Ukraine

[Dunge]

For what it’s worth I think it’s number 3. And if it had got through without being struck then they do the prisoner swap as planned and nobody’s any the wiser. Either way they experiment with Ukraine’s monitoring and response capabilities.

[Flamey]

Suchomimus did a good update video on YT about it, looks like Russian twaddle.

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Flamey said:

Suchomimus did a good update video on YT about it, looks like Russian twaddle.

18 of the names provided by Russia have already been exchanged and are back in Ukraine.

[Flamey]

44 minutes ago, kenny said:

18 of the names provided by Russia have already been exchanged and are back in Ukraine.

Exactly, and the planes route doesn't exactly fit in with the Russian narrative. Most likely they  had this story pre concocted for just such a scenario. 

[bmt]

11 hours ago, kenny said:

18 of the names provided by Russia have already been exchanged and are back in Ukraine.

I think that its probably Russia lying but mistaken identity surely isn't that unlikely. Surely they'd look at the list of people they have exchanged before they publish this list of names...

[kenny]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

I think that its probably Russia lying but mistaken identity surely isn't that unlikely. Surely they'd look at the list of people they have exchanged before they publish this list of names...

Or they know that the people they lie to don't care about checking the facts?

 

It's probably aimed at the Russian public to demonstrate how demonic the Ukrainian military is.

 

 

[bmt]

11 minutes ago, kenny said:

Or they know that the people they lie to don't care about checking the facts?

 

It's probably aimed at the Russian public to demonstrate how demonic the Ukrainian military is.

 

 

Yes, not denying that possibility.

 

Either way I think that they've lied, either about whether PoWs were on it or the number. Sadly hard to ever know in this war.

[leicsmac]

@Lionator

 

With respect to your post elsewhere on war, is there any possible scenario where there's a direct fight between two of the big powers that doesn't end up at the last, very dark, possibility you describe?

 

I honestly can't imagine one but I'd very much like to.

[Zear0]

Rather large hole in the side.  Sure it'll be fine...

[Countryfox]

We are so letting those people down now ..  it’s embarrassing …. 

[MPH]

One of my favorite slap downs…

 

 

[leicsmac]

The Estonian Prime Minister on breakfast TV giving the "once Putin has finished with Ukraine, NATO will be next" line.

 

.... is there any consideration of nuclear weapons and what such a shooting match would inevitably escalate to in there at all?

 

So much rhetorical bluster.

[Zear0]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Estonian Prime Minister on breakfast TV giving the "once Putin has finished with Ukraine, NATO will be next" line.

 

.... is there any consideration of nuclear weapons and what such a shooting match would inevitably escalate to in there at all?

 

So much rhetorical bluster.

Not for the countries that border Russia and rely on NATO as a deterrent having seen what Putin has done in Ukraine, Syria and Georgia. 

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Not for the countries that border Russia and rely on NATO as a deterrent having seen what Putin has done in Ukraine, Syria and Georgia. 

And as long as NATO have nuclear weapons in their arsenal, they will always have that deterrent at their disposal regardless of what Putin decides to do. Everyone, including they, knows what happens if Russia decides to attack a NATO country and that results in Article 5 and NATO and Russian forces meet in the field. Everyone loses.

 

Unless they think that it's a bluff and Article 5 is not worth the paper it's printed on and/or they won't use nuclear weaponry if it comes to it and so let Putin do what he likes, which is possible, I guess.

Edited 25 February by leicsmac

[when_you're_smiling]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And as long as NATO have nuclear weapons in their arsenal, they will always have that deterrent at their disposal regardless of what Putin decides to do. Everyone, including they, knows what happens if Russia decides to attack a NATO country and that results in Article 5 and NATO and Russian forces meet in the field. Everyone loses.

 

Unless they think that it's a bluff and Article 5 is not worth the paper it's printed on and/or they won't use nuclear weaponry if it comes to it and so let Putin do what he likes, which is possible, I guess.

Most of those are controlled by the US though, where Trump could be in charge in a few months. Is Trump more pro Putin than pro NATO? He’s already spoken recently about allowing Putin to attack some NATO countries.

Edited 25 February by when_you're_smiling

[casablancas]

10 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Most of those are controlled by the US though, where Trump could be in charge in a few months. Is Trump more pro Putin than pro NATO? He’s already spoken recently about allowing Putin to attack some NATO countries.

He’s a Russophile no doubt or there’s a Fcuk  tonne of Kompromat which has been undisclosed. I go for both. 

[Dunge]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And as long as NATO have nuclear weapons in their arsenal, they will always have that deterrent at their disposal regardless of what Putin decides to do. Everyone, including they, knows what happens if Russia decides to attack a NATO country and that results in Article 5 and NATO and Russian forces meet in the field. Everyone loses.

 

Unless they think that it's a bluff and Article 5 is not worth the paper it's printed on and/or they won't use nuclear weaponry if it comes to it and so let Putin do what he likes, which is possible, I guess.

I imagine Putin believes there is some sort of high-percentage likelihood that the West’s attitude to their nukes is “nukes for nukes and nukes alone”, ie that a war can be contained to a rule that he sets and the West won’t escalate beyond that themselves.

 

Whether he’s certain of that is another matter, but given the West’s behaviour around Ukraine he’d probably see us as relatively predictable. How he’d see Trump would be interesting as he’s not such a predictable person but he’d have to be encouraged by the recent words and actions of the wing of the Republican Party he claims to represent.

 

So the question for him might be how Europe’s conventional forces stand up against Russian conventional forces, believing he could keep it to that because Europe wouldn’t escalate beyond that. Even so, I think this would be fraught with danger. If you don’t succeed, you have a tough time at home convincing people that going to their deaths is worth it. Does Europe get pushed to the point where the soft outer shell is stripped away and they start thinking their own escalation is worth the risk? Does Europe look to take Ukraine back as punishment? Or Kaliningrad - right now that’s unthinkable, but when under attack, unthinkable things start to become thinkable. If anything like that happens, how does Putin respond? Has his own bluff been called?

 

Problem is, nobody knows quite what Putin’s thinking. Which is what happens when somebody lies so much.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Most of those are controlled by the US though, where Trump could be in charge in a few months. Is Trump more pro Putin than pro NATO? He’s already spoken recently about allowing Putin to attack some NATO countries.

If that's the case and it turns out that Trump wouldn't lift a finger (and that is entirely possible) then I'm not entirely sure how much the rest of NATO could do conventionally anyway, so IMO the point being made by the Estonian PM is still a little redundant.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Putin should be challenged by any means necessary and I long for the day he's no longer in charge, I just don't see how what was said adds anything constructive to the overall picture.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

I imagine Putin believes there is some sort of high-percentage likelihood that the West’s attitude to their nukes is “nukes for nukes and nukes alone”, ie that a war can be contained to a rule that he sets and the West won’t escalate beyond that themselves.

 

Whether he’s certain of that is another matter, but given the West’s behaviour around Ukraine he’d probably see us as relatively predictable. How he’d see Trump would be interesting as he’s not such a predictable person but he’d have to be encouraged by the recent words and actions of the wing of the Republican Party he claims to represent.

 

So the question for him might be how Europe’s conventional forces stand up against Russian conventional forces, believing he could keep it to that because Europe wouldn’t escalate beyond that. Even so, I think this would be fraught with danger. If you don’t succeed, you have a tough time at home convincing people that going to their deaths is worth it. Does Europe get pushed to the point where the soft outer shell is stripped away and they start thinking their own escalation is worth the risk? Does Europe look to take Ukraine back as punishment? Or Kaliningrad - right now that’s unthinkable, but when under attack, unthinkable things start to become thinkable. If anything like that happens, how does Putin respond? Has his own bluff been called?

 

Problem is, nobody knows quite what Putin’s thinking. Which is what happens when somebody lies so much.

Yeah, astute.

 

Personally, I think the temptation for either side to respond to a losing conventional war with the use of tactical nuclear weapons as per Cold War doctrine that then escalates from there is too strong, but that's me.

[when_you're_smiling]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that's the case and it turns out that Trump wouldn't lift a finger (and that is entirely possible) then I'm not entirely sure how much the rest of NATO could do conventionally anyway, so IMO the point being made by the Estonian PM is still a little redundant.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Putin should be challenged by any means necessary and I long for the day he's no longer in charge, I just don't see how what was said adds anything constructive to the overall picture.

I think it’s more really trying to warn Europe against complacency. I think it did get complacent with regards to Ukraine. Even with months of building up military on the Ukrainian border, we were all still shocked when they went over. There’s a build up on the Estonian border been going on for a few months now. Obviously Russia say it’s just training and a reaction to NATO, but they said the same thing about Ukraine.

 

You’d like to think it’s a bluff again given Estonia’s a NATO member and they won’t do something, but we’ve been wrong before. I really do think if Trump gets in Russia could invade Estonia and Trump would just shrug his shoulders at best. Then it’s up to Europe as to what happens next. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The Estonian Prime Minister on breakfast TV giving the "once Putin has finished with Ukraine, NATO will be next" line.

 

.... is there any consideration of nuclear weapons and what such a shooting match would inevitably escalate to in there at all?

 

So much rhetorical bluster.

 

 

the obvious answer to that is what makes Putin think he can taken on NATO if he can’t even  take Ukraine?

 

 

 

it’s just scaremongering.

 

 

whether  Russia end up taking Ukraine or not, he’s been absolutely embarrassed by their resistance- rhetoric is the only weapon Russia have left..

Edited 25 February by MPH

[Blarmy]

12 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

we were all still shocked when they went over.

I wasn’t, and I am not even close to being an expert. It was the organised violence in the World Cup that made me realise what may happen.  It pointed to a certain mindset.

 

NATO never should have pulled out of Ukraine when Russia was amassing forces. It showed weakness, and people like Putin love to see that. 

 

Again, I’m not an expert, but part of me feels that we should just go in and liberate Ukraine - the full force of NATO would make short work of it. We seem to be inevitably heading towards something worse than that.

[Salisbury Fox]

If you want peace, prepare for war. Like it or not the US is becoming a more unpredictable ally and so Europe needs to be able to demonstrate that they have the nerve for a fight. Estonia just recognises the threat more than most.

 

Putin is quite capable of destabilising countries without invading anyway, look at his use of the little green men and his meddling with Moldova via Transnistria which is ongoing.

[MPH]

11 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

If you want peace, prepare for war. Like it or not the US is becoming a more unpredictable ally and so Europe needs to be able to demonstrate that they have the nerve for a fight. Estonia just recognises the threat more than most.

 

Putin is quite capable of destabilising countries without invading anyway, look at his use of the little green men and his meddling with Moldova via Transnistria which is ongoing.

 

he’s been doing a very good job of distabilizing Ukraine for many years.. he’s been handing out Russian passports simply for working for Russian company  amongst many other trivial reasons. And low and behold, there’s now ‘ Russian citizens ‘ he needs to protect..

[HighPeakFox]

Let's not ignore that Putin has basically entirely compromised the Republican Party now - so the USA is close to becoming a rogue state.