Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
Where is your red line?
NATO, as I have said, multiple times
If Russia invades Finland the night before they sign up for NATO, do the Finns miss out?
Finland and Sweden are grey areas, I readily confess
But at least I am honest that this is fucking difficult. For you it is just "jump on a horse and tally-ho". If only it were that simple
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Why would we need to attack targets around Moscow?
We could join the war on Ukraine's side, establish air superiority over Ukrainian airspace, send in the armoured brigades to liberate Kherson, and I don't see why we would have to attack targets around Moscow. Yes, we'd have to hit some anti-aircraft defences in Belarus and Russia that were within range of Ukraine. The airfields near to Ukraine would also be targets - but why Moscow?
Because to operate a no fly zone you have to degrade the anti-aircraft defences of the Russians. Otherwise, as Dura Ace so eloquently put it the other day you might as well just shoot your pilots in the back of the head before they take off and save on the fuel.
As has already been mentioned the Russian S-400s have a range of 400km. The newer S-500 have a range of 500km. That means they can sit them around Moscow and shoot down our planes over Ukraine.
So again. Are you prepared to attack targets around Moscow?
It's 450km from the Kremlin to the nearest corner of Ukraine. Given the stand-off range of many of the missiles fired by NATO warplanes I think that means we could engage in a conventional war on Ukraine's side without hitting SAM systems stationed around Moscow.
Kharkiv, for example, is 650km from Moscow. Sumy is 570km. Kyiv is 750km.
It doesn't work like that because the Russians do exactly the same thing. Stand off and fire missiles at a distance. And since their aim is simply hitting large civilian targets they don't need the same degree of accuracy we do. And even at half that range you still need to bomb targets well inside Russia. The idea that we can enforce a NFZ without serious attacks on Russian territory including hundreds of miles inside Russia is wishful thinking.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We are already there. That’s why we have “trip wire” forces deployed. Estonia (and we) know the NATO line will hold.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
You turn out to be a twit, rather disappointingly. This is not difficult. NATO says: if x in country y, then z. How do you get from that to x in country not-y, and no z, is a NATO fail?
@biggles my family knows all too well atrocities committed by Russians throughout history, from pogroms to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. From Poland to Ukraine.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We have a couple of thousand troops there, so impossible to avoid the fight if invaded.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Utter bolleaux. Maybe it makes you feel better to write it.
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
You’re the biggest appeaser on here so I’ll take no lectures from you thank you
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
No need to abuse. You clearly don’t agree, but my line is not rubbish.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
They wouldn't but then we have no choice. Right now we do.
One other thing. Given the only thing stopping Putin using tactical nukes right now is the fear of western reaction and the fact that he is not winning or perhaps even losing in Ukraine at the moment, I would suggest it is near certainty that any direct NATO involvement - which would remove his last threat against us - would result in the immediate use of battlefield nukes against Ukrainian cities. After all at that point he has nothing to lose.
So we’re happy to let Putin commit war crimes in Ukraine because we’re scared?
No we are not willing to start a war right now because we are not suicidal. And I don't remember you pressing for attacking Russia when they were carpet bombing Grozny? Or didn't the Chechens matter?
@biggles my family knows all too well atrocities committed by Russians throughout history, from pogroms to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. From Poland to Ukraine.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We have a couple of thousand troops there, so impossible to avoid the fight if invaded.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
You turn out to be a twit, rather disappointingly. This is not difficult. NATO says: if x in country y, then z. How do you get from that to x in country not-y, and no z, is a NATO fail?
Murder, war crimes things like that, uou know killing children, hospitals, mining safe passages.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
Except we quite obviously have NOT abandoned Ukraine.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We have a couple of thousand troops there, so impossible to avoid the fight if invaded.
We had troops in Ukraine too until we didn’t
We had a training mission. With that comment you’ve demonstrated your complete lack of grasp of defence.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Utter bolleaux. Maybe it makes you feel better to write it.
I hope you are right and I am wrong. I assure you I do not feel better writing it, but it is what I feel. I never used to have such doubts, now I do.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
Except we quite obviously have NOT abandoned Ukraine.
Do we have decent intelligence on how long Ukraine - or Russia - is likely to hold out?
Two very simple but absolutely crucial questions. Ukraine seems to have the Russian army under more control than any of us thought possible. Crap maintenance and crap conscripts making Russia's problems worse. But Russia can simply bypass the army issue and bomb the crap out of Ukraine. Russia is under huge financial pressure but it is still early days and supposedly they have large cash / gold reserves.
What seems absolutely clear is that Russia's war strategy is in the bin, as are the hopeful noises from western commentators that the Oligarchs will launch a putsch against Putin. What seems entirely possible is that the Ukraine war bogs down so that not a lot of progress is made by either side. Which hopefully opens the door to a negotiated solution.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We have a couple of thousand troops there, so impossible to avoid the fight if invaded.
We had troops in Ukraine too until we didn’t
We had a training mission. With that comment you’ve demonstrated your complete lack of grasp of defence.
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
You’re the biggest appeaser on here so I’ll take no lectures from you thank you
My position is that we shouldn't intervene directly, and I not. Your position is 'up boys and at 'em' from the comfort of your armchair. From which you're also happy to lecture anyone with a shred of sense on how cowardly they are.
It's a funny old world when I feel faintly relieved that by far the worst Prime Minister of my lifetime is making decisions, rather than the PB posters virtually advocating a nuclear holocaust on here tonight. Oh well.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I'm no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
It's weird, as I take the exact opposite lesson from all this. It sucks for Ukraine that they are not a red line as far as the West is concerned - that may temper their enthusiasm in time - but alliance are what they are. Yes the same fears of escalation would be present, but invasion of Estonia would be existential for NATO in way that does not apply to Ukraine unfortuantely. It couldn't not act (unless, as I said, Trump was around, and without the US nothing could really happen).
Nations all over Europe really want to help Ukraine but are fighting that instinct because of the lack of formal military alliance, they fear it would be us crossing the all out war with Russia line to get involved directly. That's not the case if a NATO country were attacked, and I reiterate, if NATO is willing to assist a non-member, how does it make sense it would do nothing more for a member?
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
We have not abandoned Ukraine. We have pretty much gone as far as we can, short of direct confrontation with The Bear. We have inflicted the most severe sanctions known - on a nuclear power - we are clearly supplying the best possible weapons to the Ukes. We can see UK (and other) Special Forces at work right now in Ukraine
But Russia IS a nuclear power and it IS ruled by a tyrant showing signs of outright madness. The only sane approach is fully-armed caution
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
You’re the biggest appeaser on here so I’ll take no lectures from you thank you
My position is that we shouldn't intervene directly, and I not. Your position is 'up boys and at 'em' from the comfort of your armchair. From which you're also happy to lecture anyone with a shred of sense on how cowardly they are.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
Except we quite obviously have NOT abandoned Ukraine.
So what happens if Russia takes Kyiv?
They will be unable to control it. A worse Afghanistan and closer to home.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
We have a couple of thousand troops there, so impossible to avoid the fight if invaded.
We had troops in Ukraine too until we didn’t
Our troops were not in Ukraine as part of mutual defence treaties with them, so the comparison does not hold water for me. The line between ally and non ally, between levels of allies, may well be arbitrary and the reason Ukraine doesn't get the level of support it wants or needs, but it doesn't follow that no levels of support or allyship exist. Ukraine is not as close an ally to the West as Estonia, that's just the case. Yes its all people and it shouldn't make a difference in a perfect world, but it does make a difference.
Your comments on this matter of NATO defence fly in the face of their demonstrable actions in the last few weeks. I'd have agreed with the comments a month ago, but the situation has changed as the facts have demonstated NATO will take actions.
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
You’re the biggest appeaser on here so I’ll take no lectures from you thank you
My position is that we shouldn't intervene directly, and I not. Your position is 'up boys and at 'em' from the comfort of your armchair. From which you're also happy to lecture anyone with a shred of sense on how cowardly they are.
I’m actually in bed
The only thing worse than armchair warriors is bed warriors.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
MAD still stands. Russia loses just as much as we do in a nuclear war.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
MAD still stands. Russia loses just as much as we do in a nuclear war.
But Putin seems to have given up caring about the lives of ordinary Russians, a MAD strategy might not really matter to him any more.
Anything less than global thermonuclear war and the end of human civilisation is just cowardly appeasement
Global thermonuclear war is just for slackers - we need to kill the Russian astronauts on the space station as well
General Thomas S. Power - "Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation - "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."
For those that don't know, General Power was the one that *Curtis Le May* thought was a bit too keen on the whole nuclear war thing.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
We have not abandoned Ukraine. We have pretty much gone as far as we can, short of direct confrontation with The Bear. We have inflicted the most severe sanctions known - on a nuclear power - we are clearly supplying the best possible weapons to the Ukes. We can see UK (and other) Special Forces at work right now in Ukraine
But Russia IS a nuclear power and it IS ruled by a tyrant showing signs of outright madness. The only sane approach is fully-armed caution
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Why would we need to attack targets around Moscow?
We could join the war on Ukraine's side, establish air superiority over Ukrainian airspace, send in the armoured brigades to liberate Kherson, and I don't see why we would have to attack targets around Moscow. Yes, we'd have to hit some anti-aircraft defences in Belarus and Russia that were within range of Ukraine. The airfields near to Ukraine would also be targets - but why Moscow?
Because to operate a no fly zone you have to degrade the anti-aircraft defences of the Russians. Otherwise, as Dura Ace so eloquently put it the other day you might as well just shoot your pilots in the back of the head before they take off and save on the fuel.
As has already been mentioned the Russian S-400s have a range of 400km. The newer S-500 have a range of 500km. That means they can sit them around Moscow and shoot down our planes over Ukraine.
So again. Are you prepared to attack targets around Moscow?
It's 450km from the Kremlin to the nearest corner of Ukraine. Given the stand-off range of many of the missiles fired by NATO warplanes I think that means we could engage in a conventional war on Ukraine's side without hitting SAM systems stationed around Moscow.
Kharkiv, for example, is 650km from Moscow. Sumy is 570km. Kyiv is 750km.
It doesn't work like that because the Russians do exactly the same thing. Stand off and fire missiles at a distance. And since their aim is simply hitting large civilian targets they don't need the same degree of accuracy we do. And even at half that range you still need to bomb targets well inside Russia. The idea that we can enforce a NFZ without serious attacks on Russian territory including hundreds of miles inside Russia is wishful thinking.
I've always accepted that if we intervene militarily it means hitting targets in Russia. I've never advocated for a No-Fly Zone because (1) it was a complete failure at the end of Gulf War 1, (2) most of the damage being done to Ukrainian cities now is by artillery, and if we were going to intervene I'd want us to be taking out the artillery, (3) I think most of those advocating a No-Fly Zone have a naive view (based on the Iraqi experience) that it's an easy option that avoids direct conflict - it doesn't.
But I don't accept that providing direct military support to Ukraine puts us on an inevitable countdown to nuclear armageddon.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
Now how many British tanks have been captured by an enemy since 1945 ? Or even in 1943-45.
What’s more is that the Ukrainians have been effectively “upgrading” at the very least their tank force. Most of their losses have been T-64s while they have been capturing much better models
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
What is this pathetic knicker wetting talk? My impression is you are a civilian living in the nuclear free NE of England, and childless. You have barely any skin in the game at all, if that's right. You don't know what it is to fear death on behalf of yourself or your children, you are probably in danger of only limited personal inconvenience in the event of a small to medium nuclear war, and you badly need to stop bloviating.
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Around Moscow?
Does Russia have anti-aircraft missiles near Moscow that can hit Ukraine? I thought the nearest effective ones they had were just beyond the border.
The longest range systems (S400) can hit targets over Ukraine, from deep into Russia. 400km range.....
It’s interesting - and welcome - that this conflict doesn’t easily divide PB (nor the public) into hawks and doves. I don’t know where I am, does anyone?
The military balance between Russia and Ukraine looks like a type of rock, paper and scissors. The Russians have tanks, the Ukranians have NLAWs/Javelins. The Russians have aircraft, the Ukranians have stingers and will have Starstreak. What seems to be the problem is countering Russian artillery. What could NATO give the Ukranians to interdict that? Yes they have counterbattery radar, but could they get some MLRS or mobile counterbattery artillery from anyone?
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
What is this pathetic knicker wetting talk? My impression is you are a civilian living in the nuclear free NE of England, and childless. You have barely any skin in the game at all, if that's right. You don't know what it is to fear death on behalf of yourself or your children, you are probably in danger of only limited personal inconvenience in the event of a small to medium nuclear war, and you badly need to stop bloviating.
I don’t think we are appeasing Putin. We are doing our best to arm Ukraine and support it. The appeasers in 1938 would have been pressuring Ukraine to give up to Putin.
If the Czechs had fought in 38, we would have been sending best wishes. The RAF wasn't capable of bombing Germany from the UK, then. No air supply possible.
We would have had to get the French to fight, and get the BEF through France to attack the Germans across the land border - which would have taken weeks to setup.
I didn’t say they were wrong, just that what we are doing is not appeasing Putin.
Rubbish. Its knicker wetting when faced with a bully’s threats.
You're getting good internet signal from the international brigade base in Ukraine aren't you? And obviously finding time between destroying Russian targets to post on PB. Do share more of your brave exploits to inspire us knicker wetters back in Blighty won't you?
You’re the biggest appeaser on here so I’ll take no lectures from you thank you
My position is that we shouldn't intervene directly, and I not. Your position is 'up boys and at 'em' from the comfort of your armchair. From which you're also happy to lecture anyone with a shred of sense on how cowardly they are.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
Ukraine thanks you for abandoning them to their fate before you defend Estonia in WWIII
Not just us, all parties and leaders in Parliament.
It is not a matter of abandoning Ukraine, it is about how we force Putin to back down. It is about means rather than ends.
For Putin it's always about "ends". The "means" doesn't matter. You will abandon Ukraine for fear of Putin and he will take confidence from our weakness.
We have not abandoned Ukraine. We have pretty much gone as far as we can, short of direct confrontation with The Bear. We have inflicted the most severe sanctions known - on a nuclear power - we are clearly supplying the best possible weapons to the Ukes. We can see UK (and other) Special Forces at work right now in Ukraine
But Russia IS a nuclear power and it IS ruled by a tyrant showing signs of outright madness. The only sane approach is fully-armed caution
Sound, sober and steady commentary.
Is that a first for Leon? (I agree with him, which isn't far of a first too).
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
But Putin seems to have given up caring about the lives of ordinary Russians, a MAD strategy might not really matter to him any more.
That's the problem. If he's not detered then ultimately the choice for NATO regarding an attack on Estonia would be between WW III or "good luck lads you're in our thoughts".
Do we have decent intelligence on how long Ukraine - or Russia - is likely to hold out?
Two very simple but absolutely crucial questions. Ukraine seems to have the Russian army under more control than any of us thought possible. Crap maintenance and crap conscripts making Russia's problems worse. But Russia can simply bypass the army issue and bomb the crap out of Ukraine. Russia is under huge financial pressure but it is still early days and supposedly they have large cash / gold reserves.
What seems absolutely clear is that Russia's war strategy is in the bin, as are the hopeful noises from western commentators that the Oligarchs will launch a putsch against Putin. What seems entirely possible is that the Ukraine war bogs down so that not a lot of progress is made by either side. Which hopefully opens the door to a negotiated solution.
Russia’s issue is that it is effectively seeing a drain on its troop numbers (I.e. losses) while the Ukrainians have, in effect, seen a significant increase in their numbers (recruits, foreign legions etc). Also, Ukraine is receiving replenishments of vital equipment while Russia is running down its stocks.
Given their likely losses and the fact the Russians have made little concrete headway in the past several days, Russian forces may reach a teaching point where they simply disintegrate.
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Around Moscow?
Does Russia have anti-aircraft missiles near Moscow that can hit Ukraine? I thought the nearest effective ones they had were just beyond the border.
The longest range systems (S400) can hit targets over Ukraine, from deep into Russia. 400km range.....
I'll be seriously impressed if it can actually take down a modern jet at 400km range
It would be interesting from the point of view of the pilots "trying it on" vs such systems. I wonder what https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rasimus would have made of that - used to talk to him, online.
I know she's wrong that to "close the sky" doesn't involve fighting.
I don't think that distinction matters any more.
Liubov Tsybulska @TsybulskaLiubov Lots of killed and wounded after terrible bombing of the maternity hospital. 1170 killed civilians only in Mariupol city. We don’t ask to fight for us, just close the sky. If that’s how democracies react to RU war crimes, then something wrong with these democracies.They’re broken https://twitter.com/TsybulskaLiubov/status/1501613250605158402
Unless you are prepared to attack targets around Moscow it matters.
Why would we need to attack targets around Moscow?
We could join the war on Ukraine's side, establish air superiority over Ukrainian airspace, send in the armoured brigades to liberate Kherson, and I don't see why we would have to attack targets around Moscow. Yes, we'd have to hit some anti-aircraft defences in Belarus and Russia that were within range of Ukraine. The airfields near to Ukraine would also be targets - but why Moscow?
Because to operate a no fly zone you have to degrade the anti-aircraft defences of the Russians. Otherwise, as Dura Ace so eloquently put it the other day you might as well just shoot your pilots in the back of the head before they take off and save on the fuel.
As has already been mentioned the Russian S-400s have a range of 400km. The newer S-500 have a range of 500km. That means they can sit them around Moscow and shoot down our planes over Ukraine.
So again. Are you prepared to attack targets around Moscow?
It's 450km from the Kremlin to the nearest corner of Ukraine. Given the stand-off range of many of the missiles fired by NATO warplanes I think that means we could engage in a conventional war on Ukraine's side without hitting SAM systems stationed around Moscow.
Kharkiv, for example, is 650km from Moscow. Sumy is 570km. Kyiv is 750km.
It doesn't work like that because the Russians do exactly the same thing. Stand off and fire missiles at a distance. And since their aim is simply hitting large civilian targets they don't need the same degree of accuracy we do. And even at half that range you still need to bomb targets well inside Russia. The idea that we can enforce a NFZ without serious attacks on Russian territory including hundreds of miles inside Russia is wishful thinking.
I've always accepted that if we intervene militarily it means hitting targets in Russia. I've never advocated for a No-Fly Zone because (1) it was a complete failure at the end of Gulf War 1, (2) most of the damage being done to Ukrainian cities now is by artillery, and if we were going to intervene I'd want us to be taking out the artillery, (3) I think most of those advocating a No-Fly Zone have a naive view (based on the Iraqi experience) that it's an easy option that avoids direct conflict - it doesn't.
But I don't accept that providing direct military support to Ukraine puts us on an inevitable countdown to nuclear armageddon.
Whereas I think it does. Certainly with Putin in charge.
So it comes down to whether or not you genuinely believe that Putin will not starting using nukes. That is the only question that matters and you have no better handle on that than anyone else.
This is a betting site. Are you willing to bet your life he won't use them?
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
EVERYONE should be terrified of nuclear war.
Why? What difference is being afraid going to make? I’ll be vaporised either way.
Ireland's Taoiseach reveals Priti Patel rang Ireland's Justice minister expressing concerns about Ukrainian refugees in Ireland. Martin said McEntee “pointed out” to Patel that Ireland was part of the EU-wide response to the crisis.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
MAD still stands. Russia loses just as much as we do in a nuclear war.
The MAD doctrine was supposed to stop NATO and the Warsaw Pact going to war with each other. It worked during the Cold War because each bloc didn't intervene militarily in each others proxy wars. We don't know if it'll work now because Russia still hasn't attacked a NATO country. It's horribly brutal geopolitics but that was the line in the sand then and it has to be now. The West is doing now exactly what it's always done, give every possible aid to non NATO countries fighting Russian aggression short of direct intervention. I'll say it again, turning Ukraine into a nuclear battlefield won't help it.
Anything less than global thermonuclear war and the end of human civilisation is just cowardly appeasement
Global thermonuclear war is just for slackers - we need to kill the Russian astronauts on the space station as well
General Thomas S. Power - "Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation - "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."
For those that don't know, General Power was the one that *Curtis Le May* thought was a bit too keen on the whole nuclear war thing.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
Now how many British tanks have been captured by an enemy since 1945 ? Or even in 1943-45.
What’s more is that the Ukrainians have been effectively “upgrading” at the very least their tank force. Most of their losses have been T-64s while they have been capturing much better models
I noticed that as well.
Add in all the western aid and the Ukrainian military is much better equipped now than two weeks ago.
Whereas Russia is burning through equipment and supplies faster than they can replace it.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
So you don't want war with Russia, but you do want to do more. What do you have in mind?
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We need to communicate these red lines in advance so Putin knows where he stands. The problem is we don’t know what the red line is and therefore there isn’t one.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
Another absurd straw man. No one on here is saying: "I am so terrified of nuclear war that I would let Putin bomb my granny"
Everyone agrees there must come a time when you stand up to a tyrannical bully, even at the unspeakable risk of nuclear war. And, as far as I can see, everyone on here on that side of the argument says NATO is that line. The Alliance, so recently disregarded, which was formed precisely to protect us all from horrible aggression by the USSR/Russia.
That mutual protection is the sole purpose of NATO, and wow it is relevant now. Lithuanians will die to protect the UK, Portuguese will die to protect Germany, Britons will die to protect Poland, and Americans will protect us all with the biggest military on earth
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
We speak disparagingly of 'appeasers' in WW2, but America did not enter WW2 until its own fleet was sunk by the Japanese. That makes the US the worst Hitler-appeasers by a country mile, but they don't seem to get much stick for it in the annals of history. Rather than participating, they got very rich supplying countries that were contesting the war, and when they eventually joined, their intervention was decisive.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
It probably should be the trigger for direct action. Use of such on an ally, next door to NATO members, is sufficient proof of a reckless threat to those members that a response would be needed, and there's no other way to escalate. It probably wouldn't lead to that though.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
Now how many British tanks have been captured by an enemy since 1945 ? Or even in 1943-45.
What’s more is that the Ukrainians have been effectively “upgrading” at the very least their tank force. Most of their losses have been T-64s while they have been capturing much better models
I noticed that as well.
Add in all the western aid and the Ukrainian military is much better equipped now than two weeks ago.
Whereas Russia is burning through equipment and supplies faster than they can replace it.
The worrying thing is that Russia has some truly horrendous weapons they could use if desperate.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We need to communicate these red lines in advance so Putin knows where he stands. The problem is we don’t know what the red line is and therefore there isn’t one.
The red line is a Russian attack on a NATO country. Same as for the last 70 odd years.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We need to communicate these red lines in advance so Putin knows where he stands. The problem is we don’t know what the red line is and therefore there isn’t one.
But we do know what the red line is. It's membership of NATO.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
So you don't want war with Russia, but you do want to do more. What do you have in mind?
At this point, I would communicate to Putin what the red lines are and then be prepared to stick to them, i.e. we have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.
Red lines could be no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, for example.
EU intelligence diverging from US quite significantly:
"From our estimate, the KIA figure on the Russian side was anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a few days ago." "It's not a popular war in the Russian military from what we've seen. People are terrorized, threatened with lawsuits if they decline to fight."
If the EU numbers are correct then we'd be expecting to see at least one Russian front on the brink of collapse, which I don't think we're seeing yet, unless the poor Russian supplies means that many more WIA were turning into KIA than normal.
Why would a front be on the brink of collapse?
The Russians were able to make initial advances with only a portion of their forces and only recently had they deployed the last remaining forces that had been assembled to Ukraine, so losses of one-sixth wouldn't put them on the verge of collapse.
Even with greater losses it depends on the losses suffered by Ukraine.
I think the answer is morale. I suspect that being "out of supply" is a very convenient excuse for units that don't want to fight.
The amount of Russian equipment which has been captured also suggests that:
Now how many British tanks have been captured by an enemy since 1945 ? Or even in 1943-45.
What’s more is that the Ukrainians have been effectively “upgrading” at the very least their tank force. Most of their losses have been T-64s while they have been capturing much better models
I noticed that as well.
Add in all the western aid and the Ukrainian military is much better equipped now than two weeks ago.
Whereas Russia is burning through equipment and supplies faster than they can replace it.
The worrying thing is that Russia has some truly horrendous weapons they could use if desperate.
They have already admitted, today, to using thermobaric bombs. ADMITTED
We must prepare ourselves for the near-inevitability of them using chemical weapons. Possibly tactical nukes, to strike fear into the west
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
There are always limits. We all know that. So then we are talking about where to draw the line. At what point do we force Russia to back down, rather than being forced to back down ourselves?
During the Cold War there was a clear dividing line in Europe. That made the decisions simple, if no easier to stomach.
My question is this: Why should we accept that Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence? Why shouldn't it be the Russians forced to back down?
When we decide that we will not intervene directly in Ukraine, despite what Russia might do, or has already done, we are conceding that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence, even though its people don't want to be. That feels like something we've given away, and we gave it away for nothing, when we as good as gave Putin permission to invade by saying there were no circumstances in which we would send troops to fight for democracy in Ukraine when the Russian buildup was happening.
Those who oppose our direct military intervention in Ukraine deploy the nuclear card as a way to try to make the argument simple. The argument really isn't that simple.
There are risks and costs. There will always be risks and costs, but we have to face this decision honestly. We can't just say that there is no decision to be made about whether we intervene military, "because nuclear".
That doesn't necessarily mean that the right thing to do is to declare war and put the British armed forces at Zelenskyy's disposal. It means that we have to make a choice, and we have to bear the consequences of both sides of that choice.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
Another absurd straw man. No one on here is saying: "I am so terrified of nuclear war that I would let Putin bomb my granny"
Everyone agrees there must come a time when you stand up to a tyrannical bully, even at the unspeakable risk of nuclear war. And, as far as I can see, everyone on here on that side of the argument says NATO is that line. The Alliance, so recently disregarded, which was formed precisely to protect us all from horrible aggression by the USSR/Russia.
That mutual protection is the sole purpose of NATO, and wow it is relevant now. Lithuanians will die to protect the UK, Portuguese will die to protect Germany, Britons will die to protect Poland, and Americans will protect us all with the biggest military on earth
Thank Fuck for NATO, frankly
I never thought I'd find myself on the same side as you and HYFUD in a grand PB spat but thank God there are still some rational people in the world.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We need to communicate these red lines in advance so Putin knows where he stands. The problem is we don’t know what the red line is and therefore there isn’t one.
But we do know what the red line is. It's membership of NATO.
So if Russia used mustard gas on Kyiv that would not be a red line?
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
How then do you explain the actions it is taking now? It doesn't need an excuse to do less than it is, as there is no treaty obligation. Yet it is acting.
Willingness to take entirely discretionary action speaks well of willingness to take obligatory action.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
So you don't want war with Russia, but you do want to do more. What do you have in mind?
At this point, I would communicate to Putin what the red lines are and then be prepared to stick to them, i.e. we have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.
Red lines could be no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, for example.
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
How then do you explain the actions it is taking now? It doesn't need an excuse to do less than it is, as there is no treaty obligation. Yet it is acting.
Willingness to take entirely discretionary action speaks well of willingness to take obligatory action.
Even treaty actions are discretionary when push comes to shove.
I'm no longer very convinced NATO will defend the likes of Estonia. I can see very similar "we must not escalate" arguments being made. We would likely arm them, and say some kind words when the Estonian PM begs Parliament for help. I no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
Taken to its final conclusion, the argument put forward by those who believe fighting Russia directly will cause Putin to use nukes can have only one outcome - Russia can take and hold any territory it wishes and nothing will be done to stop it. Unconditional surrender in all but name.
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
We need to communicate these red lines in advance so Putin knows where he stands. The problem is we don’t know what the red line is and therefore there isn’t one.
But we do know what the red line is. It's membership of NATO.
So if Russia used mustard gas on Kyiv that would not be a red line?
No, probably it wouldn't, though it should. I'm really not sure where you are coming from on this issue, as sometimes it seems like you are lamenting that alliances are not worth the paper they are printed on, and other times it seems like you don't think alliances should matter anyway, since you should act or not act regardless of them.
We should have sent troops in BEFORE Putin invaded and called his bluff. The war crimes being committed now are a direct result of that failure.
I agree with that. We should have offered NATO membership (though that was tricky with a shooting war going on with the little green men and the separatists). But we didn’t, and my TARDIS is in for repairs.
I don’t actually think we should go to war with Russia but I am also uncomfortable with the consequences of not standing up to bullies and ultimately forming a cheering circle around the fight and occasionally handing one party weapons is not standing up to the bully.
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
So you don't want war with Russia, but you do want to do more. What do you have in mind?
At this point, I would communicate to Putin what the red lines are and then be prepared to stick to them, i.e. we have to be prepared to go to war with Russia.
Red lines could be no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, for example.
We have, since 1949. The red line is NATO.
If Russia used biological weapons on Ukrainian cities would that not be a red line?
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
We couldn’t not. We are there on the border between NATO and Russia. No further orders required - the red army shoots and our chaps shoot back.
Looking back, we should have been much sturdier with regard to Chechnya, Syria and Crimea. Those were errors. We have fed steroids to the rabid dog
But worrying about total nuclear apocalypse is not "appeasement". It is the most profound concern possible. Literally the end of human civilisation. No amount of gung-ho @JackW virtue-semaphoring rantothons can wish that away
A sane Putin would not risk it, of course. But is he sane? Who the fuck knows? No one, possibly not Putin himself
So why would those concerns about nuclear apocalypse suddenly disappear if it was Poland instead of Ukraine?
Because we have to draw a line, and NATO is obviously that line. And from what Putin says, it seems he realises this
It's not much to go on, but this is a fucking horrible situation, so we do what we can
Nah. NATO is finished. No way we would do anything more to defend Estonia or Poland or Latvia.
Churchill is likely rolling in his grave
When’s your flight to Poland to meet up with the international brigade?
I am not a soldier, not able to offer the international brigade any useful skills of note, so I’m not sure what your point is.
You called us cowards.
Only appeasers tonight. I think cowards was a week ago.
“Knicker wetting”.
If NATO had intervened in every act of Russian aggression we'd be the second or third generation growing up in the nuclear wasteland. What Russia did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan was no less horrendous than what it is doing to Ukraine. The Western powers knew that to intervene would be to risk the destruction of humanity. Can anyone say they were wrong not to intervene?
There are always limits. We all know that. So then we are talking about where to draw the line. At what point do we force Russia to back down, rather than being forced to back down ourselves?
During the Cold War there was a clear dividing line in Europe. That made the decisions simple, if no easier to stomach.
My question is this: Why should we accept that Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence? Why shouldn't it be the Russians forced to back down?
When we decide that we will not intervene directly in Ukraine, despite what Russia might do, or has already done, we are conceding that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence, even though its people don't want to be. That feels like something we've given away, and we gave it away for nothing, when we as good as gave Putin permission to invade by saying there were no circumstances in which we would send troops to fight for democracy in Ukraine when the Russian buildup was happening.
Those who oppose our direct military intervention in Ukraine deploy the nuclear card as a way to try to make the argument simple. The argument really isn't that simple.
There are risks and costs. There will always be risks and costs, but we have to face this decision honestly. We can't just say that there is no decision to be made about whether we intervene military, "because nuclear".
That doesn't necessarily mean that the right thing to do is to declare war and put the British armed forces at Zelenskyy's disposal. It means that we have to make a choice, and we have to bear the consequences of both sides of that choice.
It's not a question of spheres of influence. Afghanistan wasn't in Russia's sphere of influence any more than Vietnam was in the American. It's the very simple issue of mutual defence alliance membership. If a NATO country is attacked we are bound to defend it to the extent we would defend our own country. For anything else it's national interest which in this case every country agrees is every possible action short of direct involvement. I know it's desperately unfair to Ukraine as they wanted to join NATO but sadly that's the reality.
@Leon I don’t believe we would go to war with Russia over Lithuania so there’s that. I think the NATO angle is just a convenient excuse for not doing more.
How then do you explain the actions it is taking now? It doesn't need an excuse to do less than it is, as there is no treaty obligation. Yet it is acting.
Willingness to take entirely discretionary action speaks well of willingness to take obligatory action.
Even treaty actions are discretionary when push comes to shove.
Yes, but you've still ignored the question - why do you think that an organisation that has just proven willing to get involved without the push of a treaty would be unwilling to go any further when there is the push of a treaty?
People do not always live up to treaty obligations, this is true, but your argument seems to be that because people are saying horrendous treatment of Ukraine is not a red line as it is not in NATO, that therefore an attack on a NATO country is also not going to be red line, and I don't see how you are making that connection.
Horrible as it is Ukraine is not, in diplomatic terms, provided the same level of assurances by allies as other places nearby. They will rightly lament that fact. But nation states do treat others differently on the basis of those diplomatic assurances. We've seen wars fought before for the same reasons of county X having assurances from country Y, yet ignoring country Z. Why is it different here?
Comments
Maybe it makes you feel better to write it.
Ukraine seems to have the Russian army under more control than any of us thought possible. Crap maintenance and crap conscripts making Russia's problems worse. But Russia can simply bypass the army issue and bomb the crap out of Ukraine.
Russia is under huge financial pressure but it is still early days and supposedly they have large cash / gold reserves.
What seems absolutely clear is that Russia's war strategy is in the bin, as are the hopeful noises from western commentators that the Oligarchs will launch a putsch against Putin. What seems entirely possible is that the Ukraine war bogs down so that not a lot of progress is made by either side. Which hopefully opens the door to a negotiated solution.
Nations all over Europe really want to help Ukraine but are fighting that instinct because of the lack of formal military alliance, they fear it would be us crossing the all out war with Russia line to get involved directly. That's not the case if a NATO country were attacked, and I reiterate, if NATO is willing to assist a non-member, how does it make sense it would do nothing more for a member?
But Russia IS a nuclear power and it IS ruled by a tyrant showing signs of outright madness. The only sane approach is fully-armed caution
There's no way that the Russians should have lost that number of tanks if they didn't have serious underlying problems.
Your comments on this matter of NATO defence fly in the face of their demonstrable actions in the last few weeks. I'd have agreed with the comments a month ago, but the situation has changed as the facts have demonstated NATO will take actions.
All I've noticed from the coverage I've seen and heard is that Birmingham has its first black MP.
It seems so weird to me that her being black is so important to report.
Isn't it patronising and insulting to black people to focus on that as a measure of success?
Or do black people want their blackness recognised at every turn?
General Thomas S. Power - "Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
Professor William Kaufmann from the RAND Corporation - "Well, you'd better make sure that they're a man and a woman."
For those that don't know, General Power was the one that *Curtis Le May* thought was a bit too keen on the whole nuclear war thing.
But I don't accept that providing direct military support to Ukraine puts us on an inevitable countdown to nuclear armageddon.
Sleep well ...
(I agree with him, which isn't far of a first too).
Is Putin set on conflict with NATO? If he is, what do we do?
I don’t know the answer but I don’t think being terrified of nuclear war is it.
Given their likely losses and the fact the Russians have made little concrete headway in the past several days, Russian forces may reach a teaching point where they simply disintegrate.
(sensing a theme here)
So it comes down to whether or not you genuinely believe that Putin will not starting using nukes. That is the only question that matters and you have no better handle on that than anyone else.
This is a betting site. Are you willing to bet your life he won't use them?
What makes Estonia worth risking nuclear annihilation for and not Ukraine? Nothing at all. NATO membership or not, the risk is exactly the same. The possible outcome does not differ. If we're not prepared to run that risk then, yes, NATO will not defend Estonia any more than it is defending Ukraine.
If we are prepared to take the risk then the current policy of leaving Ukraine to suffer at Putin's hands just to delay the inevitable is craven, cowardly, and ultimately pointless.
One thing to watch out for: multiple media sources are reporting Putin is on the verge of using Chemical or Biological weapons in Ukraine. If he does NATO has to decide is that is a red line or not. Does the use of NBC weapons alter the calculation in favour of direct intervention. That will indicate quite strongly which mindset prevails in NATO capitals.
Ireland's Taoiseach reveals Priti Patel rang Ireland's Justice minister expressing concerns about Ukrainian refugees in Ireland. Martin said McEntee “pointed out” to Patel that Ireland was part of the EU-wide response to the crisis.
Add in all the western aid and the Ukrainian military is much better equipped now than two weeks ago.
Whereas Russia is burning through equipment and supplies faster than they can replace it.
Everyone agrees there must come a time when you stand up to a tyrannical bully, even at the unspeakable risk of nuclear war. And, as far as I can see, everyone on here on that side of the argument says NATO is that line. The Alliance, so recently disregarded, which was formed precisely to protect us all from horrible aggression by the USSR/Russia.
That mutual protection is the sole purpose of NATO, and wow it is relevant now. Lithuanians will die to protect the UK, Portuguese will die to protect Germany, Britons will die to protect Poland, and Americans will protect us all with the biggest military on earth
Thank Fuck for NATO, frankly
I'm prepared to face him down over that belief.
I'm sorry for those that can't.
Great username btw.
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
🟨🟨🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Red lines could be no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, for example.
We must prepare ourselves for the near-inevitability of them using chemical weapons. Possibly tactical nukes, to strike fear into the west
During the Cold War there was a clear dividing line in Europe. That made the decisions simple, if no easier to stomach.
My question is this: Why should we accept that Ukraine is in the Russian sphere of influence? Why shouldn't it be the Russians forced to back down?
When we decide that we will not intervene directly in Ukraine, despite what Russia might do, or has already done, we are conceding that Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence, even though its people don't want to be. That feels like something we've given away, and we gave it away for nothing, when we as good as gave Putin permission to invade by saying there were no circumstances in which we would send troops to fight for democracy in Ukraine when the Russian buildup was happening.
Those who oppose our direct military intervention in Ukraine deploy the nuclear card as a way to try to make the argument simple. The argument really isn't that simple.
There are risks and costs. There will always be risks and costs, but we have to face this decision honestly. We can't just say that there is no decision to be made about whether we intervene military, "because nuclear".
That doesn't necessarily mean that the right thing to do is to declare war and put the British armed forces at Zelenskyy's disposal. It means that we have to make a choice, and we have to bear the consequences of both sides of that choice.
Willingness to take entirely discretionary action speaks well of willingness to take obligatory action.
People do not always live up to treaty obligations, this is true, but your argument seems to be that because people are saying horrendous treatment of Ukraine is not a red line as it is not in NATO, that therefore an attack on a NATO country is also not going to be red line, and I don't see how you are making that connection.
Horrible as it is Ukraine is not, in diplomatic terms, provided the same level of assurances by allies as other places nearby. They will rightly lament that fact. But nation states do treat others differently on the basis of those diplomatic assurances. We've seen wars fought before for the same reasons of county X having assurances from country Y, yet ignoring country Z. Why is it different here?