Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

My heart is really hurting seeing what’s going on in Ukraine. Children dying and peoples homes are being destroyed.
We as humans are a cancer to this earth.
 
IWat said:
Fair enough, respect that. But they're probably the reason you've not had to be drafted so far in your life.
Click to expand...

I do understand they're a deterrent more than anything, but i can't get my head around a country actually using one, and that particular government thinking it would be the right thing.
 
Sarni said:
All valid points I think. Russia is bound to take over Eastern Ukraine by force quite soon and it is essential that Ukraine keep enough resources out West to regroup and try to take it back. I think we are close to entering a point where the war slows down and instead of constant fire we are going to see slower developments that will take weeks/months to form. Inevitably that will also cause West public opinion to shift their attention to elsewhere. It will be a long war.
Click to expand...
If Russia has the money to continue fighting. I wonder if financial experts have analyzed this.
 
Smithy89 said:
I do understand they're a deterrent more than anything, but i can't get my head around a country actually using one, and that particular government thinking it would be the right thing.
Click to expand...

None of the Western countries will ever use one as a means of attack.

The only way they are ever used is there's a psychopath with nothing to lose in charge. While some seem to think that's where Putin may already be or may get to eventually, I reckon he loves his Russia too much to be the one who destroyed it forever. Let's hope.
 
Smithy89 said:
I do understand they're a deterrent more than anything, but i can't get my head around a country actually using one, and that particular government thinking it would be the right thing.
Click to expand...
Crazy as it sounds, Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved more lives than it cost.
 
VorZakone said:
If Russia has the money to continue fighting. I wonder if financial experts have analyzed this.
Click to expand...

Yeah the way they may eventually retreat is if they cannot afford to keep Ukraine under their control, which I reckon is bound to happen. Over the long term it will not be sustainable for them to keep a country of that size and with that level of resistance. It is just not possible.
 
Mike Smalling said:
It seems like a complete no-brainer for Finland at this point. They are already fairly close to the 2% of GDP on military spending, so no massive increase is needed.
Click to expand...

Plus they are replacing the F-18s with a networked F-35 which could easily plug/integrate into Nato's fleet
 
Smithy89 said:
I do understand they're a deterrent more than anything, but i can't get my head around a country actually using one, and that particular government thinking it would be the right thing.
Click to expand...

USA used them in 1945 and it ended the second world war.
 
11101 said:
You mean Sweden? Norway were a founding member.

I think Putin has hugely miscalculated the after effects of this. He's likely to get another one or two Nato members on his doorstep, made China realise he's not a reliable partner, and created a fourth military superpower in a united EU.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. He may win the war in the short term in Ukraine but has critically weakened Russian weakness across Europe and reshaped how the rest of Europe sees him and Russia.

I can't see that this will be even close to worth it for him at all.

Feels like a fatal miscalculation.
 
rpitroda said:
@Jerch is a known WUM, just so everyone in this thread knows. Engaging in debate is futile.
Click to expand...
My initial post was that we could end this in peace only with diplomacy basically. However you spin it around I don't see good outcome without diplomacy. Hopefully I'm wrong because I sadly am not seeing politics seeking diplomatic solutions.
I don't know how is this considered a WUM.
 
Sarni said:
Yeah the way they may eventually retreat is if they cannot afford to keep Ukraine under their control, which I reckon is bound to happen. Over the long term it will not be sustainable for them to keep a country of that size and with that level of resistance. It is just not possible.
Click to expand...
The hope is that with the sanctions they won't be able to afford it in the short term either.

That's Ukraines only viable strategy really. Draw out the war until Russia is effectively bankrupt.
 
RoyH1 said:
I wonder how the German rearmament announcement was received in Russian political circles
Click to expand...

Indeed..Germany could be the key (or one of them) in all of this. A fully rearmed Germany with a new military imperative/ structure in place would raise a few 'Ghosts' in Moscow. If the Germans also closed off Nordstream 2 forever and with an EU fully behind them pledged to providing support to the Ukraine to remain a truly independent country as a member of the EU; a few alarm bells that are may be silent at the moment would start ringing in parts of the Russian political circles.
 
harms said:
It’s the complete opposite — giving promising Russian students/academics an opportunity to study/work abroad would lead to brain drain way more effectively. Just like it did in the 90’s.

If all of those students (mostly top of the pile, as it’s not that easy to get a foreign scholarship) are forced back to Russia, you’re giving all of that potential back to Putin.
Click to expand...

I agree as they would be sending students back now. This isn't in isolation though, they are also planning to poach the better educated people from Russia as well, but it seems to the two policies are at cross purposes.
 
B20 said:
The hope is that with the sanctions they won't be able to afford it in the short term either.

That's Ukraines only viable strategy really. Draw out the war until Russia is effectively bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Unless the West is cornered into loosening the sanctions or not going any further by the threat of nukes. Some seem to think this will eventually happen. It's a tough situation.
 
It'll be sad to see countries now reinforcing their nuclear capabilities while still shunning nuclear for "safety reasons".
 
Smithy89 said:
I do understand they're a deterrent more than anything, but i can't get my head around a country actually using one, and that particular government thinking it would be the right thing.
Click to expand...

The concept is called Mutually Assured Destruction. The theory goes that while there are 2+ powers who retain the capability to destroy the other, neither side will use them or desire to come into direct conflict with each other.

The flaw is a) you get proxy wars, although they tend to not be on the same kind of scale b) a complete nutter who has no regard for their own life or the future of their country
 
Skills said:
It'll be sad to see countries now reinforcing their nuclear capabilities while still shunning nuclear for "safety reasons".
Click to expand...

Nuclear weapons programs and civilian nuclear energy are kind of 2 different beasts. Modern gen 3-4 civilian nuclear energy plants are incredibly safe.
 
IWat said:
The concept is called Mutually Assured Destruction. The theory goes that while there are 2+ powers who retain the capability to destroy the other, neither side will use them or desire to come into direct conflict with each other.

The flaw is a) you get proxy wars, although they tend to not be on the same kind of scale b) a complete nutter who has no regard for their own life or the future of their country
Click to expand...

That's what worries me. I don't think for a minute that Putin will actually use his. He is a tyrant who has made a big mistake with Ukraine but he's not a lunatic. If a genuine loose cannon like Kim Jong Un gets his hands on them though?
 
11101 said:
That's what worries me. I don't think for a minute that Putin will actually use his. He is a tyrant who has made a big mistake with Ukraine but he's not a lunatic. If a genuine loose cannon like Kim Jong Un gets his hands on them though?
Click to expand...

I hate to break it, but North Korea already have nuclear warheads and they now seem to have the delivery system. He won't use them though unless he really does want to meet the grave.
 
With the prospect of insurgency in Ukraine to continue even if Russia manage to win some control, Putin is doing the brain dead thinking that the UK/US did when they invaded Iraq. How some people call this idiot some sort of mastermind is beyond me. He's manage to cripple his country and people in the space of a couple of weeks alongside killing innocent people.
 
Jerch said:
My initial post was that we could end this in peace only with diplomacy basically. However you spin it around I don't see good outcome without diplomacy. Hopefully I'm wrong because I sadly am not seeing politics seeking diplomatic solutions.
I don't know how is this considered a WUM.
Click to expand...

Your idea of diplomacy was to run roughshod over Ukrainian sovereignty and decide things for them. and on top, was essentially a Chamberlainian exercise where you explicitly acknowledged that you'd be willing to sacrifice free democracies to placate Russia's aggression.

I acknowledge the sentiment for a peaceful solution, but your proposals are, to put it bluntly, too chicken shit for this situation.

A world where we do what you propose is on that proves to be the death knell of western democracy, where Russia and China will feel empowered to keep up the war of attrition and we'll be good little lapdogs as long as you leave the ourselves alone. Be sure that what happens in Ukraine has consequences for what happens in the baltic sea region, Taiwan and the Arctic.

The silver lining in all this has in fact been that the European response has been the opposite of what you proposed. Germany will now become a more prominent military factor, the EU is more united than ever as everyone realised just what our common values are and what is at stake in the European project.
Democracy and free and open societies matter. They are deserving of support and protection. There's a new European manifesto written for the 21st century thanks to Putin now.
 
IWat said:
The concept is called Mutually Assured Destruction. The theory goes that while there are 2+ powers who retain the capability to destroy the other, neither side will use them or desire to come into direct conflict with each other.

The flaw is a) you get proxy wars, although they tend to not be on the same kind of scale b) a complete nutter who has no regard for their own life or the future of their country
Click to expand...
MAD is essentially a Nash equilibrium. Two rational actors reaching that, means neither will do a unilateral attack or disarm.

The only problem with MAD is what happens if one of the actors is not rational.
 
Sarni said:
Unless the West is cornered into loosening the sanctions or not going any further by the threat of nukes. Some seem to think this will eventually happen. It's a tough situation.
Click to expand...
No way that happens now. The writing is on the wall all over Europe if they were to do that.
 
Who would have thought the original N word wouldn't even be the most alarming N word to use in 2022
 
Sky1981 said:
Some thought about Nuclears, I don't think anyone really counts to the tee where and how many each have, for all we know several thousands could still be unaccounted. That's discounting the black market.
Click to expand...

There are verification procedures built into the treaties. Destroyed items have to be shown in plain sight on the ground so that the other sides satellites can image them etc.
 
Dans said:
You really think so? He just crushed the demos last year. Not likely to be any democratic elections there any time soon.
Click to expand...
Not soon but 10 years? 20? 30? It will happen if Russia doesnt keep it under its control. The Russians controlled Czech for what 40 years until they managed to get him out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.