Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Raoul said:
You don't know whether he is already prepared to use nukes now, so there's no value in pretending to create a fake agreement that neither side are prepared to abide by. Second, there was nothing in Biden's statement that would incentivize Putin to use nukes, unless he was already prepared to do so before.
Click to expand...
That's true, but if I had to guess I would guess that he is prepared to use them. He's an aging autocrat who everyone is convinced has lost something of his wits of late with the Covid isolation and reducing his advisors to a smaller and smaller atomized circle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/world/europe/us-russia-ukraine-war.html

When the Russians and the Americans engaged in a proxy-proxy war for a few months, basically a dry-rehearsal for what would happen in the event of a full on exchange, you got the sense that it was serious but not necessarily "nuclear" serious. I can only go by what it looks like, and it looks like the US has committed to a position they cannot easily retreat from which only seems to have escalatory potential. The article above is an interesting read either way, maybe more in retrospect.


But threats and bluffs work best when they are backed up by action, increasing the risk of a war that neither side may truly want.

And these efforts are complicated by each side’s need to persuade multiple audiences of contradictory things.
Click to expand...

The war having already started, the above takes on new meaning.
 
Last edited:
Mciahel Goodman said:
I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.


That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.
Click to expand...

Who says we're using Ukraine? I'm pretty sure Ukrainians would also very much welcome Putin being removed from power. With Putin in charge every country bordering Russia is under threat of war.

I would agree with the above posts, his comments were designed to provide an olive branch of sorts to those below Putin. Making it crystal clear that there's no reset button, that Putin has gone too far and the majority of the world acknowledges that. We can't fight Russia directly, but we can put them under severe domestic pressure by hitting those with the money and trying to get through to the general public. It's clearly a different strategical approach and it wasn't some unplanned out burst.

There's no way Russia can move forward with Putin remaining, there's too much bad blood and too many bridges burned.
 
RedSky said:
Who says we're using Ukraine? I'm pretty sure Ukrainians would also very much welcome Putin being removed from power. With Putin in charge every country bordering Russia is under threat of war.

I would agree with the above posts, his comments were designed to provide an olive branch of sorts to those below Putin. Making it crystal clear that there's no reset button, that Putin has gone too far and the majority of the world acknowledges that. We can't fight Russia directly, but we can put them under severe domestic pressure by hitting those with the money and trying to get through to the general public. It's clearly a different strategical approach and it wasn't some unplanned out burst.

There's no way Russia can move forward with Putin remaining, there's too much bad blood and too many bridges burned.
Click to expand...
I think it's clear we're using Ukraine but not in the sense of "Ukraine is being used without any agency or say in the matter". It's a mutually beneficial relationship. NATO/EU is providing Ukraine with the military assistance they want and is, in turn, trying to exact as much possible damage to Putin's Russia as possible. I didn't mean "use" like a puppet master, but use like "proxy".

For the bold. Yep, it was definitely a clearly defined strategical position. I have no doubt there. I just think it was the wrong position.







To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I respect your point of view but I'm not part of any "we" that wants to use Ukraine so the US can fight a war of regime change and risk nuclear annihilation. He's 69 years of age, he has about five years left before he's removed by some internal mechanism anyway.


That is (and has been) their policy. I don't agree with it as a matter of diplomatic resolution. A geriatric Putin who shuffles off the stage by internal demand is preferable to this Putin being forced into a nuclear corner by US escalation. The point he makes is also true, the US has a terrible track record of regime change. Not in the moral sense, but in the sense of it actually going to plan. Look at Maduro whom the US have now had to recognise. If I thought this would without fail end in a flawless removal of Putin from office, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem is that I'm fairly certain it will not work and will prolong the war plus risk serious escalation from which there will be no return.

This has obviously been very serious from the beginning, but someone said there was a 0.01% chance of nuclear usage. That figure should be steadily revised upward after today.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of "using" Ukraine. Putin invaded Ukraine out of choice - nobody forced him into it. And now the West is doing its best to help Ukraine survive short of NATO troops engaging directly against Russian forces.

And now also, the West has belatedly realised that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted, that he's simply a brutal dictator intent on snuffing out freedom and democracy, and that there will never be peace as long as he remains in power. There is no way around this basic truth.

You may well be right that Putin won't be removed from power and that we'll have to wait until he dies of old age. But until then, Russia must be relentlessly squeezed economically until the pips squeak and Russia is simply unable to adequately replace the the huge losses of equipment and weapons it is now experiencing.

If Putin wants to threaten a nuclear attack as a result, then so be it, because if he'd willing to do actually fire off nukes it for this, then he'd be willing to do it for any number of other reasons ... and there's a limit to how much we can keep worrying about the potential actions of someone that crazy (if he is actually that crazy).
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I think it's clear we're using Ukraine but not in the sense of "Ukraine is being used without any agency or say in the matter". It's a mutually beneficial relationship. NATO/EU is providing Ukraine with the military assistance they want and is, in turn, trying to exact as much possible damage to Putin's Russia as possible. I didn't mean "use" like a puppet master, but use like "proxy".

For the bold. Yep, it was definitely a clearly defined strategical position. I have no doubt there. I just think it was the wrong position.







To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...


I don’t think Biden called for regime change today (despite it being interpreting as such). He just said Putin shouldn’t be in power, which is very different than saying it’s US policy for regime change in Russia. I think his comment was deliberately made to destabilize Putin’s legitimacy and dress him down on the global stage for his invasion of Ukraine, which is something most people in the west would agree with.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
... To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but people - Hass and everyone else - needs to realise that talk of future diplomatic agreements with Putin are pure fantasy. We now know beyond any doubt that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted. There is no going back to some imagined "real politik" with him. He's burnt those bridges way beyond any repair.

He's a liar, a gangster, a war criminal, a mass murderer, a brutal dictator. There is no way forward with him. It really is as simple as that.
 
GlastonSpur said:
And now also, the West has belatedly realised that absolutely nothing Putin says can be trusted, that he's simply a brutal dictator intent on snuffing out freedom and democracy, and that there will never be peace as long as he remains in power. There is no way around this basic truth.
Click to expand...
He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be.

Raoul said:
I don’t think Biden called for regime change today (despite it being interpreting as such). He just said Putin shouldn’t be in power, which is very different than saying it’s US policy for regime change in Russia. I think his comment was deliberately made to destabilize Putin’s legitimacy and dress him down on the global stage for his invasion of Ukraine, which is something most people in the west would agree with.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was just thinking this, and it's the best possible frame from which to view it imo.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be. ...
Click to expand...

Yes, we can make deals with brutal dictators when we have to, but there's a limit to this that Putin has now crossed big time. No previous Russian/USSR leader since the end of WWII has invaded and waged war on a sovereign European country, razing entire cities to to ground in the process. There were previous crushings of uprisings within the USSR - e.g. the Hungarian uprising of 1956 - but these were nothing like what we're now seeing, and the countries concerned were not at the time free and independent states.

This is a watershed event. It needs to be recognised as such. There can be no return to diplomatic deals with Russia until regime change occurs.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be.


Yeah I was just thinking this, and it's the best possible frame from which to view it imo.
Click to expand...
It’s basically sending a clear message to Russia that sanctions will remain while current regime is in place.
 
spiriticon said:
I would for missiles targeted at Lviv. If the precision guidance on those missiles has a malfunction, then the refugees and NATO soldiers at the Polish border are going to have a very bad day.

If it's a Kinzhal then fair enough, nothing you can do about that.
Click to expand...

It's just like the cold war. US arming the muhajedeen etc. Ukraine aren't part of NATO so they don't get the benefits, but the west is doing all it can apart from direct confrontation.
 
spiriticon said:
A malfunction is a malfunction. These Kalibr missiles have a range of 1500 miles?

40 miles overshoot is nothing.

But as I said above. I'd argue that we should defend the 40 miles from Lviv to Poland from any missile.
Click to expand...
This just doesn’t make sense. Why not 50 miles? Why not 100?

So far, as much criticism and pressure there has more been to ‘close the skies’ etc. NATO’s stance has been correct - stay completely on the sidelines but help as much as possible indirectly. Ukraine is having successes, far more than most thought possible, and Russia is already changing its Rhetoric about the war’s goals because of this.

Also modern missiles aren’t going to overshoot by 1 mile, let alone 40.
 
LDUred said:
Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.

That might actually have worked. People could have had legitimate sympathy for Russia if they had even disingenuously gone down the proper channels to engineer a peaceful secession.

Instead, they have gone in all guns blazing and literally flattened entire cities; not only that, they have seemingly committed the most egregious war crimes along the way. Any credibility that they could have laid claim to before has been tossed to the four winds.

Russia's reputation as a nation is in tatters literally for generations and one idiotic fool of a man has put paid to it.
Click to expand...
You mean do it in a civilised way? How will the 70yr old out of touch dictator man wave his dick and show the world his large balls that he assumes is a way of showing how Russia is still a bear that cannot be poked? These cnuts have developed a massive following in many countries from an increasing disenfranchised electorate who are made to believe that the only way to stop their) inequality and feel powerful again is to invest themselves in rabid nationalism, religion and sectarianism. They wrongly miss the economic inequality and dwindling resources as the route of the problem and instead are made to focus by these whackos on other issues through disinformation.

Believe me, it’s Russia today. China/ Pakistan/ India/ Brazil/ USA/ UK tomorrow.

Apologies if I’ve missed your country in the shit list
 
tomaldinho1 said:
This just doesn’t make sense. Why not 50 miles? Why not 100?

So far, as much criticism and pressure there has more been to ‘close the skies’ etc. NATO’s stance has been correct - stay completely on the sidelines but help as much as possible indirectly. Ukraine is having successes, far more than most thought possible, and Russia is already changing its Rhetoric about the war’s goals because of this.

Also modern missiles aren’t going to overshoot by 1 mile, let alone 40.
Click to expand...

Mil spec GPS is accurate to sub-metre
 
sglowrider said:
Mil spec GPS is accurate to sub-metre
Click to expand...

tumblr_ov8637fziE1qfr6udo1_500.gifv
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
He's a brutal dictator but you can deal with brutal dictators when you have to. We've done that in the West since the beginning of the Cold War. You don't do it because you like the person or want to help them but because it's in everyone's interest to not escalate beyond a point of no return. Every Soviet General Secretary would meet the definition except maybe Gorbachev.

It might just be Biden posturing for a number of reasons. Russians scaling back their war aims maybe gave him a chance to push with the benefit of an immediate retraction from the WH. So might be more is being made of it than ought to be.


Yeah I was just thinking this, and it's the best possible frame from which to view it imo.
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you're actually on about.

It escalated beyond a point of no return for deals when Putin decided to launch a full scale war on Ukraine, bombing major cities to the ground. He's the one that took that step, no one else. He's the aggressive party here. The reasons behind it are shit no matter how you choose to look at it. Given the amount of hypocrisy, considering the amount of shit that the world will actually allow, it's fairly fecking impressive that Putin has managed to overstep it's boundaries to such an extent. Not only is it impressive, but it's also deeply concerning as it makes it very difficult to predict just how fecking daft his next move will be. Standing idly by is hardly much of an option, no matter what they do they will always cry about nuclear destruction. Dealing with him, after the amount of shit he's started and the excuses they've been throwing around, is going to be so difficult that the alternative would have to be an absolute disaster in order for it to be plausible.

There's no secret agenda here. Russia has always been a bit of a disaster and it's down to leadership, naturally it's difficult being a dictator ala Putin in a well functioning society, where the population might have a few more questions about the billions going into the pockets of the "protectors of Russia". Putin portraying it as "The West" wanting to keep the mighty Russia down is as bizarre as it gets. Nobody gives a shit, seriously, it's been a shit place for years and it'll continue to be a shit place for years to come. We're tens of years past the point where people gave a shit. The preference would easily be a well functioning Russia that would continue to secure economic growth. There's no interest in trying to control Russia, no interest in installing a puppet leader. The only interest is Russia having a leader that doesn't launch full scale wars on countries on the border of Europe, destabilizing the world economy.

Look at a certain North Korean leader, happy to allow him to feck around a bit and it's mostly words as the majority has faith in China stomping on that miserable fecker if he's about to do something proper stupid..
 
Last edited:
There are Unconfirmed reports that an Offensive by Russian Forces in the Luhansk Region has Collapsed and that over 100 Russian Soldiers have been taken Prisoner by Ukrainian Para-Military and Military, its Claimed that multiple Armored Vehicles and Tanks were also Captured.


If this video is true, it probably debunks the claim that the separatists control 93% of Luhansk that was spread yesterday.
 
Last edited:
frostbite said:
Biden, by saying 'Putin cannot remain in power' was talking to the people *around* Putin:

"Guys, one way or another, Vlad is going down. Do you really want to go down with him?"
Click to expand...

This, I suspect his words are chosen quite carefully.
 
spiriticon said:
I don't think they will intentionally fire anything across the border. Well they might I don't know. But I'm more concerned about the unintentional accidents happening,

I'm surprised we are not even willing to defend one city and the main road to Poland, which is probably chock full of refugees, from stray missiles. But hey, what's another couple of hundred deaths when we've already watched thousands die.

I do hope our soldiers have fire extinguishers at the ready, just in case any poor sod manages to crawl over that borderline while on fire.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be surprised at all mate. If NATO defend one city 40 miles from Poland then what? Might as well defend a 20, 30, 40 mile radius around Lviv I assume?

Because that's what the Ukrainians will ask for and this war would escalate quickly.

No part of Ukraine is part of NATO so NATO can't intervene directly. Which is what deploying anti missile measures across the border from Poland would amount to.
 
spiriticon said:
I don't think they will intentionally fire anything across the border. Well they might I don't know. But I'm more concerned about the unintentional accidents happening,

I'm surprised we are not even willing to defend one city and the main road to Poland, which is probably chock full of refugees, from stray missiles. But hey, what's another couple of hundred deaths when we've already watched thousands die.

I do hope our soldiers have fire extinguishers at the ready, just in case any poor sod manages to crawl over that borderline while on fire.
Click to expand...

The border is the border. I’m struggling to see the outrage and what you can’t grasp if I’m honest.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I think it's clear we're using Ukraine but not in the sense of "Ukraine is being used without any agency or say in the matter". It's a mutually beneficial relationship. NATO/EU is providing Ukraine with the military assistance they want and is, in turn, trying to exact as much possible damage to Putin's Russia as possible. I didn't mean "use" like a puppet master, but use like "proxy".

For the bold. Yep, it was definitely a clearly defined strategical position. I have no doubt there. I just think it was the wrong position.







To my mind, Haass, of all people, is speaking absolute sense. Regime change is likely to be beyond US capability and only makes a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

I agree with Haass. There's an immense gap between what the US is actually doing in the conflict vs these words implying a regime change objective. If the White House is trying to talk it back then it is the worst case so far of Biden's undisciplined messaging. I also don't think regime change is a viable objective anyway.
 
TMDaines said:
Click to expand...

You can get a rare honest assessment on what’s happening in Russia in statements of Russian officials & propagandists about Ukraine, just swap the countries. Fascism, unlawful imprisonment of protesters, elimination of freedom of speech & meetings, lack of concern for people’s lives, health & well-being etc.
 
LDUred said:
Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.

That might actually have worked. People could have had legitimate sympathy for Russia if they had even disingenuously gone down the proper channels to engineer a peaceful secession.

Instead, they have gone in all guns blazing and literally flattened entire cities; not only that, they have seemingly committed the most egregious war crimes along the way. Any credibility that they could have laid claim to before has been tossed to the four winds.

Russia's reputation as a nation is in tatters literally for generations and one idiotic fool of a man has put paid to it.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t about that, let’s just be clear about it.

As for your suggestion though, the process of separating of a territory through legal or illegal means almost never goes as planned, sadly. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a recent example, while there are so many of those that ended up in war/violence etc.
 
MTF said:
I agree with Haass. There's an immense gap between what the US is actually doing in the conflict vs these words implying a regime change objective. If the White House is trying to talk it back then it is the worst case so far of Biden's undisciplined messaging. I also don't think regime change is a viable objective anyway.
Click to expand...

Some weird interpretations, imo. Biden isn't talking about any active strategy to remove Putin from power, he is however stating the obvious from a global perspective, there's no benefit for anyone if he controls Russia for years to come, it will be detrimental for everyone.

In last 24 hours there was a statement suggesting Russia might be reducing its war aims. Makes for an odd moment for US to expand its aims unless it has reason to believe doing so could help bring about internal change in Russia. Otherwise seems undisciplined/counter-productive.

"suggesting"
"might"

First of all, if Russia are reducing any aims then it's a direct result of problems they are facing in Ukraine, which is hardly anything to reward, secondly no one is expanding any aims. It should be fairly obvious what the sanctions are and the purpose they serve. No one actually wants a long term situation with major sanctions towards Russia, but as long as Putin remains in power it's fairly difficult to reward Russia for holding out after deciding to invade a country on the doorstep of Europe, killing a shitload of innocent civilians. The longer he remains in power, the more difficult it's going to be. The financial implications, the food crisis this could easily cause, access to raw materials. Just the size of the companies completely abandoning major projects in Russia is one thing, it's difficult to reverse that.

No idea why Haass reckons the major concern in all of this is Putins support on matters related to Syria, North Korea, Iran.
 
LDUred said:
Suppose, just suppose, that this was all really just about liberating the Donbass area of Ukraine, as ridiculous as that sounds in light of all the entire world has witnessed.

Why not go through the proper channels for that? Why not petition the UN for a free and fair referendum for independence? Make a show of doing it the right way; show that you genuinely care about the people who live there, regardless of their sympathies to Kyev or Moscow.
Click to expand...
Because there was nothing to support Donbas’s separatism or Russian-accession organically. There was greater pro-independence sentiment in Wales in the UK.

The only way you’d ever get a majority of Donetsk and Luhansk to vote for independence from Ukraine or to join Russia would be to run sham referendums or systematically shift the demographics of the people living in the region through war, forced migrations and political suppression, which is exactly what Russia has been doing since 2014, and has indeed done throughout the history of its empire.

Long thread:

 
spiriticon said:
And those 40 miles should be covered by proper anti-missile defences stationed on the Polish side of the border.

I can see why we don't want to shoot planes down, but not even wanting to defend against missiles? Ugh.

I guess if accidents happen we can always move our defences a few more miles back and wag our finger ferociously at the Russians.
Click to expand...

Do you want WW3? Cause this is how you get WW3.
 
The longer the war goes on and the more Russians die and supplies dwindle to nothing, the harder it is for Russia to justify it.

If they can't justify it then who do they look at to vent their ire at?

Maybe outside forces want to keep it going rather than have Russia de-escalate and claim a pyrrhic victory because it puts Putin's position in jeapordy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.