George Floyd was murdered almost 4,000 miles away from us in the UK but his death triggered a wave of febrile emotion and moral panic
I admire for you for not hiding who you are. Someone to avoid.
Because Ukraine were formerly a nuclear state, and we have a treaty with them to come to their aid if nuclear weapons are used against them
Budapest memorandum.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
So note the RF agreed to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".
I admire for you for not hiding who you are. Someone to avoid.
I'm just someone who doesn't want to see a nuclear war. I value that over virtue signalling my empathy.
Who does want to see a nuclear war? BLM campaigners? What’s your point?
Enforcing a UN resolution.
What were they doing in Libya?
Kosovo was a different kettle of fish entirely. Makes the NATO postion a little weak from a moral standpoint.
But it's the nukes, that's entirely where the snag lies for NATO. And with good reason.
They're over a barrel and Putin knows it.
wish there was a way to filter out people bickering....there is some actual useful stuff on here. if you feel the need to write something about an individual, maybe just dont?
Decided not to bother.😁
Nobody wants a nuclear war. In fact nobody wants to do anything that could make a nuclear war probable/possible. However, we are in a situation where Putin feels emboldened enough to threaten it in order to get his way. I think that some people on here are (understandably) so scared of that they effectively just want to give in.
The problem then is how you stop Putin both in Ukraine & beyond, & it’s a very difficult calculation to make. Try & call his bluff, get it wrong & we are all dead. Just give in to him, because you are so petrified that he might do it then he has Carte Blanche to do want he wants & who knows where he or China might end up. I’m not sure what the answer is, but just giving up because of fear is the ultimate in giving in to terrorism and in the long run will not lead to a good outcome. Putin has to be stopped…. without a nuclear Armageddon.
Start by not relying on despotic regimes. Get away from oil and manufacture goods in Europe. Eventually.
Kosovo was a different kettle of fish entirely. Makes the NATO postion a little weak from a moral standpoint.
Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution on that one.
. I don’t believe that NATO has any plans to escalate.
It would have to mobilise first, the troops, kit and supplies. I imagine all the munitions factories are at full chat replacing the stuff going to Ukraine
The problem then is how you stop Putin both in Ukraine & beyond
Why would we need to stop Putin in Ukraine and what do you mean by 'beyond'? How do you know Putin will invade a NATO country? You're trying to suggest Ukraine is the first domino. This is hysterical without good evidence.
If Ukraine was so important we should have given them NATO membership.
That they did, something they'd do again no doubt in this situation.
Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution on that one.
Kosovo was a different kettle of fish entirely.
Libya was a trainwreck, even now it's still a failed state, which was much better off under Gaddafi.
They haven't met the criteria fully yet. Particularly in response to making a military commitment to NATO, they were before all this kicked off in the early stages of a military improvement program to meet that criteria.
If Ukraine was so important we should have given them NATO membership.
Either way, you asked the question, it was answered.
Libya was a trainwreck, even now it’s still a failed state, which was much better off under Gaddafi.
Putin has just invaded an independent sovereign country, having denied that he would do so. At what point would you say that he is an expansionist dictator intent on restoring Russia’s great power status by subjugating his neighbours, if not at this point. Where would your line in the sand be? We are right not to risk probable WW3 for Ukraine, that doesn’t mean that we just let him get on with it without resisting him in every way we can short of that. Don’t give in to fear.
You’re trying to suggest Ukraine is the first domino. This is hysterical without good evidence.
Er, if you just did a bit of research you'd see that Ukraine is the 4th/5th domino.
Don’t give in to fear.
Are you advocating WW3 then or not?
George Floyd was murdered almost 4,000 miles away from us in the UK but his death triggered a wave of febrile emotion and moral panic similar to this conflict.
This is really offensive
I think that was the point.
This is really offensive
Are you advocating WW3 then or not?
No. I am implying that Putin doesn’t want a nuclear war. I am saying that he is bluffing, and trying to intimidate us into getting what he wants, but there is a risk that, if pushed too far, he might just do it. From your posts, you seem to be so terrified of him, you won’t entertain the idea that we can stand up to him without having a nuclear war. I accept it’s a game of high stakes, but there is a lot of bluff to call before we all end up hiding under the stairs surrounded by baked bean tins.
i_scoff_cake
Free Member
Don’t give in to fear.Are you advocating WW3 then or not?
Ok, it's got to be said. Your train of thought Is just all over the place. BLM... how newspapers report a war... ridiculously stating people want WW3... starting Ukraine is important, then it's not.....
Its like you are posting a random stream of consciousness without direction or purpose.
Are you even advocating a stance as I am failing to see it or able to keep up with it?
I don't know, perhaps it's just me thinking this and you are forming a coherent argument for or against something that I'm not even aware of?
From your posts, you seem to be so terrified of him, you won’t entertain the idea that we can stand up to him without having a nuclear war.
That's to mischaracterise my position. I'm firmly behind NATO article 5. The grounds for going to war with Russia should be formalised well before hostilities to avoid those hostilities in the first place. This logic is based upon the possible escalation of conventional war to a nuclear exchange.
That’s to mischaracterise my position.
OK. Could you to clarify your position with regards Russian expansionism?
To keep it simple, ignore NATO and clarify how you feel the UN should react to a country invading its sovereign neighbour?
Are you saying that aggressive expansionism should be tolerated if the aggressor has nuclear weapons? I.e. appease expansionist moves by superpowers to avoid antagonism and potential nuclear war.
Or are you saying that all invasions of sovereign states should be challenged militarily?
Which of these characterises your position?
does it ****ing matter what some random of stw position is?
Given that Putin has spent the last two years terrified of dying from either COVID and/or his own shadow, it seems likely that he's equally scared of dying of radiation sickness in a nuclear winter.
Here's an idea. When there's a pause in new information or development of the situation, take some time away for yourselves. Skim reading some of these recent pages, it's just drivel. You're not important and no-one gives a sheet what you think.
Keep it to reporting on the facts would you? These threads can be a great resource where lots of media streams can be collated in one place. Leave it at that.
I’m just someone who doesn’t want to see a nuclear war. I value that over virtue signalling my empathy.
You don't have to post on the thread. You don't even need to open the thread. Some people might see that your Yemen comments were Virtue signalling - its not like at any point during that conflict you felt there has been something worth starting a thread over.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1502732464980172802
Phillips O'Brian is a Professor of Strategic Studies, his Twitter threads on strategy and logistics are pretty insightful
^^ Interesting read that.
Oh, Russia's Central Bank have announced that the stock exchange will remain closed all next week too...
What impact does that have if it remains closed for months, even years? Is that even feasible?
If the short/medium term when (if) it opens it will be an absolute rout won't it?
Phillips O’Brian is a Professor of Strategic Studies, his Twitter threads on strategy and logistics are pretty insightful
From Napoleon to Hitler (perhaps even others before them) they all failed in trying to conquer Russia (Hitler almost succeeded) not because of the opponent but because of the logistic nightmare of trying to cross such a vast area. The same can be said of Putin/Russia now. The place is a logistic hell and if the logistic can be disrupted then the invading force will/can be cut off. Similarly if the NATO/West was going to attack Russia the same would happen to them. It looks like the terrain does not favour attacker(s) from either side in a full war.
During the Japanese occupation (WW2) of China, the Chinese army retreated inland to stretch the Japanese line and to drain the Japanese slowly.
If the short/medium term when (if) it opens it will be an absolute rout won’t it?
Purely depends on the situation at the time it opens. In the next few weeks it'll be routed to destruction. If it opens up after Putin has been defeated/removed and peace is near-guaranteed it could well be another rush to buy whatever you can and become part of the next group of oligarchs.
You’re trying to suggest Ukraine is the first domino. This is hysterical without good evidence.
Er, if you just did a bit of research you’d see that Ukraine is the 4th/5th domino.
I made a similar point earlier on in the thread and was shot down too, some people can't see the long term picture.
I made a similar point earlier on in the thread and was shot down too, some people can’t see the long term picture.
The long term picture being an invasion of NATO countries? What evidence do you have for this interpretation?
The long game isn't starting now, it's been going on a while.
Every move destabilises to some extent the neighbouring state.
Poland is coping with millions of refugees but how long can it cope?
We'll be back to worrying about how much to fill the car and did Boris have a party. Meanwhile Ukraine will smoulder and Poland will start to have issues with its own population and the displaced people's of Ukraine.
This thread was much better when I didn't have to scroll past pages of petty point-scoring to find some interesting content.
The long term picture being an invasion of NATO countries
Has anybody said that? But if you want dominos
Georgia,
Previous meddling in Ukraine
Belarus
Crimea
Eastern Ukraine “independence”
Those would be big dominos, murdering UK citizens in the UK less big.
This thread was much better when I didn’t have to scroll past pages of petty point-scoring to find some interesting content.
Sums up many a thread on here at present.
It's one of the reasons I've not posted much in it or read it regularly enough. Too much written by the usual keyboard warriors and most of it incorrect. I work with a Ukrainian who has family still in the capitol city and surrounding areas so am getting daily reports via her about what is actually happening and it sounds even more horrific than the news makes it out to be. You don't have to look very hard to realise that Putin will take an awful lot of convincing to stop continuing down his planned route and at some point he is going to cross a line that could potentially trigger WWIII, how we deal with that is the key. Hence the domino comments early in the thread. Being shot down about it and people trying to make out it's just a big real life version of Command and Conquer was a bit of an eye-opener about how some people see this whole thing.
I just hope it does all avoid becoming the main topic for history lessons for the future generations.
its writ large in stw history.
either we all play, hopefully nicely, in a single overarching thread, or we accept that everyone with something to say will create a new thread to avoid derailing the existing ones (or for their own importance) for every different strand of the conversation.
WW3 escalation, Russian history, wider geo politics, anti west/nato/american, refugees, brexit, finances, mil tech, wmd.......
so i think we have to tolerate each other a bit... if that means a little extra scrolling in peak posting times, thats the price we pay.
Would you like to discuss the victims?
Yep, a lot of unnecessary bickering on a load of threads atm. Seems like suddenly we're all believing the msm after years of being misled. Really? In times of war? Even the Times has discussed the veracity of some reports and images. Balance and nuance is what's required.
‘limited nuclear war’ and a NATO pre-emptive strike.
It would be much worse with many more victims if either of those came to pass, so worthy of some comment no?
The ongoing suffering in Mariupol gives a feel for how bad it is, and how bad it is likely to become for those unable / unwilling to leave cities before they become besieged by the Russians.
Understanding how air strikes and artillery affect urban environments is necessary to help understand how shit it is for the victims.
That's reality, not glorifying war.
Would you like to discuss the victims?
I would, but before that I'd like to see a toning down of the nuclear war talk, especially in terms of pre-emptive strikes or 'standing up to Putin'. Do we really need to remind ourselves that nuclear war is collective suicide? Maybe we do..
https://twitter.com/mark_lynas/status/1502213464965750788?s=20&t=IS08QeifrxJVJfNB0ZXyFA
As for the victims, well I've some insight into this as a good mate at work's Ukrainian wife's family are all still stuck in Kyiv with no way to get out. All I can say is that they're not interested in being 'brave', 'resisting Putin' or any of the other memes being pushed by the western media. They're just terrified, and extremely upset that their lives have been destroyed for no apparent reason.
Biden and NATO have made it explicit that they are not going to get involved (in combat). There will be no pre-emptive strikes from NATO. If nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are used, it will be by Russia and there's nothing we could do to stop them if they chose to do that. The "brave", "resist Putin" stuff is being pushed by the Ukrainian government. That is the Ukrainian government's policy and they have been extremely effective in the propaganda battle.
I've been having a look at Fox News the last couple of days, over half the lead articles are attacking Biden and blaming him for increases in gas prices at the pump. Yesterday for example, the first 5 articles attacked Biden, Ukraine itself only making it to number 6. Tucker Carlson was also leaning into the Ukraine bio-labs conspiracy theory.
I think there's an idea that if Trump were in power Putin wouldn't have invaded. Given the evidence from the RW media in the US, I'm not so sure we wouldn't have seen Trump being an apologist for Putin, seeing the problem from 'both sides' and taking half of the American public with him (with the capable assistance of Fox News and social media)
Certainly Trump would have have gotten the Saudi's and the UAE to increase oil production, because of his stance with Iran and Yemen. He would also have given MBS a free pass with regards the Kassoggi murder.
As much as we talk about poor planning from the Russians, I can't believe that the idea of invading Ukraine only occurred to Putin once Biden won the election, the idea had been stewing in Putin's head for some time. I think it equally plausible that he was planning to attack whilst Trump was serving a second term, thinking he would be more able to divide the US and Europe from one another.
Putin started a war he's going to win a war. NATO can't step in and Ukraine can't hold out. There are harsh realities in war and Russia has an army that it is willing to sacrifice until they've ground out the win.
The leadership has shown it's doesn't care about the other side civilian or military and also it's mentality about its own troops is not how we would fight. It's almost Human wave in nature.
By leveling cities and displacing populations abroad he doesn't really lose much. Especially if in a year's time Ukraine is part of Russia and they can't plan grains. Don't need big metropolitan cities if you have a vassal state working to supply food which will negate sanctions. In fact the west will still need Russia's oil and gas and in 2023 it's grain.
If Putin survives until the ground dries he's home and hosed.
The UK government are an embarrassment
Micheál Martin said Ireland has so far accepted 5,500 people fleeing the Russian invasion.
He said Ireland's priority is the humanitarian response to what he termed "the worst displacement of people since World War II".
"Our primary impulse is to assist those fleeing war," he said.
Still struggling to recall anyone seriously calling for a pre-emptive NATO strike or looking forward to a limited nuclear war.
Putin started a war he’s going to win a war. NATO can’t step in and Ukraine can’t hold out. There are harsh realities in war and Russia has an army that it is willing to sacrifice until they’ve ground out the win.
The harsh reality is that Russia does not seem to have an army capable of conquering Ukraine. They have the ability to cause immense suffering and damage, but they cannot give Putin the win that he wanted.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1502732471464509443
but they cannot give Putin the win that he wanted.
And neither will Zelensky get the win he wants. His resistance on the surface looks very admirable but where does it end? Is the slaughter of thousands, the destruction of cities and the displacement of millions really worth defending a border or a government? Call me a cynic but I struggle to see how Ukrainian resistance benefits people like my mate's family who just want to get on with their lives.
Is the slaughter of thousands, the destruction of cities and the displacement of millions really worth defending a border or a government?
The Ukrainian government believes it is. Ukraine is a democracy. If the Ukrainian people prefer to live under Russian domination, they will decide that at the next election.
The Ukrainian government believes it is.
Of course they do, they have a lot to lose. Do they really represent the interests of the people though? If they held a referendum now which asked whether people would prefer a Russia-leaning govt or wholesale destruction, death and misery what do you think they'd vote for? The choice between being part of NATO and the EU or under Russian influence was always a false choice. Ukrainians were sold a future that was never possible, and now they are suffering the consequences of decisions and actions which were made over their heads.
If the Ukrainian people prefer to live under Russian domination, they will decide that at the next election.
Well, only if the people of Ukraine are allowed free and fair elections, and foreign interference is stopped.
Tbf they would just move to Russia..
But after the Holodomor I bet most would rather stay.
If they held a referendum now which asked whether people would prefer a Russia-leaning govt or wholesale destruction, death and misery what do you think they’d vote for?
These Ukrainians would not vote to be a Russian puppet state. Incredibly brave people, it's heartbreaking to see the barbarity that Russia is unleashing on Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1502973427916939265
That’s amazing. I think we need a reminder of the brave Russians protesting about this war. The “blank sign” protests (and arrests) I find particularly chilling…
https://twitter.com/kevinrothrock/status/1502761903046774786?s=21
https://twitter.com/ovdinfo/status/1497263016387117057?s=21
Russian shelling of military base close to Polish border is, I think, putin saying I'm on your doorstep now NATO - what are you going to do about it?
As the base was/is a transit point for supplies into Ukraine it's making good on the warning that foreign aid - military and civilian - is fair game.
This ratchets up the pressure on NATO.
Will death of US journalist result in US acting unilaterally?
It's all very well johnson, Biden and others saying that Russia will pay a price - what price?
To putin it's just more empty threats.
As for sanctioning oligarchs - looks like decisive(?) action and plays well in the media but will have little impact; putin owns them and they know it.
At present it seems the West has been outmanoeuvred, again, by putin.
While the West and Nato dither, the death count increases, the mass exodus of Ukrainian citizens continues and villages/towns/cities are being razed to the ground.
Call me a cynic but I struggle to see how Ukrainian resistance benefits people like my mate’s family who just want to get on with their lives.
What does your Ukranian friend and their family want? To live and bring up their kids under an oppressive Putin backed regime, or keep fighting for their collective freedom in a brave bit possibly futile "better to die free men (and women)" stand?
It really doesn't matter what any of us here want. We can discuss the alternatives and state what we would do if, God forbid, it ever comes to it here, but very self indulgent to be arguing with each other thousands of miles from the crisis.
Yes Putin is an absolute **** Nugget !! Yes he’s pushing very hard/close to triggering Nato. But he won’t he’s reduced to desperate posturing to get what may save face.
Akin to child throwing a tantrum
What does your Ukranian friend and their family want?
Their view is that they wanted (past tense now as it's irrelevant) to get on with their lives and live in peace whoever governs them, and if that meant living under the influence of Russia, as they did for decades previously, then that would be better than what they're experiencing now. They definitely don't want to sacrifice their lives to defend the Ukrainian government.
The areas hardest hit are those where support for the current Ukrainian government (at the polls) was weakest. Russia is not attacking the current Ukrainian government, or their supporters, they are taking the country by force. Those defending their cities are not defending the government. If they can keep Ukraine independent, they can vote for a different government more to their liking. If they lose completely, they will never have that chance again.
If they held a referendum now which asked whether people would prefer a Russia-leaning govt or wholesale destruction, death and misery what do you think they’d vote for? The choice between being part of NATO and the EU or under Russian influence was always a false choice.
They seem to be pretty determined to resist, civilians as well as military. From those protesting in occupied cities and standing if front of tanks, to those volunteering in their tens of thousands for the local defence organisations. Are you saying that they should have just have shrugged and said 'OK then' to the invasion? If so, should other countries Putin takes a fancy to adopt the same stance? Are there some that should and some that shouldn't? If so which are which? Do you believe it is ever OK for a country to defend itself against aggression? I'm honestly not having a pop but genuinely curious if you think a sovereign country defending itself is always morally wrong or if there is something unique about Ukraine which makes it so?
I see the Lexiteers still not woken up to the fact they’ve been played by Putin too…just like Corbyn’s reluctance to condemn the Salisbury poisonings.
After the savagery inflicticted by an invading foreign power, some hope that any sort of election held by an occupying Russia in Ukraine would be free and fair? Conveniently forgetting that the Ukrainian’s already rejected a pro-Russian government in favour of a pro-EU one.
A bit like their “making Brexit work” policy - they can get in the sea.
I do wonder if there isnt a deliberate and structred fall back of Ukrainian defence forces.
Let the Russians extend their supply lines for hundreds of km. All along major roads. Then hit back with whatever they can muster.
Yes, yes, amti aircraft guns, missiles etc. How many operational ones do they have left, and how many do you need to protect a supply column the length of say Cornwall.?
Talking isn't going to work
An ex Putin advisor on R4 last week stated he doesn't bluff, and he doesn't back down as its a sign of weakness.
I would not be surprised if the usa secured some polish, Romanian, or Bulgarian hardware and retro'd onto a stealth aircraft at all.
They just need to continually knocknout tanks, rocket launches and apc's faster tjan the ruskis can resupply the front, attrition rate is critical in modern warfare.
A tiny twinkle of of hope?
"Russia is already beginning to talk constructively," Ukrainian negotiator and presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said in a video posted online.
"I think that we will achieve some results literally in a matter of days," he said.
RIA news agency quoted a Russian delegate, Leonid Slutsky, as saying the talks had made substantial progress".
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1503038283244347409?s=20&t=5ouEOtelPKZpjuEuKSnSZQ
bloke - I very much doubt it.
Let's hope so.
Totally reasonable of dazh's mate. People have beliefs and values, things they want, but are those really worth the slaughter, destruction, and displacement.
I've thought from the start it's up to the Ukrainians if they want to fight, but to me some kind of Russian-backed government looked inevitable eventually. By choosing to fight they are paying the aforementioned prices and should they lose, will end up with something worse than what they'd have got had they surrendered. Maybe they'd have chosen differently without our support/encouragement/supply from the west.
I'm sad to be writing that, trying to take a realistic view that doing the right thing isn't always the optimal choice.
I’ve thought from the start it’s up to the Ukrainians if they want to fight,
I agree
but to me some kind of Russian-backed government looked inevitable eventually.
I'm not so sure. Even if Russia 'wins' militarily, which Russian backed leader is going to put his head above the parapet when it is crystal clear the population absolutely do not want that. I don't think they will last 5 minutes. I also don't think Russia has the manpower, resources or resolve to occupy such a vast country and subjugate 40 million people who very clearly (with the exception perhaps of the eastern enclaves) don't want them there.
I would also add that the view of Dazh's mate is absolutely valid and understandable, but lots of his countrymen have a different view.
By choosing to fight they are paying the aforementioned prices and should they lose, will end up with something worse than what they’d have got had they surrendered.
Appeasement does not mollify an expansionist dictator, it emboldens them. We've seen Lukashenko's map: surrendering to Putin simply signs Moldova's death warrant. And who would be next on the list after them?
In addition, an anti-Russian insurgency would be guaranteed; surrender would not end the bloodshed. Just look at Northern Ireland (and others) to see how long these things can simmer.
And neither will Zelensky get the win he wants. His resistance on the surface looks very admirable but where does it end?
The continuity of Ukraine as an independent country presumably.
The choice has already been made now. Maybe before the drum started beating, or even before the fighting started, the population could have been swayed the other way if the government decided it was the best of a bad choice. Those other countrymen might have had views, but not so strongly held as they (very justifiably) are now. It's different now because it's been started, the population has been angered, and I at least have seen Russia weaker than I thought it would be.
On appeasement and who's next, those are strategic things, the average citizen probably doesn't care enough about these to get themselves and their family killed, their city flattened, and become a refugee.
Yes an insurgency would be guaranteed if they surrender now, as we're looking at an angered population and a heavy Russia. Perhaps it would be preferable to actual war. If they'd surrendered to start with, maybe people could have held their noses and got on with their lives in peace.
I would also add that the view of Dazh’s mate is absolutely valid and understandable, but lots of his countrymen have a different view.
Absolutely. Just look at the variety of life experiences and, consequently, opinions here. People are different so no one can honestly "speak for the people"...
No chance - these people were occupied by Russia before, as well as the Germans. They know exactly what Russian occupation would/ or will look like, and they also knew exactly what Putin would do if they did not surrender. As lots of people have said the model was there for everyone to see in Chechnya and Syria.
Internal Russian document encouraging the use of Fox News’ Tucker Carlso’s pro-Putin quotes against the West and NATO…
As if we need any more evidence of Republicans and Right-wing propaganda.
If they’d surrendered to start with, maybe people could have held their noses and got on with their lives in peace.
I do understand what you are saying and that at a personal level, maybe strategic or geopolitical considerations don't matter for some. And who can honestly say for certain how they would feel in that position? I like to think I would fight, but that's very easy to say from the comfort of my sofa. I do feel though, that Putin's megalomania and imperial ambition mean that if that was the prevailing view and response to him, the whole of Europe and maybe beyond is doomed.