking I know, but the sheer numbers of a conscripted army could in theory defeat Putin and his puppet generals.

The best way to finish this war is undoubtedly a domestic coup within Russia.

 

[mike57]

One would, in an ideal world, hope that if that happened the conscripted army would ignore Ukraine and turn on Putin

More likely I think that a conscripted army would sabotage it own ability to move forwards, and then mass desertions. There have been hints of sabotage already. Mass desertions would be a major problem within Russia as the ex conscripts would have to feed and exist, so would probably end up leeching off the local populations, after all a return to home is probably not an option if they are met by the Russian equivilent of an MP with .45. One could have visions of whole areas controlled by renegade troops with not much to loose.

 

[Gloster]

How true it is I do not know, but there are reports of an age divide in relation to believing what the Russian media says and supporting the war. Older people, and this may go down to those in their mid-forties, grew up in a society where you had only one source of news and you believed that if you valued your freedom. Younger people have grown up in a slightly more diverse environment and have been more willing to question. There is also the matter of access to other opinions: the oldies are less likely to be technically savvy and able to get around the media restrictions. Conscripts are likely to come from the group that is more likely to question and be able to find out more about what they are being asked to do. (A broad-brush opinion, I know.)

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'd be more concerned about what it might hold for Ukraine. Without much progress, I can see a tactical nuclear strike being carried out to force surrender. I doubt NATO would chuck anything back if such an attack wasn't on NATO territory, but it would be terrible for Ukraine and its people and would also encourage China to threaten the same against Taiwan if it "worked".

The problem with a tactical nuke for Putin is that the fall-out would either be on his own people or on the Poles as it will be carried by the weather. If it’s on the Poles then NATO could well retaliate.

 

[Unixman]

Apologies if this has been posted before but with over 3,000 posts

Any idea what might have caused this oh-so-sad accident of a Russian train carrying armour to derail?

Apparently it wasn't caused by hostile action. Apparently.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Ben Wallace believes that Putin may use May 9th to announce a mass mobilisation of Russians; and in effect declare World War 3.

Vladimir Putin could announce the mass mobilisation of Russians on May 9, Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has said.

Mr Wallace said that Putin could declare that "we are now at war with the world's Nazis and we need to mass mobilise the Russian people".

He told LBC that the Russian leader had "failed" in "nearly all [of his] objectives".

Other outlets are reporting it as Ben Wallace claiming that it’ll be World War 3.

The BBC hasn’t reported on it yet, as far as I’ve seen.

Isn’t May 9th, Victory Day over there? So why would mobilising and going to war be seen as a victory? I think it’s more likely Putin will up the stakes in Ukraine and claim it a victory.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ben Wallace believes that Putin may use May 9th to announce a mass mobilisation of Russians; and in effect declare World War 3.

The old saying immediately springs to mind..."Well he would say that, wouldn't he."

 

[duncanp]

According to one analyst quoted by Sky News, things aren't going to well for Russia, which could be the reason behind Putin's recent bluster and threats about nuclear weapons.

Russian forces will collapse and Putin to face coup after 'major strategic shift in war', expert says​

Dr Mike Martin, a military expert and war studies visiting fellow at King's College London has offered some interesting analysis this morning on the recent developments on the ground in Ukraine and what they could mean.
He suggests the Russian assault on Donbas has "fizzled" and that Moscow has squandered its one chance to take the region - and achieve something it could present as a successful outcome to the invasion.
Dr Martin says the battle will last another two to four weeks, as Russia runs out of troops and Ukraine counterattacks.
And, he says, the war has now seen "a major strategic shift" that has prompted the UK to outline a clearer and more ambitious strategic aim, citing UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.
However, he indicates Ms Truss is wrong to predict the goal of evicting Russian forces entirely from Ukraine would take 10 years - saying "Russian forces will collapse before that, and we'll see a coup".
"This is a clear statement of intent by the UK, and would only have been made if it was felt that other NATO allies could and would sign up to it," he adds.
"It's very welcome after some wishy washy thinking about strategic aims (although the activities were good)."

 

[Peterthegreat]

According to one analyst quoted by Sky News, things aren't going to well for Russia, which could be the reason behind Putin's recent bluster and threats about nuclear weapons.

Sorry I think this is wishful thinking. I have seen (can't remember where) that Putin is (may be?) under threat because (some of) the military see him as weak. The fact that Russia appears to be struggling and apparently losing many men when they have under utilised
weapons is seen as a mistake.

 

[yorksrob]

Sorry I think this is wishful thinking. I have seen (can't remember where) that Putin is (may be?) under threat because (some of) the military see him as weak. The fact that Russia appears to be struggling and apparently losing many men when they have under utilised
weapons is seen as a mistake.

If true, that suggests that the problem is Russia, rather than just Putin.

 

[Pete_uk]

I think the Russian army packing up and going home to hopefully kick the government out is more likely than a NATO - Russian war. That would be very bad, nuclear or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Russian army packing up and going home to hopefully kick the government out is more likely than a NATO - Russian war. That would be very bad, nuclear or not.

I have read suggestions that that might be very bad as the generals really want to win...

 

[AlterEgo]

The same can be said for Britain to a certain extent too.

Why does that matter, in this context?

 

[DanNCL]

For god sake this WW3 scaremongering is really doing my head in now. Putin and Lavrov can threaten that their invasion of Ukraine will turn into WW3 all they like, does anyone really think Putin would be mad enough to do so? Obviously we have to be prepared for the possibility that Russia may escalate this into WW3, but this endless panicking does nobody any good, indeed the West panicking about those threats is exactly what Putin wants.

 

[brad465]

For god sake this WW3 scaremongering is really doing my head in now. Putin and Lavrov can threaten that their invasion of Ukraine will turn into WW3 all they like, does anyone really think Putin would be mad enough to do so? Obviously we have to be prepared for the possibility that Russia may escalate this into WW3, but this endless panicking does nobody any good, indeed the West panicking about those threats is exactly what Putin wants.

Over the last few years I've been coming to the conclusion that multiple media outlets deserve to be called scum, and subject to mass blockades outside their offices to stop them functioning until the whole cabal comes crashing down. They've been abusing free press to make their own stories rather than report the news because it's more profitable, regardless of how many people their behaviour has indirectly killed. They did this with covid, and many of the lockdowns and other restrictions probably wouldn't have happened without them, and while I don't think WW3 will be caused by their sensationalism, as defence/military matters are taken far more seriously, but it once again highlights how dangerous they now are.

I've achieved personal bests in cycle rides since 2020 just by thinking about high profile figures/groups I despise, which include most media outlets, Putin and others, to the point that the resultant adrenaline rush pushes me harder and faster, it's much better than physically kicking and punching them to the floor and I get a rewarding exercise feeling at the end of it, as well as exhausting the thoughts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2022 ==

I have read suggestions that that might be very bad as the generals really want to win...

The generals left that is.