Russia has invaded Ukraine

Are you willing to call his bluff? Do you want to play politics or poker?

Are you willing to let him take one country after another - do you want to stand up to aggression or just let him keep on invading other countries? It’s nuanced, not just binary.

Luckily, neither of us have the responsibility, ability, or the full knowledge to make those decisions - we are just a couple of randos on a forum stating opinions; no one (in any position of responsibility) cares what we think or propose.

It’s fine and healthy that we can have diverse opinions in this (and other) matters - the reason I feel the way I do is that I saw at first hand what Putin and his ilk did during the Cold War, stifling the difference of opinions and values we are allowed, and I see it happening again in Russia, Belarus, and some other ex-Sov Republics, and know that is what he wants for everyone…

I also understand why people are concerned with a possible delivery of "Instant Sunshine" - only a fool wouldn’t be; we lived with that possibility for nearly 40 years, but somehow we survived.

I’m glad I don’t have to be trying to balance deterring Putin without tipping him over…

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

And how many innocent lives are should we prepared to lose whilst we give these sanctions time to kick in ?

As always it’s easy to hold either this or the opposing view whilst we debate it from our ivory keyboards.

You make it sound like there’s a calculation to be made. Perhaps you’d like to share how you’d make that call yourself?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you willing to let him take one country after another - do you want to stand up to aggression or just let him keep on invading other countries? It’s nuanced, not just binary.

Absolutely it’s nuanced, absolutely.

As you served, you know better than anyone that NATO cannot, and will not attack. So that particular angle is mute.

The West will support any nation at risk with arms, equipment and training but they will not directly attack Russia, or Russian puppet states.

It’s Cold War 2.0

Luckily, neither of us have the responsibility, ability, or the full knowledge to make those decisions - we are just a couple of randos on a forum stating opinions; no one (in any position of responsibility) cares what we think or propose.

It’s fine and healthy that we can have diverse opinions in this (and other) matters - the reason I feel the way I do is that I saw at first hand what Putin and his ilk did during the Cold War, stifling the difference of opinions and values we are allowed, and I see it happening again in Russia, Belarus, and some other ex-Sov Republics, and know that is what he wants for everyone…

I’m thankful for the privilege to be able to be able to debate this on my secure comfortable couch in the U.K., and it’s horrible what’s happening in Ukraine but from a totally selfish but logical position this conflict needs to stay conventional and not nuclear and I think everyone, when they think about it, will agree with that.

[1andrew1]

Mass grave set up as morgues overflow in besieged Mariupol
Guy Chazan in Lviv

Authorities have created a mass grave in Ukraine’s port city of Mariupol, which has been besieged by Russian troops for days, and said that normal burials have become impossible.

“Sadly, there are just too many bodies,” said Vitaly Falkovsky, a local official. “It was a necessary measure because we can’t bury people in the normal way. The morgues are overflowing.”

Enduring Russian shelling for days, tens of thousands of people in Mariupol have been confined to freezing basements and shelters, and are living without water, heat, basic sanitation and a functioning phone network.

Messages passed on to social media from residents of the city said they have been reduced to cooking food on fires in the open air and collecting rainwater to drink.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said the humanitarian situation in Ukraine was “increasingly dire and desperate”, with homes “reduced to rubble” and families “huddled underground for hours on end to seek refuge from fighting”.

Russian forces have targeted civilians in what implies a shift of tactics, with reports multiplying of attacks that appear to have been directed at urban and populated areas, a non-profit organisation said in research published on Wednesday.

“There is little doubt that the war in Ukraine will be a massive tragedy for civilians that the world will remember for years to come,” said the European director of the Washington-based Center for Civilians in Conflict.

“Those willing to flee are prevented [from doing] so and those staying are at risk of being killed or being assimilated to combatants,” Beatrice Godefroy added.

https://www.ft.com/content/81630924-...d-006a90972bb0

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

As you served, you know better than anyone that NATO cannot, and will not attack. So that particular angle is mute.

Is NATO's position absolutely that set in stone? Could they look at the situation and think that the humanitarian issues are such that they will intervene?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Is NATO's position absolutely that set in stone? Could they look at the situation and think that the humanitarian issues are such that they will intervene?

Paul answered before you questioned

Originally Posted by Paul

You dont pick a fight with anyone that big & potentially deadly unless you absolutely need to, and atm, we absolutely dont need to.

I also learnt in my 'early' years, that it can be really really stupid to have a fight against somebody with nothing to lose . . . which, with all the sanctions and things, is getting close to what Putin has . .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Paul answered before you questioned

If it helps, I can re-phrase it "How difficult or how easy would it be constitutionally for NATO to get involved in direct action in Ukraine? Impossible? Would it have to jump through hoops? Take a vote?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Is NATO's position absolutely that set in stone? Could they look at the situation and think that the humanitarian issues are such that they will intervene?

Yes, of course it is, we’re talking global Armageddon. Several thousand dead Ukrainians do not warrant several billion dead globally.

That’s the harsh reality

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it helps, I can re-phrase it "How difficult or how easy would it be constitutionally for NATO to get involved in direct action in Ukraine? Impossible? Would it have to jump through hoops? Take a vote?

I don’t the answer, but NATO is defensive not aggressive.

Given the potential, why would you risk attacking anyway?

We have a nuclear “deterrent” not a nuclear “aggressor” , (or arm twister) it is there to prevent an attack not to be used for an attack.

Ukraine are on their own, in regards to manpower.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it helps, I can re-phrase it "How difficult or how easy would it be constitutionally for NATO to get involved in direct action in Ukraine? Impossible? Would it have to jump through hoops? Take a vote?

No idea mate, but I can imagine there wouldn't be a 100% vote on whether NATO continues to watch or goes in fighting, same as on here


edit: as has been said before, Putin seems to be trying to pull NATO into it . . . and that Ukraine president chap is screaming for it too IMO.

Originally Posted by Carth

Paul answered before you questioned




I also learnt in my 'early' years, that it can be really really stupid to have a fight against somebody with nothing to lose . . . which, with all the sanctions and things, is getting close to what Putin has . .

That’s Paul’s view, not necessarily NATO’s…

I think the crunch point will come if Putin tries to claim the Suwalki Corridor between Belarus and Kaliningrad* (the bit of Russia on the Baltic between Poland and Lithuania) - he has mentioned this aspiration previously, and if it happened, it would cut off Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia (by land travel) from the rest of Europe.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/03...alki-corridor/

The author of this recent article makes an interesting point about the Ukraine invasion, and why we shouldn’t take it for granted that this is the end-game.

Obviously, seizing the Suwalki corridor would entail attacking Lithuania or Poland or both, leading directly to a war between NATO and Russia. This seems illogical or at best strategically unwise for Putin. However, the West’s ability to know and understand Putin’s logic and the rationale behind his decision-making has been obviously constrained by a lack of imagination, quality intelligence, or both.

For instance, some thought it was illogical for Putin to order the full-scale invasion of Ukraine if his objective was simply to keep it out of NATO. The simmering Donbass conflict had effectively achieved this since 2014, since one of the informal requirements for alliance membership is a lack of territorial disputes with neighbors.

Additionally, no authorities in Washington or Brussels were seriously pushing for Ukrainian membership in the alliance, and Russia’s diplomats and its intelligence services surely knew this. Moreover, Putin’s recent rhetoric of grievance against the West is nothing new—these are themes he has espoused for years. So, why invade now? The answer isn’t clear, aside from the conclusion that this war is about something more than just keeping Ukraine out of NATO.

For this reason, trying to discern Putin’s intent going forward is a fool’s errand. The West cannot assume it understands how Putin might react to the cratering of the Russian economy, whether his recent rants on pushing NATO out of Central and Eastern Europe amount to policy directives, or how he might exploit his new, practically colonial relationship with Belarus, which is now hosting tens of thousands of Russian troops.

By the same token, the West therefore cannot assume that Russia won’t make a move against the Suwalki corridor just because it appears illogical. In fact, during last year’s Zapad military exercise, Russian and Belarusian troops reportedly practiced closing the Suwalki corridor by attacking from Belarus in the direction of Kaliningrad.

* home to lots of Russian combat forces, including the Russian Baltic Fleet, advanced air defenses, and mobile nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s Paul’s view, not necessarily NATO’s…

<snippety snip snip>

Good point, maybe the correct answer to his question would then have to be "why don't you ask NATO?"

Pretty sure they wouldn’t tell us (for OpSec reasons..)

Main point is, look for strategy, not tactics - why this, now, and what are the next moves…

Can we be intimidated into inaction, and let the ex-Sov NATO countries be subsumed one at a time, until the barbarians are at the gate?

This is why NATO was formed - to prevent the westward spread of an ideology that was anathema to our way of living…

[Carth]

I find myself wondering . . quite a ridiculous notion truth be told . . what would happen if China, taking advantage of the troubled Russian economy and state of the nation, suddenly decided to 'steal' a stretch of land to their North East . . . the Vladivostok area.

[TheDaddy]

US claims 6000 Russian soldiers killed since start of invasion and 15000-20000 injured

Ukraine claims 12000 Russians killed

Twitter has opened a service bypassing Russias attempts to block it, interesting messages being sent back from the front about looting

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, we can, unless NATO is attacked, we stay out of direct conflict.

I'm not convinced we would get involved if a NATO country is attacked, I don't yhink the American public would support military action in aid of a country they've never heard of.

Originally Posted by Hugh

[/COLOR]https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-w...fence-12561830

Thermobaric weapons are banned by by the Geneva Convention but not international law

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s no secret what his objectives are. He wants to rebuild a Russian empire. Not a Soviet Union. He sees himself more as a Czar.

This is true, he's not overly fussed by the Stan countries that used to be part of the old union

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think the crunch point will come if Putin tries to claim the Suwalki Cortidor between Belarus and Kaliningrad*

That would be on the table in any peace negotiation.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

You make it sound like there’s a calculation to be made. Perhaps you’d like to share how you’d make that call yourself?

Perhaps you could answer the question asked ? As opposed to a very poor attempt at swerving.

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Iraq doesnt [and didnt] have the one of the largest armed forces in the world, and enough nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet.
You dont pick a fight with anyone that big & potentially deadly unless you absolutely need to, and atm, we absolutely dont need to.


Mine is black plastic, and I'd very much like to stay alive and continue using it.

Ah, I see, so it’s only about picking battles we can win rather than defending what we (the western world) believe in