Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I understand that.

But surely its a case of NATO shooting at Russia just not pulling the trigger themselves? In which case it's already a shooting war?
All about the optics. Russia knows it. We know it. But not enough for Putin to escalate. It’s semantics but semantics make a big difference at this level of tension.
 
I understand that.

But surely its a case of NATO shooting at Russia just not pulling the trigger themselves? In which case it's already a shooting war?

Unless a NATO military shoots at Russia, sinks a ship, etc. then its still Russia/Ukraine
 
The US/UK taking of Baghdad is in no way comparable to this. Baghdad was on the other side of the world while Kyiv is only 200km from the Russian border, and even closer from the Belarussian.

The fact that the Russian army is not able to supply their troops with fuel and food while being that close to home shows how badly run they are.

Totally agree with this. The Russian army has been shown up to be tin pot. Their saving grace is that they have nukes... Otherwise America would have been in to wipe the floor with them already. I honestly think if they went to launch a nuke it would turn out to be like a damp firework... Prob get about 5 foot off the ground. Obviously the worry is that no matter how shite we think they are..... It only take 1 nuclear sub off the east coast of the US and it's game over
 
Israel has a massive modern army. And around 200 nukes.
Israel is probably the best defended state bordering Russian troops

I take those points. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they want a hostile Russia on their border, or an Assad regime whose military is rebuilt by Russia (I am leaving the long term impact of sanctions to one side).
 
What was the outcome of the downed Romanian jet couple of days ago in the Black sea?
 
As an aside, I do wonder what NATO and it’s members see as a realistic end game, from their perspective? Easy to say Russian withdrawal, Russian defeat, etc. But at this stage:
- Without NATO military intervention, surely Ukraine ultimately gets defeated? Even if it takes a long while. Is it realistic that arming Ukraine alone along with sanctions is sufficient to defeat the invasion?
- Assuming the above and happy to be corrected if not a fair assumption, I guess the west is by definition for Ukraine to be lost? Even if the assumption is false, the west must consider it an acceptable trade off to avoid a full scale war, to let Ukrainian cities get turned to rubble and it’s people suffer greatly?
- Or do we think they are aiming for something more seismic I.e changing Russia as we know it by destroying the economy and / or seeing Putin removed?

I ask because it’s all good we are throwing arms to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia, but it surely (at least I hope) can’t purely be to give Ukraine a fighting chance and see Russian forces removed? It’s one thing to accept not getting involved with military to avoid escalating to a full scale war, but it’s another to think the end game is ok at simply Russia withdrawing from Ukraine? There must be more then that. It can’t be that Russia withdraws and we carry on as normal. Surely this can’t go unpunished and whilst we won’t ever invade (obviously), the objective here has to be fundamental change in Russia?

The cynic in me thinks, everyone and their dog knows Russia is gonna win, they also know they can't get involved so we (the West) are fine with exploiting this. Its a case where the only viable course of action is to weaken Russia financially,
There is no way they are expecting Russia to overthrow Putin, maybe to slowly change their culture over time but this war is not gonna change Russia in the short term.
So imho option B above.
 
I take those points. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they want a hostile Russia on their border, or an Assad regime whose military is rebuilt by Russia (I am leaving the long term impact of sanctions to one side).
If this war is anything to get by ...

I think Israel are pretty fine. They have comfortably the strongest Air Force in that region, probably the strongest (or second strongest after Turkey) army, and have enough nukes to obliterate any country nearby.
 
I think this basically boils down to people disliking Israel because of the conflict with the Palestinians, and failing to understand that shades of grey are real, and Israel can actually be a good neutral intermediary where the Russia-Ukraine war is concerned.

TLDR: They think everything Israel does is bad.
It was more the whole doing it in secret thing that was the issue as far as I was concerned.
 
I wonder what Israel's angle is here. I doubt they'd want a Jewish president to be killed by a hit squad and might lobby for Zelensky to stay alive.

On the other hand, they might fear that the Ukrainian resistance inspires the Palestinians to take up weapons again. Every country that has representatives visiting Putin has its own interests but in this case, I'm not quite sure what Israel wants to discuss.
I doubt the regime in Israel cares about Zelensky or sees him as a "real jew" at all. Actually, I think I remember reading that Zelensky resisted Trump's pressure to move their embassy to Jerusalem back in 2020.

I guess Putin invited Bennett in order to use the visit and project the image that he is not isolated. And Bennett had to oblige. It is all about your own interests and making sure that Putin (who controls Syria) understands you're sitting this one out and not his enemy.
 
What was the outcome of the downed Romanian jet couple of days ago in the Black sea?
Apparently just an accident. If you like wild theories you can assume that they just tried everything they have if it still works in case they need it.
 
I imagine Israel is in a tricky position given the Russian involvement in Syria. If you piss off Putin, his armed forces are literally next door to them.

Israel can easily eliminate the Russian forces in Syria. Israel has a modern air force comparable to any advanced NATO country.
 
Israel can easily eliminate the Russian forces in Syria. Israel has a modern air force comparable to any advanced NATO country.
Hey dude, you probably answered this question before, but how hard is it for a Russian to find global news? And I have another question - have prices for ordinary household things gone up?
 
No. Shooting at someone with weapons made elsewhere doesn’t make elsewhere a belligerent.
What if they are supplied by that person's.

I suppose that's what I'm having a hard time with, distinguishing the line between being actively aggressive and being defensive as NATO want to be.
I'd say supplying weapons in the open is aggressive, but hopefully Putin doesn't!

But I have had some good answers to my questions from various on here, so that's much appreciated.
 
Hey dude, you probably answered this question before, but how hard is it for a Russian to find global news? And I have another question - have prices for ordinary household things gone up?

I have no idea. I live in California, haha.
 
Hey dude, you probably answered this question before, but how hard is it for a Russian to find global news? And I have another question - have prices for ordinary household things gone up?
Apart from the financial hit to the currency, I don't think anything has changed dramatically yet. But as soon as the SWIFT ban hits most things are expected to start getting scarce and expensive.
 
What if they are supplied by that person's.

I suppose that's what I'm having a hard time with, distinguishing the line between being actively aggressive and being defensive as NATO want to be.
I'd say supplying weapons in the open is aggressive, but hopefully Putin doesn't!

But I have had some good answers to my questions from various on here, so that's much appreciated.
No. In WWII, Britain was supplied by the US before the US ever got into the conflict. There were also wars fought by countries supplied by bigger powers throughout the entirety of the Cold War.
 
No. In WWII, Britain was supplied by the US before the US ever got into the conflict. There were also wars fought by countries supplied by bigger powers throughout the entirety of the Cold War.

It was pretty much the defining feature of the Cold War. Proxy warfare was the order of the day. And usually the involvement was a lot more direct than the West in Ukraine today.
 
I very much doubt that any rollback would happen under Putin. Why would he give any amount of freedom back when he had already took it?

Sorry I just meant that Russia stepping into a totalitarian political situation, is that something that's a western narrative whilst the reality on the ground might be different?
 
Well it took the US/UK 3 weeks to take Baghdad. It's the media that controls the narrative so they are playing it hard that Russia is struggling, the same media at that time weren't saying that the US/UK coalition were struggling (although I'm sure Iraqi state media was!).

You'd figure given how we're being told Russia is so shit at this war thing that the EU would be less fearful about attacking them. They might throw a nuclear bomb on themselves.

This is a massive fecking army, they'll take over eventually. The EU won't do anything, that's the sad reality, I just hope the Ukrainians don't let them sleep easy for the time they are there.

Disagree with that.
Baghdad is over 600km away from Kuwait, Kyiv is 90km away from Belarus. So of course it would take longer to reach Baghdad.

US and their allies lost 172 soldiers (and around 20 Kurtish allies but they were not under their command) to overthrow Sadam. Russia has already lost a few thousand soldiers in this.

I think that the US lost 4 tanks and 8 aircraft during the invasion. Russia has lost hundreds of tanks (for more than 80 there is photo evidence) and likely a few dozen aircrafts.

Pretty much this. Both used different tactics too but it’s blatantly obvious Russia is struggling.

This invasion is about spheres of influence.
Putin/Russia is not going to just withdraw without NATO recognizing Russia's voice in the region going forward.
Sanctions alone wont cut it.

Disagree.

The fact Putin is complaining and threatening so much indicates a man under pressure. He knows his country is crumbling.
 
Sorry I just meant that Russia stepping into a totalitarian political situation, is that something that's a western narrative whilst the reality on the ground might be different?
It couldn’t be more true. And Russia was a pretty totalitarian state already, but this is different.
 
Probably over the top in my original comment.
What I'm curious to know is are the Russian casualties as high as what's said on social media or is it a bit of posturing. There is definitely a move by the west to make Russia look incompetent via information/misinformation. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle as always. Don't get me wrong I hope Ukraine hold them off for as long as it takes (with as little casualties on both sides as possible). I'm just skeptical that Russia are doing as poorly as they say.


Well, 2-3 days ago the Russian MOD themselves confirmed 500 casualties while at the same time their Ukrainian counterpart claimed 9000 RU soldiers killed. Whilst we would like to believe the Ukrainian claims, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. That would still mean 25-30x as many soldiers killed than US soldiers during the entire Iraqi war. And that is just after a week after the invasion started. And we have had 2-3 more days of battles since those reports came out. Also you have to take into account the staggering amount of tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters and airplanes lost in just a week. Add to that apparent logistic issues after just 3-4 days right across their own border (I mean, it is now 5-6 days ago we heard about the massive RU convoy on its way to Kyiv, and it still hasn't arrived) and it paints a picture of an invasion force that is struggling massively.

We can't be naïve because it's still early days, but so far Putin has managed to get the Russian army to completely lose their fear factor.