Forum menu
Are you saying they're actually doing more harm than good? I don't believe that for a second...
The sensationalizing by our press isnt helping everyone’s mood. All it is doing is dramatically raising the fear factor.
China can't keep up with their current manufacturing demands so increasing production to include Russian knockoffs seems unlikely.
. I don’t know how deep the storehouses are, or how long they can keep throwing things at the front line.
Probably not that deep due to corruption
The dates on the ration packs might get even older
Hi Guys - not sure if this is the best place to post but just been emailed by Peak UK (a paddlesport supplier we use). They are collecting sleeping bags for Ukranian refugees. Please only send clean washed bags.
Following the recent statement from the European Outdoor Group (see here), we are teaming up with DPD to send sleeping bags to refugees displaced from the fighting in Ukraine. We need your help.
We need clean, usable sleeping bags to send to Poland where they will be distributed through the Polish Outdoor Group and their colleagues to people arriving in countries bordering Ukraine.
You can either:
- Send them to us at:
Peak UK Kayaking
Old Road
Darley Dale
DE4 2ER
- Drop them in with us in person at the above address. If the office is closed you can leave them in the click and collect box by the front doors, which will be left open.
The sensationalizing by our press isnt helping everyone’s mood.
How can you 'sensationalise' the shelling of a nuclear reactor? It's difficult to imagine many things that would need sensationalising less. Just have a think about the potential consequences of that for a moment. Its utter and complete insanity! The unhinged behaviour of an absolute madman! No 'sensationalism' required at all. Even by the standards of the last couple of weeks, surely this act in itself made everyone sit up and think WTF are these lunatics actually doing?!!
Thats how l saw it dyna-ti.
I slept ok last night.
Putin didn't want to blow the reactor up, he wanted to switch the lights off. It was the press that wanted to 'blow it up'.
How can you ‘sensationalise’ the shelling of a nuclear reactor?
AFAIK, they didn't actually shell the reactor. The fire was in a different building. It's not at all clear what weapons they were using, so "shelling" may not be accurate. Above all, their objective wasn't to destroy the reactor, it was to shut it down or capture it. Still not a good thing, but the panic about an imminent nuclear explosion was not based on any understanding of what a reactor is and why it cannot explode like a nuclear bomb.
I would imagine that there are all manner of critical systems to a nuclear reactor, the failure of any one of which could lead to some pretty disastrous consequences
So I'll stick with my opinion that only an absolute lunatic would even contemplate the idea
Thats how l saw it dyna-ti.
I slept ok last night.
I wish I was a sanguine as you.
Sure, most likely the result would have been 'only' a Fukushima and not a Chernobyl in the event that something went wrong but the fact that the army feels comfortable throwing any kind of explosive at a nuclear power plant makes me feel worried and wondering what the next act of shear recklessness is going to be.
But, of course, that's what Putin wants me to be worried about.
Are you saying they’re actually doing more harm than good? I don’t believe that for a second…
Well maybe not int he way you're thinking RM
when the press reports these stories, people are then more open to not just suggestion, but to fabricating scenarios in their own mind. Look to this forum as a slice of how the every day member of the population thinks.
Todays, and within the context of the small fire at the nuclear plant, the talk was about Moscow launching a small nuclear weapon directing into the Ukrainian capital. This action would seem to me counter productive as to their aims.
So how does that play out as to our response ?, should we now preemptive strike the Russians, given its speculation thats exactly what they're planning to do.
Honestly i cant say how many stories ive read about this is going to happen, and that could happen and this will happen only for it to not. And not just about this conflict, but just about every other we've been involved in. We're looking for a path to peace in this. Not a feeding frenzy about what we must do to end the conflict.
Currently on national TV we have talk about assassinating Putin. Everyday members of the public are calling in and pretty much volunteering to do such a thing. You dont think Moscow watches the BBC or Sky news. How do they react . How do we expect them to react 😕
I think the way public opinion is at the moment, the population is labouring under the false premise that a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is justified.
I would imagine that there are all manner of critical systems to a nuclear reactor, the failure of any one of which could lead to some pretty disastrous consequences
If the reactor is shut down and the cooling systems are working (which requires an external source of electrical power), they aren't as vulnerable as you might imagine. Not saying that attacking them is in any way good, but it is easy to overestimate how vulnerable they are.
Of course I was alarmed when I first heard the news about the reactor but the thought that he might be trying to capture reactors to turn them off had crossed my mind, after half an hour of following some news it seemed that it wasn't the reactor that had been targeted but the press seemed keen to float that idea rather than consider what Putins actual objectives were.
The jury is out on how the well the press has performed. Over the last couple of days there have been quite a few things about the press that I've been uncomfortable with.
Not criticising others though, I don't have children but I do wonder how differently I would feel of I did..
When designing nuclear reactors they account for natural hazards such as earthquake, floods, hurricanes etc. Obviously the design standards vary across the world and the local hazards vary per location but they are a hell of a lot more robust than we think they are.
As long as the control rooms/functions are not affected/sabotaged it can continue to function.
I would imagine that there are all manner of critical systems to a nuclear reactor, the failure of
any one of whichlots of these systems all at the same time could lead to some pretty disastrous consequences
Fukushima wasn't anywhere near a Chernobyl scale even, and that was after the fifth biggest earthquake ever recorded and a tsunami had hit it. A few rockets are fairly minor in comparison.
Although the Japanese were able to get in to deal with it without being shot at...
If Putin is after the natural resources of Ukraine as has been suggested, then a destroyed nuclear reactor chucking out radiation is the last thing he needs.
It’s not at all clear what weapons they were using, so “shelling” may not be accurate.
Which is a very good point to make, from both aspects. Shelling, or bombing or launched surface to surface missiles aren't always as accurate as we want, and they go astray and hit the wrong things. But again that would cause Russias ability to wage war in that area effectively null and void. And strategically having to remove all their troops from that area and reroute would set the planning back, and lay havoc to their overall plan.
Plus to keep with their story that its not to harm everyday Ukrainians, they would need to sort out evacuation of the population, and even if that wasnt an option, they would have to make great changes in order to do so. So any attack will be limited to power generation areas, and nuclear scientists arent soldiers, so when someone comes calling with a gun, all they can do is plead not to attack this area or that, but just stand back and let them get on with it.
Last nights press, tabloids of course, but also the bbc reported an increase in radiation out of that area and plant
Today the nuclear commission for Ukraine is stating that was not the case. So what we had is wild speculation being touted as truthful facts. That is not the reporting we need to feel that there is a light at the end of the tunnel
I think the way public opinion is at the moment, the population is labouring under the false premise that a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is justified.
Of all the dangerous bullshit you fill this thread up with, that one really takes the biscuit. Just stop.
@dyna-ti I know, I have a family member that works for the DM, we disagree on a lot of things that her paper prints! But I know full well their priority is not accurate news, it's revenue and sensationalist stories get people clicking on their links or tuning into channels in their droves.
I said way back when in the thread about those calling for a military response would soon change their mind when flag-draped caskets start arriving back home which is a cast-iron guarantee.
I have no idea what the solution to this is, I'll keep my opinions firmly in my area of experience from a ground(ish)-view, no idea what the political or high level strategic solution is to this.
I have a feeling that any end other than Putin simply deciding to stop being a **** has a significant negative outcome/downside that will either be immediate, or take a bit of time to play out.
Question for the older forumites, how does the present situation compare to the Cuban missile crises?
Well as one of the older members of the forum I was still only 8 at the time. Given that and that we would have had limited news feeds I would guess it didn't seem quite as frightening as the current crisis. Having said that our parents were fresh from WWWII (and their parents from WW1) so I would guess they found it pretty scary at the time.
+1
Surprised to find myself agreeing with dyna-ti but I do think things have gone a bit Brass Eye the last few days.
For the first 4 days the narrative was fast slipping away from Putin but over the past 3 days, he has wrestled back control of that narrative and we are looking where he wants us to look.
Defo not a majority, but I have seen some loons espouse that opinion for sure. But then they're always the same sort calling for military action, also the sort who share those honking 'now is the time to kneel' pictures on or around Remembrance.
Of all the dangerous bullshit you fill this thread up with, that one really takes the biscuit. Just stop.
Is dyna_ti Mark Francois in disguise?
Ah yes our press is over sensationalising the situation - that’s got to be worth what, 5 years?
Oi! Mark Francois is a personal hero of mine; when I grow up I want my own action figure too.
#thankyouforyourcervix
[url= https://i.ibb.co/L0z6hNC/Ec-WEGi-TWs-AA4n3e.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/L0z6hNC/Ec-WEGi-TWs-AA4n3e.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Not that I want him to ‘win’
If you don’t want him to win then the flip side is greater destruction, escalation, inevitable NATO involvement and all the terrifying consequences that brings. I know it feels very virtuous and defiant but the cold harsh reality is that a Russian defeat is far more dangerous than the opposite.
Those covering the war need to slow down. Any attempts to report in "real time" are going to keep being wide of the mark. Alarm about attacks on a nuclear facilities are understandable, even when more up to date information is so reassuring. The problem is the knee jerk initial reporting is more "sticky" then than the follow up more reassuring news.
As for the completely made up notion that the UK population is now thinking that a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia is justified... well, I'm very glad that poster isn't involved in the reporting of anything themselves.
Why is it you hate the Russian people so much.
I have never said anything like that. Far from it. Stop trolling. Just stop.
Who are people donating to? There seem to be a large number of options out there.
I'd generally donate to the DEC but I'm angry enough to want some of my money to go to the military and I also think that it's right Ukrainia itself gets to decide where the money goes.
Both the Ukrainian Embassy and the Central Bank are running funds. Is either best or are there better options?
Stick with DEC, that's were the money will really be needed.
OK then Kelvin, lay on me your path to peace. How do we go about ending this conflict before the real horror begins and the reports start coming in of hundreds or thousands of civilian deaths. Lay it on me.
This site was created by Ukrainians and is pretty helpful. Various donation options.
https://how-to-help-ukraine-now.super.site/donate
Personally I've donated to the UNHCR and Red Cross Ukraine appeals. Didn't really feel comfortable with giving money to arms companies. But that was on day 2. My next donation might not be quite so worthy.
Lay it on me.
Engaging with you is a mistake. Happy to have that conversation with anyone else.
Who is Mark Francois?
Anybody who thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine is deluding themselves, same as they were deluding themselves when they scoffed at the idea of this invasion.
The UK equivalent of Chuck Norris.
Who is Mark Francois?
Those covering the war need to slow down. Any attempts to report in “real time” are going to keep being wide of the mark.
That's LONG been the case for the awful 24hr constant news loop. The stations are desperate for content, they also love a good* disaster.
As facts are understandably scarce at a time of fast-moving events, tragedy and destruction, they bring in ever-more lunatic "experts" and "eyewitnesses" who get their 5 minutes of fame to spout utter bollocks and the channels pump it out on loop.
Reporter: "What did you see?!"
Eyewitness: "well nuffink really but i heard like 2 loud bangs like and then someone was yelling and like i ran outside and there was someone just lying in the road..."
Great, thanks for that forensic analysis there, exactly what have you brought to the story. Oh that's right. **** all.
*you know what I mean: "good" in terms of ratings, not that a disaster is in itself "good".
No Kelvin, it is you who has been warmongering across this entire thread.
That may be but you seem to have a knack of being the fart at the centre of each argument that arises on this thread. I hope you don't take this personally but it would be a considerably more pleasant atmosphere if you stopped posting
How do we go about ending this conflict before the real horror begins and the reports start coming in of hundreds or thousands of civilian deaths.
We can't. Ukraine can by surrendering and allowing Russia to annex them. They've rejected that. Russia can by accepting Ukraine's sovereignty and withdrawing their troops. Putin will not do that. Other countries cannot end this, the only thing they can do is support Ukraine (who are the innocent victim in this.)
I totally scoffed at him invading. Then I was like: "He did what? Oh, okay, so we're doing that now."
[url= https://i.ibb.co/nrMgH4W/Kevin-Hart-1.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/nrMgH4W/Kevin-Hart-1.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Anybody who thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine is deluding themselves, same as they were deluding themselves when they scoffed at the idea of this invasion.
dyna-ti,
You had a reasonable point with regards press reporting but that point gets lost when you reveal that you are looking to leverage the point to fit your anti NATO narrative. And if you keep on accusing people of war mongering then no one is going to listen to you.
If you were to talk about how all this feeds into the military industrial complex or something then you might find you'll solicit a more interesting conversation.
Ask yourself wether you are critiquinng western democracy in order to improve it, or to undermine it?
We have a standing donation to the RC, but we've thrown some money into UNHCR as well.
Who are people donating to? There seem to be a large number of options out there.
warmongering across this entire thread
I haven't seen anyone warmongering on this thread. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a warmonger.
Regarding the scale of the convoy: Imagine you are at the front of it. Now imagine a town 17 miles away, that's Kyiv. Now think of a town 40 miles away, that's the other end of the convoy. Then think of all the terain in between, all the bridges, even small ones, etc.
When I though of it like this it changed my perspective. For me right now, Kyiv = Brighton and the other end of the convoy is somewhere north of Croydon. They could have devistated key targets in this convoy and we'd never know.
Also, I suspect the Ukrainian forces are being aided by intel and guidance based on a far better picture than we have. So if the convoy is not being hit it's probably with good reason.
"The UK equivalent of Chuck Norris."
No, that's Graham Potter, since he grew that beard...
Who are people donating to? There seem to be a large number of options out there.
One of the problems here is overheads. It's hard to see that your 100 quid or so actually reaches the people who need it as 100 quid.
All of the big organizations have staff to pay, costs of transportation.
We discovered this when I did VSO in Romania. It was coupled to the Anneka Rice appeal with the poor infrastructure and a certain mad as a hatter Irish nurse called Monica McDaid.
Most people in our group were concerned as to where and to whom the raised funds were actually going to and when we went there, what we found was Monica was sleeping in a chair spending every single penny on the orphanages, even to the detriment of her own health.
So maybe look to the small appeals going on round the country, where small firms are supplying trucks to take donated goods, clothing,blankets,food etc directly overland to cross he border and bring those things directly to the people. They are spending their own money, and anything that can go to helping those small appeals means your donation will actually go to where you hope it will and not to keep the bigger charities afloat with directors wages*
*Im not saying this in any sort of a negative against big charities, and in this crisis they will be helping greatly, but to smaller public groups recently set up and using unpaid people(in fact nobody here is getting any sort of a wage,and even the drivers setting off on thousand mile journeys are using their own money for food for the trip. That I think is the best place to send to. You can google and no doubt will find some small charity or recently set up group organizing aid trips.
No, its more a case of cutting off power. Target the electrical generators and power being supplied drops.
Putin didn’t want to blow the reactor up, he wanted to switch the lights off. It was the press that wanted to ‘blow it up’.
This. As long as they still have grid power they are fine.
How can you ‘sensationalise’ the shelling of a nuclear reactor?
As said, that's not what happened.
I would imagine that there are all manner of critical systems to a nuclear reactor, the failure of any one of which could lead to some pretty disastrous consequences
So I’ll stick with my opinion that only an absolute lunatic would even contemplate the idea
As pointed out several times that wasn't what happened. They burnt down a training centre, tbh they probably did them a favour </joke>
As for all those systems, reactors aren't built like that, post Chernobyl and Fukushima the redundancies and backups have only ever increased and the failure of one system would not be a problem. Even if ALL the systems failed you could still bring emergency equipment on site (if it isn't already tucked away somewhere) which the US was gearing up for last night.
It seems several other folk have jumped in ahead of me though so I'll leave it there.
“The UK equivalent of Chuck Norris.”
Ronnie Pickering surely! 🤣🤣
^Touché
I heard they're related.
That’s LONG been the case for the awful 24hr constant news loop. The stations are desperate for content, they also love a good* disaster.
Made even worse by social media. I've often heard people complain (and no doubt done so myself at some point) that TV and radio news is as little as an hour behind what can be read on Social Media. Conventional news outlets are increasing competing on speed not accuracy, with each other and with a whole series of new entrants into the news space, as well as amateur reports from people on the ground. The acceleration of the event>reporting cycle has become insane in recent years, even compared to the time of the creation of 24 hour TV news channels.
Time has come for Mark to re-post his '...be polite' request; it wasn't time limited nor did it exclude certain posters.
Non-compliance with his request really pisses me off - particularly on a serious thread about a potentially world-changing event.
As for donations, there are countless avenues but cold hard cash would be going to MSF as per usual.
@pictonroad chill mate, you're only going to earn a ban as I did the other day. He's been reported by the look of it so leave it to the mods. Plenty of sensible conversations to be having.
Keep it civil ladies & gents. No one, especially on this subject matter, has a monopoly on wisdom. If you are rock solidly convinced you are correct in your opinions on the causes or solutions to this, then I suggest you are deluding yourself. Show some humility, listen to others, back off with the insults and don't wreck a useful thread.
I donated to DEC, apparently UK Gov is matching UK donations £ for £ up to £20M.
Supply and demand. Many consumers seem to care more for the scoop than the accuracy of what they're demanding. Or they just want some war porn for some inane reason.
Conventional news outlets are increasing competing on speed not accuracy
I don't think dyna-ti is being particularly anti-NATO, by the way, just talking about the nuance and murkiness of it all. I really object to the way debate is ruined by people extrapolating to extremes just so that they can then attack.
So maybe look to the small appeals going on round the country, where small firms are supplying trucks to take donated goods, clothing,blankets,food etc directly overland to cross he border and bring those things directly to the people
Maybe, although however well-meaning they are I do wonder is some of the independent appeals are actually sending the most useful stuff. Part of the overhead cost of the big organisations is because they are employ people to understand what is actually needed, best way to deliver it, and also coordinate with other organisations doing the same.
No need for personal insults, agreed, but when someone states that they're deriving pleasure from constantly countering on such a terrible and heart-breaking issue then surely that comes under the banner of trolling?
As far as I know, deliberate trolling is banned on our forum?
Keep it civil gents.
indeed
But I'll leave the question up, not just to kelvin but to everyone else
How do we solve this crisis ?.
I donated to DEC, apparently UK Gov is matching UK donations £ for £ up to £20M.I donated to DEC, apparently UK Gov is matching UK donations £ for £ up to £20M.
I didn't realise that (but confirmed on the DEC site), that's really good!
How do we solve this crisis ?
Hard to say without knowing all the details. And we clearly don't.
I donated to DEC last night also.
Gift Aid + Gov donation matching more than doubles whatever you give.
How do we solve this crisis ?.
We can't. Putin doesn't want to solve it. It's in his hands.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/ukraine-zelensky-assassination-attempt-wagner-group-b986057.html
Apparently the FSB and the Chechen assassins are briefing journos now (!)
"How do we solve this crisis ?."
We don't. Not everything is solvable or fixable. Providing Ukrainians with weaponry to try and hold on to as much of their territory for as long as they can is as much as we can do.
How do we solve this crisis ?.
It may simply not be solvable without a great deal of discomfort for the west.
I'm a school cleaner, not a diplomat or military planner but it feels that Putin must feel relatively untouchable by the west. He deployed nuclear & nerve agents in the UK (a NATO member), killing both times without significant sanction. He was also allowed to run riot in Syria and doesn't seem to have paid any real price for shooting down a Ukranian airliner or, indeed, annexing Crimea. He must feel that the west is terrified of him (and I suspect that it is).
I originally thought that the west should have called his bluff and backed Ukraine up militarily (although I didn't think that he'd invade anyway) but I'm now inclined to think that he's mad enough to allow all this to escalate into WW3.
I'm assuming that Poland is a line in the sand for the west/NATO but what would happen if Russia deployed nuclear or nerve agents on the Ukrainian battlefield?
How do we solve this crisis ?
Hope the Ukrainians can hold out long enough for sanctions to start to affect Russia's ability to send troops to the front lines, keep it's vehicles moving, keep it's planes in the air, etc
Hope the sanctions hit the richest in Russia hard. Hope they start struggling to pay the police.
I know, there's a lot of hopes in that but I think any sort of appeasement strategy requires a lot more faith than sanctions require.
Edit to add: I know it's not a good solution but what we are in now is the definition of a no-win scenario.
but what would happen if Russia deployed nuclear or nerve agents on the Ukrainian battlefield?
Thoughts and prayers.
How do we solve this crisis ?.
The only question that matters. But, "solved" in the context of "what"?
Advantage Putin?
Advantage Ukraine?
Advantage China?
Advantage EU?
War is a form of conflict resolution - The Allies in WWII got to the point that only "unconditional surrender" was acceptable.
At the moment, none of the players (combatants) has anything to gain by giving any ground (literal or otherwise).
The "answer" has to be to give a way out to one or both of the protagonists. My preferred way is to force the global narrative that this is putin's war and he has totally failed Russia and leader change is a good and wise thing to be carried out by brave Russians.
Sticking to the absolute truth won't deliver this.
Or, in fact, any other non shit solution.
1,the uk government is matching DEC donations up to 20m and you get tax aid.
2,is there an ignore function?
“How do we solve this crisis ?.”
We don’t. Not everything is solvable or fixable. Providing Ukrainians with weaponry to try and hold on to as much of their territory for as long as they can is as much as we can do.
Partly this but also I wonder if we can turn his own tricks on him - instead of installing a Trump president, can we look at destabilising his stranglehold of the media (like the Anonymous takeover of TV) or disrupting electricity networks? I haven't heard anyone talk about red lines on cyber warfare yet...
Edit: back to the point of the question - we need Russians to stop him. And to do that they need to see, hear and feel that he's lying to them. Breaking his stranglehold on the media would be a way of helping that.
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1499654208496283648
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1499748267692892163
I hope they can use this equipment against the Russians!
In a war of images, every time I see an image of an abandoned vehicle or a captured conscript i remind myself of another image.. the map that they pull up on TV every night and in that image it looks like the Russians are winning.
The Russians always meet more resistance than (we think) they expect when they invade a territory and they always respond by incrementally ramping up the nastiness.
but what would happen if Russia deployed nuclear or nerve agents on the Ukrainian battlefield?
I dont understand why anyone would think that they would do this. It would cause them more problems than not, and if their point is to free the Ukrainians, killing or contaminating the country, would cause more of a nato move than just plain fighting to the end and capturing the country.
Hope the Ukrainians can hold out long enough for sanctions to start to affect Russia’s ability to send troops to the front lines, keep it’s vehicles moving, keep it’s planes in the air, etc
Hope the sanctions hit the richest in Russia hard. Hope they start struggling to pay the police.
I know, there’s a lot of hopes in that but I think any sort of appeasement strategy requires a lot more faith than sanctions require.
Edit to add: I know it’s not a good solution but what we are in now is the definition of a no-win scenario.
Not sure sanctions will work, and Putin did say they expected the very worst but that would mean they would just basically have to suck them up and keep going. And while they will hurt the billionaires, i dont think any of them have such an influence ideologically in the kremlin's eyes that they wouldnt just be told tough luck, thats how it is.
What will happen is the longer the Ukraine holds out, the greater the casualty numbers will be and our constantly sending weapons of war can only greatly increase that number. Fighting to the last Ukrainian isnt going to do the Ukraine any good. However patriotic that will be.
The other option is to surrender. but that then leaves us in the hope that the Russians dont take things a step further and make a play for the other former Soviet states, using the same nuclear threatening. But the chances there are much higher and we'll possibly inevitably end up in a nuclear exchange scenario.
Or if we do go on the attack, we are hoping that it is all bluff and Russia will fight it out with us using conventional weapons,seeing that mutual destruction is not something they themselves would contemplate, but as time goes on, each side will be increasingly inclined to go nuclear. Either way the ball is in the Russians court and it is all we can do to hope it stops with the Ukraine.
If it doesnt its a nuclear exchange. If the Ukraine keeps fighting its tens to hundreds of deaths.
I'm far from agreeing with dyna-ti on all his points but it is quite scary to see how quickly the dominant narrative becomes the only acceptable one and all other viewpoints should be quashed/banned/ignored. Some people are understandably wary of wholeheartedly accepting the official narrative especially since the Gulf War.
There's people talking all sorts of wild speculation and frankly ill-informed conjecture on this thread but as long as it's supporting the consensus opinion nobody seems to mind. But step even slightly outside the 'acceptable' view and you're suddenly a Putin-enabling fool.
Ask yourselves why this war is so much more important than all the other wars that are happening/have happened? The answer is, being honest, well it's a bit closer and the people look a bit more like us. I'm not saying we shouldn't care but the levels of hysteria and minute over-analysis of every last detail isn't healthy or proportionate. Some people really need to take a good look at their consumption of news media and take several steps backward.
Food for thought for the news addicts:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
but what would happen if Russia deployed nuclear or nerve agents on the Ukrainian battlefield?
I dont understand why anyone would think that they would do this. It would cause them more problems than not, and if their point is to free the Ukrainians, killing or contaminating the country, would cause more of a nato move than just plain fighting to the end and capturing the country.
They probably learned a lesson from the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The "international community" will pass resolutions condemning it but nothing will happen. It'll kill the pockets of resistance and terrify the survivors enough that they'll cooperate. For someone like Putin who doesn't care about the suffering of his victims, there's no reason not to use those weapons. NATO aren't going to stop him.