Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

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

Well you’d know what swerving looks like, wouldn’t you. Have you cooked up an answer to this yet:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...9#post36113969

Meantime, no, I’m not answering you because you don’t ask questions or discuss in good faith - my response was a (futile) attempt to get you to debate rather than just be an angry ranty contrarian. Sadly to no avail.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

Well you’d know what swerving looks like, wouldn’t you. Have you cooked up an answer to this yet:

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...9#post36113969

Meantime, no, I’m not answering you because you don’t ask questions or discuss in good faith - my response was a (futile) attempt to get you to debate rather than just be an angry ranty contrarian. Sadly to no avail.

Nothing angry at all about my response at all but that’s generally your take when you’re put in a position that your uncomfortable with answering.

Consider this in good faith, how many more innocent civilians have to die before your conscience turns to accept that we need to intervene militarily? How many more innocent civilians have to be shelled whilst trying to evacuate ? How many more hospitals have to be bombed? How much deadlier does the weaponry used have to be?

There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that putin will stop at Ukraine, he and western intelligence reports have stated that this is the beginning.

Do you want to wait until he’s on our doorstep before you decide intervention is required ?

[peanut]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Nothing angry at all about my response at all but that’s generally your take when you’re put in a position that your uncomfortable with answering.

Consider this in good faith, how many more innocent civilians have to die before your conscience turns to accept that we need to intervene militarily? How many more innocent civilians have to be shelled whilst trying to evacuate ? How many more hospitals have to be bombed? How much deadlier does the weaponry used have to be?

There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that putin will stop at Ukraine, he and western intelligence reports have stated that this is the beginning.

Do you want to wait until he’s on our doorstep before you decide intervention is required ?

If we go in and help then there is a good chance you and everyone else will die. There's nothing we can do that we aren't already doing till the point he attacks a NATO country. We've just got to hope sanctions take effects and negotiations come to a conclusion. Not a lot else to add to that.

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.

Are you really asking this?

If a NATO member retaliates against Russia, the World dies in a Nuclear World War III.

Yes, 1000’s of innocent Ukrainian civilians are being hit by Putin, but the second we hit Putin’s forces. World will be at Defcon 1, nuclear war imminent or has already started.

Russia will deploy most of its 6,400 nuclear warheads and many of them will each have a major city in the UK and around the world in their targets. Just like they did during the height of the Cuban missile crisis at the start of the 1960’s.

After Russia fires Nukes at us, in retaliation, we and other NATO members strike back and hit Russia.

600,000,000 would die and millions more during nuclear winter and spikes in radiation levels around the northern hemisphere would last for decades.

Nobody wins this.

I think the more likely scenario is they could use tactical nukes in Ukraine and we might have to respond in kind which could escalate to world destruction but probably wouldn't unless we pose a threat to Russia's continued existence, i.e by heading towards Moscow.

I don't think a war between two nuclear powers automatically means you just fire nukes. Likely they will remain held back until it's the last resort.

Obviously don't want to test that though.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

How much deadlier does the weaponry used have to be?

Well, obviously if you were in charge we'd all be bathing in a thermonuclear sun tan. If you're not wearing Factor 15,000,0000 Piz Buin, you're going to get a tad burnt.

BREAKING: Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the Government and his assets - including Chelsea Football Club - have been frozen

Chelsea have been given a special licence to continue with football related activities but the sale effectively bars the sale of the club - The Times.

[tweetiepooh]

Don't Russia and Ukraine produce and export a lot of wheat and barley? The reduction in those crops is going to be felt around the world too.
And Putin doesn't have to use nukes in Ukraine as he has the world's biggest dirty bomb in Chernobyl. "Accidentally" blow that up, blame locals but effectively salt the ground and again gain more control over wheat production. (Maybe we should stop building on farm land and grow more wheat/barley?)

Originally Posted by Pierre

That would be on the table in any peace negotiation.

That wouldn’t be peace negotiations, that would be appeasement.

I wonder if it will be insisted that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia leave NATO would also be on the table at any "peace negotiations"?

We never had to use tactical nukes to slow down any Sov invasion through the Fulda Gap because we bankrupted the Soviet Union into submission - it’s no different now, unless we let his blackmail work (by giving up Ukraine first, then the Suwalki Corridor, then Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia).

He won’t stop there, because, why should he? He will have seen his tactics work.

We didn’t let the threat of "Instant Sunshine” stop us in the Cold War, what’s the difference now?

---------- Post added at 09:33 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well, obviously if you were in charge we'd all be bathing in a thermonuclear sun tan. If you're not wearing Factor 15,000,0000 Piz Buin, you're going to get a tad burnt.

Mr Ad-Hominem coming to visit again, I see…

Can’t we have a civilised discussion with differing views without personal attacks, please? (general call, not specific to you).

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: Roman Abramovich has been sanctioned by the Government and his assets - including Chelsea Football Club - have been frozen

Chelsea have been given a special licence to continue with football related activities but the sale effectively bars the sale of the club - The Times.

BAH! Disband Chelsea, anything else is a slap in the face to the people of Ukraine.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That wouldn’t be peace negotiations, that would be appeasement.

Unless, Ukraine (and by further extension the West) demand nothing but full/total and complete surrender of Russia, then it will be a negotiated peace, and in a negotiation anything can be on the table.

Can’t we have a civilised discussion with differing views without personal attacks, please? (general call, not specific to you).

I was just responding to a very stupid point of thinking with a marvellously witty retort.

[Hom3r]

Chelsea FC is buggered

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Nothing angry at all about my response at all but that’s generally your take when you’re put in a position that your uncomfortable with answering.

Consider this in good faith, how many more innocent civilians have to die before your conscience turns to accept that we need to intervene militarily? How many more innocent civilians have to be shelled whilst trying to evacuate ? How many more hospitals have to be bombed? How much deadlier does the weaponry used have to be?

There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that putin will stop at Ukraine, he and western intelligence reports have stated that this is the beginning.

Do you want to wait until he’s on our doorstep before you decide intervention is required ?

Whereas your general approach is to ramp up the pomposity while convincing yourself (but few others) that you somehow occupy the moral high ground in any discussion.

Yes, you are being angry ranty, and it’s leading you to assume that the effectiveness of an intervention may be measured by how big an explosion it makes.

The sanctions regime is unprecedented and it will bring Russia to a halt in time. A military intervention by Nato, however, will not bring Russia down, it will escalate the conflict. The clear risk in your favoured approach is not fewer casualties but more. I’d ask if your conscience can deal with that but it’s abundantly clear to me that you haven’t even thought through those possibilities.

Nato is a defensive alliance, created specifically to defend Nato member states against Russia. The worst thing we could possibly do right now is give Putin what he wants, which is evidence he can show his people that Nato is willing to act with direct military aggression against Russia when it has not attacked a Nato member. There are any number of occasions in the past when the USA and Russia (or the USSR) could have come into direct conflict but the reason why they always have not is that both sides are extremely nuclear armed and the risks of escalation are to the entire world.

Thankfully, you only get to express your supposed moral superiority from your armchair where there’s little chance of precipitating a global catastrophe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

After talking at a press conference Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov takes questions.

Asked about how the war is developing from Russia's perspective, he says, through an interpreter, that it is a "special operation" and it is "proceeding to plan overall".

Lavrov accuses the West of "acting dangerously" by supplying weapons to Ukraine, saying this amounts to a breach of "all of their so-called principles and values".

Asked if Russia has any plans to attack other countries, Lavrov says they do not and repeats the Russian position that it has not attacked Ukraine.

And that sums up the Russian approach - so when they do attack other countries, all they will say is "we have not attacked other countries".

You can’t negotiate in good faith with outright liars who deny lying - Comical Ali has nothing on these guys.