Ukraine

[westernpark]

I was in a lecture on a Friday about Nuclear weapons. Yes they’re terrifying, but have also limited human loss in potential wars of the past.  
I’d also recommend watching this. I found it quite reassuring and hopefully diplomacy can solve this.

 

 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, pmcla26 said:

Again, not a fan or supporter of Trump, but at least the bloke was able to maintain international relationships with people like Putin. No one abroad gives a **** now about the West with dumb and dumber running the two big superpowers. 

Donald Trump had as much to do with "maintaining international relationships" as Joe Biden had in the outbreak of this war. This would have happened irrespective of the outcome of the last US election. The difference lies in how he would have responded to it. 

 

Trumpism is one of the most destructive and divisive forces on the planet. If anything, a second term would have encouraged the Kremlin to have extended its ambitions. 

 

37 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Essentially, it will allow him to save face to an extent that is acceptable for both parties. Positively Russia did announce some requirements, for an end to this monstrosity yesterday. That is something to work with. 
But we have to be calm and level headed and even though western leaders may want to denounce quite emotively the evils that he is responsible for, we can’t go all the way and not allow some way back for him. 
This is a long game and if played well, Putin will be gone without the rest of us gone too. 
 

Excellent points.

 

Since February 24th rational discourse in the west amongst military analysts, diplomats and historians has been exploring ways in which an enticing pathway for retreat could be paved - the so called 'exit ramp' or 'golden bridge' which I posted about on the original thread (or was it the second one?). All of these individuals have stressed precisely that - this is a long game that if correctly planned and executed represents the path of least damage and resistance. Alongside the current threat of escalation, the world is being plunged into a commodity war which will have devastating effects for all. 

Edited 8 March 2022 by Line-X

[blabyboy]

9 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I was in a lecture on a Friday about Nuclear weapons. Yes they’re terrifying, but have also limited human loss in potential wars of the past.  
I’d also recommend watching this. I found it quite reassuring and hopefully diplomacy can solve this.

 

 

This came up on my YT feed the other day and just to second you, it is an excellent watch.. It feels like we are finally starting to get 'some adults in the side-rooms' if not the actual room so to speak. I think we need more of these voices and perhaps some sort of waiver for steering close to Official Secrets Act type blockers.. there must be so much more they could say if they were unshackled from that... without obviously compromising sovereign countries security programmes. 

[westernpark]

9 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Donald Trump had as much to do with "maintaining international relationships" as Joe Biden had in the outbreak of this war. This would have happened irrespective of the outcome of the last US election. The difference lies in how he would have responded to it. 

 

Trumpism is one of the most destructive and divisive forces on the planet. If anything, a second term would have encouraged the Kremlin to have extended its ambitions. 

 

Excellent points.

 

Since February 24th rational discourse in the west amongst military analysts, diplomats and historians has been exploring ways in which an enticing pathway for retreat could be paved - the so called 'exit ramp' or 'golden bridge' which I posted about on the original thread (or was it the second one?). All of these individuals have stressed precisely that - this is a long game that if correctly planned and executed represents the path of least damage and resistance. Alongside the current threat of escalation, the world is being plunged into a commodity war which will have devastating effects for all. 

In reference to the second part of your post. 
I have heard this but it is not openly spread for reasons that are obvious. 
Further to anyone bashing Biden, he has had a long relationship with Putin. Trumps use of aggressive and ambiguous rhetoric would have been a disaster
This is about preserving the world, there will be geopolitical changes, of course, but the bigger picture needs to be looked at in all decisions.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I was in a lecture on a Friday about Nuclear weapons. Yes they’re terrifying, but have also limited human loss in potential wars of the past.  
I’d also recommend watching this. I found it quite reassuring and hopefully diplomacy can solve this.

 

 

Absolutely, they have. MAD was the only reason the Cold War didn't burn much, much hotter.

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely, they have. MAD was the only reason the Cold War didn't burn much, much hotter.

Andrei Kozyrev, who served the first Minister of Foreign Affairs under Yeltsin believes that Vladimir Putin would not use nuclear weapons against the west. "“The Kremlin knows it can try to extract concessions, whether from Ukraine or the West, by sabre-rattling its last remaining card in the deck: nuclear weapons." The nuclear threats are inevitable, but ultimately he knows that what he can do to the west, the west can do to him. 

 

Kozyrev believes that the invasion was immoral but not irrational - rather, based upon a series of miscalculations the actual reasoning behind it, based upon false premises and poor intelligence. He also referred to Putin's 'Potemkin Military' - that the budget for modernising it has been stolen or embezzled. 

 

Given that rationale, Tobias Elwood has repeatedly been calling for military action from the west to stop Putin before a false flag operation occurs in Transnistria or the border of Lithuania. The school of thought being that Putin is hell bent on escalation and that if NATO does not engage him now, it will inevitably fight him later. Scary. 

 

Meantime, scarier still, the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi has praised their 'iron clad' relationship with Russia as being one of the most crucial bilateral partnerships in the world. Although he identifies the situation in Taiwan as different, he ominously stressed that as part of China and not a territorial dispute, any support by the US to encourage their independence would bring "unbearable consequences". 

[SpacedX]

5 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Don't think that first sentence is really true considering one is president and the other isn't anymore.

? I was referring to his time in office.

5 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I couldn't possibly comment on whether it would or wouldn't have happened had he had a second term in office as we'll never know, but I do think Putin would have been more hesitant. It's no coincidence that he's done this at a time where there's a changing of the guard in Germany, the UK and USA are in political turmoil, with some very questionable political leaders/parties calling the shots, and France also could see quite a few changes lined up over the coming years. Let's not pretend Putin hasn't picked his moment. 

 

All of that isn't to say though that I don't agree that Trump certainly isn't the best man to be US President, and his response definitely could have been chaotic, just not sure Putin would have chosen to have done so with him in office, as a straight shootout between the US and Russia is more likely to go in favour of the former, or nobody if nuclear war was the road that both/either embarked on; where there is no winner. Like I said earlier in this post though, we'll never know. 

No one is - I posted about this yesterday. 

 

Like I said, if anything, had Trump won a second term it probably would have created even greater galvanisation in the Kremlin. 

 

[leicsmac]

 

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Andrei Kozyrev, who served the first Minister of Foreign Affairs under Yeltsin believes that Vladimir Putin would not use nuclear weapons against the west. "“The Kremlin knows it can try to extract concessions, whether from Ukraine or the West, by sabre-rattling its last remaining card in the deck: nuclear weapons." The nuclear threats are inevitable, but ultimately he knows that what he can do to the west, the west can do to him. 

 

Kozyrev believes that the invasion was immoral but not irrational - rather, based upon a series of miscalculations the actual reasoning behind it, based upon false premises and poor intelligence. He also referred to Putin's 'Potemkin Military' - that the budget for modernising it has been stolen or embezzled. 

 

Given that rationale, Tobias Elwood has repeatedly been calling for military action from the west to stop Putin before a false flag operation occurs in Transnistria or the border of Lithuania. The school of thought being that Putin is hell bent on escalation and that if NATO does not engage him now, it will inevitably fight him later. Scary. 

 

Meantime, scarier still, the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi has praised their 'iron clad' relationship with Russia as being one of the most crucial bilateral partnerships in the world. Although he identifies the situation in Taiwan as different, he ominously stressed that as part of China and not a territorial dispute, any support by the US to encourage their independence would bring "unbearable consequences". 

Interesting, thank you.

 

I don't think an encounter between Russia and NATO is inevitable because for me that carries an unacceptable risk of the end of civilisation - it might not be a certainty, but it's definitely a big enough chance to warrant cooler heads than that of Mr Elwood, evidently.

 

WRT China, I wonder if they think the US is bluffing regarding protecting Taiwan. They must know that if the US isn't bluffing, again it's a strategic objective they cannot obtain - they either lose or all sides lose.

Edited 8 March 2022 by leicsmac

[westernpark]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely, they have. MAD was the only reason the Cold War didn't burn much, much hotter.

Definitely. And the art of diplomacy.

[MonkeyTennis?]

42 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Donald Trump had as much to do with "maintaining international relationships" as Joe Biden had in the outbreak of this war. This would have happened irrespective of the outcome of the last US election. The difference lies in how he would have responded to it. 

Its potentially more complex than this: Biden had overseen US involvement in the previous Ukrainian crisis of 2014, to fairly limited effect (although there is some suggestion that he may have wanted to do more than Obama was happy with), and as a result its possible that he was seen by Moscow as likely to be weaker on Ukraine than Trump may have been.

 

Trump was always a slightly unknown quantity, who was as likely to endorse Putin's actions as he was to condemn them. If he had gone down the latter route, he wasn't afraid of making the most grandiose and ill-thought-out threats, especially if he thought it would get him those likes on twitter and play into his MAGA base. Personally, I think that Russia seems to have been fractionally more confident to invade Ukraine once Biden came into power, not really because Trump was any sort of deterrent, but because Trump was more volatile, whereas Biden could be said to have proven himself more weak in managing a related situation in the region - whether he really had been or not. 

 

Obviously I know nothing really, though. 

[westernpark]

4 minutes ago, MonkeyTennis? said:

Its potentially more complex than this: Biden had overseen US involvement in the previous Ukrainian crisis of 2014, to fairly limited effect (although there is some suggestion that he may have wanted to do more than Obama was happy with), and as a result its possible that he was seen by Moscow as likely to be weaker on Ukraine than Trump may have been.

 

Trump was always a slightly unknown quantity, who was as likely to endorse Putin's actions as he was to condemn them. If he had gone down the latter route, he wasn't afraid of making the most grandiose and ill-thought-out threats, especially if he thought it would get him those likes on twitter and play into his MAGA base. Personally, I think that Russia seems to have been fractionally more confident to invade Ukraine once Biden came into power, not really because Trump was any sort of deterrent, but because Trump was more volatile, whereas Biden could be said to have proven himself more weak in managing a related situation in the region - whether he really had been or not. 

 

Obviously I know nothing really, though. 

That’s exactly the problem with Trump, the ambiguity he would have created. It would have also damaged NATO regardless of which stance taken.

I know you don’t state personally that Biden was weak necessarily. But this is the problem(not what you say), the fact that we judge in society, leadership on a framework of perceived physical aggression and strength. Biden being perceived weak by the media and therefore the public, is based on him amongst other things, being old and slower in action(physical movement), and having a speech impediment. 

If the Russians know that potentially Biden is undermined by those reasons through the press/media, it can create uncertainty on a domestic level. Meaning he may lack support for his actions in the longer term. Rendering them ineffective, regardless of what they are.

[HighPeakFox]

15 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I see, my apologies for misunderstanding, but doesn't that only go further to strengthen my point as well? 

It really doesn't. I agree with you that Putin has timed this at a time of turmoil, and Trump embodied that turmoil. 

[Facecloth]

Lorry crashing into Russian embassy gate in Dublin was a 'violation of territory,' say staff

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/evp8FP

Sent via @updayUK

 

Oh the irony of calling it a "violation of territory".

[HighPeakFox]

11 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Then surely he would have chose to strike whilst he was in office? 

Obviously not. Maybe he was waiting until at least one maniac had left office. 

[SpacedX]

10 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I see, my apologies for misunderstanding, but doesn't that only go further to strengthen my point as well? 

 

What point? You said this...

 

3 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

Again, not a fan or supporter of Trump, but at least the bloke was able to maintain international relationships with people like Putin. 

Which is a complete myth.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be implying that the current war may not have been declared had he have won a second term due to some supposed international diplomatic prowess. And as I replied, this invasion would have happened irrespective of who was in office. Vladimir Putin simply regards him as a buffoon that makes his job easier. The calamitous consequences of his presidential term only served to inflict more chaos and division within the United States and whilst he and his equally batshit crazy followers in Congress threaten, Russian troll farms will continue to bolster their campaigns. 

 

Very happy to discuss this further in the politics thread - just conscious that we have already had two of these previously locked and don't want to stray too far off topic. 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

The point was that Putin may (the key word here, I'm not saying I'm stating facts) have been more hesitant to invade Ukraine whilst there was an America led by a nutter waiting in the wings. I'm certainly not implying that Trump was a brilliant international diplomat, it was just that he's cut from a cloth closer to that of Putin and others that you don't want to piss off, so there seemed to be more mutual respect there with him and other shady leaders across the globe. I don't get how that's a complete myth, but you're clearly more educated than I am on American and international politics. 

He's consistently offered terms of approbation to Vladimir Putin - possibly to appease him, but when an American president is threatening to come out of NATO or at the very least reduce its contributions and actively distancing the US from Europe, that is certainly of concern to western security and a green light in the Kremlin. Only last week he praised him as a genius during one of his equally deranged speeches. 

 

As I said, happy to reply, but this is one for the politics thread. 

[orangecity23]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Lorry crashing into Russian embassy gate in Dublin was a 'violation of territory,' say staff

https://f7td5.app.goo.gl/evp8FP

Sent via @updayUK

 

Oh the irony of calling it a "violation of territory".

Someone should tell them that it was a Special Logistical Delivery Operation.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

So as I understand it with my limited knowledge, Russia is now absolutely up the creek? Everyone from visa to PayPal to fast food joints, international sports across the board, basically any company outside of Russia is boycotting them and the currency is absolutely decimated? Surely this was always going to happen? How did he ever think this was a good idea, what was he trying to achieve? Doesn't make sense to me. 

Edited 8 March 2022 by Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot

[SpacedX]

UK and US have announced a full ban on Russian oil, gas and coal imports.

[blabyboy]

13 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

So as I understand it with my limited knowledge, Russia is now absolutely up the creek? Everyone from visa to PayPal to fast food joints, international sports across the board, basically any company outside of Russia is boycotting them and the currency is absolutely decimated? Surely this was always going to happen? How did he ever think this was a good idea, what was he trying to achieve? Doesn't make sense to me. 

McDonalds have not left, neither has KFC, Burger King etc... which fast food joints were you referring to?

 

And in perhaps the biggest irony, Coca-Cola are firmly still in there as well..

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/08/pressure-grows-on-mcdonalds-and-coca-cola-to-suspend-russia-operations

Edited 8 March 2022 by blabyboy
Added link to gruniad

[Countryfox]

Just listened to Sleepy Joe ..  sleepy he may be ..  made a bit of a mess with regards to pulling out of Afghanistan he may have made ..   but he looks like he knows what he is doing now and showed some balls.  Hats off sleepy .. 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, blabyboy said:

McDonalds have not left, neither has KFC, Burger King etc... which fast food joints were you referring to?

 

And in perhaps the biggest irony, Coca-Cola are firmly still in there as well..

They will pull out ..  or it will ultimately cost them ..  the world is becoming galvanised by what is happening. 

[SpacedX]

Just now, blabyboy said:

McDonalds have not left, neither has KFC, Burger King etc... which fast food joints were you referring to?

 

And in perhaps the biggest irony, Coca-Cola are firmly still in there as well..

Very difficult to pull out due to the sheer complexity of their operations. McDonalds for example have over 200 restaurants throughout Russia and I believe that I'm right in saying that they are tendered out to a Middle Eastern franchise. 

 

We'll see what happens when their share prices starts to plummet though. 

[blabyboy]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Very difficult to pull out due to the sheer complexity of their operations. McDonalds for example have over 200 restaurants throughout Russia and I believe that I'm right in saying that they are tendered out to a Middle Eastern franchise. 

 

We'll see what happens when their share prices starts to plummet though. 

agree, I edited my original post to include a link to the complexity which includes bottling plant and McD's actually own the restaurants in Russia which is mad when in the RotW they just use a franchisee system

[blabyboy]

7 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Just listened to Sleepy Joe ..  sleepy he may be ..  made a bit of a mess with regards to pulling out of Afghanistan he may have made ..   but he looks like he knows what he is doing now and showed some balls.  Hats off sleepy .. 

If Putin follows through on his threat to turn off Gas if the Oil is santioned then he's looking to drive a wedge between the US and Europe (Germany especially). Berlin's response is going to be an interesting watch.