Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
For how long though? And, would he give his status and power, to spend the rest of his life in a fecking bunker knowing that his actions killed more than a hundred million Russians.
Also, the US has roughly 70 nuclear submarines. Some will survive even the Armagedon. Some might hit Putin's cabal a year or two after the Armagedon. I wouldn't be surprised if both countries know this. In a nuclear war, we can have nuclear detonations years after the nuclear war. All bets are off.
Putin is irrational, but I don't think he has done full mad. And if he has gone, I don't think that so have gone his cabal. They might be evil cnuts, but not necessarily suicide bombers.
How close are they to the front line currently? The widely shared image I saw praising Vitali was from a training exercise a while back. Can't be that close given he's giving TV interviews. Lomachenko looks to be in the thick of it though.
Could NATO not use Putin's attack on Nuclear Power Plants (which affect the safety of the entire continent) as a pretext to establish a non fly zone?
Bad grammar? OK, if Russia were to nuke whatever country. Better?
I'll choose the 3rd option any day of the week.
Or capitalist. Whatever. That's not the point. I'm saying it's better for humanity to live in whatever conditions and complain than all be dead. The end of life. The end of 4 billion years of evolution.
Yes. At least we're not dead. People. Everyone. No more life on earth unless you have 6 legs and hide under fridges.
Wrong.
The only one responsible for this is Russia.
NATO hasn't expanded east, the former Soviet states have been asking to join NATO precisely because they were scared that what has happened to Ukraine would happen to them.
It is extremely unlikely that humanity will be destroyed in a nuclear war. It is completely unclear if the nuclear winter is going to happen in the first place. It is also completely clear that billions will die.
However, there is no other way. Remove the illusion of MAD, and you are essentially making dictator for life the maddest person who has nuclear power. If we don't retaliate, it only means that Putin or his successor or whoever is willing to throw the first nuke, is going to rule. No dictator can be overthrown, cause you know, nukes.
That's why MAD should not be an illusion. feck, I think it should be automatic.
And saying that, I am overwhelmingly sure that I would die during the first week of it. But there is no other way.
Not likely, given that it would be perceived as an escalatory act by Putin.
What eactly do you think could be offered to him, then? Because while I agree that it's sabre rattling, if he has to accept a defeat in Ukraine, I expect he's pretty much done for in Russia as well with war crime charges on the horizon. In that case, self preservation might been nuking Ukraine to break their resistance and take a costly victory. So intuitively I'd go with this: Support Ukraine and let the sanctions finish him. Then make a peace deal that he can sell to his own people as a victory (what could this be?), maybe lift a few sanctions but maintain enough to bleed him out, and wait. He's surely less likely to launch a nuclear attack while in a gradual decline than when he's amidst a war and a nuke could be his only mean to retain power.
That being, I'm not so sure if you can even count on people overthrowing dictators anymore. Regimes have far more surveillance tools these days and firepower to an extent that unarmed civillians have essentially no chance if the military isn't on board. Russia could as well turn into a giant North Korea and I guess that's not really desirable.
If Putin found ways to even piss off traditional European neutrals like Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Ireland, then there is just about nothing that can be done. He earned the nickname that combines his name and Hitler all by himself. Keep ramping sanctions up until he falls, that's about it.
Only up for it if it's commie. No strong opinion otherwise.
No one forced the NATO to let new members in. They could have decided to stay in their old borders, but they wanted to expand east.
It's the right of any state to decide which organisations they eant to join, but it is the right of the existing members of an organisation to deny that request.
With all due respect, this is just silly. If Putin, in the extremely unlikely event, drops a nuke on say New York - should NATO not strike back with nukes then? Should the west just let Putin feck them in the ass because if not «the world ends»?
Or we just do the sensible thing and stop Putin? It’s in the rest of the worlds best interests and in the interest of 99% of Russia.
Russian capitalising on refugee situation:
Typical prime time TV' debate' over here.
The level of second hand embarrassment I felt for the presenter there is not calculable. Poor sod, whoever was in charge of the display graphics best hide.
saw this yesterday and had to chuckle
There has never before been a fullscale war in a country with nuclear power plants. This is unprecedented. Also the largest in Europe. I am really worried about this. Fukushima was smaller than this plant.
https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/rus...power-plant-as-ukrainians-block-access-roads/
https://bellona.org/news/ukraine/20...raines-nuclear-power-plants-as-russia-invades
https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/rus...power-plant-as-ukrainians-block-access-roads/
https://bellona.org/news/ukraine/20...raines-nuclear-power-plants-as-russia-invades
At the moment, I don't think anything can be viably offered to Putin since he probably still believes he can "take Ukraine" and come out ahead in all of this. Its only once he realizes what the sanctions are doing to him from within, that there will be a chance of some form of a negotiated settlement, where NATO/EU can offer the lifting of individual sanctions in exchange for a withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. At that point, he can make the case that he has proven his point that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed into NATO (which will provide him with some degree of public deniability that he hasn't been forced to capitulate to the west), then use that framework to pull back out in exchange for specifically negotiated sanctions to be lifted.
That's the vaguely plausible scenario that would deescalate and allow Putin to remain in power.
A likelier scenario is that Putin will be overthrown from within because the pressure of sanctions will force a revolution that will culminate in his arrest or execution.
Isn't it also the right of NATO and any state to join if they wish, without another state telling them they can't?
Last edited:
We can dream. Hope it transpires this way.
Come on Veevers, those former Warsaw Pact countries were just asking to be invaded by Russia and NATO let them in to antagonize poor Vlad.
I understand the Russian perspective but I don't understand people justifying it as an excuse for war. The Ukranian people (40 million people) are clearly looking to the West and as a sovereign people it's their right to decide their country's future. Russia has lost any kind of ideological argument or philosophy they might have to persuade Ukraine not to do so. Does Russia have anything to offer other than aggressive nationalism?
According to this website it would take 100 atomic bombs. That does sound a little low, but anyway. Let's make it a thousand. Russia alone has more than a thousand. Strike. Retaliate. Retaliate. Retaliate. The end.
Let that sink in for a bit. Is there anything more important than survival of the species?
I'm all for this brother.
Well, Brexit meant the UK surrendered sitting at the top table of global diplomacy. We’re very much below the US, the EU leaders, and those who represent the biggest European countries.
This is really really concerning!
Edit:
Shouldn't have this been heavily guarded, especially with how spot on the US intel has been.
Of course. It is absolutely the right of the NATO to encircle Russia and it is the right of Russia to be pissed about it (to be clear: not the right to wage war because of it).
But the point is, it was a deliberate decision by the old NATO members to include East Europe and apply pressure on Russia, it is not a decision unilaterally made by the newer members, but some people make it sound like that here, and thst is just wrong.
That must be another one of those brexit benefits I've heard so much about.
Actually no, it shouldn't. You should prevent actual fighting on a nuclear site whenever possible. Block the roads leading to it, that's fine, but if they break through, don't try to fight next to nuclear material.
Guarding of the facilities is not enough. Other things can cause meltdown. Like electrical grid and fuel supply for back up generators. Like lack of personell. Etc.
It's almost as if the entire policy of barring only men from leaving was a ridiculous sexists policy that nobody dare call out from the start? Why should you have to stay because you have a penis. I'm sure feminist world wide are outrage
*insert middle finger emojis*
Not even her would be immune from deserving a steel chair in the face, WWE style. She and that guy from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs are among the most despicable of the lot in that domain of spokespersons.
WWII wasn’t fought and won to live under the thumb of a short, bloated old man. Nukes are obviously last resort, but the notion of just holding your hands up and say «Nah, just let him do what he wants, watcha gonna do?» is pretty weak.
Really hope you're right. Still worried that Putin might choose to interpret "not taking back" the sanctions as an escalatory act by the West once they start kicking in, making the population suffer and effectively threatening his reign. But that's risks we have to take, probably.
Indian media and Russian media is incredibly similar when it comes to sycophancy. Only difference is Indian media does it for money.