Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Yes. And prolonging the war is clearly beneficial for Russia because this is a one-way war. It is only Ukraine that is being destroyed, their civilians, their roads, their bridges, their electricity generating plants, their whole infrastructure.
In April 1942, just 4 months after Perl Harbor, the Americans attempted the Doolittle raid. This was a suicide bombing mission on Tokyo, just to show the Japanese that their mainland was not safe. And of course, the British bombed Berlin in August 1940, even though their bombers barely had the range back then, and they had a lot of casualties. Neither the British nor the Americans are known for suicide missions, but that's what they did, just to show the enemy that they can hit back.
In this war, the Russians can bomb Kyiv whenever they like, but the Ukrainians are forbidden to hit Moscow...
Its actually more beneficial to the west because Putin doesn't have the resources to prolong this much longer without completely destabilizing himself at home, then still losing in Ukraine. The west would like to weaken or completely overthrow him (by domestic revolution).
Just heard on radio that Germany is only waiting for the US to compensate the deliveries by selling their Abrams tank to Germany (So far the U.S. has not made any promise of letting Germany have its Abrams tanks) … Germany wants the US fully associated to the delivery green light before giving it… According to the same person, Germany isn’t going public with the state of its complicated negotiations with US because the relationship with the current US administration (unlike with Trump’s) are very good...
While the Polish government is willing to publicly embarrass Germany for internal politics. They feel that they’ve been swallowing too much “wokism” driven by the Germany-led EU and the German “reluctance” to fully support Ukraine is a great opportunity for some revenge…
A few long range missiles sent from the Ukraine to the Kremlin; how would that go down?
I’d imagine retribution would be swift and cause a lot of civilian deaths in the UKR?
I’d imagine retribution would be swift and cause a lot of civilian deaths in the UKR?
They'd be shot down.
It's incredible Russians are still using the same tactic as in WW1 and WW2 in the 21st century. Throw as many soldiers as you can and eventually they overwhelm the enemy. At least they think so.
Maybe, but it’s largely untested. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Russia was so confident that nobody would dare attack Moscow, that they don’t actually have particularly functional or effective air defences.
I guess you misunderstood something - Germany definitely isn't interested in buying Abrams, but Germany would like to see the US deliver Abrams to Ukraine to show that it's a common effort.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64370165
So Germany now says that it will not block the export of its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. But it will not supply them to Ukraine themselves.
So Germany now says that it will not block the export of its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. But it will not supply them to Ukraine themselves.
Then why are they looking for peace negotiations?
Are they?
More likely is that Moscow is the only city that is properly defended. There are other cities they could go for.
It's just so they are able to say out loud to their partners in the developing world that they are on the side of peace. And never give back the territories that they have already occupied.
I've never seen a government that systematically lies and tries to deceive as much as the Russian one does. Maybe North Korea does
Whilst I would never advocate for the targeting and killing of civilians, it does feel like for the average Russian, they probably don’t particularly care about this war because it doesn’t really affect them in most cases.
Perhaps a few strikes on actual urban areas would open their eyes and bring reality home a bit, and therefore put more pressure on Putin. It would be hard to justify though, and would risk causing Ukraines support and morale high ground to dry up. Still it’s ridiculous that Russia can just keep striking Ukrainian civilian centres but apparently Ukraine isn’t allowed to retaliate.
Perhaps a few strikes on actual urban areas would open their eyes and bring reality home a bit, and therefore put more pressure on Putin. It would be hard to justify though, and would risk causing Ukraines support and morale high ground to dry up. Still it’s ridiculous that Russia can just keep striking Ukrainian civilian centres but apparently Ukraine isn’t allowed to retaliate.
The obvious drawback of Ukraine doing the same is that Russia can use it as a pretext to escalate with far more destructive (but not nuclear) weapons in Ukraine. This is one of the reasons the Ukrainians often publicly deny their operations inside Russia, as publicizing them would needlessly cede moral leverage to Putin.
Or it would sway/cement the sentiment amongst Russian people, then escalate the war which could have a major effect on the morale of Ukrainians. Could also affect sentiment elsewhere.
I think Ukraine need to be seen as the good guys as much as possible.
With a typical mindset, this would certainly be the case. If this war has taught us anything though, it seems to be that the typical Russian mindset is very different.
I dont know, and it probably isnt a risk worth taking.
Bombing civilians can never be the answer, never. I can't beleive someone is actually suggesting that on here.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023...e-talks-if-kyiv-cedes-occupied-regions-a79877
According to this they are.
Those are obviously not terms the Ukrainians will ever agree to given that it would cement Russian victory and theft of internationally recognized Ukrainian land.
I assume you are referring to my post which started with "Whilst I would never advocate for the targeting and killing of civilians"
I think fighting fire with fire is a completely wrong approach for Ukraine. Russia is clearly on the losing end and despite the war crimes commited by them, Ukraine shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture. Putin is doing as much harm to his own country as he is to Ukraine and it will show in the mid to long term. He's currently wiping out a whole generation of young Russian males and has lead his country into recession. It's already firing back at Russia and this fire will only intensify until they back down.
Agreed, tough the poster I was alluding to said that the continuation of the conflict favoured Russia, which doesn't make sense for a country looking to wrap things up and legalize their thefts as soon as possible.
Yeah, I would agree with that. The only plausible reason I could see Putin wanting to play the long game is for a new US administration to be elected in 2024, that would then reduce western funding for the war, which would obviously help Russia. Other than that, Putin will want to end this as soon as possible because he can't sustain the level of loss he's endured over the past year - both in terms of human life and national resources.
If Russia was interested in peace they wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place. Basically they are lying, they don't want peace they want Ukraine to surrender 20% of their land.
Saying that they'll end the war if Ukraine gives them everything they want isn't really pushing for peace talks.
You mean the Ukrainians bombing Russian civilians, right?
In my question I questioned an attack on the kremlin. What a message that would send. Still, the bloody Russians would massacre even more UKR civilians than they already are.
Yes. Let's legalize theft, pillage and rape why don't we.
Why do you link and pay credence to this garbage?
I humbly suggest you count to ten and read the context of the discussion again.
On topic, I don't think that Putin gains anything from prolonging the conflict, and that's why he's trying to legalize his conquests ASAP. The more he waits, the weaker Russia becomes geopolitically speaking and himself personally on internal politics (plus, he is not getting any younger). If he was confident in a long term win, he won't even be bothered with diplomatic action.
From the director of: " I am not racist but..."
Doesn't matter what sentence you use when you propose attaching urban areas
I was quite clear on avoiding civilian casualties. The spirit of the post - and that I maintain - is that if Ukraine/the West can find a way to 'make it real' for the everyday Russians, then it will be advantageous. Ukraine is constantly being bombarded, power outages, air raid sirens etc, whilst the average Russian doesnt seem to be affected much at all. Its been a year and Putin doesnt seem to care much about the sanctions, or companies pulling out - their economy may be very slowly collapsing, but very slowly isnt good enough when Ukraine is being bombed everyday.
What I fear is that if it becomes "more real" for the Russian population, they'll rally behind Putin.
In my opinion it's therefore in Ukraine's interest to not involve the Russian people. Don't give them reasons to blame you. Let them organically realize that they should be angry at Putin.
PR-wise it's also much better for Ukraine to maintain the fact that they're only trying to push Russia out of their country, not to escalate to the Russian homeland.