Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Ouch… and Inside Donetsk Oblast, too.
Some people have to die, there's no resolution to this that means they don't.
As shitty as that is to the Ukrainians right now, would you rather the few or the many (relatively speaking)?
We wouldn't save any more lives by doing what you're suggesting, instead we'd put many more in the firing line.
Some people have to die, but we can definitely save those within our arms reach.
I'm not advocating we storm into Russia and give them a good beating (even though I now firmly believe we could), I simply think we could provide some measly missile protection for a small tiny bit of land on the furthest West reaches of Ukraine.
But NATO is clearly happy to watch them die unless they cross the border, so we'll just stick with that.
Technically yeah. Putin didn't hesitate much to change the constitution before, so...
Plus there's always Hague when you need it
What a stupid thing to say.
We can't save them, because if we tried to provide anything for those 40 miles Russia would take it as NATO aggression and then they go bigger. As others have said, why only those 40 miles? Why not 100? Why not the entire country?
Surely you must see the problem here?
I don't think anybody except Putin is happy to see them die, nobody in NATO will be happy at all, what an absurd thing to say.
We can't do more than we have/are doing, we're at the red line. We're already doing an incredible amount, even if you won't recognise it.
I have just watched Zelensky's interview to independent Russian journalists in Russian language. 92 minutes of my life well spent. He really is a true leader and smart man.
We can't go any further in than the radar range of our anti air defences would allow. There is no way to head further East unless we put boots on the ground. In the West, we can provide some minimal protection from our side of the border.
The Ukrainians are asking why can't we do more every day. When I ask myself 'Have we done everything we possibly could?', little things like this convince me more and more that the answer is 'no'.
We don't even have the balls to say to Putin: 'We are not putting boots on the ground or shoot down your planes, but any missile that fall within our radar range will be intercepted.'
We can't even muster the courage to say that.
The next Russian leader needs to a woman. They need to break boundaries and modernise their way of thinking & acting. The old ways are dead and lead to global isolation
If they're in radar range they're still in Ukrainian territory though aren't they?
You realise if we shot down a few, he rolls out the nukes right? He's said as much, however much bluster that is, that's the cost of getting involved like you want to.
It's not Putin or a lack of balls making us scared, it's nuclear annihilation. That's the only reason we've not rolled up to Moscow right now and demanded they serve his head on a silver platter.
If you want us all to die, then by all means continue to feel we haven't done enough.
We've reacted perfectly, the fact you want more says more about you than it does about the west. You want the fight for whatever silly reason.
I completely understand the fear of nuclear annihilation. Everyone's scared of it. But to be paralysed into utter inaction by that fear? This is something that Putin exactly wants as he salami slices Europe into pieces.
And this fear is also why I increasingly believe NATO won't do much if the Baltic states get invaded. No one wants a nuclear war and the Baltic states, like Ukraine, are not important enough to risk one.
The first sentence is also the reason Russia will not go near the Baltic states. NATO absolutely has to invoke Article 5 (I believe it will) and do whatever is necessary should its territory be attacked.
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Just came to post it, watching now. Has English subtitles.
Edit: Now fully subtitled in English
Last edited:
NATO would not even need to threaten the use of nuclear weapons if the Baltic States were invaded. The invading forces would be totally destroyed by conventional means inside 24 hours.
But what's the point of that? Like you said it would be minimal protection. The upside would be minimal while the potential risks to make things far worse are really high. So far the West of the country has been largely spared anyway. Why then draw such an arbitrary line that would hardly make a difference on the ground but create the conditions for things to escalate quickly?
NATO has drawn a clear line that they're following, material support but no direct involvement. There's really no point in blurring that line for something as half arsed as a 40 mile no-fly zone.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that NATO has already shown a limited ceiling to act in under the threat of nuclear war, while Russia has shown an unlimited thirst for aggression which does not exclude nuclear war. The stronger will probably wins.
Would the Baltic States even need any help?
There are constantly NATO soldiers in the Baltic states as a show of force and support. So it's simply not a question you need to ask, as attacking them means attacking the military of a dozen other NATO states
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.
The point is to protect a region where there are currently a couple of million refugees situated? Maybe for some it's not worth the risk, but for me if we could save a few more lives by intercepting a few missiles....well every little helps.
People say that's an escalation, but really who defines what an escalation is? Putin? It's infuriating.
The UK is training them in and delivering starstreak missiles and sending Sky Sabre to Poland, maybe they’ll be able to train them to use that and then get that over the border with some luck. Even if just starstreak, if they have enough systems that’s an effective deterrent for any aircraft. I thought I’d seen other countries were going to donate S300s as well.
A couple of million or 7.6 billion, your choice.
Aaaand i still don’t know why people think this is realistic.
It is however obvious that actively getting involved will have major consequences, and there’s little interest in being the ones responsible, Russia isn’t the only ones involved as they rely heavily on China. If Russia forces the issue by doing something insanely daft then we’ll be forced to act.
I'd prevent the certain death of couple of million people over the very hypothetical death of 7.6 billion people.
And again, the threat of 7.6 billion people dying is not going to mysteriously disappear if the country being invaded is called Latvia instead of Ukraine. It's something we're going to have to get used to going forwards if Putin stays in power.
I swear you’d be one of those that would have allowed Hitler to have his way with all of the Jews and other undesirables if his words were backed with nuclear weapons.
Yeah I'm hoping the S300s do go, but I doubt it. It is a big investment for the donating country, and Russia sure as hell is not going to replace them anytime soon if they get destroyed.
Not doing your plan and ‘paralyzed into inaction’ are two very different things.
Zelensky ready to discuss neutral status, approved via referendum and with third party guarantees.
This is genuinely one of the most incredible interviews I have ever watched. The level of insight you get to see a war-time President discussing everything so candidly as it has been unfolding is unmatched. It’s another aspect to Zelenskyy’s public profile that you don’t really see in the English-language media. This is much more journalistic and has provided a platform to really do a deep-dive on Ukrainian-Russian relations.
Unfortunately the English subtitles seem to run out half-way through, so I will have to find somewhere to watch the second half later.
Last edited:
The obvious rejoinder is that planning to take over Ukraine is not the same as planning a WW3 against NATO, and you would hope at that point there would be a Palace coup.
What would you do in that situation exactly?
Same as what we did? Why is this a question?