Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

The biggest risk for Russia is having difficultly fullfilling their immediate objectives. That will make them look very weak militarily. I’m starting to agree with the observation that this isnt sustainable for them. Russia aren’t the military power they think they are, and will come away with little credibility.
 
MadMike said:
And what did you mean then Buster when you said we are doind nothing and being cowards because diplomacy and financial pressure don't work?

What else where you implying we should do aside from sending kids to war? Tell us then, don't be cryptic.
Click to expand...

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is hardly a shock is it.
Since the annexation of Crimea, it was obvious what was going to happen.
What I was referring to was the fact that we in the West and NATO in particular did nothing like enough to work with Ukraine to provide them with the necessary equipment in order to give them a fighting chance to be able to defend themselves.
All of the things that are now being done are years too late.

Hopefully that is clear.
 
Walrus said:
We only know this because it is the impression that has been given. The only reason we 'know' that Russia is willing to go to war/nukes over Ukraine is because that is the impression Putin has been giving.
Its too late to change that now, but the West needs to be crystal clear in its response to any further incursions (eg rumours about Russia pushing into Moldova).


Other general thoughts and musings/armchair strategies;

1) NATO enact a no-fly zone around Western and Northern Ukraine. Putin has publicly denied that this is an invasion of Ukraine multiple times. He has claimed it is a "special military operation" focused on Donbass Region. With that in mind, there should be no reason to object to this plan, assuming it doesnt interfere with that region.
In practice, this would have one of two results; force Russia/Putin to call this what it is - a full scale invasion. Or alternately, to deny the Russian Air Force supremacy over Northern/Western Ukraine, which would give the Ukrainians a far better fighting chance of repelling attackers.

2) Ukrainian insurgency. I suspect this is already in the plan, but Ukraine is not a small country. It has 44m people. If Russia wants to occupy and hold that territory, make it impossible for them. If he installs a puppet government, make it impossible for them to function. Practically speaking, I believe this is the most likely longer term scenario in the region - I only fear that Russian genocides and mass-incarcerations will follow.

3) Topple Putin. We are seeing protests across Russia, and sanctions targeting his inner circle and oligarchs. Loosing Putin's grip on Russia and the bigger picture changes rapidly.

4) Putin might claim he is willing to deploy nukes over whatever the flavour of the month is, but are we really to believe that he would be able to go through with it? That not a single general or senior official will reflect and think that Mutually Assured Destruction is a poor choice, and stop him?
Click to expand...
It's rare you should be glad that the Pentagon/Kremlin are good at what they do, because what they do is war, but they are both incredibly calculated about how and why they take a given action. Which is good because the public response is akin to fighting a bully when in reality this is a matter of proportional response (an entire theory and practice which underpins it known to each side, too).
 
talking robot said:
At the end of the day, Putin is an immoral madman, but NATO has miscalculated. Russia is willing to wage war in Ukraine to re-take control, and the West simply isn't willing to go that far. They have the leverage. The Ukraine and the allies should have been smart enough to see that, and sacrifice something in negotiation well before it came to this (e.g. accept that Ukraine won't join Nato and allow a democratic vote in the separatist regions). The outcome of that negotiation would have been better than the current situation for everyone.
Click to expand...

You are under the false impression Putin would have backed down and this is the problem in the West sometimes. You cannot negotiate with a madman.

He was asking for NATO to leave the Balkans as a condition for no invasion. We know that's nowhere near realistic but based on that demand only, it should tell you how Hitler junior thinks.
 
talking robot said:
At the end of the day, Putin is an immoral madman, but NATO has miscalculated. Russia is willing to wage war in Ukraine to re-take control, and the West simply isn't willing to go that far. They have the leverage. The Ukraine and the allies should have been smart enough to see that, and sacrifice something in negotiation well before it came to this (e.g. accept that Ukraine won't join Nato and allow a democratic vote in the separatist regions). The outcome of that negotiation would have been better than the current situation for everyone.
Click to expand...
It's disappointing that the West pretty much did nothing but stand idly by. Can we really call Putin a madman when such threats are clearly so effective?
 
Rightnr said:
You are under the false impression Putin would have backed down and this is the problem in the West sometimes. You cannot negotiate with a madman.

He was asking for NATO to leave the Balkans as a condition for no invasion. We know that's nowhere near realistic but based on that demand only, it should tell you how Hitler junior thinks.
Click to expand...
Putler
 
fishfingers15 said:
Nor the Pakistanis
Click to expand...

Of course. The Pakistani PM is currently in Russia. However Pakistani trade with Russia is next to nothing in parallel to India and China.

TBF a small country like Pakistan could be influenced through sanctions whereas India and China have too much economic strength to be a bullied. Take the Indian S400 deal for example
 
Smores said:
Well it's their right to die defending their country in a hopeless cause, i just hope they don't. It's not worth thousand of lives only to be invaded anyway.

I can't see the win here but hopefully I'm wrong and they somehow deter Russian forces.
Click to expand...
For some people it's not about patriotism that they fight. I heard from my late grandfather first hand experience about fighting in WWII. Back then my country wasn't formed yet and it was colonial territory but he fought to protect his home and his family. Of course there are many who are patriotic but I think a lot of people caught in war fight just to survive.
 
Shane88 said:
Someone smart tell me why they aren't a global big dick with those stats?
Click to expand...

Those stats aren't up to date or consistent. For example they are not the producers of ammonia in 2021, Germany are, a few years ago it was France. The stats seem to mainly be at least 10 years old. Some of them are also not that impressive in terms of quantity when you look at it globally, an example would be titanium ore, Norway has 5 times the reserves which is less than Madagascar or Brazil and nowhere near Australia, China or South Africa.

So to answer your question, you need more, you also need to add value on those resources and agricultural goods aren't that lucrative.
 
Zlatattack said:
Of course. The Pakistani PM is currently in Russia. However Pakistani trade with Russia is next to nothing in parallel to India and China.
Click to expand...

It's not the volume I was trying to draw attention to. There will always be governments willing to deal with Russia unfortunately. Still hopeful that Russian influence will be marginalized going forward.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
It's rare you should be glad that the Pentagon/Kremlin are good at what they do, because what they do is war, but they are both incredibly calculated about how and why they take a given action. Which is good because the public response is akin to fighting a bully when in reality this is a matter of proportional response (an entire theory and practice which underpins it known to each side, too).
Click to expand...

Honestly, all of that remains to be seen. So far they (like most other nations) have not picked any fights that they cant be sure of winning. The misinformation campaigns, false flag attempts and other such nonsense put out by Russia have been nothing short of amateurish (not that Putin seems to care - he was never trying to convince anyone outside of his own country), and it is early days in the invasion yet.

My question is - why would Russia risk nuclear war over Ukraine? Until American troops are on Russian soil and/or advancing of Moscow, there are better options. It is the threat of nukes that Putin relies on. The deterrent. And so far, the rest of the world has been buying into it. Even if Putin is a madman who has no qualms with ending the world, I refuse to believe that his inner circle and other senior officials/military folk are, and would just be OK with that unless it was the absolute last resort.
 
Middle Eastern states not exactly lining up to burn their bridges with Moscow:

 
Shakesey said:
I don't know if this has been asked, but why the feck would UKR defend Chernobyl with their lives and why would RUS want it? Isn't it just a dead nuclear plant?
Click to expand...

Surely given the amount of radiation still in the region, and the need to monitor/ensure that the containment infrastructure is of the highest quality/operative, it's in the whole of Europe's interest, and beyond, to keep this region in Ukraine/Western controlled territory.

And thus concludes a post that could have easily been written 30 years ago.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s fine they would still lose, Russia is not that guy.
 
@SamRamani2
· 34m
A Turkish ship near Odessa was struck by a Russian missile No casualties but this could heap pressure on Turkey to block the entry of Russian warships to the Black Sea
 
Walrus said:
My question is - why would Russia risk nuclear war over Ukraine?
Click to expand...
For the same reason the US was willing to risk nuclear war over Cuba (and Soviets over Turkey). It's what Obama called escalatory dominance (which just means that it's their border and it matters more to them than it does to the US).
 
2cents said:
Middle Eastern states not exactly lining up to burn their bridges with Moscow:

Click to expand...


MBS has been antagonising Biden multiple times with his oil production. But no serious pushback on Yemen or on him personally.
 
groovyalbert said:
Surely given the amount of radiation still in the region, and the need to monitor/ensure that the containment infrastructure is of the highest quality/operative, it's in the whole of Europe's interest, and beyond, to keep this region in Ukraine/Western controlled territory.

And thus concludes a post that could have easily been written 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
It has been a long time coming! I posted that a whole 8 minutes ago. Thanks
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
For the same reason the US was willing to risk nuclear war over Cuba (and Soviets over Turkey). It's what Obama called escalatory dominance (which just means that it's their border and it matters more to them than it does to the US).
Click to expand...

There is a stark difference between threatening something, and following through.

As I said before - if not now, when?

Western leaders are still talking about "preparing" and "holding back" further sanctions. Holding them back for what? How much more escalatory can the situation possibly get (short of WW3/nuclear war)?
 
I doubt Chernobyl is any much of importance other than a pathway to the most of Ukraine, highly doubt Russian military thought being exposed to radiation is a grand idea, unless they intend to become Radioactive Man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.