Ukraine

The invasion started not long after Biden said no NATO troops would be sent to Ukraine.

The invasion was planned months in advance. Putin had already decided to invade, that’s why Russia shipped an army to the borders of Ukraine. Biden’s statement was made months after Putin had already decided to invade.

Not if he’s the one to start it.

But he’d claim he didn’t start it! He’s already, with a great deal of success, blaming NATO and the USA especially for his current invasion further into Ukraine.

A salient point. Significant numbers of people, in the west, in this thread, in the house of commons, on GB News, said this war was, really, NATO’s fault. And that’s in a country with a reasonably free press.

He doesn’t need NATO to actually start anything, he just needs to be able to keep muddying the waters.

Putin is trying to lure NATO into sending in troops on humanitarian missions. As soon as NATO boots hit Ukrainian soil, Putin has the propaganda videos he needs to get Russian public opinion behind him and stop his generals escorting him to the window to admire the gardens of the palace.

Agree – dictators don’t care about much so long as they are still rich, alive, and not in danger of being deposed. Kim Jong Un is happy enough to be an international pariah with a starving population, so long as he personally can keep quaffing the champagne. Putin would be no different.

If NATO actually did escalate it would any of the myopic posters on this thread admit it? 🤔

What do you mean exactly?

If NATO actually did escalate it would any of the myopic posters on this thread admit it?

I’ll put it out here. I don’t believe that NATO has any plans to escalate. If they do, I will publicly admit that I misread the situation. You can quote me on this.

Did the posters who insisted a few weeks ago that Russia was just bluffing, then gloated that Russia had withdrawn troops based on Russian propaganda claims, only to wake up the next day to find that Russian tanks were charging into Ukraine ever admit that they completely misread the situation? (Hint. This is a rhetorical question. Of course they didn’t.)

Kim Jong Un is happy enough to be an international pariah with a starving population, so long as he personally can keep quaffing the champagne.

As much as he might think very differently, Kim’s country is, geographically, merely the back porch to China and a Russian outhouse – I think that’s one of reasons the Soviets, but mainly the Chinese, expended so much in the Korean war and why Kim is “tolerated”.

He, personally, is as likely to be (if not more likely to be) removed by China as he is by America/South Korea.

The situation with Putin is, I believe, different. At the moment, Russia is the leader and the centrer of the federation – not a satellite or bulwark for a greater power. Once the pretence of reliability and economic power starts to ebb, the Federation begins to fail.

At the end of the Soviet era, the Russian economy was knackered – nothing worked, people didn’t get paid, factories and products were looted wholesale (while Putin was havin’ it KGB large in East Germany). If something economically similar occurs, I reckon he’s out – and him trying to poke NATO to have a swing may mean he has a rapid, terminal “medical emergency”.

I have seen loads of commentators admitting they were wrong about Russia invading.

I also feel like Putin’s time is coming to an end. Fingers crossed soon! and fingers crossed the Russian people get someone decent to replace him.

fingers crossed the Russian people get someone decent to replace him.

+1

I have seen loads of commentators admitting they were wrong about Russia invading.

My apology to any who did. A lot of smart people thought it was a bluff.

The invasion was planned months in advance. Putin had already decided to invade, that’s why Russia shipped an army to the borders of Ukraine. Biden’s statement was made months after Putin had already decided to invade

This is true,but I took Biden’s statement as an implied ‘we know we can’t stop you so go ahead’ I remember thinking as soon as I heard it that we had reached the tipping point where it went from a threat, a maybe to a definite and it did.
The ambiguity was important in preventing/delaying the invasion.

thols2
Free Member

My money on this is that Putin realizes that his bluff has been called and he slinks back to cower in his little grotto. He’s not going to win this, it’s just a matter of how badly he chooses to lose.

My apology to any who did. A lot of smart people thought it was a bluff

Good save Sir 😂

Good save Sir 😂

Thank you, despite my Scottish heritage, compliments are always appreciated.

A lot of people seem shocked by the blindingly obvious that has been explained several times over.

NATO exists to defend NATO members – boots on the ground to help Ukraine tragically wasn’t going to happen, no matter what atrocities or false flags Putin carries out.

NATO may act to protect civilians if there is a UN declaration that permits it, but Russia and China won’t let that happen.

This is all about Putin trying to protect his current position and create some sort of empire/legacy.

I am very intrigued by the apparent arrests of the the FSB people though – was someone believed to be planning on removing Putin maybe? S

I also feel like Putin’s time is coming to an end. Fingers crossed soon! and fingers crossed the Russian people get someone decent to replace him.

If we approach it from the rational perspective this might be the outcome (I don’t have all the factors but only guessing …)
1. The possibility is there (for Putin to slowly step down) if this Ukraine Russia war prolongs until 2024.
2. Most likely Putin will still be in power but perhaps just a figure head with less power.
The reasons are as follows:
1. Putin will not be able to press the button even if he wants. Partly because his supporters do not see the possibility of winning or to force NATO/West into a stalemate. However, this does not mean they will not use all the dirty tricks/bombs whatever except pushing the big red button.
2. A lot has to depend on China because China is not ready yet for the mother of all wars, hence they will object to Putin pressing the red button for now. (if they don’t see a clear chance of winning or inflicting severe damage on their opponents (NATO/West etc). They rather build up their strength first than to expose their weaknesses.
2. Putin can fight but will not gain much and economically will suffer terribly. That’s when China will have more say. The support for war might reduce a little (they still hate their opponents) and will just be postponed until the next round.
3. China will “rein in” Putin if China does not see any progression by 2024. Although currently in Public China is seen “neutral” but the support for Russia is there. Russia is China’s buffer zone.
4. After that they will go back to their “drawing board” to plan again for next round.

If we apply the strongmen argument then, yes, he will push the red button (*all continents will enter the war) but he will also not enjoy the outcome (he will not have sitting targets and NATO/West will retaliate). After that the world will enter into a period of great starvation. Then all nations will hang their heads in shame.

* they have friends in many countries

I reckon he’s out – and him trying to poke NATO to have a swing may mean he has a rapid, terminal “medical emergency”.

A nine millimeter brain hemorrhage?

NATO exists to defend NATO members

? What were they doing in Libya?

If we approach it from the rational perspective

Putin’s rationality is that he stays the boss of a nuclear armed superpower. Any outcome without that is not rational from his perspective. Understand your enemy.

Putin’s rationality is that he stays the boss of a nuclear armed superpower. Any outcome without that is not rational from his perspective. Understand your enemy.

If you apply that rationale that Putin will press the red button inevitably then why not strike first? In that case is it not rationale for NATO/West to strike first before Putin (and his friends) are fully prepared or become stronger? Not striking first means you let them gain the upper hand.

Bear in mind, Putin might have his rationale but he might not be able to implement it without objection from his “friends”.

The situation with Putin is, I believe, different. At the moment, Russia is the leader and the centrer of the federation – not a satellite or bulwark for a greater power. Once the pretence of reliability and economic power starts to ebb, the Federation begins to fail.

At the end of the Soviet era, the Russian economy was knackered. If something economically similar occurs, I reckon he’s out – and him trying to poke NATO to have a swing may mean he has a rapid, terminal “medical emergency”.

I pretty much agree – it’s a lot more complicated here. And I do think this is the beginning of the end for him.

But I think his only chance of political survival is to create a perception in Russia that he’s the one standing up to the big western bullies, for the sake of the common Russian – and hope it sustains him long enough for the economy to get back on track.

(Unfortunately, the economy is now **** until he either backs down or agrees some kind of truce (eg keeps Crimea). Both of which still seem fairly unlikely at this point.)

But as noted above, he doesn’t need NATO to fire any shots – he can just throw dirty bombs and chemical weapons at Mariupol until NATO can’t stand aside any longer, and sends in medics/humanitarian workers/etc. Then he claims they’re expanding even further East.

This is the sort of terrorist repression that people living in newly captured Ukraine can expect from Putin’s goon-squads.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/12/russia-ukraine-crimean-tatars-dissent-repression

Is of no help whatsoever to Ukraine and it’s citizens.

Same as the war in Yemen, which is just one of many wars that have barely been reported in recent years.

“We must do something” in a febrile atmosphere of emotional incontinence has caused us no end of problems, both domestic and foreign, over the years.

“What were they doing in Libya?”

And Kosovo.

i_scoff_cake
Free Member

Do we have a Yemen thread 120 pages long?

Probably a Google search would answer that question. Maybe it’s a rhetorical question. If so, why not post it out in the open and say what you really mean?

A limited war with NATO…

But what’s the chance of a “limited” war with NATO?

If NATO actually did escalate it would any of the myopic posters on this thread admit it?

Well I’m as myopic as any here I would think (check out my prescription) but if NATO attack Russia I don’t think there would be any choice but to admit it?

I am very intrigued by the apparent arrests of the the FSB people though – was someone believed to be planning on removing Putin maybe? S

I don’t think so – have a read of this thread. Looks more like Putin kicking off because he got poor info from the FSB*.

https://mobile.twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1502227866540515328

*Note also that big long letter from last weekend – apparently from a FSB officer. Pertinent quote:

“For example – you are being asked to analyze various outcomes and consequences of a meteorite attack – you research the mode of attack, and you are being told that it’s just a hypothetical and not to stress on the details, so you understand the report is only intended as a checkbox, and the conclusions of the analysis must be positive for Russia, otherwise you basically get interrogated for not doing good work.”

No wonder he’s getting poor info from the FSB!

@i_scott_cake

Do we have a Yemen thread 120 pages long?

Presumably, this was a backhanded way of asking, “why doesn’t the Yemen crisis seem to be getting the same attention as Ukraine”. Either that or you think the attention on Ukraine is an over reaction and the world should just ignore it like it does with other disputes?

So why does Ukraine matter enough to get this level of media attention? Because its geographically relatively close; does a murder 500 miles away get the same level of interest as one in your street? Because that part of the world seemed to be relatively calm for a long period; does yet another stabbing in inner city london get the same attention it would in a rural area with low crime? Because a number of people in the UK will visited Ukraine, and know people from Ukraine, significantly fewer have visited Yemen or ever met someone from Yemem – does a news story about a little village you visit on holiday spark more interest than a similar story about one you’ve never considered going to? Because the protagonist is a major nuclear superpower and has threatened any western state that might aid Ukraine with using Nuclear weapons – Saudi (and the other states in Yemen) are not Nuclear. 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; but also this shit must make other nuclear states less inclined to disarm. And also probably because, although I don’t claim to be an expert in Middle East politics etc, my understanding is that the Yemen situation is at least initially an internal civil war – not an entirely separate sovereign nation invading. But potentially also because it seems very unlikely that the Yemen issues could ever result in WW3 or directly impacting life here, but its quite possible Ukraine could if diplomats don’t do a good job.

So I think its a totally false comparison.

does a murder 500 miles away get the same level of interest as one in your street?

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.

There have been dozens of wars and armed conflict in the last 20 years but the papers are rarely feeding us each human tragedy on the front pages or calling for a ‘humanitarian’ intervention.

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