Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Redlyn said:
Definitely not returned. Crimea would be absolutely non negotiable for Putin. But what about some other concessions like completely giving up NATO ambition. Sometimes you need to step back to move forward. I believe that was the main thing that pushed Putin over the edge, the absolute red line. But I could be wrong. Mad Putin may have invaded anyway to expand his territory regardless. It's all speculation of course but I believe with hindsight he would play his cards differently. Knowing that Russia was serious about the attack (up to a few days before the invasion he was still down playing it) , how the west would only offer support from a safe distance and the fact he may still have to meet up with all of Russias demands after so many civilian deaths.
Click to expand...

Putin doesn't give a shit about NATO, it's just a convenient excuse to attack and destroy Ukraine. We'll see how much of a threat he considers NATO if he decides to actually attack a NATO country. Ultimately, he doesn't want a fully democratic country with a large Russian speaking minority that looks to the West for trade and guidance right on his border. It's been well publicised how close the two countries are, you've basically got family members shooting each other. All those people in Rostov who get to hear how free and prosperous their Ukrainian cousins are... why don't they have that in Russia?

Ever since Ukraine overthrew his puppet in 2014 he's been looking to take them down. If COVID hadn't have happened I imagine this could well have happened sooner or maybe he needed to turn his countries attention to this battle to put aside the absolute shit show of a covid response. Either way, Ukraine represents Putin's biggest fear and that's a democratic Russia not voting him and his chosen interests into power.

The maniac won't stop until he physically cannot go on. I'm not a fan of sanctions as a means for regime change, but these set of sanctions certainly look like they'll squeeze Russia's ability to project its power. Here's hoping.
 
dal said:
This is my point if we are being ultra defensive then why would the big 5/6 NATO countries risk all out war if Norway goes down?
Click to expand...
dal said:
Yes, whilst I agree I may have done, I do not think for one minute it’s completely unrelated at all, most EU countries are in NATO, the lines are most definitely blurred.

21 member states are both EU and NATO, let’s not be pedantic.
Click to expand...

To put it bluntly, there is a huge difference between the EU and NATO, for the simple reason that the US is in the latter. You can't confuse EU hesitancy with an unwillingness to adhere to article 5. Biden has already come out and said that he would defend every inch of NATO territory and there is huge bipartisan support on this issue, something I haven't seen in a generation to be frank. Like I said before, the US doesn't sit around and have intellectual debates if they themselves are attacked or territory that they see as within their treaty obligations, they deploy the military immediately. And the US is far and away the most important military contributor to NATO, so the US fighting on your side is essentially NATO fighting on your side.

A person would be mistaken to think that Germany, a country who wants to keep the gas flowing from Russia, would be able to stand in the way of US fulfilling article 5 commitments if a wider war in Europe started. Unless of course they tell the US to leave Ramstein which would destroy any relationship they have with the US. I don't think Germany would take such a step based on how Scholz recently came running to Washington begging for Biden to pat him on the back to counter the bad press he was getting. These military considerations are separate from sanctions, which do require a lot more coordination from many nations for them to be effective.
 
dal said:
I think it’s just obvious, it doesn’t act as one entity, too many different motives, I mean look at the gas situation with Germany and Italy’s designer exports in the sanctions. NATO means Fk all when it comes down to the crunch.

Each country looks after their own and we will see it if it gets bad, I hope it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
NATO is not the EU.
 
Cole9 said:
A potential nuclear war that would probably wipe out millions of people in a few days would be a bit more serious than an "unpleasant thing."

It's absolutely heart-breaking what is happening, but other than getting directly involved in conflict with Russia, what else can we do?
Click to expand...

Let's be clear: a full-scale nuclear war would wipe out all sentient life on earth - permanently. The survivors would mainly consist of bacteria and viruses. Anyone who throws out accusations of cowardice are quite simply far out of touch with this reality.

However terribly the people of Ukraine suffer, it's still better than the total extinction risked if NATO directly intervenes, because Putin, rather than accept defeat by NATO in Ukraine, would very likely escalate to tactical nukes. Once that happens, with NATO in direct combat with Russians, the downward spiral is all too predictable.

This is a hard truth.
 
shamans said:
This sort of "are they being forced???" propaganda does nothing but make any self doubting Russians trust their own government more. Sometimes I am not sure if people are dumb enough to think every Russian is a drone or want to convince themselves of the situation.

There were (still are?) many rednecks who went America feck yeah when they invaded Iraq. No one was forced. It's just ultra nationalists supporting their government.
Click to expand...

We’ll it kind of looks like shitty propaganda that would come from the Kremlin or maybe Russian teens are just really uncool.
 
maniak said:
I wish I had some of your faith in NATO. I can easily imagine a US president thinking "will I risk a nuke in washington or new york to defend latvia? nah no way". It doesn't seem farfetched at all. I hope we never face that moment, but I can easily see NATO abandoning a peripheral nation if the alternative is a 100% guarantee of global war.
Click to expand...
The US has immense influence in the world because of their economical and military strength, and because of its perception as the world’s main superpower (and their ability to project strength).

While the US might not particularly care about Latvia, abandoning Article 5 would mean the end of NATO, and the end of the perception of the US as the main superpower. Soon, other less peripherical countries would follow, as would Taiwan from China and the US would completely lose their global influence.

So, I think there is no way that the US, as long as they are in NATO, would allow a NATO member to fall. I also think that because the Ukraine adventure has been quite ugly, Putin would not attack a NATO member.

For what is worth, if Russia attacks some NATO member, I think that the US would obliterate that Russia army. If Russia then nukes some country, the US is gone retaliate proportionally. And then I guess it is either negotiations to agree or the end of the world if small nuclear exchanges escalate to strategic ones.

Hopefully we won’t ever see that happening.
 
dal said:
I know. Which is exactly my point.

A bully will push until he can no more.
Click to expand...

There is zero tension between Norway and Russia on the border. Stop spreading uninformed nonsense.

dal said:
Erm you think that NATO would do
Something if Norway got
Invaded.

They would probably say ok take
Norway just don’t go further please :lol:.
Click to expand...

Absolute delusional nonsense.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Let's be clear: a full-scale nuclear war would wipe out all sentient life on earth - permanently. The survivors would mainly consist of bacteria and viruses. Anyone who throws out accusations of cowardice are quite simply far out of touch with this reality.

However, terribly the people of Ukraine suffer, it's still better than the total extinction risked if NATO directly intervenes, because Putin, rather than accept defeat by NATO in Ukraine, would very likely escalate to tactical nukes. Once that happens, with NATO in direct combat with Russians, the downward spiral is all too predictable.

This is a hard truth.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. Of course, there always is a red line and in this case that's article 5. We all lose at the end of the day even in this scenario but that doesn't mean that US will accept being bullied over territory they have treaty obligations to. Let's all hope it doesn't come to this.
 
spiriticon said:
I believe Article 5 will be truly tested in an unprecedented way in the direct threat of a nuclear war. At that point, anything goes.

I trust NATO 99%. They are probably unbeatable in any form of conventional war.

But that 1% of doubt comes when Putin has his missile silos activated and aimed at Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.
Click to expand...

You have to realize if it got to this stage that Putin then will have made peace with dying himself too and that at that point it's not just up to Putin, he would need to have all rungs of the military on side to engage in such brinksmanship.
 
maniak said:
In a war between nato and russia we would see russia bombing nato territory and nato wouldn't cross or attack the russian border? It doesn't seem reasonable.
Click to expand...

Against a nuclear armed country I don't think we would see it, Nato has enough capability to defend against anything coming across the border without needing to neutralise at source.
 
sport2793 said:
You have to realize if it got to this stage that Putin then will have made peace with dying himself too and that at that point it's not just up to Putin, he would need to have all rungs of the military on side to engage in such brinksmanship.
Click to expand...

I do believe he is ready to go as far as he needs to achieve what he wants. His closest advisers also seem to be cut of the same cloth. And he most certainly wouldn't be in Moscow if he presses the big red button, so he'll probably survive.

In any case, if we were truly confident Putin would never go nuclear under any circumstances, we would have entered Ukraine already. There is definitely doubt there.
 
spiriticon said:
I do believe he is ready to go as far as he needs to achieve what he wants. His closest advisers also seem to be cut of the same cloth. And he most certainly wouldn't be in Moscow if he presses the big red button, so he'll probably survive.

In any case, if we were truly confident Putin would never go nuclear under any circumstances, we would have entered Ukraine already. There is definitely doubt there.
Click to expand...

I am sure the US tracks Putin's movements and would have a nuke with his name on it regardless. Plus, if a strategic nuclear exchange occurred the US would likely act in a controversial way and nuke countries like China, Iran, and North Korea too. "If we go down, all of our competitors go down with us." That's why it should also be in China's interest to make sure that Putin doesn't escalate further.
 
11101 said:
Against a nuclear armed country I don't think we would see it, Nato has enough capability to defend against anything coming across the border without needing to neutralise at source.
Click to expand...

So the russians would just keep attacking and launching missiles from their land and NATO would just be there taking them without attacking the sources? Do you really see things unfolding like that?
 
sport2793 said:
I am sure the US tracks Putin's movements and would have a nuke with his name on it regardless. Plus, if a strategic nuclear exchange occurred the US would likely act in a controversial way and nuke countries like China, Iran, and North Korea too. "If we go down, all of our competitors go down with us." That's why it should also be in China's interest to make sure that Putin doesn't escalate further.
Click to expand...

I hope so but unfortunately all I see is them patting him on the back for a job well done.
 
spiriticon said:
I believe Article 5 will be truly tested in an unprecedented way in the direct threat of a nuclear war. At that point, anything goes.

I trust NATO 99%. They are probably unbeatable in any form of conventional war.

But that 1% of doubt comes when Putin has his missile silos activated and aimed at Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.
Click to expand...
I am certain that at this point someone from his own circle will take him out, your basically killing your own family if you let that strike go ahead.
 
hp88 said:
I am certain that at this point someone from his own circle will take him out, your basically killing your own family if you let that strike go ahead.
Click to expand...

We are not certain though. That's the problem and why NATO is tiptoeing around eggshells despite being more than able to end the Ukraine war very quickly.
 
Russians breaking out the Zs and Ukrainians having to bury the citizens of Mariupol in mass graves. Should be on the front of every newspaper tomorrow.
 
spiriticon said:
We are not certain though. That's the problem and why NATO is tiptoeing around eggshells despite being more than able to end the Ukraine war very quickly.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's because Russia is not at war with a NATO territory and they are not willing to further escalate the situation.

As already said if the war comes to a NATO territory there won't be in of these so called doubts holding back the response.
 
Moby said:
Or maybe it's because Russia is not at war with a NATO territory and they are not willing to further escalate the situation.

As already said if the war comes to a NATO territory there won't be in of these so called doubts holding back the response.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't believe that these doubts won't happen even on a NATO territory. Just my opinion.

But let's assume that we have no doubts that there will be no nuclear war, then we are really just sitting here watching Ukrainian civilians get annihilated despite easily having the capability to help them.

This inaction doesn't sit well with me and makes me uncomfortable.
 
Simbo said:
I wouldn't know whats more risky, a NATO no fly zone, or Anonymous hacking Kremlin TV and just broadcasting this image.
Click to expand...

You should have seen the caricature from the recent number of Charlie Hebdo. That was far more radical and insulting than the one by Anonymous.
 
spiriticon said:
We are not certain though. That's the problem and why NATO is tiptoeing around eggshells despite being more than able to end the Ukraine war very quickly.
Click to expand...

Because while they could end the Ukraine war quickly, it won't be without shedding a lot of blood and the war will become the Russian war. Now many seem to not consider that russians are actual people, at least it's how it reads when so many think that it's an obvious and easy decision to move the war in their country. I will take the risk and refer people to Afghanistan or the Irak war, those were far weaker opponents and it took a lot of time, resources and lot of human casualties in order to not even manage to actually control the region.
 
NATO really shouldn’t have taken getting involved militarily off the table. Putin may well have called the bluff anyway, but there might have been a chance he might have thought twice before doing some of this stuff in Ukraine.
 
spiriticon said:
Again, I don't believe that these doubts won't happen even on a NATO territory. Just my opinion.

But let's assume that we have no doubts that there will be no nuclear war, then we are really just sitting here watching Ukrainian civilians get annihilated despite easily having the capability to help them.

This inaction doesn't sit well with me and makes me uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

I don't think it sits right with anyone, but it's just the sensible option. Inaction (apart from sanctions and helmets etc) vs spreading the war beyond Ukraine's borders. Pick your poison.
 
spiriticon said:
Again, I don't believe that these doubts won't happen even on a NATO territory. Just my opinion.

But let's assume that we have no doubts that there will be no nuclear war, then we are really just sitting here watching Ukrainian civilians get annihilated despite easily having the capability to help them.

This inaction doesn't sit well with me and makes me uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I think many share your discomfort. But it is what it is. If you're not in NATO and you don't have nuclear weapons of your own, then this could be your fate.

Hopefully the sanctions hurt Russia hard enough to quit before Ukraine falls.
 
maniak said:
So the russians would just keep attacking and launching missiles from their land and NATO would just be there taking them without attacking the sources? Do you really see things unfolding like that?
Click to expand...

When you consider the alternative, yes it's possible. Missiles that can travel hundreds of miles or more are not plentiful and are very, very expensive. Its not an unlimited supply.
 


If this happens and the west retaliates the UK government could take over Chelsea. :wenger:
 
Carolina Red said:
It isn’t… NATO is a defensive military alliance. The EU is an economic bloc. Germany not agreeing to the sanctions is an EU problem. Germany not having a functioning military is a NATO one.
Click to expand...

It was a joke. I blame the overall armchair expert approach by some in this thread why that might have been unclear.

NATO and EU are two very, very different entities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.