Russia invades Ukraine

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's more down to the failing economic system in many countries than commodities shooting up, especially after 2008, which led to a k-shape recovery. A suggestion I'd make to rectify this is to tax wealth above a certain threshold and use revenue to support those who'll be hard hit by all the cost of living issues, especially as post-2008 wealth has gone into assets far more than production, including the Russian oligarch wealth as it happens. But that's another matter entirely for another day.

Very sound proposal but is for another discussion thread.

 

[DarloRich]

It doesn’t matter. Russia knows that it can’t successfully fight Ukrainian forces AND all the NATO forces all at the same time.

It does matter, even if you wont acknowledge it. I shall ask again: What do you think will happen when NATO shoots down a Russian aircraft.

Yes, I am advocating war with Russia. It’s about time we stopped being scared of them. If Russia will not behave itself, at some point we will have to use force to stop them. Far better to do it while a large amount of their forces are tied down already fighting a difficult war that they started.

Besides which, if Russia sees sense, they will see that taking on NATO forces would end up with a really bad result for them. No country wants a large amount of its military forces to be destroyed. That’s the risk that Russia would take.

It is good that you are honest. Please also be honest about the potentially escalatory nature of this. Could you express what risk you think NATO would be taking in fighting Russia.

 

[Cdd89]

Very sound proposal but is for another discussion thread.

It’s popular but really not sound, which is why almost everywhere with such a tax approach has eventually abandoned it.

I am very much in favour of progressive taxation, but the form proposed is about the worst possible. There are other, less direct, ways to tax ‘wealth’ that are less avoidable and have fewer negative consequences.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I fear that you vastly overestimate the capabilities of Russian armed forces.

That depends on which part of the Russian armed forces you refer to. Based on Russian actions going back many years it should be clear that in the area of artillery, rockets and missiles, both cruise and ballistic, the Russian capability is very effective. Given the possibility of nuclear warheads being delivered by any of the aforementioned armanents Russia does have a certain strategic advantage. And it is very difficult to prevent such weapons from being used in any given conflict. We have seen consistently since the Vietnam war that a determined technologically advanced foe is more likely to succumb to sustained guerilla warfare than any formal scheme of battle.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, I am advocating war with Russia. It’s about time we stopped being scared of them. If Russia will not behave itself, at some point we will have to use force to stop them. Far better to do it while a large amount of their forces are tied down already fighting a difficult war that they started.

Besides which, if Russia sees sense, they will see that taking on NATO forces would end up with a really bad result for them. No country wants a large amount of its military forces to be destroyed. That’s the risk that Russia would take.

Umm back Putin into a corner and he goes nuclear which the West missile defence system couldn't fully stop.

The West have sleepwalked into this largely due to the US's nigh on 77 years obsession with Russia which was misplaced back in 1945 and they just stoked that fire. Gorbachev could see the folly of what was happening and took a very bold step but still wasn't enough for the US who should have helped Russia transform itself but at its pace and to its needs. This wasn't done and the likes of Putin muscled there way back in and US should have worked with him from the outset but didn't just turned the heat up on the pressure cooker and wondered why it blew up.

 

[Annetts key]

So long as you're willing to put the lives of you and your family into the equation, fair enough. Personally it would seem premature to me, if you truly understand what you're suggesting.

I don’t really want anyone to have to fight or get involved with a battle or a war. Peaceful negotiations are by far the better way of sorting out problems. But if you have an aggressor like Putin, they only thing they understand is force, or the threat of force.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Yes, I am advocating war with Russia. It’s about time we stopped being scared of them. If Russia will not behave itself, at some point we will have to use force to stop them. Far better to do it while a large amount of their forces are tied down already fighting a difficult war that they started.

Besides which, if Russia sees sense, they will see that taking on NATO forces would end up with a really bad result for them. No country wants a large amount of its military forces to be destroyed. That’s the risk that Russia would take.

And absolutely everything in life comes with a risk. Some people die due to having accidents when getting dressed, including some who die as a result of accidents when trying to put their socks on (link). No risk, no reward.

No one knows for certain what will happen if Western airforces use their aircraft over Ukrainian airspace. But no one knows what else may happen if the West does nothing. No one knows what will happen if Russia is eventually successful in Ukraine. No one knows if Putin will just launch nuclear weapons anyway.

Further, we can’t even come to any meaningful way of measuring the risk for most of these things. Because there is no way to measure some of the variables (one of which is what is going on in Putin’s head).

But one thing that is known, is that Putin / Russia is afraid of the West / NATO. Why? Because Putin / Russia has said that it does not want NATO on it’s doorstep. We HAVE to take advantage of this. Not to do so would be foolish, especially while Russia is under pressure.

The difference here is that one person won't die, 90% of the world's population will, a large portion by radiation poisoning or starvation from nuclear winter. Both long, painful deaths, made worse by a collapse of health systems. You need to get a grip on reality, we can't go in guns blazing like we did in Iraq.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The difference here is that one person won't die, 90% of the world's population will, a large portion by radiation poisoning or starvation from nuclear winter. Both long, painful deaths, made worse by a collapse of health systems. You need to get a grip on reality, we can't go in guns blazing like we did in Iraq.

Oh yes Iraq another illegal war but that was OK because it was run by the holier than though US

 

[najaB]

Oh yes Iraq another illegal war but that was OK because it was run by the holier than though US

Did you read the same post that I did? "Going in all guns blazing" is a criticism, not praise.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Does that sound like the Russian's are looking for an out?

One possibility is that the Russians are holding out for the recognition of Crimea. They badly need to regulate the status in Crimea as Ukrainian sanctions were starting to really hurt them there. Russia also made it clear that they don't oppose EU membership for Ukraine, so perhaps this is the basis of a peace settlement.

Only Zelensky has the authority to recognise Crimea, and they will be aware that he has the strength to accept it now in exchange for an end to the war.

It's certainly conceivable that Zelensky agrees if it looks like the alternative are sieges in major cities.

 

[Yew]

The difference here is that one person won't die, 90% of the world's population will, a large portion by radiation poisoning or starvation from nuclear winter. Both long, painful deaths, made worse by a collapse of health systems. You need to get a grip on reality, we can't go in guns blazing like we did in Iraq.

You seem remarkably certain, have the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction changed over the last week?

 

[Darandio]

You seem remarkably certain, have the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction changed over the last week?

Not really. But we do have a Russian leader claiming to put nuclear readiness at a higher state, threatening 'consequences you have never seen' and stating that a future world is pointless without Russia in it. Whilst it's generally bluster there is understandable caution.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Oh yes Iraq another illegal war but that was OK because it was run by the holier than though US

I know but that's not the topic at hand. Russia is the topic at hand and I don't particularly like the US invading countries for oil to spread democracy and just generally policing the world.

"Going in all guns blazing" is a criticism, not praise.

It was just a neutral observation of what happened in Iraq.

You seem remarkably certain, have the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction changed over the last week?

Yes, I'm pretty certain that what I said will probably happen should we get nuked.

 

[Annetts key]

The difference here is that one person won't die, 90% of the world's population will, a large portion by radiation poisoning or starvation from nuclear winter. Both long, painful deaths, made worse by a collapse of health systems. You need to get a grip on reality, we can't go in guns blazing like we did in Iraq.

We have lived with this risk ever since long range nuclear weapon systems become viable. The first delivery systems were long range bomber aircraft. Improved missile systems allowed fixed site and then mobile (road) launchers. Submarines were developed that could carry and launch nuclear missiles.

Depending on how you define it, there have been various times when if events had occurred slightly differently, we could have ended up with a much more dangerous situation than we currently have.

I mean, at one time, nuclear weapons fell out of an aircraft. Luckily none went off (link).

Personally, I would have much preferred it if during the reduction of nuclear weapons that the Western countries and the USSR countries started, that it had finished with all nuclear weapons being decommissioned, dismantled and destroyed.

But, alas, that did not happen. So we are not only stuck with various countries having them. But with some countries that we are not very keen on, trying their best to obtain and develop nuclear weapon technology.

North Korea already apparently has them. Iran has in the past tried to develop them.

So there is currently absolutely zero prospect of the whole world agreeing to total nuclear disarmament. Which is a real shame.

So back to the situation, which is, because Russia is a nuclear power, do we decline to get involved militarily forever? How long before other nuclear powers realise this? This policy is boxing the “Western” countries into our own mess.

Back on topic, if a Western aircraft did attack a Russian aircraft, yes, the situation may escalate. But I don’t think it would end up with an all out nuclear war. Because no one benefits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2022 ==

Oh yes Iraq another illegal war but that was OK because it was run by the holier than though US

For the record, I was totally against the Iraq war.

 

[Yew]

Yes, I'm pretty certain that what I said will probably happen should we get nuked.

Interesting how you forgot to mention that caveat in the original post, given that no nation in history has engaged in a nuclear attack upon another nuclear armed nation; it seems like quite an omission.

 

[LOL The Irony]

We have lived with this risk ever since long range nuclear weapon systems become viable. The first delivery systems were long range bomber aircraft. Improved missile systems allowed fixed site and then mobile (road) launchers. Submarines were developed that could carry and launch nuclear missiles.

Depending on how you define it, there have been various times when if events had occurred slightly differently, we could have ended up with a much more dangerous situation than we currently have.

Yes but poking the bear won't exactly allow us to keep the position of not being nuked by high yield long range warheads.

I mean, at one time, nuclear weapons fell out of an aircraft. Luckily none went off (link).

Yes, I do know of the broken arrow incidents. As bad as one of those going off would be, at least it would've been an accident rather than pissing off the wrong crazed dictator.

Personally, I would have much preferred it if during the reduction of nuclear weapons that the Western countries and the USSR countries started, that it had finished with all nuclear weapons being decommissioned, dismantled and destroyed.

Then why are you wanting to poke the bear?

Interesting how you forgot to mention that caveat in the original post, given that no nation in history has engaged in a nuclear attack upon another nuclear armed nation; it seems like quite an omission.

With the state Putin is allegedly in, do you think MAD is in the forefront of his mind right now? If war starts, it could easily escalate to nuking western civilian populations.

 

[Yew]

Back on topic, if a Western aircraft did attack a Russian aircraft, yes, the situation may escalate. But I don’t think it would end up with an all out nuclear war. Because no one benefits.

Indeed, the typical path of escalation is to such activities is to engage in nuclear tests, as opposed to the instant mass destruction that some seem remarkably certain of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2022 ==

With the state Putin is allegedly in, do you think MAD is in the forefront of his mind right now? If war starts, it could easily escalate to nuking western civilian populations.

Allegedly according to who? The British Tabloids?

 

[HST274]

Of course MAD isn't guaranteed or even likely if we invade, but why on earth would we want to even take that chance. I'd take gobal warming over nuclear winters any day I want us to help Ukraine but do not think we should with the prospect of another world war AND increased risk of a nuclear war

 

[najaB]

How long before other nuclear powers realise this? This policy is boxing the “Western” countries into our own mess.

There's only one other "non-Western" country with a nuclear arsenal that matters: China.

India and Pakistan could just about take each other out, DPRK could give one of Japan, the ROK or the west coast of the USA/Guam a bad day before it ceases to exist.

Russia has over 4,000 warheads. China about 350, the others less than 50 each.

Interesting how you forgot to mention that caveat in the original post, given that no nation in history has engaged in a nuclear attack upon another nuclear armed nation

That's because history ends the first time that happens!

 

[LOL The Irony]

Allegedly according to who? The British Tabloids?

We don't know what kind of mindset Putin is in. I have been in a very nihilistic mindset before and trust me, you don't want a nihilist anywhere near a big red button.

 

[Yew]

Of course MAD isn't guaranteed or even likely if we invade, but why on earth would we want to even take that chance. I'd take gobal warming over nuclear winters any day I want us to help Ukraine but do not think we should with the prospect of another world war AND increased risk of a nuclear war

The indiscriminate bombing of civilians?

 

[najaB]

The indiscriminate bombing of civilians?

I wasn't hearing these calls to stop it in Grozny or Allepo - what's so special about Kyiv?

 

[Annetts key]

We don't know what kind of mindset Putin is in. I have been in a very nihilistic mindset before and trust me, you don't want a nihilist anywhere near a big red button.

There is no big red button.

 

[najaB]

There is no big red button.

It's a metaphor.

 

[RichJF]

The threat by Putin is widely regarded in the industry I work in (subsidiary industry to defence) to have meant he was authorising additional front line personnel to man his deterrence assets (on top of the personnel already there). Indeed the deliberately ambiguous nature of the statement is being seen as potential posture without declaring he would start nuclear war.

It is also being seen as an admission that he's weakened by Ukrainnlian resistance & sanctions but doesn't want to be seen personally making "weak" public statements.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The indiscriminate bombing of civilians?

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation where to save the world, we basically have to let this happen. Now we probably all hope that the Ukrainians can hold off or push back against the Russians and this situation can end.

There is no big red button.

Red telephone, nuclear football, who cares what Putin has? The point is he has the means to launch several thousand nuclear warheads at a moment's notice.

It's a metaphor.

Yes, this.

 

[najaB]

Indeed the deliberately ambiguous nature of the statement is being seen as potential posture without declaring he would start nuclear war.

Exactly. It was largely for domestic consumption.

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation where to save the world, we basically have to let this happen.

Again, you assert that any intervention, no matter how measured and limited in scope will be met by immediate nuclear destruction, and yet can provide no substantiative evidence to support this.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation where to save the world, we basically have to let this happen. Now we probably all hope that the Ukrainians can hold off or push back against the Russians and this situation can end.

This seems counterintuitive im sure but its possible Putin thought he could just walk in and get what he wanted without too much aggro and now thats not happened he's having to get in much deeper so he doesn't lose face at home. The West needs to give him a Golden Bridge rather than just keep upping the ante in what almost seems like the West trying to outdo each other on sanctions without realising there will be consequences elsewhere in the world from the economic damage that is being done.

 

[Annetts key]

It's a metaphor.

I know…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2022 ==

The point is he has the means to launch several thousand nuclear warheads at a moment's notice.

But he’s had this since he came to power…