Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Pexbo said:
It’s not just me that can’t see any other scenario where Putin isn’t finished?

He’s crossed the Rubicon with war crimes and I don’t see the West ever lifting sanctions on Russia as long as he is in charge. So it’s either he somehow agrees to step down safely and his successor picks up the pieces. He’s subject to a coup which will probably lead to civil war or he pushes the big red button and the world we we know it ceases to exist.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the probability of a War Crimes trial. Everything that is happening in Ukraine directly against civilians is being carefully catalogued.
He is going to be tried along with all of those involved in the atrocities. And if found guilty, where does he go to escape.
In my view, when this happens, he is finished as a world leader. As will his power base.
 
Needham said:
Had to chuckle at this. Perception matters.
Offramps were offered by the not very authoritative Anthony Blinken.
Click to expand...

Turns out Blinken was wrong given that they weren't legitimate "offramps" when Putin was already committed to invade. Just like the casual and feckless sanctions Obama offered up after 2014 weren't viable offramps when Putin was already committed to annexing Crimea. Obvious miscalculations in both situations. An offramp is only legitimately in play when it is more attractive to the aggressor than the spoils of his original plans.
 
calodo2003 said:
Would an attack on the train containing the European leaders traveling to Kyiv today trigger Article 5?
Click to expand...

Well no, but if it did, do you think NATO would attack, they are going into a warzone.

They could do this over zoom surely, I think it’s a political posturing exercise, all be it slightly dangerous.
 
Raoul said:
Turns out Blinken was wrong given that they weren't legitimate "offramps" when Putin was already committed to invade. Just like the casual and feckless sanctions Obama offered up after 2014 weren't viable offramps when Putin was already committed to annexing Crimea. Obvious miscalculations in both situations. An offramp is only legitimately in play when it is more attractive to the aggressor than the spoils of his original plans.
Click to expand...
My point. Further weakness on display in seeking to dissuade a despot with incentives. Should have been at least offered disincentives that included anything Putin might actually respect.
 
Buster15 said:
Don't forget the probability of a War Crimes trial. Everything that is happening in Ukraine directly against civilians is being carefully catalogued.
He is going to be tried along with all of those involved in the atrocities. And if found guilty, where does he go to escape.
In my view, when this happens, he is finished as a world leader. As will his power base.
Click to expand...

I’m sure there are plenty of Iraqis, Afghans and others whos families were wiped out without trial by drone strikes and bombs, that would like to know when these war crime trials are going to begin.

Edit: sorry wrong thread.
 
Last edited:
Pintu said:
Legally no, only attacks inside the borders as recognised at the moment of the treaty adhesion can trigger article V.

Actually I think European countries are only protected by NATO for their European borders. So France’s Mayotte in east Africa (in Indian Ocean, claimed by Comoros if I’m not mistaken) and Spain’s north African enclaves (claimed by Morocco) are not subject to article V.
Click to expand...
Tucholsky said:
I think, it would be open for debate and interpretation.
Any deliberate attack/killing of a head of state/member of the government is an act of war.
But they are going to a state in open warfare. Russia could claim , it was a mistake (Ukrainian military target) or collateral damage.
Lets just say, it would be an incredibly risky and IMHO stupid move by Russia aka Putin to target them.
But on the other hand you can argue, that the visiting satesmen are taking a gamble with their lifes and a huge risk of further escalating the conflict.
My guess is, that the majority of non affected European NATO members would not outright declare war or support triggering Article 5. But I think, there would be further sanctions (no energy buys from Russia etc) and more direct support to the Ukraine.
Biggest question is, what would Poland do and which support from the USA would they have in their actions.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
Raoul said:
I'd imagine its similar across several former Soviet republics. In many ways, Ukraine's evolution as a post-Soviet nation is what Russia could've been with vaguely competent leadership during the same period.
Click to expand...
It's not really about competence though is it? Putin and his gang want full control of people and therefore of resources. It's pure greed and the quite real fear that without that control, they are powerless and fully redundant. They can only continue in order not to lose everything.
 
Pintu said:
Legally no, only attacks inside the borders as recognised at the moment of the treaty adhesion can trigger article V.

Actually I think European countries are only protected by NATO for their European borders. So France’s Mayotte in east Africa (in Indian Ocean, claimed by Comoros if I’m not mistaken) and Spain’s north African enclaves (claimed by Morocco) are not subject to article V.
Click to expand...
Thank makes some sense when you think back to the falklands

and I found reference to the actual definition which is

Article 5 in The North Atlantic Treaty only counts if the attack occurs on a member's territory which is above the Tropic of Cancer,
Click to expand...

ETtW29eXQAU3grb.jpg


so North Africa possibly is covered?
 
Pintu said:
Legally no, only attacks inside the borders as recognised at the moment of the treaty adhesion can trigger article V.

Actually I think European countries are only protected by NATO for their European borders. So France’s Mayotte in east Africa (in Indian Ocean, claimed by Comoros if I’m not mistaken) and Spain’s north African enclaves (claimed by Morocco) are not subject to article V.
Click to expand...
Includes also ships and aircraft over the north atlantic and the med.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


6,000 fatalities, likely means 3 times that number wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - making a total of 24,000 out of action one way or another.

If the upper range figure of 8,000 killed is taken instead, then that would suggests a a likely total of 32,000 out of action, equating to 17% of the total estimated invasion force of 190,000.

At the same rate of attrition, in another 3 weeks the Russians will have lost anywhere between 26% and 34% of their total invasion force.

Bear in mind here that European intelligence estimates give higher range figures than the Americans, and the Ukrainian government gives much higher range figures.
 
Dans said:
It's not really about competence though is it? Putin and his gang want full control of people and therefore of resources. It's pure greed and the quite real fear that without that control, they are powerless and fully redundant. They can only continue in order not to lose everything.
Click to expand...

100%. He's basically running a mafia organization with nukes.
 
sun_tzu said:
Thank makes some sense when you think back to the falklands

and I found reference to the actual definition which is



ETtW29eXQAU3grb.jpg


so North Africa possibly is covered?
Click to expand...
That includes Azores and Madeira and Im guessing was in US interest at the time to include Azores (they used to have a base there after the WW2 and Madeira because was a tourist destination for the brits :)
 
GlastonSpur said:
The Ukrainian parliament had already voted overwhelmingly to approve finalising an agreement with the EU. Putin told his puppet - Yanukovych - to stop it and instead go for closer ties with Russia.

When this triggered a popular uprising, Yanukovych fled the country. And then that same Parliament voted 328–0 in favour of removing Yanukovych from office.

It's abundantly clear that a big majority of Ukrainians supported the ousting of Yanukovych and thugs/goons that kept him power. If some brain-washed idiots died trying to turn the clock back to some mythic golden age of the USSR, then that's their bad choice.
Click to expand...

You are glossing over the fact Graham and McCain were there in 2014 promising help and the US helped install an anti Russian government that ended up with 14,000 getting killed.
 
Tucholsky said:
I think, it would be open for debate and interpretation.
Any deliberate attack/killing of a head of state/member of the government is an act of war.
But they are going to a state in open warfare. Russia could claim , it was a mistake (Ukrainian military target) or collateral damage.
Lets just say, it would be an incredibly risky and IMHO stupid move by Russia aka Putin to target them.
But on the other hand you can argue, that the visiting satesmen are taking a gamble with their lifes and a huge risk of further escalating the conflict.
My guess is, that the majority of non affected European NATO members would not outright declare war or support triggering Article 5. But I think, there would be further sanctions (no energy buys from Russia etc) and more direct support to the Ukraine.
Biggest question is, what would Poland do and which support from the USA would they have in their actions.
Click to expand...
You could also argue the EUs move is a calculated snub to Putin. It is a sign that they believe Russia is too weak to do anything about it
 
Obviously Russia can not risk killing any EU states officials. They know they are coming and they will act accordingly.
 
Are we back to "US did lots of bad things so Russia can do it too" argument? Two wrongs do not make one right. Ukraine is a sovereign state. Zelenskyy won the most democratic elections in the history of all former USSR states. Nuclear warheads of Russia in Kaliningrad have always been much closer to NATO than the nuclear weapons of NATO to Russia. Ukraine are a sovereign nation with their own language and culture. It is up to Ukraine to decide whether they want to be members of EU and NATO. Ukranian governement had each and every right to get NATO membership ASAP, after having witnessed what has happened in Georgia and Crimea. Baltic states have been NATO states for years, and not a single millimeter of Russian soil have been occupied by NATO ever. Even after Crimea occupation, EU were very soft when it came to sanctions against Russia and were actively lobbying for Nordstream 2 which was going to increase their dependency on Russia's natural gas. So no hostility from NATO/EU at all. It has always been about Putin's pan to restore the great "Russian Empire". I hope he fails miserably and we get rid of this bloody maniac in the nearest future.
 
nickm said:
You could also argue the EUs move is a calculated snub to Putin. It is a sign that they believe Russia is too weak to do anything about it
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. So far everything the west has done seems weak and it feels like they are looking to avoid a war at all costs. Biden saying there would be no American and NATO involvement before the invasion probably factored into Putin's calculus regarding the war so, this move feels like a deliberate act by those presidents to signal to Russia that they are not afraid by putting themselves at risk.
 
Red Dreams said:
You are glossing over the fact Graham and McCain were there in 2014 promising help and the US helped install an anti Russian government that ended up with 14,000 getting killed.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that the vast majority of Ukrainians want closer ties with the West, including the EU. They do not want to be part of Russia's "sphere of influence" for reasons that are spectacularly obvious.

No amount of weaselling on your part will change this bedrock fact. It's freedom, democracy and independence vs tyranny, brutality and oppression. Everything else is largely irrelevant.
 
FrantikChicken said:
Mongolia isn’t an active war zone though as far as I’m aware
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Ukraine is also not one, at least accordingly to Russia. He can't have it both ways, by attacking the Polish,Czech, Slowenian delegation he would at least to have to acknowledge that Russia is at war with the Ukraine.
I'm no expert in international law, but deliberately attacking a delegation of a foreign state even in a war zone or a country at war with Russia is certainly high risk for him and there can be a case made, that this justifies a declaration of war.
 
Rektsanwalt said:
Obviously Russia can not risk killing any EU states officials. They know they are coming and they will act accordingly.
Click to expand...

I doubt Putin cares about that. If he's looking for a way of escalating - and he might well be given his desperation - this provides a potential way of doing it.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I doubt Putin cares about that. If he's looking for a way of escalating - and he might well be given his desperation - this provides a potential way of doing it.
Click to expand...
Putin is already desperate to resolve the sh!te that he has created asap. He knows that his economy is dead and the longer the sanctions remain in place, the less likely he is to survive internally. Escalating this war further would speed up his end.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I doubt Putin cares about that. If he's looking for a way of escalating - and he might well be given his desperation - this provides a potential way of doing it.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's remotely in his interest. Even if he's looking to escalate, it would be with the aim to gain something, i.e. pressure Ukraine into concessions, and/or intimidate Europe to not intervene. Allowing this delegation to be targeted would accomplish neither of those things.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I doubt Putin cares about that. If he's looking for a way of escalating - and he might well be given his desperation - this provides a potential way of doing it.
Click to expand...
I don't think he wants to escalate. Most of his threats regarding other nations just appear as attempts to get them to stay away, don't think anyone will test him on them though.
 
Red Dreams said:
You are glossing over the fact Graham and McCain were there in 2014 promising help and the US helped install an anti Russian government that ended up with 14,000 getting killed.
Click to expand...

Why do you make it sound like all the casualties in Dombas are on the Russian speaking side? It's this way in all your messages mentioning this figure.

In those 14000, more than 10000 were fighters on both sides, the rest are civilians in both Ukraine controlled and DPR/LPR controlled cities and it's actually pretty evenly distributed.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah he's done. He will never be accepted back into the civilized fold in any meaningful way, neither socially nor economically (or any other vaguely relevant way).

He has in the span of 3 weeks managed to destroy the mythology that Russia has a highly competent military worthy of competing with the great powers, and obliterated the Russian currency and economy. Even if he were to magically change his mind and suddenly grovel for a cease fire, the sanctions will remain in place until he is sufficiently weakened to where he can be overthrown from within.
Click to expand...

This is my fear. When an agreement is eventually reached and he gets his token bit of victory land and withdraws his troops, the world will quickly forget and loosen it's grip on Russia's neck. These sanctions and controls need to remain in place as long as the current regime is there. It will be costly to everybody though and I'm not sure the political appetite will remain for long after the war is over.
 
11101 said:
This is my fear. When an agreement is eventually reached and he gets his token bit of victory land and withdraws his troops, the world will quickly forget and loosen it's grip on Russia's neck. These sanctions and controls need to remain in place as long as the current regime is there. It will be costly to everybody though and I'm not sure the political appetite will remain for long after the war is over.
Click to expand...
It depends on who gets elected next in these countries, most importantly the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.