Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

If Ukraine Army had seen as much destruction as everyone was expecting they would be now, I think we would have seen a lot more footage of it broadcasted by Russia.
 
KingCavani said:
Utter insanity. Every word.
Click to expand...
Nothing in what he wrote was insane.

What if the Russian army decides to keep going through Moldova, Romania, Poland?

They are like a suicide bomber who keeps taking more and more prisoners. How long do you let them keep going? Right until they're at your front door?

Because that's what happened in WW2. Appeasement only gets you so far and I absolutely hate war. I, however, also have heard stories of what it is to live under the influence of the USSR from my grandparents and through them about the suffering of my great-grandparents.

Putin needs to be stopped and the only way to do this is for him to believe there would be real consequences to his actions.

The way it is now, I can see him getting his pound of flesh from Ukraine, waiting out the mid-terms where the dis-United States will invariably vote the bought-for Republican party and then waiting out another presidency of Trump where he would be free to do whatever he wants. I won't even mention the Tories who have a bond stronger than marriage with their Russian donors.

As someone who comes from the parts where Russia might target next (and has already done so with disinformation), let me tell you, it's no fecking joke.
 
hellhunter said:
Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?

Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Click to expand...
Is this true though? How does such a tiny economy keep 900k men well equipped? Along with the expensive nuclear arsenal and delivery systems? I'd be willing to bet that they sent the good stuff first.
 
hellhunter said:
Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?

Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Click to expand...

Your not wrong and he is probably willing to sacrifice a good chuck of them, there will be a limit somewhere though.
 
Rightnr said:
What if the Russian army decides to keep going through Moldova, Romania, Poland?
Click to expand...
Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.
 
hellhunter said:
Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?

Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Click to expand...

They won't hold forever, but it will do wonders to keep the national spirit burning in their civilians to know that the soldiers fought to the very end.
 
Abizzz said:
Is this true though? How does such a tiny economy keep 900k men well equipped? Along with the expensive nuclear arsenal and delivery systems? I'd be willing to bet that they sent the good stuff first.
Click to expand...

Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.
 
Reports are that the UK wants to eject from Russia from SWIFT with immediate effect, but EU nations are largely opposing it.

 
Simbo said:
Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.
Click to expand...
Well yeah but even then... It's not like russian state owned companies are renowned for their efficiency either. Obviously not paying for gas etc. helps but there are limits.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Yep, and it's a very safe calculation. Obama basically said it in 2016. Ukraine matters far more to Russia than it does to the West when it comes to the prospect of war.
Click to expand...

Yes, Obama was largely spot on, as was Putin's current assessment. The west dont want to take the risk of escalation. This is understandable, but it is ultimately illogical as it simply serves to strengthen and embolden Putin and other authoritarian regimes around the globe.

If not militarily, then Russia needs to be made a pariah and a rogue state on the international stage. Completely cut off from diplomacy, trade and international networks (at least with the west). This would regrettably come at great cost to the Russian people, as well as to Western Europe - but there are more important things at stake here than gas prices.

While we all wag our chins around all this, lets not forget that in Eastern Europe, a country of 44m people has just been invaded completely unjustifiably. Right this second, people are fighting and dying. There cannot be compromise, there cannot be weakness and there cannot be hesitation - any of these and Putin has essentially already scored a victory.
 
Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?

And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.

We're not talking about some Western politician who talks a lot and does little. Putin and his cabal have the money and are insane enough to cross any red line.

And by bad for Russia, you mean bad for their people, right? Putin doesn't a give a feck about them.
 
hellhunter said:
Am I wrong in thinking there's a never ending supply of Russian machinery and soldiers, though?

Even if Ukraine holds on valiantly, how long can they sustain their defense?
Click to expand...
It's far from never-ending, but the key is not just the numbers, the key is buying time by stalling the progress. If Ukraine puts up a good fight it might change the course of the whole conflict, but if Kiev falls quickly, say in two weeks, then it will definitely hurt their position afterwards and give Putin a lot of control over the situation.
 
RobinLFC said:
Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?

And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
Click to expand...
Russia has nukes and Putin has basically said if you fight us, we're happy to go full nuclear apocalypse to prove ours is larger.

fecking boomer.
 
Walrus said:
There cannot be compromise, there cannot be weakness and there cannot be hesitation
Click to expand...
There will be compromise, weakness, and hesitation because those are not always bad things and that's how the world works. Germany isn't willing to stop buying gas and oil from Russia because it will close its economy down overnight. That is a compromise. This has all been factored in. Putin had to know the extent of what NATO was wiling to do in terms of sanctions and went ahead anyway. There will be sanctions but all of these have been taken into account and Putin is gambling that Ukraine is worth it.
 
Droid_Repairs said:
Reports are that the UK wants to eject from Russia from SWIFT with immediate effect, but EU nations are largely opposing it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because a load of EU banks have made loans to Russian companies and want to be repaid.

From the FT a few weeks ago:

The European Central Bank has warned lenders with significant exposure to Russia to ready themselves for the imposition of international sanctions against the country if Moscow invades Ukraine.

The warning from the ECB, which supervises 115 of the biggest eurozone banks, came as the US warned that Russia would face “massive consequences” if sent troops into Ukraine. Sanctions would raise considerable risks for the international banks with large Russian exposure including Citi in the US, France’s Société Générale, Austria’s Raiffeisen and Italy’s UniCredit.

ECB officials have asked for details of how the banks would handle different scenarios, such as a move to block Russian banks from accessing the Swift international payments system, according to several people briefed on the talks.
Click to expand...
 
Rightnr said:
I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.

We're not talking about some Western politician who talks a lot and does little. Putin and his cabal have the money and are insane enough to cross any red line.

And by bad for Russia, you mean bad for their people, right? Putin doesn't a give a feck about them.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this, that clown meme and the 4 stages of denial come to mind.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Then it all becomes irrelevant because you are talking about an end of the world scenario. They won't move beyond Ukraine and may not even be glad that they moved into Ukraine. This could go very bad for Russia.
Click to expand...

I think "shouldn't" is a better term. Conventional thinking has clearly been abandoned by Putin, and he will have enough people on his side that back him/share his views for him to continue. If they do seize control of Ukraine, and their economy isn't completely dead because of the isolation that will bring, what does that do to a 70 something year olds mind that knows he wont live forever, and wants to leave a legacy behind? In his head, he has to return land to Russia, and he feels he has the resources and power to do it. I have a feeling that China are the only power who may be able to deescalate this before it descends into something that will completely obliterate the next generations chance at a peaceful world.
 
Simbo said:
Their military spending goes almost 3 times further than US spending would for example, because they buy from themselves, not from corporations at top dollar to suck funds from taxpayers.
Click to expand...
Aye, their military machine is much ‘leaner’ than the US (best way I’ve heard to describe it).
 
RobinLFC said:
Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?

And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
Click to expand...
It would need some time for NATO/ US to mobilize their armies. Remember that Russia has been toying with the idea for a year and has had 100k soldiers near the border for months. Add to that, Russia likely has better Intel in Ukraine considering their connections.

Saying that, in a large-scale conventional war, the US would absolutely dominate Russia. Within the first week, US would have total aerial dominance and Russia’s fleet would get destroyed soon after.

But, that essentially guarantees nuclear warfare. And then, billions would die.
 
As an armchair general... In my opinion a no-fly zone should have been put in place, with the agreement of Ukraine for both sides aircraft, helicopters and missiles. That would have forced this to be ground only which I personally think would have deterred this entire thing.

Shame leaders don't have spines generally in the West anymore.
 
The only way this ends happily is if an internal coup happens. I can't think of another way back to the way world was. This is going to change the course of humanity.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
There will be compromise, weakness, and hesitation because those are not always bad things and that's how the world works. Germany isn't willing to stop buying gas and oil from Russia because it will close its economy down overnight. That is a compromise. This has all been factored in. Putin had to know the extent of what NATO was wiling to do in terms of sanctions and went ahead anyway. There will be sanctions but all of these have been taken into account and Putin is gambling that Ukraine is worth it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is why I am saying that the response needs to be stronger, and why the West needs to at least give the impression that they are prepared to go to war over this (but only if they are actually prepared to follow through on this). Putin's strategy works because people believe his threats. He threatens escalation and nuclear war, and nobody calls him out on it. He is the poker player who goes all-in every single round.

I am not a warmonger, and I do not want to see conflict, but as the old saying goes "If you want peace, you must prepare for war." - the Western strategy right now is simply too reminiscent of appeasement. When you overtly state "We are not prepared to go to war over x" (as has been the case with Ukraine since the start) then of course for Putin, that is absolutely a green light. You need to give him pause for thought, and threaten him with something that he may not have already factored in.
 
Rightnr said:
I am not sure how people can be confident things will go back to normal.

We're not talking about some Western politician who talks a lot and does little. Putin and his cabal have the money and are insane enough to cross any red line.

And by bad for Russia, you mean bad for their people, right? Putin doesn't a give a feck about them.
Click to expand...
Moving beyond the Ukraine is not a red flag, it's a literal nuclear war (mutual defense pacts necessitate it). So if he does move beyond Ukraine then all of this will be pointless as you will see nukes flying at some point. He wants Ukraine for whatever reasons, I don't see why he would risk his own destruction and that of his state if his goal is a monarchic Russia.

I.e., his goal is expansion not destruction and he knows the limits (Ukraine, basically).
 
IWat said:
As an armchair general... In my opinion a no-fly zone should have been put in place, with the agreement of Ukraine for both sides aircraft, helicopters and missiles. That would have forced this to be ground only which I personally think would have deterred this entire thing.

Shame leaders don't have spines generally in the West anymore.
Click to expand...
The problem is on how to enforce a non-fly zone? Just shoot the Russian aircrafts (easily doable).

What would have been the consequences then?
 
Rightnr said:
Russia has nukes and Putin has basically said if you fight us, we're happy to go full nuclear apocalypse to prove ours is larger.

fecking boomer.
Click to expand...
Revan said:
It would need some time for NATO/ US to mobilize their armies. Remember that Russia has been toying with the idea for a year and has had 100k soldiers near the border for months. Add to that, Russia likely has better Intel in Ukraine considering their connections.

Saying that, in a large-scale conventional war, the US would absolutely dominate Russia. Within the first week, US would have total aerial dominance and Russia’s fleet would get destroyed soon after.

But, that essentially guarantees nuclear warfare. And then, billions would die.
Click to expand...
This thread was made a more than a month ago, surely US intelligence services would have been aware of an incoming conflict in Ukraine for a few months as well?

I get that everyone wants to avoid nuclear warfare, but I was just thinking that basically now we are saying "we'll let you have Ukraine to avoid a bigger conflict" and we're just hoping for the best that Putin won't go any further than Ukraine. Even if he does, the NATO would come out of this looking pretty weak imo.
 
RobinLFC said:
Hypothetically, if the NATO sends all its military forces to Ukraine, would they not (easily) win against Russia? Could they not set an example and use it as a deterrent for any psychos in the future with the same ideas as Putin?

And if they could, why are they not doing so? Not that I think it would be a good idea or anything but just want to understand the reasoning. Just to avoid a bigger conflict involving EU countries, not wanting to send people into a war zone, afraid of a nuclear war? Does the alternative (economic sanctions like they're doing now) not show then that they're actually pretty weak and not a real "alliance"? Or would their stance be different if it was an actual NATO country involved?
Click to expand...
I'm far from an expert (just look at my username ffs) but if NATO rolled in then suddenly you have Putin telling Russians that the world is out to destroy them and suddenly that 900,000 Russian troops become millions.
 
I have no idea about military strategy, but Ukraine on its own holding the country against the Russians is basically impossible, right? They will put up as much resistance as they can, but without a counter offensive (or the rest of the world enforcing crippling sanctions) the Russians can just bomb and siege every bit of conventional military resistance into submission?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.