Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Norman Brownbutter]

My point is that, if "specifically targeting civilians" is wrong, it doesn't matter which country did it, or against which country. Wrong is wrong.

You can't claim "oh it's wrong, but in this case it's against Putin so it's a-ok"

This is a very slippery slope.

it’s really not. This is why nuance and context exist. Heres your choice. Bring sanctions again Russia and its people and force them to make the change that’s needed to end all of this. Or turn Russia into a parking lot for the worlds nukes. War is the slippery slope here, or sanctions. Sanction hurt the people, and that’s their purpose. To put pressure to make change without large scale conflict.

We are a global community. If Russia wants to play the prick, then they don’t get to play with the other kids. They can sit on the naughty step and think about what they did and figure out how to they can play with the other kids again.

Putin is the problem. Remove him, and the problem goes away. Doing nothing is what allowed the problem to get this bad in the first place.

 

[Raoul]

So do you think Biden is talking to Putin and there's no readout, or do you think Putin is speaking to someone in the US government who isn't of the same status as him? Because I think neither.

I'm pretty sure that elements of the US administration are talking to Russian counterparts behind the scenes right now. That channel of communication is always there. Ultimately, Putin knows sanctions won't be removed from his throat without US support, the absence of which, will likely end his reign in Russia.

 

[Red Dreams]

Deep, protracted sanctions that annihilate Putin from within, then and only then, followed by negotiations to relieve the sanctions in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Ukraine.

Sanctions . yes.
But Biden needs to be talking to him no matter how difficult it is.

Reality check.
Putin is going to take Ukraine no matter what.

But direct war with all that entails is not a solution. Millions dying is not a solution.
The only thing we can help Ukraine with is assisting them with whatever they need to do to fight him themselves.

 

[golden_blunder]

absolutely not, he was never a member

Debatable. He’s even widely thought as being part of the IRA leadership team during the 1970s

 

[Raoul]

Sanctions . yes.
But Biden needs to be talking to him no matter how difficult it is.

Reality check.
Putin is going to take Ukraine no matter what.

What your "reality check" doesn't address is that anything Putin does in Ukraine is irrelevant if he can't hold on to power in his own country due to the compounding impact of sanctions.

 

[Enigma_87]

And now the Russian Attorney General's office (I think this is the correct translation; the government institution that prosecutes people) has stated that participation in the "so-called peaceful "anti-war protests"" will be treated as a participation in an activity of an extremist organisation, which is punishable by up to 6 years in prison.

Nice.

Have protest winded down after the arrests? It was bound to happen to pass a law to stamp on them.

 

[sglowrider]

We need a man who can get close to Putin, someone he would never suspect...

Spoiler

He can't. Too busy training & fighting in the frontline with the Spetsnaz

 

[RedRonaldo]

Comic relief:

Oh dear

 

[MTF]

I'm pretty sure that elements of the US administration are talking to Russian counterparts behind the scenes right now. That channel of communication is always there. Ultimately, Putin knows sanctions won't be removed from his throat without US support, the absence of which, will likely end his reign in Russia.

Yes, I agree that there are probably a few exchanges going on with people that hold similar status on each side. But that leaves Macron as the only person directly speaking to Putin, and in my mind that is better than no one at all speaking to Putin. Whether Macron is made to seem needy or over-eager doesn't matter, it's not like he's broken ranks with the other countries and is off parroting about a deal that he can't actually deliver. As I said, as long as it's still well-coordinated with the other countries then I'd rather he engage in these conversations. I even sympathize with him because he's probably having to listen to a lot of bs from Putin, while trying to stay collected.

 

[Zehner]

I’ve seen people say this but why should it? It’s just a line that’s been pedalled and no one questions.

If you are a former Soviet country and grew up knowing the history you’d had under Russian rule and another country offers you an option that you think is better, you’re essentially saying they shouldn’t get to decide as it might anger Russia? This goes for anywhere in the world and is part of being a free society.

We all know what happened in Iraq was wrong, if anything it makes it that much more obvious that what is happening in Ukraine is wrong. It’s 2022, we should all know better as a species by now.

Just to make it clear, I'm sick of people blaming the NATO as well but I think the saying "why should they be bothered with NATO on their door step? It's a defensive alliance" is a bit short sighted. Russia is NATO's antagonist so it is to a certain extent understandable that they don't want them too close. It's a bit like saying "if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem with having surveillance?".

But obviously this never justifies what Russia is doing in Ukraine. And it should also be clear to everybody that this wasn't the reason for them attacking a neighboring state after witnessing how often Putin changed the narrative (protection of Luhansk and Donetsk -> Kyev is not attacked -> had to do it because NATO -> nazis in Ukraine's government -> nuclear threat of Ukraine -> etc-

 

[Enigma_87]

What your "reality check" doesn't address is that anything Putin does in Ukraine is irrelevant, if he can't hold on to power in his own country, due to the compounding impact of sanctions.

My concern is that those sanctions on oligarchs will have legal loopholes that will allow them to move their funds to the East and also sue the EU authorities into the stone age, which would overturn some of them.

 

[GlastonSpur]

When weapons that can destroy a planet are being used, assassinating him or bombing the feck out of Kremlin until it's a 300 meter hole is not even close to being fanciful.
What's the other way, send nukes all over the world? This is not a game or a movie.

Exactly, "This is not a game or a movie". Which is why sending in a team to assassinate him is a non-starter - because (a) they would stand close to zero chance of success; and (b) the attempt would itself maybe start WWIII.

As for "bombing the feck out of Kremlin" - that would mean WWIII and the end of all sentient life on this planet.

There's a big difference between the Russian use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine (if that were to happen) and a full-scale nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO. Which is why, I'd guess (and hope) that NATO would not respond militarily to the former.

 

[Red Dreams]

What your "reality check" doesn't address is that anything Putin does in Ukraine is irrelevant, if he can't hold on to power in his own country, due to the compounding impact of sanctions.

Whether he holds on to power or not is not within our control. We can only hope.
Talking of assassinations is ridiculous.

In all likelihood the pain to ordinary people will cause change within the power structure.

The key is how united the West is with regards to sactions.

 

[Smithy89]

Putin racking up the war crimes.

 

[General_Elegancia]

For me, France has an important test about power in “world political“and it can be measure Macron intelligence in world political too. if France passes this test, France will gain a lot of powers in world political. It’s a bit weird that Putin is closer to Macron than Schulz or Johnson.

 

[The Corinthian]

Surely an act of war to a NATO member, no?

 

[calodo2003]

Christ.

 

[Raoul]

In all likelihood the pain to ordinary people will cause change within the power structure.

.

If history is a guide, this is the likeliest outcome for Putin.

 

[Shakesy]

The problem for NATO with a tactical nuke used inside Ukraine, if that were to happen, is that Ukraine is not part of NATO. Moreover, Putin would probably tell lies - either denying the fact, or claiming that NATO has smuggled in the nuke and detonated it in order to blacken Russia's name.

It's hard to know, but my guess is that NATO would not respond militarily by sending forces into Ukraine - because WWWIII would likely be the result. I hope this guess is correct.

An attack on a NATO member is a whole different kettle of fish.

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

 

[Raoul]

My concern is that those sanctions on oligarchs will have legal loopholes that will allow them to move their funds to the East and also sue the EU authorities into the stone age, which would overturn some of them.

I don't have much confidence in the Oligarch sanctions as they are only a dozen or so people. The implosion of the Russian economy and subsequent domestic paralysis will be of far greater concern to Putin imo.

 

[Smores]

The US can easily communicate directly with Putin with discretion. There is a direct channel of communication between both sides that doesn't require public dissemination.

At a lower level maybe but again most accounts are saying there's not much going on there as both sides have pulled back. It's completely the wrong level for this anyway, it might divert WW3 and misunderstandings but actual diplomacy is only going to occur in talks with Putin. His generals don't know what he'll do tomorrow.

Biden can sit on the sidelines making strong futile statements, there's no doubt that's best politically for him.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

no idea what point you are trying to make. By that logic we should just nuke russia and eliminate the threat. Because after all it is only if they retaliate that something bad really happens right?/

 

[Zehner]

Deep, protracted sanctions that annihilate Putin from within, then and only then, followed by negotiations to relieve the sanctions in exchange for a complete withdrawal from Ukraine.

You don't have any fear of what Putin might do if he's backed into a corner that much? Don't you think leaving him a way out might be a solution to reduce the risk of the big bad n-word and wait until Russia consumes him from within in the next years?

Now you seem much more knowledgeable than me and I have the impression that the Western leaders are basically agreeing with you based on their decision making. I also don't think that an attack on a NATO state really is a possibility. But if Putin has to back off and leave Ukraine with unfinished business because his money runs out, essentially meaning he loses his face domestically as well, effectively facing a coup, I could very well imagine that he escalates it to the max. And that gives me the chills. Why do you think this is an unlikely outcome?

 

[Red Dreams]

If history is a guide, this is the likeliest outcome for Putin.

He has overeached.
Any attempts to talk to him must have on the forefront the millions of lives at stake.
Any 'humiliation' of the leader talking to him is worth it. Surely.

As for history. All we have to do is look at the Cuban Missile crisis.
Both men paid a price for love of humanity.

Their sacrifice was justified.

 

[donkeyfish]

Comic relief:

 

[Cardboard elk]

Surely an act of war to a NATO member, no?

If confirmed it was used this way, it COULD be used like that, but I doubt it. It will take more than a civilian ship being hijacked I think.

 

[Ananke]

Comic relief:

Literally crying

 

[Cardboard elk]

This is really really concerning!



Edit:

 

[Siorac]

Exactly, "This is not a game or a movie". Which is why sending in a team to assassinate him is a non-starter - because (a) they would stand close to zero chance of success; and (b) the attempt would itself maybe start WWIII.

As for "bombing the feck out of Kremlin" - that would mean WWIII and the end of all sentient life on this planet.

There's a big difference between the Russian use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine (if that were to happen) and a full-scale nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO. Which is why, I'd guess (and hope) that NATO would not respond militarily to the former.

But also if Putin ever orders the use of nukes, he himself won't be anywhere near the Kremlin. He'll be in some deep underground concrete-and-steel bunker in the Ural, or something like that.

 

[Shakesy]

no idea what point you are trying to make. By that logic we should just nuke russia and eliminate the threat. Because after all it is only if they retaliate that something bad really happens right?/

I believe my point was rather clear. One bloc can nuke the other bloc without consequences. Because no person in their right mind would end the world.

 

[Raoul]

You don't have any fear of what Putin might do if he's backed into a corner that much? Don't you think leaving him a way out might be a solution to reduce the risk of the big bad n-word and wait until Russia consumes him from within in the next years?

Now you seem much more knowledgeable than me and I have the impression that the Western leaders are basically agreeing with you based on their decision making. I also don't think that an attack on a NATO state really is a possibility. But if Putin has to back off and leave Ukraine with unfinished business because his money runs out, essentially meaning he loses his face domestically as well, effectively facing a coup, I could very well imagine that he escalates it to the max. And that gives me the chills. Why do you think this is an unlikely outcome?

That's where backchannel (not public) negotiations should be used. To provide him with a feasible offramp that he can live with without the ignominy and perceived public humiliation that he has capitulated to the west.

That's the rosier scenario.

With respect to nukes, he is sabre rattling imo. I don't think he is irrational or suicidal and will always seek self preservation above all else.

 

[Revan]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

The other block will retaliate, otherwise, they should just unilaterally disarm themselves and proclaim Putin as our overlord.

UK submarines have orders years in advance to 'likely' retaliate. And even if there is no full retaliation, you can bet anything that at least hundreds of nukes are gonna hit Russia.

Nukes are useless if you are not gonna use them in case you are getting nuked.

 

[Enigma_87]

I don't have much confidence in the Oligarch sanctions as they are only a dozen or so people. The implosion of the Russian economy and subsequent domestic paralysis will be of far greater concern to Putin imo.

Problem is Putin is mostly dependent on them and their resources. I don’t think he cares much about the people. He can sacrifice on the front line or send them in the 90’s economically. As long as his regime has backing he will always be ’elected’.

 

[stefan92]

But if Putin has to back off and leave Ukraine with unfinished business because his money runs out, essentially meaning he loses his face domestically as well, effectively facing a coup, I could very well imagine that he escalates it to the max. And that gives me the chills. Why do you think this is an unlikely outcome?

If it comes to this, who would follow him in escalating? He relies on people like Shoigu who did extremely well to stay powerful in the government since 1991. The only way you manage to do this is to keep ahead of the curve and make sure you stand alongside the winner early enough.

It's highly unlikely that someone like him follows Putin in ending the world.

 

[Raoul]

At a lower level maybe but again most accounts are saying there's not much going on there as both sides have pulled back. It's completely the wrong level for this anyway, it might divert WW3 and misunderstandings but actual diplomacy is only going to occur in talks with Putin. His generals don't know what he'll do tomorrow.

Biden can sit on the sidelines making strong futile statements, there's no doubt that's best politically for him.

My earlier point was that you don't want to negotiate with Putin publicly because it affects his perception that he is being influenced into an agreement by "the west", when he wants to sell the image that he is in complete control. This is why you do it privately, so as to remove all public grand standing from the substance of what is being discussed.

 

[TheReligion]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

I don’t get this;

“If Russia had to nuke whatever country “

As if they will be forced to and it not be it’s not it’s fault?!

 

[RedRonaldo]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

Neither Russian nor US/NATO would by controlled by their enemy. Its going to be WWIII with many missiles firing at each other turfs, or simply nuclear war, if either one side is close to losing most of their people and their country.

3rd option is of course, a civil war in Russia to overturn Putin government, which would be the best scenario for us.

 

[DOTA]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

Why is this global state communist?

 

[Shakesy]

The other block will retaliate, otherwise, they should just unilaterally disarm themselves and proclaim Putin as our overlord.

UK submarines have orders years in advance to 'likely' retaliate. And even if there is no full retaliation, you can bet anything that at least hundreds of nukes are gonna hit Russia.

Nukes are useless if you are not gonna use them in case you are getting nuked.

The illusion of MAD has kept us safe till now. No need to disarm. But IF the other side go batshit crazy and start nuking the world then the only way of ensuring our species survive is if there is no retaliation. In the distant future someone can overthrow the dictators and bring freedom back.

 

[tomaldinho1]

This is what worries me. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: Which is better? Living in a communist global state controlled by Russia, where a few of the major cities of the old world were obliterated; or nuclear armageddon?

I vote for the former.

If Russia had to nuke whichever country, the only thing that would guarantee extinction is if the West retaliates. This mutually assured destruction conundrum only becomes a reality if the other bloc retaliates.

That’s the same logic as letting someone beat you to a pulp everyday as long as they stop short of killing you. ‘At least I’m not dead’.