Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
He is desperate to end this war while still gaining something from it. What the right thing to do from here for Ukraine, i don't know.
Click to expand...
Keep doing what they are doing. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, then NATO will respond in kind. It would be an irrational action from Russia, albeit one that feels ever more likely. Putin's had all the off-ramps he would ever need and has ignored all of them. Unfortunately, it will be a uncomfortable ride for the next few weeks, months and years. There's not much we can do about that, except continue to oppose his aggression in Ukraine.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
He is desperate to end this war while still gaining something from it. What the right thing to do from here for Ukraine, i don't know.
Click to expand...
From best to worst for Ukraine:

1) Winning the war, getting back their territories and joining NATO (very unlikely).
2) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine joins NATO (very unlikely).
3) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine stays neutral (unlikely).
4) Winning the war and getting everything except Crimea (unlikely).
5) The war continuing for some time with a kind of stalemate, with Russia fortifying their positions (possible).
6) Sane as (5) but Ukraine having enough of it and giving those territories (unlikely).
7) Losing the war and so having to give up those territories with chances being high for another invasion (Kharkiv/Odessa) in a couple of years (unlikely).
8) Suing for peace after Russia uses tactical nukes (possible).
9) Getting destroyed by Russian nukes (heavy unlikely).
10) Total destruction of the civilization by a tactical nuke exchange that goes strategic (extremely unlikely).

I think that either a stalemate or Russia using tactical nukes are the main possibilities right now. Though of course, someone killing Putin might change the scenario. But I do not see Putin accepting a defeat while still has the nuke card.
 
TMDaines said:
Keep doing what they are doing. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, then NATO will respond in kind. It would be an irrational action from Russia, albeit one that feels ever more likely. Putin's had all the off-ramps he would ever need and has ignored all of them. Unfortunately, it will be a uncomfortable ride for the next few weeks, months and years. There's not much we can do about that, except continue to oppose his aggression in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
 
If someone took him out the turmoil would be insane, he probably has a pre recorded video of him self with responses like I'm still alive please continue special operation.

Seriously though if he wasn’t there I just wonder which gangster would get the nuke codes.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
NATO won’t get involved, I think the US will act on their own accord to not destabilize Europe. Even Putin understands he wouldn’t want to face US in standalone fight.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
I read an article a few days ago where they mentioned 4 options:

1) Capitulating and suing for peace.
2) Total sanctions (similar to those of North Korea) with sanctions towards states that do not sanction Russia. Likely China will withdraw the support for Russia and so Russia becomes isolated.
3) Conventional warfare against the Russian forces in Ukraine.
4) Using nukes against Russia.

The article concluded that pretty much everyone high in Biden’s administration knows that the real choice is between (2) and (3).
 
Revan said:
1) Winning the war, getting back their territories and joining NATO (very unlikely).
2) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine joins NATO (very unlikely).
3) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine stays neutral (unlikely).
4) Winning the war and getting everything except Crimea (unlikely).
Click to expand...
Why are all of those unlikely? So far it’s going this way.
 
What's with this "anglo-saxons" stuff? Is it a reference to something? I don't remember this being a thing.
 
VorZakone said:
Ceasefire, yeah right.

Click to expand...

You can bet some of our western "leaders" will only hear this part out of the entire speech and force Ukraine to the negotiating table just like they did in 2014 Minsk agreement. After bending over for decades I am convinced it will happen again.
 
Revan said:
From best to worst for Ukraine:

1) Winning the war, getting back their territories and joining NATO (very unlikely).
2) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine joins NATO (very unlikely).
3) Agreeing with Russia that Russia keeps Crimea while Ukraine stays neutral (unlikely).
4) Winning the war and getting everything except Crimea (unlikely).
5) The war continuing for some time with a kind of stalemate, with Russia fortifying their positions (possible).
6) Sane as (5) but Ukraine having enough of it and giving those territories (unlikely).
7) Losing the war and so having to give up those territories with chances being high for another invasion (Kharkiv/Odessa) in a couple of years (unlikely).
8) Suing for peace after Russia uses tactical nukes (possible).
9) Getting destroyed by Russian nukes (heavy unlikely).
10) Total destruction of the civilization by a tactical nuke exchange that goes strategic (extremely unlikely).

I think that either a stalemate or Russia using tactical nukes are the main possibilities right now. Though of course, someone killing Putin might change the scenario. But I do not see Putin accepting a defeat while still has the nuke card.
Click to expand...
I think 1-5 are by far the most likely outcomes. Russia is getting weaker for every day and Ukraine is getting stronger.
 
Russia have the numbers but that's about it at this point. Throwing more men into the war won't change anything against a battle hardened and well equipped military. If anything it will do the reverse, throwing untrained men into a bloody war will be a disaster for Russia.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
If Russia uses nuclear weapons, the West will respond to ensure a complete Russian defeat. It’s up to Russia how far and how quickly they want to escalate this, but everything points towards their defeat right now. That could be tucking their tail between their legs and withdrawing (now very unlikely) or putting the West in a position where they have no choice but to militarily intervene and destroy their armed forces.

Do you see any scenario where Russia nukes Ukraine and the US and its allies just accepts it?
 
maniak said:
What's with this "anglo-saxons" stuff? Is it a reference to something? I don't remember this being a thing.
Click to expand...

He's big into his Russian Empire pan-Slavic peoples versus the Anglo Saxons of Western Europe.
 
RedRover said:
I don't agree with this. The Annexations change nothing. They're not recognised by the rest of the world and Putin knows that. If we was going to escalate why not do so before? The tide has been turning for months. He has warned before that the flow of weapons must stop, and that strikes could be made on supply lines into Ukraine, yet he did nothing.

Annexation also gives him the chance to declare some kind of victory at home. He can pour soldiers in to the annexed territory and dig in.

He's got as many problems in Russia as he has in Ukraine and seeing NATO intervene and wiping out his Army on the ground in Ukraine, and sinking the Black Sea fleet in a conventional attack doesn't seem to solve any of them. Neither does losing what little international links he has left.

I accept he is a dangerous man, but he seems not to have any overarching plan any more. It's all reactive and seems to be designed to survive a bit longer, kick the can down the road and hope for a miracle.
Click to expand...

Exactly that. He's technically annexed Crimea 8 years ago, Ukraine have kept 'attacking' there and he's not used any of those weapons.

Also, I do not believe NATO would get involved even if he used nukes in Ukraine. He won't test it though.
 
The only card that putin holds is the nuclear one, but it's a damn strong one. You can try and call his bluff, but if unlucky you will lose everything. Basically how i see this situation.

I hate saying that Ukraine should stop fighting, it's not my decision at all or anything, but i do wonder if a stalemate is the best option while waiting for Putin to die and hope someone reasonable gets in charge next, but that is probably not likely either.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

There are hardly any more sanctions to lay out on Russia, I don't think them using nuclear weapons would actually change anything in how the West approaches this.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
The only card that putin holds is the nuclear one, but it's a damn strong one. You can try and call his bluff, but if unlucky you will lose everything. Basically how i see this situation.

I hate saying that Ukraine should stop fighting, it's not my decision at all or anything, but i do wonder if a stalemate is the best option while waiting for Putin to die and hope someone reasonable gets in charge next, but that is probably not likely either.
Click to expand...

You lose everything if you allow him to swing that sabre anyway.

Also, if he's allowed to win here there's virtually no chance of him getting replaced by someone sane even if he dies, and he's only 70, he's going to be around for a while. We too have too remember that Trump is actually fairly likely to win the next US elections and if that happens, US may actually become Russia's ally instead of their foe in this war...
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
The only card that putin holds is the nuclear one, but it's a damn strong one. You can try and call his bluff, but if unlucky you will lose everything. Basically how i see this situation.

I hate saying that Ukraine should stop fighting, it's not my decision at all or anything, but i do wonder if a stalemate is the best option while waiting for Putin to die and hope someone reasonable gets in charge next, but that is probably not likely either.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the news this morning?
 
maniak said:
What's with this "anglo-saxons" stuff? Is it a reference to something? I don't remember this being a thing.
Click to expand...
A way to make U.S. sound scarier (by adding U.K.) and also to somehow integrate this supposed centurues-long confrontation into his own mythical version of history, as Anglo-saxons is a term that most know from history books.

It’s a relatively new addiction to his rhetoric, I believe.
 
TMDaines said:
If Russia uses nuclear weapons, the West will respond to ensure a complete Russian defeat. It’s up to Russia how far and how quickly they want to escalate this, but everything points towards their defeat right now. That could be tucking their tail between their legs and withdrawing (now very unlikely) or putting the West in a position where they have no choice but to militarily intervene and destroy their armed forces.

Do you see any scenario where Russia nukes Ukraine and the US and its allies just accepts it?
Click to expand...

Not accept it, but i don't see them doing something that could risk starting a nuclear war with Russia. I don't know how far Putin is willing to go if completely cornered (wish i did), but in a nuclear war nobody wins, unless you prefer death to living of course.
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
The only card that putin holds is the nuclear one, but it's a damn strong one. You can try and call his bluff, but if unlucky you will lose everything. Basically how i see this situation.

I hate saying that Ukraine should stop fighting, it's not my decision at all or anything, but i do wonder if a stalemate is the best option while waiting for Putin to die and hope someone reasonable gets in charge next, but that is probably not likely either.
Click to expand...

A stalemate or frozen conflict only delays the problem by a few years. It is in his nature to recharge his army and strike again later. I was in shamefully favour of ceding Crimea in 2014 to satiate Putin because I didn't want my peaceful European life to be threatened. No more of that shite.

The question is "How do you make sure Putin never attacks Europe again"? Because he (or his underlings) will attack, again and again, always threatening nuclear war. And everytime he does, lots of people die, gas prices go crazy, economy crashes and everyone (who hasn't died) loses money.

How much land do we cede to him before he is satisfied? It's a tough conversation to have, but the Western leaders must decide at what point is a nuclear war worth having. Maybe Ukraine is not worth nuclear war, but is Poland worth it? Latvia? Estonia? Germany? France? UK?
 
Interesting he mentioned ceasefire. Along with 4 territories of the table of course.

Or theres nothing in it.
 
@harms is there any fear of what going nuclear could mean in Russia? Do people even think about it, or is the propaganda machine able to convince everyone that it's the evil NATO monsters forcing Putin to drop a calamity the likes of which the world has only seen once on his doorstep (or maybe even on the evil "Anglo Saxons" he's blaming for nordstream 1)
 
YouOnlyLiveTwice said:
What do you think NATO would do in the case of a nuclear attack on Ukraine? I doubt they will repay it in similar fashion, more sanctions maybe, but that won't help the dead Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

Ironically if he does, which I don’t think he will, NATO might as well have intervened at the very start. But hindsight 20/20 and all that.

It has been discussed a lot, but even if he pushed the button the question would be whether the chain of command would actually go with it or chuck him out of a window.

As for NATO response, all gloves off. I’d imagine them going all in and kicking Russia out of Ukraine and sanctioning them to hell. China also wouldn’t be very happy with a nuclear war.
 
It's the not late 1940s anymore, people aren't afraid of Nuclear weapons as they were then after the bombs hit Japan. At least people from my region. There are absolutely zero reasons to be afraid of Russia or anyone else who tries to act like them - it's the only way to be together and move forward, support Ukraine with everything they need, and move forward with legislation to weaken the Russian standing point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.