Ukraine

[foxile5]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

 And just as Afghanistan helped to bring down the communist regime, this war will bring down Putin sooner or later. 

Eh? Afghanistan helped us combat a communist regime?

 

Am I missing something here? 

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Eh? Afghanistan helped us combat a communist regime?

 

Am I missing something here? 

Soviets had a pop at Afghanistan in '79.  The great irony being the West training and equipping the individuals who basically then founded al qaeda.

[ClaphamFox]

5 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Eh? Afghanistan helped us combat a communist regime?

 

Am I missing something here? 

The Soviet Union's protracted and expensive war in Afghanistan in the 1980s caused serious conflicts between Moscow and and the various republics of the USSR, and is considered a major factor in the collapse of the regime.

Edited 1 March 2022 by ClaphamFox

[foxile5]

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

The Soviet Union's protacted and expensive war in Afghanistan in the 1980s caused serious conflicts between Moscow and and the various republics of the USSR, and is considered a major factor in the collapse of the regime.

Aaahhh okay. Sorry. I thought you were referring to the US/UK conflict on the 90s/00s/10s.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Important to point out that the west isn't the entire world 

And not only that, increasingly less relevant given emerging economies. China and India are the most important allies to have atm. 

[JonnyBoy]

46 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Talk of WW3 or nuclear was is a non-starter.  For multiple reasons.

 

The 1st in that in a conventional war against a fully mobilised west.  Russia loses.  Badly.

 

The 2nd in that in a nuclear war, the west's nuclear arsenal is 3 times larger than Russia.  Russia won't be able to nuke the entire west before she is wiped off the face of the earth.  Russia loses.  Badly.

 

The 3rd is that even if Putin tried to start something, he would be overthrown, the Russian high command won't want to see their children turned to ash, or the country blown away in a full scale war.  

 

What is more likely to happen is that this potentially becomes another Afghanistan for the Russians or they continue the barbaric bombing campaign to force the Ukrainians to capitulate in talks.

 

If Russia does succeed militarily though, there's no way things return to normal.  The sanctions will remain and Russia will be frozen out of the overwhelming majority of developed countries around the world.  How long will China be willing to bankroll their bankrupt frozen partner in the North?  

 

Putin could end up being the Mussolini to Xi's Hitler.  

 

Unfortunately, Russia have 5,977 nuclear warheads, Nato combined have 5,943 - US holding 5,428 of them 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Pliskin said:

It won’t. The politics of war are not the same as they were 100 years ago. You simply can’t just drop bombs on other countries without causing major issues for your self. 
 

Russia and Ukraine have been at each other throats for years, and years. If you don’t follow the politics of the two nations closely you probably won’t really notice. (Not that I do because I don’t). What seems like a decision made over night, isn’t, it’s been in the pipe like for years. 
 

It won’t get to the stage of a world war because Russia have essentially ended that by making the claims they have regarding nuclear defence. 
 

Russia will ultimately fail, whether that’s this year or in 20 years time, this is an incident that could last decades before it’s resolved. 

Good take but it’ll probably even take longer such is the nature of geo politics and the ever increasing important of access to resources. 

[Zear0]

Estonian PM just said in her speech  that Belarus forces have gone into Ukraine today.  Might explain their "referendum" to station Russia nukes on their turf getting pushed through so quickly given they're objectively a softer target than Russia.

[MustardTiger]

18 minutes ago, JonnyBoy said:

 

Unfortunately, Russia have 5,977 nuclear warheads, Nato combined have 5,943 - US holding 5,428 of them 

Not ready to go in active service they don't.

[Alf Bentley]

I understand the risks inherent in any NATO involvement in Ukraine. I also understand the distinction between NATO members signed up to a mutual defence alliance and Ukraine being a non-member.

 

But is there such a distinction in political/military terms?

 

Are we really saying that, to avoid the risk of a nuclear war, NATO would stand and watch if Russia massacres countless thousands (or more) civilians in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.....but that those same NATO countries will be prepared to risk a nuclear war if Putin then decides to invade, say, the Baltic States, because Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members? 

 

Maybe one or both parts of that equation will not happen. Maybe peace terms will be negotiated. Maybe the Russians will launch a few exemplary attacks of massive destruction and the Ukrainian government will seek surrender terms to avoid such annihilation (probably leading to years of guerrilla warfare & Cold War 2.0, unless Putin is overthrown). Maybe, having called the West's bluff with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin will choose not to repeat his gamble by attacking the Baltic States or Poland. But I wouldn't put much money on any of those outcomes.

 

To be clear, I'm not some gung-ho type who welcomes any sort of escalation or heightened risk. Most potential outcomes of this nauseate me. But is it really the case that there ARE circumstances in which the West would risk direct conflict with Russia, it's just that the annihilation of a European country of 40m+ people is not one of them? 

 

That general who was on Newsnight (mentioned earlier) thought NATO could soon face the choice between watching as thousands are massacred or engaging with Russian forces to some extent - probably only by air in Ukraine, not on Russian soil - with the risk of escalation that would entail. Would Putin respond to such NATO engagement with limited or unlimited, conventional or nuclear attacks on other countries? But those same dire choices might also apply if he goes on to attack a NATO neighbour.....

 

Fvck me! Why can't we all just get on with enjoying the strange, sometimes miserable but often joyous experience of life?!? Naive, I know...

[Carl the Llama]

Incredible if true

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I understand the risks inherent in any NATO involvement in Ukraine. I also understand the distinction between NATO members signed up to a mutual defence alliance and Ukraine being a non-member.

 

But is there such a distinction in political/military terms?

 

Are we really saying that, to avoid the risk of a nuclear war, NATO would stand and watch if Russia massacres countless thousands (or more) civilians in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.....but that those same NATO countries will be prepared to risk a nuclear war if Putin then decides to invade, say, the Baltic States, because Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members? 

 

Maybe one or both parts of that equation will not happen. Maybe peace terms will be negotiated. Maybe the Russians will launch a few exemplary attacks of massive destruction and the Ukrainian government will seek surrender terms to avoid such annihilation (probably leading to years of guerrilla warfare & Cold War 2.0, unless Putin is overthrown). Maybe, having called the West's bluff with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin will choose not to repeat his gamble by attacking the Baltic States or Poland. But I wouldn't put much money on any of those outcomes.

 

To be clear, I'm not some gung-ho type who welcomes any sort of escalation or heightened risk. Most potential outcomes of this nauseate me. But is it really the case that there ARE circumstances in which the West would risk direct conflict with Russia, it's just that the annihilation of a European country of 40m+ people is not one of them? 

 

That general who was on Newsnight (mentioned earlier) thought NATO could soon face the choice between watching as thousands are massacred or engaging with Russian forces to some extent - probably only by air in Ukraine, not on Russian soil - with the risk of escalation that would entail. Would Putin respond to such NATO engagement with limited or unlimited, conventional or nuclear attacks on other countries? But those same dire choices might also apply if he goes on to attack a NATO neighbour.....

 

Fvck me! Why can't we all just get on with enjoying the strange, sometimes miserable but often joyous experience of life?!? Naive, I know...

It would be fairly hard to convince any nation to remain/become part of NATO if we didn't back them physically in any conflict with Russia or any other non NATO member. 

[Carl the Llama]

 

[casablancas]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Edited 1 March 2022 by casablancas
Not funny. I revoke.

[LiberalFox]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I understand the risks inherent in any NATO involvement in Ukraine. I also understand the distinction between NATO members signed up to a mutual defence alliance and Ukraine being a non-member.

 

But is there such a distinction in political/military terms?

 

Are we really saying that, to avoid the risk of a nuclear war, NATO would stand and watch if Russia massacres countless thousands (or more) civilians in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.....but that those same NATO countries will be prepared to risk a nuclear war if Putin then decides to invade, say, the Baltic States, because Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members? 

 

Maybe one or both parts of that equation will not happen. Maybe peace terms will be negotiated. Maybe the Russians will launch a few exemplary attacks of massive destruction and the Ukrainian government will seek surrender terms to avoid such annihilation (probably leading to years of guerrilla warfare & Cold War 2.0, unless Putin is overthrown). Maybe, having called the West's bluff with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin will choose not to repeat his gamble by attacking the Baltic States or Poland. But I wouldn't put much money on any of those outcomes.

 

To be clear, I'm not some gung-ho type who welcomes any sort of escalation or heightened risk. Most potential outcomes of this nauseate me. But is it really the case that there ARE circumstances in which the West would risk direct conflict with Russia, it's just that the annihilation of a European country of 40m+ people is not one of them? 

 

That general who was on Newsnight (mentioned earlier) thought NATO could soon face the choice between watching as thousands are massacred or engaging with Russian forces to some extent - probably only by air in Ukraine, not on Russian soil - with the risk of escalation that would entail. Would Putin respond to such NATO engagement with limited or unlimited, conventional or nuclear attacks on other countries? But those same dire choices might also apply if he goes on to attack a NATO neighbour.....

 

Fvck me! Why can't we all just get on with enjoying the strange, sometimes miserable but often joyous experience of life?!? Naive, I know...

I said at the start that Nato got it wrong in not establishing a no-fly zone in at least part of Ukraine before the invasion. It's difficult to do anything now because for one thing we would be breaking our own stated policies of only defending NATO territory. We already have more or less the whole of the "West" supplying military aid. But the question is where will this all end? Zelenskyy is pushing for Ukraine to become an EU and NATO member, we actually don't know what Putin's strategic objective is and whether it is actually grounded in reality.

[Tinman]

39 minutes ago, JonnyBoy said:

 

Unfortunately, Russia have 5,977 nuclear warheads, Nato combined have 5,943 - US holding 5,428 of them 

Only takes one.

[Tinman]

 

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Quite easily. Russia slowly strangles Ukraine. Ukraines concedes to Russia’s demands (demilitarisation). Zelenskyy probably resigns or is overthrown. Ukraine re enters the Russia sphere that it only left 8 years ago. We move on with most sanctions left in place. The end. 
 

In fact I’d even go as far as saying that there’ll be a peace declaration by the end of this month. 

There's no way this will happen. Not after what has gone on. 

[Blarmy]

6 minutes ago, Tinman said:

 

Bloody hell. Unbelievably brave and proud people. 

[Greg2607]

Lets not forget that Hitler did basically the same thing in the 1940's and the Western response was broadly similar to what we are seeing now....  

 

I'm not suggesting history will repeat itself, but when you have a nationalist, trying to recover what they feel was taken from them, and then they feel enboldened due to a weak response, it's clear escalations can happen...

 

if you can't be bothered to read the below.... long and short, Putin is using hitlers playbook....

 

Winston Churchill believed World War II should have been called “the Unnecessary War.” As he explained it, “there never was a war more easy to stop than that [World War II].” Instead, the world suffered the bloodiest conflict in human history. During the 1930s, the West had numerous chances to take decisive action against Hitler. They did not. Poor Western leadership allowed the Nazi menace to grow to monstrous proportions. This catastrophic failure in leadership offers important lessons for decision-makers today.

 

When Hitler took power in 1933, many foreign diplomats were already familiar with his violent nationalist ideology. Hitler had often announced his intention to remilitarize Germany. In his first year, he withdrew from the League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference. 

 

The Treaty of Versailles, signed after World War I, forbid Germany from developing an offensive military. Soon however, it became an open secret that Germany was rearming. In 1935, Hitler revealed that Germany had developed an air force and was expanding its army, both major violations of Versailles. France and Britain had full authority to take economic or military action against Germany. Given the early stage of Germany’s military preparations, Western pressure could have easily neutralized the military threat. Failing to act when the stakes were low was the West’s first mistake.  

In 1936, Hitler brazenly remilitarized Germany’s Rhineland border with France. Remilitarization directly threatened French national security. After World War I, the Rhineland had been left demilitarized to deter German aggression against France. With this border undefended, the French could pour into Germany. Only 3,000 Nazi troops entered the Rhineland. Hundreds of thousands of French troops stood just miles away. Germany’s generals trembled with fear, certain that a French invasion would end the Third Reich. However, facing bad economic conditions and finding few allies willing to offer support, the French government decided that military intervention was too expensive. Once again, a weak and divided West allowed the Nazi threat to increase. 

In early 1938, Hitler forced Austria into the Third Reich by threatening to invade. Immediately, unprecedented anti-Semitic violence broke out across Austria. The Western Allies responded with a collective shrug. By incorporating Austria, Hitler gained millions of new citizens and access to Austria’s ample cash reserves and industrial resources. He was now more powerful than ever.

Many British and French political leaders had staked their hopes on appeasing Hitler to avoid war. Appeasement was a fatally flawed policy. Churchill condemned appeasement as the strategy of feeding a crocodile in the hopes it would eat you last. He recognized that Hitler was insatiable, and each meal only made the crocodile more dangerous. 

The infamous Munich Conference in late 1938 revealed the costs of appeasement. Hitler had demanded an integral part of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France should have supported the strong pro-Western democracy against Nazi aggression. Instead, they sold out the young nation by accepting Hitler’s claims. The Czechoslovaks were not even invited to Munich. The Western betrayal proved disastrous. Czechoslovakia lost its natural defenses and industrial areas, rendering the nation helpless against further German expansion. Additionally, Britain and France’s capitulation convinced other nations that Western leaders lacked the will to stop Hitler. 

 

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich declaring that he had obtained “peace for our time.” That peace would prove short-lived. Within a few months, Hitler had swallowed up the rest of Czechoslovakia. Then, Germany demanded territory from Lithuania and Poland. The Lithuanians gave in, the Poles did not. Hitler decided that Poland must be destroyed. On the eve of his invasion, Hitler told his generals, “our enemies are…not men of action, not masters. They are little worms. I saw them at Munich.” Appeasement had backfired, confident of Western inaction, Hitler became more belligerent. 

 

When World War II began, the West had a good chance to defeat Hitler. While the Germans ravaged Poland, over 100 British and French divisions largely sat idle on the Franco-German border against a far smaller German force. Some Britons advocated air raids, but these were rejected from fears that Germany would retaliate in kind. Soon, London would learn that the Nazis had no such scruples. After the war, German generals expressed amazement that the Allies never attacked en masse. One even remarked that had the Allies invaded, Germany “could only have held out for one or two weeks.” 

 

On May 10th 1940, time ran out for the West. Nearly 3 million German troops smashed into France and the Low Countries. Caught off-guard, the Allies were unprepared for the new age of mobile warfare and hampered by poor coordination. Within days the Low Countries had been overrun. Within weeks, France had been defeated and nearly 2 million French soldiers were taken prisoner. Much of Western Europe would suffer under Nazi occupation for the next four years. The continent would ultimately be liberated, but only after unimaginable death and destruction.

 

Western leaders repeatedly squandered chances to stop Hitler before 1940. First, their governments refused to take decisive action against the Nazis. Then, they remained divided in the face of a growing threat. Finally, they undermined their own opposition to Hitler through irresolution and half-measures. These mistakes proved disastrous. Nothing excuses the evil actions of Nazi Germany, but strong Western leadership might have contained Nazi evil before it exacted such a terrible toll.

[String fellow]

Ukraine's main TV tower has been hit. Looks like Mad Vlad wants to kill their TV reception as well as lots of civilians.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[casablancas]

20 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Ukraine's main TV tower has been hit. Looks like Mad Vlad wants to kill their TV reception as well as lots of civilians.

Graphic video doing the rounds. It’s sickening. It’s all so sickening. 

[goody2028]

16 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

no war allowed in the war thread?

 

[st albans fox]

What is the position if Russian attacks endanger British citizens in ukraine? Etc etc 

 

aren’t the British authorities allowed to act to protect their nationals?

 

After all, the Russians are apparently in ukraine to protect Russians ……

 

the point I’m  making is that ukraine is not Russia. Surely an attack on a Russian soldier or Russian military equipment in Russia is a provocation that Russia are entitled to respond to in whatever way they see fit. But a Russian soldier in a foreign country who is there without the authority of the elected recognised government can surely have no right to protection against attack by anyone who has been invited by the govt of that country ?? 
 

i’m still of the opinion that there will be NATO-Russian military exchanges within Ukraine’s borders and the longer these take to occur, the  less effective it will be for ukraine ….. by the time we let putin know he has reached a red line, he will be in a v strong negotiating position.