Ukraine

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I believe he wants to cause issues for NATO countries, border skirmishes and so on but this could be amplified with Trump in the White House. The plans leaked in BILD are worrying to read but I would imagine such scenarios and domino events are planned for all the time. 
This is why it is so important we keep funding Ukraine.

True, should always plan for worst case events, even if they are improbable.

 

Speaking personally though, you'd think that everyone vaguely familiar with such game theory over the last 70 years knows where such escalation inevitably ends. And you'd also think that in that topic, self preservation would kick into the mind of even the most brutal "strongman" like Putin.

[westernpark]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

True, should always plan for worst case events, even if they are improbable.

 

Speaking personally though, you'd think that everyone vaguely familiar with such game theory over the last 70 years knows where such escalation inevitably ends. And you'd also think that in that topic, self preservation would kick into the mind of even the most brutal "strongman" like Putin.

Yes you’re right but there are of course nuances that mean war or exchanges doesn’t end up with that escalation. I don’t know what Putin is thinking but I have become increasingly confident that even he is aware, to the point he is simply on that front of pushing the boundary to the point of just avoiding any nuclear escalation. Obviously dangerous but he is a product of that era, when nuclear annihilation was always a possibility.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, westernpark said:

Yes you’re right but there are of course nuances that mean war or exchanges doesn’t end up with that escalation. I don’t know what Putin is thinking but I have become increasingly confident that even he is aware, to the point he is simply on that front of pushing the boundary to the point of just avoiding any nuclear escalation. Obviously dangerous but he is a product of that era, when nuclear annihilation was always a possibility.

Yeah, can understand the brinksmanship argument and it could well be accurate.

 

I'm just trying to think of a scenario where NATO and Russian forces engage in direct combat on a reasonably sized scale that doesn't then escalate to a very awful place. Hopefully things never even get to that stage of skirmish.

[MPH]

Trump won’t pull the U.S out of NATO. Any rhetoric he uses is all designed to get other nations to up their spending/ contribution towards  NATO. Currently U.S’ contribution far outweighs anyone else

 

 

and to be fair he’s right.. NATO spending needs to increase in light of current world issues.

Edited 17 January by MPH

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, can understand the brinksmanship argument and it could well be accurate.

 

I'm just trying to think of a scenario where NATO and Russian forces engage in direct combat on a reasonably sized scale that doesn't then escalate to a very awful place. Hopefully things never even get to that stage of skirmish.

It’s starting to feel like we might be entering a new era of warfare. Ukraine have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Russia; nukes have not come in return. Iran have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Pakistan; nukes have not come in return. It feels like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rewriting the rules on acceptable war in the 21st Century, and the fallout pushing the lines of conflict backwards. Russia wants war. Hamas wants war. Whether Israel does is debatable but a case can be made. Kim Jong Un has been issuing different threats of late and could be the next to eye it up, asking a new question of whether and how much the South dares to fight back if he attacks - not just “you can’t attack me because I have nukes” but “you can’t stop me because I have nukes”. It’s a mighty big bluff to call but would need calling if presented.

 

The question of the exact use of nukes feels like it’s coming under question. MAD is a terrible thought but it is at least clear to all sides concerned. It feels like the grey areas in the world are being tested right now and that’s when misjudgements can happen.

[MPH]

7 minutes ago, Dunge said:

It’s starting to feel like we might be entering a new era of warfare. Ukraine have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Russia; nukes have not come in return. Iran have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Pakistan; nukes have not come in return. It feels like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rewriting the rules on acceptable war in the 21st Century, and the fallout pushing the lines of conflict backwards. Russia wants war. Hamas wants war. Whether Israel does is debatable but a case can be made. Kim Jong Un has been issuing different threats of late and could be the next to eye it up, asking a new question of whether and how much the South dares to fight back if he attacks - not just “you can’t attack me because I have nukes” but “you can’t stop me because I have nukes”. It’s a mighty big bluff to call but would need calling if presented.

 

The question of the exact use of nukes feels like it’s coming under question. MAD is a terrible thought but it is at least clear to all sides concerned. It feels like the grey areas in the world are being tested right now and that’s when misjudgements can happen.

 

 

since when has using Nuclear weapons  been an acceptable part of war?  If what Iran are saying is true and they were only attacking a ‘ terror cell’ the. There is no threat to the survival of the state of Pakistan.Neither can Ukraine claim to be a threat to the survival of Russia.

 

These are the resasons  why most nations would use nuclear weapons… 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

since when has using Nuclear weapons  been an acceptable part of war?  If what Iran are saying is true and they were only attacking a ‘ terror cell’ the. There is no threat to the survival of the state of Pakistan.Neither can Ukraine claim to be a threat to the survival of Russia.

 

These are the resasons  why most nations would use nuclear weapons… 

I didn’t necessarily say “nuclear war” there. I mean that it feels like boundaries are being tested and pushed against states that are either nuclear armed themselves or under the veil of nuclear protection. And as I say, the next new question might come from Kim Jong Un, who it seems has just had a significant birthday and is thinking about what his legacy might look like beyond just “he was a leader of North Korea who made no real impact on anything”. I reckon there’s an element of that with Putin too.

[Dunge]

Maybe one thing to hold onto is that if even an autocratic leader is genuinely insane then they tend to get offed. Like Caligula.

[Lionator]

24 minutes ago, Dunge said:

It’s starting to feel like we might be entering a new era of warfare. Ukraine have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Russia; nukes have not come in return. Iran have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Pakistan; nukes have not come in return. It feels like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rewriting the rules on acceptable war in the 21st Century, and the fallout pushing the lines of conflict backwards. Russia wants war. Hamas wants war. Whether Israel does is debatable but a case can be made. Kim Jong Un has been issuing different threats of late and could be the next to eye it up, asking a new question of whether and how much the South dares to fight back if he attacks - not just “you can’t attack me because I have nukes” but “you can’t stop me because I have nukes”. It’s a mighty big bluff to call but would need calling if presented.

 

The question of the exact use of nukes feels like it’s coming under question. MAD is a terrible thought but it is at least clear to all sides concerned. It feels like the grey areas in the world are being tested right now and that’s when misjudgements can happen.

I disagree with this, Russia’s nuclear doctrine only allows first use of nuclear weapons when the existence of the state is at risk. Ukraine firing a few missiles into a border town is not that. If the US army were planning on marching into Moscow then you’d be looking at the nuclear risk. Likewise Pakistan aren’t going to use a nuclear weapon over a few missiles from its neighbour which are aimed at a terror group. 

Edited 17 January by Lionator

[MPH]

50 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I didn’t necessarily say “nuclear war” there. I mean that it feels like boundaries are being tested and pushed against states that are either nuclear armed themselves or under the veil of nuclear protection. And as I say, the next new question might come from Kim Jong Un, who it seems has just had a significant birthday and is thinking about what his legacy might look like beyond just “he was a leader of North Korea who made no real impact on anything”. I reckon there’s an element of that with Putin too.

You said that Nuclear weapons havnt been fired back. come on , now...

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

It’s starting to feel like we might be entering a new era of warfare. Ukraine have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Russia; nukes have not come in return. Iran have fired missiles into nuclear-armed Pakistan; nukes have not come in return. It feels like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rewriting the rules on acceptable war in the 21st Century, and the fallout pushing the lines of conflict backwards. Russia wants war. Hamas wants war. Whether Israel does is debatable but a case can be made. Kim Jong Un has been issuing different threats of late and could be the next to eye it up, asking a new question of whether and how much the South dares to fight back if he attacks - not just “you can’t attack me because I have nukes” but “you can’t stop me because I have nukes”. It’s a mighty big bluff to call but would need calling if presented.

 

The question of the exact use of nukes feels like it’s coming under question. MAD is a terrible thought but it is at least clear to all sides concerned. It feels like the grey areas in the world are being tested right now and that’s when misjudgements can happen.

This has generated a bit of discussion since it was posted.

 

I would echo @Lionator point that nations all have very, very specific regs about situations when nuclear release is authorised - even the more "insane" ones like the NK's. But that being said, I do think it would be very scarily easy for such situations to perhaps arise in a variety of places given the current global situation. A nuclear attack by the NK's on Seoul or by China on Taiwan, for instance - or even an overwhelming conventional attack - would be answered with at least a withering conventional response that could bring great powers forces into direct conflict with each other, and at most with nuclear exchange happening right away.

 

WRT the "legacy" question, I wonder what these people think about how they'll be remembered - surely they must know that it would be better for their legacy to be remembered as someone who "didn't have an impact" as opposed to "the one who started the death of modern civilisation".

 

 

[Dunge]

38 minutes ago, MPH said:

You said that Nuclear weapons havnt been fired back. come on , now...

Ok, so maybe it’s the word “acceptable” that we’re disagreeing on. What I mean is: When Russia went into Ukraine, they effectively said “If anyone tries to stop us they’ll face the consequences”. Ever since those troops crossed the border, NATO’s approach has been to work out what they can do without causing an escalation. Support? Tanks? Aircraft? Missiles? All done bit by bit and quite visually in case Russia responded. All a grey area without precedence. All writing rules that others might work to for years to come. How much can you get away with as an authoritarian expansionist? What is unofficially “acceptable”?

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

I disagree with this, Russia’s nuclear doctrine only allows first use of nuclear weapons when the existence of the state is at risk. Ukraine firing a few missiles into a border town is not that. If the US army were planning on marching into Moscow then you’d be looking at the nuclear risk. Likewise Pakistan aren’t going to use a nuclear weapon over a few missiles from its neighbour which are aimed at a terror group. 

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This has generated a bit of discussion since it was posted.

 

I would echo @Lionator point that nations all have very, very specific regs about situations when nuclear release is authorised - even the more "insane" ones like the NK's. But that being said, I do think it would be very scarily easy for such situations to perhaps arise in a variety of places given the current global situation. A nuclear attack by the NK's on Seoul or by China on Taiwan, for instance - or even an overwhelming conventional attack - would be answered with at least a withering conventional response that could bring great powers forces into direct conflict with each other, and at most with nuclear exchange happening right away.

 

WRT the "legacy" question, I wonder what these people think about how they'll be remembered - surely they must know that it would be better for their legacy to be remembered as someone who "didn't have an impact" as opposed to "the one who started the death of modern civilisation".

 

 

 

 

 

Just to add, i think it proves that NATO and the United states have played a good hand with regards to the war in Ukraine.. it just seems a shame that support seems to be waning a bit.. Some might argue they could have done more but they've made this a real problem for Russia without committing any troops or attacking Russia directly..

[Lionator]

59 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

 

 

Just to add, i think it proves that NATO and the United states have played a good hand with regards to the war in Ukraine.. it just seems a shame that support seems to be waning a bit.. Some might argue they could have done more but they've made this a real problem for Russia without committing any troops or attacking Russia directly..

I think as well we probably don't get Putin and his goals that well either. He's clearly a horrible man, but I suspect his aims now is to leave office in 5-10 years with a more favourable security situation for Russia even if it looks like that's backfired right now. 

[MPH]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think as well we probably don't get Putin and his goals that well either. He's clearly a horrible man, but I suspect his aims now is to leave office in 5-10 years with a more favourable security situation for Russia even if it looks like that's backfired right now. 

 

He's not helped himself by stating often that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation..

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I think as well we probably don't get Putin and his goals that well either. He's clearly a horrible man, but I suspect his aims now is to leave office in 5-10 years with a more favourable security situation for Russia even if it looks like that's backfired right now. 

Personally I think he’s had an experience with his own mortality and wants to go down in history as Tsar Vladimir the Great before he meets his maker.

[Mike Oxlong]

Medvedev is such a nob 

 

He used to be quite moderate but now seems to be smashing it in the Most Extreme Rhetoric award 

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Medvedev is such a nob 

 

He used to be quite moderate but now seems to be smashing it in the Most Extreme Rhetoric award 

He's a pisshead they wheel out to say nutty stuff then wheel back to the vodka bar.

[Lionator]

On 17/01/2024 at 16:16, MPH said:

 

He's not helped himself by stating often that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation..

Since the start of the war the rhetoric has been that East of Kyiv is Russian land and west of Kyiv is Polish land. They see ethnic Ukrainians as either Russian or Polish sovereign citizens. It’s a proper messed up, and past-obsessed way of doing things. 

[SkidsFox]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

Since the start of the war the rhetoric has been that East of Kyiv is Russian land and west of Kyiv is Polish land. They see ethnic Ukrainians as either Russian or Polish sovereign citizens. It’s a proper messed up, and past-obsessed way of doing things. 

The Russians used to have a similar attitude to the Polish nation back in the day.

[Lionator]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68047144 
 

A good old fashioned false flag. Russians bombing civilian markets and blaming it on Ukraine. 

[bmt]

Russian plane crash: Ministry says 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war on plane that crashed - BBC News

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, bmt said:

Russian plane crash: Ministry says 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war on plane that crashed - BBC News

Three stand-out possibilities then, given it looks very much like Ukraine have taken the plane down:

1. It never contained any PoWs and Russia are just saying it did.

2. It contained PoWs and was a massive screw-up in communication.

3. It contained PoWs and Russia dangled it out as bait deliberately in order to get this result and embarrassment for Ukraine.

[Parafox]

43 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Three stand-out possibilities then, given it looks very much like Ukraine have taken the plane down:

1. It never contained any PoWs and Russia are just saying it did.

2. It contained PoWs and was a massive screw-up in communication.

3. It contained PoWs and Russia dangled it out as bait deliberately in order to get this result and embarrassment for Ukraine.

This needs an FT poll...

 

3) 

1)

2)

Edited 24 January by Parafox

[Jattdogg]

56 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Three stand-out possibilities then, given it looks very much like Ukraine have taken the plane down:

1. It never contained any PoWs and Russia are just saying it did.

2. It contained PoWs and was a massive screw-up in communication.

3. It contained PoWs and Russia dangled it out as bait deliberately in order to get this result and embarrassment for Ukraine.

I mean if russia wasnt invading ukraine, it would never have happend. 100% on Russia even if a mistake by ukraine.