Forum menu
I fear it’s only going to take one incident involving a NATO asset to start the next world war.
Seriously, try not to worry. I’m not a major proponent of deterrence theory or MAD but I do believe in common sense. It’s a shit situation but it’s a long way away from a NATO vs Russia hot war. As mad as Putin is he has far more to lose from attacking nato than he has to gain from taking over Ukraine. He knows that, his generals know that, and all the oligarchs who keep him in power know that. Putin is not omnipotent, and he’s not going to risk losing his own power by attacking NATO.
I think Daz has that right, although he seems to have gone raving mad, he must know that attacking a NATO country would be sucicidal. I’m sure he is expecting a walkover in Ukraine (a lot are to be fair). Every day the Ukrainians can hold out will weaken his position.
Every day the Ukrainians can hold out will weaken his position.
Newsnight say the UK assessment is that the harder the Ukrainians fight the harsher the Putin onslaught will be. Based on the assessment they are fighting hard it's going to be terrible unless someone in Russia takes Putin out
Western sanctions are weak and arguably push cash back into Russia as we still buy the commodities, until the realisation hits that we need to take pain to inflict pain it's not going to work
I’m assuming that the red button is metaphorical and not an actual trigger.
So if Putin gave the order to fire would the guy in charge of the missiles have the courage to say no to him? If he did would he just be replaced by someone who would say yes?
Not sure but someone got to press something to launch. Yes, the no person will be replaced and probably his/her entire family too.
Or would those in the upper echelons say ‘you’ve gone too far now, out!’ and if so who would do that and who would take over?
I doubt anyone of them will say anything to avoid putting themselves in harms way.
Newsnight say the UK assessment is that the harder the Ukrainians fight the harsher the Putin onslaught will be. Based on the assessment they are fighting hard it’s going to be terrible unless someone in Russia takes Putin out
I am not surprised with Putin tactics.
Interesting development at Chernobyl, previously thought to be in Russian control but now saying staff are being held ‘hostage’. Why do you need to hold hostages if you are in control?
I doubt anyone of them will say anything to avoid putting themselves in harms way.
It's "Death of Stalin" like, if they think others will follow they will lead, otherwise no-one moves as they are terrified
So if putin takes all or part of Ukraine;
does 'the West'/NATO just say...OK vlad, can we just leave it here - please?
With every passing minute where putin is not forcefully challenged, he feels more empowered.
There is no meaningful domestic opposition to him.
If he dies soon, irrespective of how, who is his likely successor?
What do we know about them?
Are they a putin mini-me?
Will there be a power vacuum?
This is a stark illustration of the emptiness of western foreign policy.
Will the US now pivot away from their far eastern focus to revitalise NATO?
To date, putin and Xi have
out-manoeuvered the west/NATO.
It’s “Death of Stalin” like, if they think others will follow they will lead, otherwise no-one moves as they are terrified
Yes, because most people fear consequences so rather sit through it in the hope that something good will appear at the end of the tunnel. They just cling on ...
So if putin takes all or part of Ukraine;
does ‘the West’/NATO just say…OK vlad, can we just leave it here – please?
Nope! He wants to recreate Soviet Union (CCCP) version II with him as their idol. Version I was a failure so thinking version II might be more advanced with new technology etc.
To date, putin and Xi have out-manoeuvered the west/NATO.
They have indeed. People just can't be bothered with them so while life goes on they make their own preparation (underhand tactics).
To date, putin and Xi have
out-manoeuvered the west/NATO.
Probably a correct observation, we are too worried by issues that don't even register with these two and lack strategic vision by virtue of the need to win elections fought on short term issues
big'n'daft - your comment 'take pain to inflict pain'
Would you rush to the front line or encourage your children (if you have any) to do the same?
If not, why post an otherwise stupid and pointless comment.
You may be a 5* General or know the colour of the boat House in Hereford but...
lack strategic vision by virtue of the need to win elections fought on short term issues
What, short term issues like democracy, the rule of law, habeas corpus and protecting fundamental human rights?
It’s much easier to drive aggressive, expansionist policies if you’re willing to flout international law and subject your citizens to medieval levels of torture and subjugation.
Would you rush to the front line or encourage your children (if you have any) to do the same?
I was only talking about higher gas bills and the financial risk c£45 billion for some countries if they close the swift system
If not, why post an otherwise stupid and pointless comment.
Hence why it's not
You may be a 5* General or know the colour of the boat House in Hereford but…
LOL, I don't even play Call of Duty
What, short term issues like democracy, the rule of law, habeas corpus and protecting fundamental human rights?
Your strength is "democracy".
Their strength is "order".
"Fluidity" vs "form"
"Chaos" vs "order"
It’s much easier to drive aggressive, expansionist policies if you’re willing to flout international law and subject your citizens to medieval levels of torture and subjugation.
I agree, which is why they can lie with a straight face and say black is white etc
@frankconway it was a comment on the implications of sanctions on our own economy. I.e. that if sanctions are effective on Russia then they are also going to inflict pain in the UK
Your strength is “democracy”.
Their strength is “order”.
Yeah, and I’d take democracy every time thanks 😉
What, short term issues like democracy, the rule of law, habeas corpus and protecting fundamental human rights?
The list you give do not necessarily overlap with each other. Personally I think there is a good chance the benevolent dictator as a political model would give the best results (unless you are a mime artist) but it is fatally undermined by how do you find that dictator and even if by some miracle you manage it how do you find the one after her. So we end up with Churchills quote. That said it is worth noting democracy is a pretty recent innovation so whether it can win out as a political model I am not sure despite being in favour of it.
It is interesting comparing Putin and Xi and even then you need to look at how Xi is taking advantage of the work done by those before him do didnt necessarily share the same vision and management philosophy.
I agree, which is why they can lie with a straight face and say black is white etc
Recent history sadly demonstrates that isnt restricted to the dictatorships. Indeed it is possibly a weakness of some of our democratic systems that we relied on the idea that people wouldnt lie with a straight face.
Yeah, and I’d take democracy every time thanks 😉
We all love democracy with its quirkiness so long as no one has upper hands and should remain so.
In their system order is established but sometimes it is like using a hammer to force a square peg to a round hole.
On ya democracy has a slight edge but not a lot.
Recent history sadly demonstrates that isnt restricted to the dictatorships. Indeed it is possibly a weakness of some of our democratic systems that we relied on the idea that people wouldnt lie with a straight face.
I agree, the apologists for Boris' parties need to feel the pain otherwise basic standards of leadership have no meaning
So if putin takes all or part of Ukraine;
does ‘the West’/NATO just say…OK vlad, can we just leave it here – please?
Didn't we say that about Crimea? (Rhineland/Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia....)
At some point we have to make a proper stand. It will not be good, but the longer we leave it the harder it will be.
Does anyone really think NATO will start WW3 to defend Lithuania? More to the point does Putin think that? If he thinks not will he try? And if we don't do it then, when? Poland? Germany?
Lots of questions but no answers. Putin is Hitler with nukes.
“To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me,” he said
So that's basically saying they've forecast our potential moves, decided on some pretty serious response already, and he's potentially delegated authority on the matter to others.
but in watching the coverage of him over the last couple of weeks, he looks like an absolute madman
Something in his eyes and expression the other day. Maybe it's there, maybe I'm just my perception due to the recent events.
Anyone else do f-all work today because of the news? Ending up working late as I can’t set my phone down.
Aye.
There must be millions with family ties over the border, both ways, maybe the Russians soldiers hearts just won’t be in it? Maybe it’ll backfire on him internally.
I expect this will have been mitigated in part by mobilising units from the west of Russia.
An iron curtain is descending across Europe,,,,you know the script. It's just going to be from the St Petersburg in the Baltic to the Black Sea and not the Adriatic this time
It's often said that there weren't two world wars but one greater conflict with an interlude. Perhaps that is what this is, those who thouht the cold war was over are just like those who thought 1914/18 was the war to end all wars.
I know there's plenty of NATO knockers on here but right now NATO looks like quite a good club to be in. I'd be worried if I were in Lithuania but I wouldn't be regretting the decision to join NATO.
From the overnight news it sounds like this conflict is going to be drawn out.
Unlike Crimea. Which was relatively simple and boosted Putin’s popularity massively.
The scenes on streets across Russian cities imply that this is not boosting his popularity.
I went looking for an article about Crimea and found this - even in 2019 the gloss had rubbed off:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/russia-s-crimea-invasion-was-good-putin-five-years-later-ncna984431
Whilst the oligarchs have enriched themselves ordinary Russians have experienced a less stellar trajectory. A war to revive flagging popularity may be a massive miscalculation.
I have my fingers crossed for change from within.
Yep, it looks like the choice you now have is to either join Nato or be invaded by Russia. It doesn't take a huge brain to work out that joining Nato is the better choice
Didn’t the US sponsor the overthrow of the democratically elected government in an illegal coup in 2014?
This? Doesn't sound like an illegal coup tbh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
The Revolution of Dignity (Ukrainian: Революція гідності, romanized: Revoliutsiia hidnosti), also known as the Maidan revolution[2] (Ukrainian: Українська революція 2013–2014 років, romanized: Ukrainska revoliutsiia 2013–2014 rokiv), took place in Ukraine in February 2014[2][1] at the end of the Euromaidan protests,[1] when a series of violent events involving protesters, riot police, and unknown shooters in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv culminated in the ousting of elected president Viktor Yanukovych and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government.[1][2]
In November 2013, a wave of large scale protests (known as Euromaidan) erupted in response to President Yanukovych's refusal to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU) at a meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius in Lithuania. These protests continued for months. In February 2014, clashes between the protestors and the Berkut (special riot police) became violent, and resulted in the deaths of nearly 130 people, including 18 police officers.[28] On February 21, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition was signed that called for early elections and the formation of an interim unity government. The following day, Yanukovych fled from the capital ahead of an impeachment vote.[29] The protesters proceeded to take control of the capital buildings. On the same day, the parliament declared that Yanukovych was relieved of duty in a 328-to-0 vote (out of the Rada’s 450 members).[30][31][32]
Yanukovych said that this vote was illegal and possibly coerced, and asked the Russian Federation for assistance.[33] Russia considered the overthrow of Yanukovych to be an illegal coup, and did not recognize the interim government. Widespread protests, both in favor of and against the revolution, occurred in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, where Yanukovych previously received strong support in the 2010 presidential election. These protests escalated, resulting in a Russian military intervention[34][35] and the establishment of the self-proclaimed proto-states Donetsk and Luhansk.
The interim government, led by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, proceeded to sign the EU association agreement. Petro Poroshenko became the President of Ukraine after a landslide victory in the 2014 presidential elections. The new government restored the 2004 amendments to the Ukrainian constitution that were controversially repealed as unconstitutional in 2010[36] and initiated a large-scale purge of civil servants who were associated with the overthrown regime.[37][38][39]
(looked it up as I wasn't aware of what happened in 2014 with the govt there)
I have my fingers crossed for change from within.
On the one hand, sounds good.
But history shows Russia hasn’t always landed good replacements for leaders. Any replacement seems likely to come out of the same corrupt paranoid authoritarian resource pool that sustains the current regime.
As a country it seems decades away from achieving the same sort of neighbourly relations (even with the B word) that Western Europe enjoys. And we had to burn the continent to the ground before that happened.
Newsnight say the UK assessment is that the harder the Ukrainians fight the harsher the Putin onslaught will be. Based on the assessment they are fighting hard it’s going to be terrible unless someone in Russia takes Putin out
And the Russians will only turn on Putin when their chdren are being returned in bodybags from a pointless war with their neighbour. Sadly, the Ukranians will have to endure all sorts of horrors to bring that about.
I have my fingers crossed for change from within.
On the one hand, sounds good.
But history shows Russia hasn’t always landed good replacements for leaders. Any replacement seems likely to come out of the same corrupt paranoid authoritarian resource pool that sustains the current regime.
That’s the gotcha, you could just end up with a newer version of the same.
At least a change of leader allows policy change without an individual admitting they were wrong.
I don’t expect Russia to suddenly behave like a Scandinavian country, but a change at the top is long overdue.
Yes, that's interesting, although I perhaps the reality is somewhat more complex. With Eastern-European countries, I totally understand why they'd rather go west than east through EU integration, given the fact it's such a successful economic bloc (thank God we left!) and the history of what happened in the 20th century. But perhaps NATO wasn't the answer and perhaps Finland was/is a better example of diplomacy and not threatening your neighbours? The problem with NATO is that, at the end of the day, it's a military organisation whose leadership has been somewhat questionable over the past two decades. They should have disassembled it after the 1990's, but it's too late now. If anything, we'll only see more NATO from hereon. There's a fine line between de-escalation and appeasement, and I'm not sure we've got the calibre of political leaders of walk it.
Does anyone really think NATO will start WW3 to defend Lithuania?
That indeed would be the ultimate test, NATO saying it's their red line and all would adhere to article 5 is one thing but reality might be different, especially if Russia could engineer a false flag operation that had Lithuania or other NATO eastern European country appear to strike first (at Belarus or Russia). I could see Biden and Boris fumbling about for excuses as to why article 5 didn't apply.
I don't think attacking NATO countries is really on Putin's agenda though, Ukraine is likely a big enough prize for him (both economically but also to strength his position within Russia), at least for the next decade or so.
It's good to see Ukraine appear to be holding out well, it's been highlighted though that the armour Russia is currently fielding is last gen - indicating they likely have very strong reserves ready to push in. That said they probably won't do that until there have been some major battles already as they don't want T-90M's taken out by Javelins etc. I think the key for now is how many MANPADS Ukraine have (and their distribution) as without effective air support there's no chance Russia can encircle Kiyv, let alone push into Western Ukraine
Perhaps NATO wasn’t the answer
Looking at it in the middle of a war in Europe probably isn't the best time to make assessments of how former Warsaw pact countries and CCCP Republics choose to organise their international relationships. Although it's fair I think to say, the people living in those countries can open a paper and read for themselves the alternative Putin has to offer them.
I think the flaw in the hand-wringing assessments of eastwards NATO "expansion" is that power abhors a vacuum, and left alone, Putin wouldn't have left those countries to be independent and democratic. NATO is Putin's personal animus, it has nothing to do with threatening Russia. Because, it doesn't.
"They should have disassembled it after the 1990’s, but it’s too late now."
Just because he communist regime fell apart didn't mean that a threat wasn't still posed. Russia quickly became a basket case with tons of nuclear weapons. That NATO got distracted with other global affairs in the interim is certainly true but I think we are seeing why there was a need for NATO in the first place.
If some of us in the West couldn't see the purpose of NATO in a 'post cold war' world, I'm pretty sure the Poles, the Romanians and the Baltic States could.
Personally I think there is a good chance the benevolent dictator as a political model would give the best results (unless you are a mime artist)
God only knows what Terry would write about this shitshow.
Personally I think there is a good chance the benevolent dictator as a political model would give the best results (unless you are a mime artist)
God only knows what Terry would write about this shitshow.
Edit: Jingo v2.0 probably
But perhaps NATO wasn’t the answer and perhaps Finland was/is a better example of diplomacy and not threatening your neighbours? The problem with NATO is that, at the end of the day, it’s a military organisation whose leadership has been somewhat questionable over the past two decades.
@fatmountain I initially thought when the aim of NATO is a defensive pact I'm not sure how it could be taken as threatening your neighbours, if you don't intend to invade those NATO neighbours no-one has a problem.
This is interesting background though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Conflicts_of_interests
Particularly on the Kosovo disagreement. Clearly I know zero about all this hence the reading up but you would hope anyone making the decisions wasn't working on the assumption he wouldn't mess with NATO.
without effective air support there’s no chance Russia can encircle Kiyv, let alone push into Western Ukraine
Are hand held missiles really enough to prevent the Russians getting air superiority?
Are hand held missiles really enough to prevent the Russians getting air superiority?
Depends on the number and effectiveness of them I guess. I don't know how their effectiveness differs from that of an air-to-air missile for example but they are a different league to the old ackack guns.
They do have the advantage of being very hard to spot before they are fired, very portable, easily hidden.
I would imagine very good against slow stuff like helicopters and transport planes?
Any analysis of NATO, EU expansion has to now involve the fact that Putin regards these countries has his to do with as he pleases, and that he will use the only thing that he has at his disposal; massive use of overwhelming military force, to achieve what he wants.
What do democratic law-based countries do about that?
Are hand held missiles really enough to prevent the Russians getting air superiority?
In a word: Yes. But it depends if you mean superiority or supremacy. If the only thing that can safely operate in an area is very fast jets (pretty much the only thing immune to hand-held missile system) , then you haven't achieved superiority
This is the first time in many many years that anything approaching equivalent forces have been involved in a land battle since the 2nd WW. The Russians aren't achieving anything like the success that they thought they would, and the Ukrainian forces are both putting up much more resistance and are managing to strike Russian airbases inside Russia. The longer this goes on, I think the more likely is that the Ukrainians will force Putin to talk to them
@mol, you've got different flavours, MANPADs and the what we call GBAD, which is ground based air-defence, that can be a mixture of surface to air missiles and AA guns. MANPADs are exclusively SAMs.
The fixed stuff is reported to have been neutralized, MANPADs depending on the variant are effective against fast air as they are rotary. I've seen a few videos of engagements and the Russian countermeasure systems are popping flares, the crews will potentially be getting indications in the cockpit if they're being tracked, locked or engaged (but this does depend on the system engaging them and how modern their defensive aids suite is). any indications could give a direction/location of the firing point.
The other thing that keeps you in the air is the tactics which you employ (flight profiles/formations) if you're bunched up, 'heatseekers' will track the hottest signature so a lead aircraft flare release could track a missle onto another in the formation or on detonation could damage other aircraft in close proximity.
I could bore you to tears with this, but TL;DR, MANPADs are an aviators worst nightmare.
The Ukrainians have got some Zaporozhian Cossack energy going on, which will be corrosive to Russian morale in the longer term. Reportedly civilians are being issued with guns and in Kyiv, told to stay indoors and make molotovs. If the Russians are having bother taking the cities, imagine having to hold on to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks
I initially thought when the aim of NATO is a defensive pact I’m not sure how it could be taken as threatening your neighbours, if you don’t intend to invade those NATO neighbours no-one has a problem..
I am not sure I agree that NATO is a defensive organisation. It has an imperialist agenda and is orientated and motivated politically. Its interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the "War on Terror" prove as much. To me, it's remarkable that during in the cold war NATO performed no military opreations, accept, perhaps, for its shady false flag terrorism campaigns in Europe (see Operation GLADIO) and so it's role and mission are questionable, given it was a political appratus created on the pretext of the Cold War. It would be interesting to know what Fins think of it.
At this point, I no longer know what to believe. Is Putin really running things or is just part of a new geopolitcal game, in the wake of the "War on Terror", which no longer seems of much interest to anyone. If he is, then is this a resource war? Because normally, that's why wars are waged. (I understand the Ukraine is a bread basket and we're looking at forty or fifty years worth of harvests left due to top soil erosion.) Cyincally speaking, the short-term benefactors of this conflict will be military organisations like NATO, who are unwavering in justifying thier own taxpayer funded budgets, as well as weapons manufacturers, and financiers. The losers will be the Ukranian people.
and are managing to strike Russian airbases inside Russia.
Is this true? (Just wondering as I've not seen it reported)
There's a few reports circulating and some pictures, not much in the way of verification though.
The Ukrainian military also has the advantage of knowing exactly the position, strength and direction of travel of all Russian forces at all times, as they are undoubtedly being updated live by NATO countries.
They are fighting for their homes, their families - what exactly are the Russians fighting for? I doubt most of them even know. If they told they were going in to 'liberate' Ukraine, I'm sure they have been disabused of that notion by now.
Is this true? (Just wondering as I’ve not seen it reported)
The one which is reported to have been attacked is close to the border with Ukraine.
There's a growing number of reports of Russian soldiers and unit surrendering or deserting, many were told about the invasion until the morning of it*. The numbers are doubtful to make a difference but you never know, could spread.
*Allegedly.
They are fighting for their homes, their families
Indeed;
Looks like the swear filter does for the link
The web is awash with images of some of their success, sadly that success means death. There's a report of a young soldier who was sabotaging a bridge to deny it before the Russians could cross, didn't have time to escape so blew it himself while on the bridge.
The Russians like the west didn't learn the lessons many militaries have been schooled in over the years; never underestimate people fighting in their country, for their country.
Even if they take Ukraine I have a feeling they will end up having to deal with a very bloody insurgency.
Perhaps it will go the way of what happened when Russia attempted to invade Finland. An interesting read . I'd completely forgotten they invaded Finland, which makes Finnish rejection of NATO the more interesting.
https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1497157696918671363
This is a tweet from bellingcat showing a "supposed" attack at Millerovo airbase inside Russia, lots of the earlier stories on this seem to have been taken down, so perhaps not real? Hard to tell.
There’s a growing number of reports of Russian soldiers and unit surrendering or deserting, many were told about the invasion until the morning of it*. The numbers are doubtful to make a difference but you never know, could spread.
*Allegedly.
Source?
Reddit is a good place to start, plenty of posts, some verified (although some of that is shaky at best). A lot of videos & images taken by civilians and Ukrainian forces.
But as is the way there's also a lot of old crap being passed off as current hence why I'm not posting links, you'll have to do the leg work yourself I'm afraid.
If you do find the sources, you may notice the red bands/tape. Growing thoughts that they are conscripts, the unit wearing white bands are regular volunteer enlisted troops, so might explain why certain troops/units are deciding against fighting.
I am not sure I agree that NATO is a defensive organisation. It has an imperialist agenda and is orientated and motivated politically. Its interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the “War on Terror” prove as much.
Whether they are or not, or whether any government or organisation has a truly credible record in this general area, I'm not sure. 9/11 and WMDs etc.. messy. Agreed.
NATO states its aims as a defensive pact and not to invade unprovoked, they aren't going to start on Russia or China. Russia needs to create propaganda to suggest that's a possibility.
It would be difficult for Finland to re-enact their heroic defence let alone Ukraine. They were (relatively) fresh out of a civil war, had a population more in tune with countryside and faced an army purged of many capable officers by the political officers. Plus their leader, Mannerheim, was Russia trained pre communist uprising and their very own Churchill.
As for NATO membership it is an ongoing discussion for decades. Whilst a cold war policy of officially not pissing of the big neighbour (Finlandization) prevented membership for many years there is still a fine line being trodden between flexing all available rights of an independent country and not wanting to actively antagonise the bear.
I think the best thing that Ukraine can hope for is they can give Russia a bloody enough nose to get them to the negotiating table. Unlikely given speed of advance but perhaps they're taking a tactic out of the Finnish playbook of getting your enemy to overextend their supply lines and encircling them (Motti).
I can't help wondering where our Trident fleet is positioned at the moment.
Probably not that far away from their US counterparts...
Growing thoughts that they are conscripts, the unit wearing white bands are regular volunteer enlisted troops, so might explain why certain troops/units are deciding against fighting.
from the Russian war with Afghanistan, early on they used units of conscripts which hailed from rural southern USSR (probably now Kazakstan region) supposedly for their familiarity with the terrain and conditions.
High levels of desertion from those men who realised they had far more in common with the Afghans than Moscow. Will we see the same here?
When people, the Russians included, see Russian tanks crushing civilians on the street the tide will turn against Putin.
Not for the faint hearted.
Armoured tank crushes civilian car in Kyiv, Ukraine. https://imgur.com/gallery/CArbDwS
The guy survived....
Car driver survives being crushed by armoured tank in Kyiv, Ukraine. https://imgur.com/gallery/PIcrQ0z
Mate of miner's missus is from Ukraine, living in Germany. On Monday there was talk of her getting her family over to Germany. Now they're bearing arms. Her old man is an officer in the reserves and has been sent to Kiev. Her brother was stopped on his way to Poland, turned back and told to fight.
There's a video of a young girl getting hit by a missile while riding her bike. There's a picture somewhere of a missile that didn't detonate sticking out of the road. Brutal, bloody and clearly targeting the civilian population.
I'm normally not emotional, but this is affecting me alot. I have no links to Ukraine but I'm finding the violence and suffering one man can inflict on millions hard to comprehend. I know that there are many reasons as to why the west can't physically intervene but how can the modern world watch this happen. Sanctions won't stop the short term slaughter and suffering.
I can’t help wondering where our Trident fleet is positioned at the moment.
2/3s of it will be in Faslane, the other one will be somewhere in the arctic
Pretty horrible thinking of folk fighting for their lives over there. I think Zelezny (sp.) has no choice but to seek terms. Putin wins, again. Bastard.
I’m normally not emotional, but this is affecting me alot.
Me too but is there anything we can meaningfully do to help (products to boycott, donations etc.)?
I've been pretty disappointed by NATO, and specifically America's response.
I’m normally not emotional, but this is affecting me alot.
Likewise. It's making me really angry, frustrated that I don't know what to do/how to help. Massive civilian mobilisation? What would Vlad do if a few million angry people turned up from all over Europe?
What happens when they reach the Moldovan border?
(And same concern for Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania, although they would require (I would expect) success for Putin in Ukraine first.)
There's not much we can do, sanctions and hope that those around Putin that have done well from him find him now a hindrance. It's our own fault, decades of our leaders palling up to him because he's loads of gas and oil. There's talk of Russia building up troops on the Polish boarder but I'm not sure this is real or meant for Russian consumption to put the pressure on those around Putin to wonder if he's going to get them into WWIII before they can spend their oil and gas billions.
I can’t help wondering where our Trident fleet is positioned at the moment.
One is in Plymouth, having just completed a Life Extension refurbishment, 2 are in/around Faselane and the one on deployment will be where they usually hang out- under the arctic ice shelf..
At what point do morals, ethics and human compassion override the current NATO/West 'on the ground' inactivity. When a 1000, 100,000 or a million innocent Ukrainians are slaughtered?
I mean, it's the threat of nuclear war that scares me most of all, and I would think any direct NATO involvement would push the conflict into that realm.
I'm struggling to see how we can be (partly) to blame for this. Surely it doesn't matter that we buy his oil and gas? If he always wanted to old gang back, he would do it anyway?
Probably the same threshold they leave the room when NATO troops start returning to their home nations in flag-draped caskets?
Very easy to call for intervention when you're very unlikely to have to bear a personal cost for it, and most likely not long after spend time roasting those who made the decision to deploy. Society is as such today that any action/inaction is crucified, and we wonder why we have a class of leaders that are beyond making any tough decisions unless the odds are stacked 99% in their favour or benefit them and them alone.
Especially after the shitshow that was the middle eastern jollies.
I just hope that Russian soldiers realise what they are doing to satisfy the whim of a madman is wrong.
Sadly some might be fully invested in this, others less so. I imagine the Russian military is governed by a fair degree of fear of speaking out with a very real and present threat of terminal consequences or persecution of families if they 'betray' their country.
I sadly don't think you're going to see it if I'm honest.
@teenrat it’s hard to know how to make a difference but I’d say one way is to support organisations like Bellingcat. Their investigations are increasingly being used by the ICC as a reliable source of verified and verifiable information.
Second that. They're a group of pretty talented individuals. And as far as OSINT goes, you can have a high degree of trust in their work, there's a lot of charlatans, pretenders and war-whores out there who simply repeat or pump out crap.
I am not sure I agree that NATO is a defensive organisation.
Really? I must have missed the NATO invasion of... Where has NATO invaded, again?
Afghanistan.
The only time article 5 has ever been triggered was in response to an attack on the US
.
Other actions, the two Gulf Wars, Libya, Yugoslavia, etc involved NATO countries but weren't NATO actions
Also - NATO wasn’t involved in Iraq