Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

TheLiverBird said:
the fact the aggressor is a major Nuclear power doesn’t come into it then?
Click to expand...
But at what point we can say "You have nukes but we do too, and more of them". Are we always going to run away once Putin mentions nukes? Do we allow them to invade every non NATO country?
 


Someone posted this stream earlier. A lot of tanks on the move. If my amateur research (i.e google) is correct its the road from Crimea to Kherson.


Also really weird to see civilian cars overtake parts of a military convoy on their way into a battlefield. But then again the people in them might not be civilians.
 
dove said:
But at what point we can say "You have nukes but we do too, and more of them". Are we always going to run away once Putin mentions nukes? Do we allow them to invade every non NATO country?
Click to expand...

The funny thing is there aren't that many more non-NATO countries on Russia's periphery, only Moldova really. I don't count Finland as although they are not part of the alliance, I'm fairly confident NATO would go to their defense.
 
Shakesey said:
Can men be forced to fight in a war? I thought there were countless ways to dodge it? Also - up to the age of 60!? Wow. That's old.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. It's absolutely standard practice. No, there's almost no way to dodge it under martial law.
 
padzilla said:
It's funny how the US turns a blind eye when there is no money to be made from oil isn't it?
Click to expand...
That's why they are pumping hundreds of millions into sanctions then is it?

How are they turning a blind eye?

Currently 4 usaf refueling tankers circling just outside Ukraine borders. Why do you imagine that would be.

Just because no nato or uk troops drop into Ukraine does not mean a blind eye is being turned
 
dove said:
But at what point we can say "You have nukes but we do too, and more of them". Are we always going to run away once Putin mentions nukes? Do we allow them to invade every non NATO country?
Click to expand...

That wasn't really the point though. The posters point was that America will go to war if there are financial rewards for them.

Notwithstanding the fact that Ukraine actually does have a lot of important natural resources, it ignores the fact that the USA have gone to war when the country didn't have lots of financial incentives (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea), have avoided attacking Iran knowing that it would be a totally different kettle of fish to Iraq and that the aggressor in this occasion is the world's largest nuclear power.

Like comparing apples to lions really.
 
africanspur said:
Could be the lack of money.

Could also be the 4000 nukes. Difficult to judge really.
Click to expand...

Or the fact their rhetoric about standing up for freedom only applies when they are guaranteed to win the battle and make a fortune from it in the process.
 
Shakesey said:
Can men be forced to fight in a war? I thought there were countless ways to dodge it? Also - up to the age of 60!? Wow. That's old.
Click to expand...

Conscription isn't that uncommon in times of major war. WW1/WW2 obviously, but Americans were drafted/conscripted during the Vietnam War. Muhammad Ali famously faced criminal charges for refusing the draft

I think conscription under a certain age is considered a war crime, as well as conscripting conquered populations.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if Belarussians are sneakily fighting alongside the Russians. At this point it's most likely Ukraine vs Russia + Belarus.
 
Wittmann45 said:
Conscription isn't that uncommon in times of major war. WW1/WW2 obviously, but Americans were drafted during the Vietnam War. Muhammad Ali famously faced criminal charges for refusing the draft

I think conscription under a certain age is considered a war crime, as well as conscripting conquered populations.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell. I'd just walk up to the enemy and surrender when no-one is looking. I'm a flagrant coward.
 
sport2793 said:
I would argue it really isn't that complicated. When one is talking about an autocrat, it always comes down to maintenance of power + money. Much of these current events arguably was precipitated by the real support Navalny had inside of Russia to oppose Putin's regime, to the point where Putin tried to poison him in a foreign country and then now has put him in prison on sham accusations. @Raoul has done a really good job of explaining these pro-democracy elements building in Russia. Now Putin sees a Ukraine that has had a couple of free elections and is working its way into the European community where many Russians would like to be, of course he sees that as a threat to his legitimacy. He now has the opportunity to "decommunise" and "denazify" this neighbor to restore his own legitimacy in his head.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. I do think at least in his head he wants to use NATO expansion as a justification though.
 
Shakesey said:
Thank god I live in a country with debatable standards. But up to the age of 60? Is that normal?
Click to expand...

I can't cite any historical examples or statistics, but I know for a fact that in desperate times of ar basically anyone who could hold a weapon was forced to fight.
 
padzilla said:
Or the fact their rhetoric about standing up for freedom only applies when they are guaranteed to win the battle and make a fortune from it in the process.
Click to expand...

Do most countries start wars they intend to lose? Or with the potential of getting wiped out? How much did they make from Afghanistan?

Honestly what a strange post.
 
dove said:
But at what point we can say "You have nukes but we do too, and more of them". Are we always going to run away once Putin mentions nukes? Do we allow them to invade every non NATO country?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if NATO also backs down from trying to surround and threaten Russia, conflict can be de-escalated. Russia has blood on its hands, but NATO's agenda hasn't helped at all. It is never a simple case of blaming everything on one man for a war like the media portrays.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
I can't cite any historical examples or statistics, but I know for a fact that in desperate times of ar basically anyone who could hold a weapon was forced to fight.
Click to expand...

I'm 57 and I think I have a bit of canon fodder left in me still.
 
africanspur said:
I'm asking for specifics though. Very willing to be educated on this.

The aggressive NATO expansion eastwards I can get on board with, fine.

Otherwise the treaty of Versailles mandated that Germany take full responsibility for WW1, took away territory from it, forced them to disarm and enacted crippling reparations. What was equivalent to that in the collapse of the USSR?
Click to expand...

There were no direct penalties or consequences. After all, Russia didnt lose a war in the traditional way, as Germany did in 1918, thats why i charectirized it softer version. In Russia's case the territory was not taken away, as the republics themselves got away. It was more indirect in the CARs through Turkey's influence, and more direct in the Balkans and the eastern front (which was not de jure territory of USSR of course). In the financial perspective, it was not about new penatlies but about how Russia was treated.; while Poland or Romania were getting debt reliefs, Russia had to pay every cent.

Edit; i think i found a nice article by Sachs regarding that period; https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30483873
 
Last edited:
Dr Foo said:
Perhaps if NATO also backs down from trying to surround and threaten Russia, conflict can be de-escalated. Russia has blood on its hands, but NATO's agenda hasn't helped at all. It is never a simple case of blaming everything on one man for a war like the media portrays.
Click to expand...

I think you can blame this almost entirely on Putin. He just wants more power, hates formerly occupied countries moving to more progressive existences and dreams of the old day of USSR being a super power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.