Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Putin doesn't want Russia to directly border Nato countries. He wants countries in between as a buffer but he wants them to be pro-Russian instead of pro-Nato. He's got that with Belarus and Georgia whilst Finland stays neutral. Ukraine was the only one actively pursuing membership. I think his goal in Ukraine is to install a more Russia-friendly government that will drop plans to join Nato then the troops will withdraw.

He can tolerate Estonia and Latvia because its a single front and it's too late, they're already in. If Ukraine joined, it would give Nato two fronts to attack from.

Russia already shares a border with multiple NATO countries, though. Estonia and Latvia as you mention, but also Lithuania, Poland and Norway. Multiple fronts, that.
 
As one who posted two tweets from Russian officials, I would feel very, very unfairly treated if I was permabanned (or even threadbanned) for that. Delete the tweets if it's deemed necessary, sure, but come on. The sheer lunacy of the tweets deserved a place in this thread to be discussed and provide context, and is no different from providing the exact same quotes in a BBC article.

Actually, I think you fail to grasp the difference between posting propaganda, and sharing direct and relevant information for context in a thread about an ongoing war. Actually reading what the officials say about this war, may help understand what is actually going on. Posting these things is not the same as condoning or agreeing, and they're not from any dubious sources. This is (by extension) Putins own words. If we can't post that, we might as well close this thread entierly.

This is just a very bad take, imho.

I’m no modmin, but I’d be amazed if you got banned because @RedDevilQuebecois doesn’t believe we should know what the Russians are saying. I think you’re safe :D
 
Really hope you are right about that for all our sakes. And I do believe you are.

I think Putin and his thugs only respect one thing: strength. The weakness of the current Western response will ONLY encourage and embolden him. The biggest mistake we can make is to allow Putin to think that we are not willing to go to war, because he exploits that.

Unfortunately if we continue to show weakness and division, it may lead to him eventually becoming so bold that he decides to test NATOs resolve directly - and then we really would have a problem.
 
Quoting Russian officials is not endorsing them.

Banning anybody who is providing direct quotes from Russian politicians is surely a mistake. It's not the same as propaganda if we're discussing it.

Unless you just want to ignore that these sentiments from Russians exist, in which case our conversation will be blind in one eye.
No. Their quotes are propaganda and lies in itself they have no value, you understand that? What it does it may only give them an information stream to deceive those less capable of critical thinking or generally who don’t follow this closely and just read “quotes”. The whole point is to get rid of the fake news and by posting fake news you do the job for them. Their whole propaganda model is built on throwing a lot of different and often contradictory shit at the wall and hoping it sticks.
 
I know that's the official reasoning, but personally I think this is all muscle flexing from someone who's losing it. No one could believe that NATO would ever, ever invade Russia. For me, it's all about pride and showing the world how big and strong Russia still is. I'm surprised he hasn't been pictured riding into battle topless on his horse yet.

No one ever believed that USA and UK would invade Iraq either saying they had WMD. NATO was formed to counter Russia and the USSR. Why else would NATO be there after the USSR was broken up? They expanded it right to The Russian borders. Their prime enemy is Russia.
 
Russia already shares a border with multiple NATO countries, though. Estonia and Latvia as you mention, but also Lithuania, Poland and Norway. Multiple fronts, that.

Not much point invading Kaliningrad though is there, and good luck trying to invade anywhere via the Norwegian far North.
 
So, what exactly would need to happen from here on out in Ukraine for the West to act?

I get that NATO won't actively come in for a non-member state, but does the opposing world just now sit back and watch Putin do whatever the feck he likes in Ukraine. I know everything one sees on social media should be taken with a pinch of salt/can be used as a means in itself, but it does seem like they're doing whatever they want out there.
 
It's incredible that in an age where climate change is such an existential threat that we're still doing things like this in the supposedly 'civilized' world.
 
That's not what it's for but it is an organisation designed to counter Russia, and Putin does have a point that Nato has expanded Eastwards since its inception. This war is his version only he's using tanks instead of a membership agreement.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that those countries welcomed NATO and why they did that.
 


Wonder does it make any particular difference if their advance is slower than anticipated? I'm not sure what timeline they need to work to. It's not like there's obvious game-changing help coming if Ukraine hold on for long enough.
 
So, what exactly would need to happen from here on out in Ukraine for the West to act?

I get that NATO won't actively come in for a non-member state, but does the opposing world just now sit back and watch Putin do whatever the feck he likes in Ukraine. I know everything one sees on social media should be taken with a pinch of salt/can be used as a means in itself, but it does seem like they're doing whatever they want out there.
Most likely, yes. Ukraine will receive more aid, also military aid, but they have to do the fighting on their own.
 
what context? they fecking rolled over people and crushed them in a shitty car

There's another video filmed from the other side I can't find now. it shows another vehicle, literally just off screen of this vid that also crashes, a guy gets out hides by the tyre and gets peppered with bullets as this vehicle turns into a civ car in the background.

Still looks delibrate to me though.
 
You seem to be ignoring the fact that those countries welcomed NATO and why they did that.

Exactly. If everyone around you is joining up with the anti-you alliance, there is probably a reason (clue: it’s You)

“NATO Expansion” is because countries have independently decided which side they prefer to be on. It is not NATO going in and demanding obedience.
 
You seem to be ignoring the fact that those countries welcomed NATO and why they did that.

I'm not saying he's right in what he's doing but that's the way he sees it. Nato expanded influence Eastwards via membership agreements so he wants to expand his influence West via tanks.
 
Not much point invading Kaliningrad though is there, and good luck trying to invade anywhere via the Norwegian far North.

Invading through Norway? Now, that would be stupid for sure. But given the very strategic Norwegian coastline, I can imagine we're a priority in a case where war actually breaks loose. For both sides.

Speaking of Kaliningrad - how did Russia manage to keep that exclave?
 
Wonder does it make any particular difference if their advance is slower than anticipated? I'm not sure what timeline they need to work to. It's not like there's obvious game-changing help coming if Ukraine hold on for long enough.
Not really, I reckon. If no ceasire/diplomatic solution is reached, then Ukraine will fall anyhow. But then what happens? If Ukrainians can organize a proper insurgency, this can take a long while.
 


Not sure if posted yet, but this is sickening to read. Obligated entry into the army is madness imo.

Needs must. The choice wouldn't have easily been made. I feel less sympathy for dual nationals who may have taken Ukrainian nationality for their own benefit, then act shocked when they fall under the remit of mobilisation.

This is one reason we hesitated ever so slightly about getting Ukrainian nationality for our son, because we always knew there would be a chance something like this may happen one day. Right now we have no idea if there will still be a Ukraine by the time he reaches adulthood.
 
Russian officials deserve no spotlight whatsoever from the moment their boss called a Jewish president of a sovereign country a provider of safe haven to Nazis when that president himself had a chunk of his family decimated by actual Nazis.

Stop spreading Russian propaganda please.
 
What on earth are you talking about. Best you keep me on ignore if you're that sensitive.

I think people are getting tired of "Putin has a point" bollocks, as he embarks on his murderous rampage.
 
This is a very valid point. The best answers I have is that these things are not binary. There was no NATO that caused WW1 or 2. We are talking about a democratic country who peacefully disarmed their nuclear deterrent in exchange for guarantees of security from UK, US and Russia. I can’t say I am an expert, but do those guarantees not still stand? We are talking about a country who aspired - and even wrote into their constitution - to join NATO.

The only difference between the current situation and Hitler is that the latter didn’t have nukes. It’s unfortunate that we live in a world where mutually assured destruction is a possibility, but it is. The question is, is Putin really prepared to destroy the world (since I’m damn sure they would be the ones to make the first strike if it happened)? And would the Russian people and military let him? Until troops are marching on Moscow, I can’t see it happening. As long as NATO was clear about retaking Ukraine (and maybe Belarus while we are there), there is no reason to escalate.

My other idea was to enact a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Putin publicly claims that this is a special military operation, focused on the Donbas. With that in mind, a no-fly zone over the rest of Ukraine (ie Kyiv) should not interfere with his plans. Ukraine has the right to request their airspace be protected.
In practice, this would either mean Putin ceding that this is a full invasion, or sacrificing air operations - which would give the Ukrainians a much better fighting chance, if nothing else.

Alternately, tell Ukraine to sacrifice the Donbas and Crimea region in exchange for immediate NATO membership. If this conflict is about Donbas (which publicly, it is, according to Russia) then the conflict is over and you get Ukraine into NATO immediately. Again, is Putin going to start throwing nukes around for the sake of Western Ukraine? Not convinced.

I think this is dangerously naïve.

There's a reason these countries spend what they do on their nuclear arsenals. The NATO members and the US in particular are well aware of when and why they would be used and that's largely what's dictating their response or lack thereof. Putin will know once NATO gets involved that he is completely outmatched conventionally - He would know that everything he's just staked his personal legacy on is doomed. How anyone could be confident that he'd back down in this scenario given how far he's already gone is beyond me. He's already put himself at huge personal risk with this invasion. This childish notion that bullies will always stand down when you step to them is just ludicrous - They have these nuclear weapons precisely to deter conflict with superpowers and there would be huge internal on pressure on Putin if his gambit has failed for all the world to see. In that scenario you're relying on a 70 year old man with little else to lose to do the graceful thing and walk away or blindly hope that someone launches a successful coup to prevent him escalating. That may happen, it might even be likely but I'm certainly not willing to risk civilisation for it.

The US, UK and NATO are fervently anti-Russia. They want nothing more than this hostile power taken out but they still don't budge on this for a reason. They know nuclear war isn't the sci-fantasy some seem to think - They know themselves how close things have come in the past even without the sort of existential threat that would be facing Putin. There's been pro's and cons to the existence of nuclear weapons but I think the cons far outweigh them and that people have become almost desensitised to the danger they present. They make limited warfare an inevitability - You have the contradictory attitude to want to defeat and enemy but not too badly that they'll lash out. It's far too dangerous a game to play, especially with someone who's just put himself in an extremely fragile position.
 
Most likely, yes. Ukraine will receive more aid, also military aid, but they have to do the fighting on their own.

Then they've got no chance with the current forces they're being faced with.

They'd be better off standing-down and ensuring enough of the anti-Putin sentiment is left alive. I'm being genuinely serious.

Fight whatever government is instated in Ukraine at the polls, not with makeshift weapons against a highly trained killing force.