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?
@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.
Until they’re pulled back from the border of course, to avoid poking the bear.
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 explicitly haven’t accepted that Ukraine is in Russia’s sphere of influence. That’s why we are arming it and blowing up the russian economy.
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.
I have been fascinated by it my entire adult life (am 45). I have seen all of the films, read all of the books, and delved into the scenarios and alt-history timelines. It is literally insane - nobody wins, even the southern hemisphere countries who can expect to survive pretty unscathed.
So wanting to avoid the rapid slide into the total war of WWIII where one side winning forces the other side to cross the nuclear threshhold is not appeasement or cowardice - it is heroism. There is nothing positive about pushing the world into nuclear war. No winners. No right. No wrong. Just death and suffering.
So I look at what is happening in Ukraine I rage. And then I think. And I worry. It is so very wrong that they are being brutalised in this way. All the more reason that we all work to not have the western world smashed entirely as an outcome.
Up here I'm not facing being nuked. Not even likely to get covered in fallout from places that have been nuked. But the death of most of you would be the end of everything - what would be left would be brutal and hard - and my children deserve better than that.
So you will forgive me if I am less gung-ho than some of the naive souls on here pushing blindly and stupidly for the end of things.
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?
Only in so far as we assessed it was a prelude to an attack on NATO.
@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.
@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.
My point, and reason for my disgust, is that people are using NATO to convince themselves that its rational (!!) to allow war crimes to be committed in Europe.
@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.
Until they’re pulled back from the border of course, to avoid poking the bear.
What do you think would be the trigger for that? They have been there facing down Russian troop build ups in the recent past. There is nothing else that could have been done to signal it was time to go, if we planned to leave. And we stayed.
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.
Yes, exactly. The whole point of NATO is the mutual guarantee. If Lithuania is attacked and calls on NATO and we do nothing, then that means Article 5, the essence of NATO, is worthless. Which is not just shit for Lithuania it is horribly bad for ME as a Brit, because abandoning Article 5 means Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, Spaniards, Americans, Turks, the French and the Italians will NOT come to my aid, if Britain is attacked
We have all sworn to protect each other. This must be expressed to any hostile actor. It is a sacred bond. Fuck Putin. All for and one for all. That's it
A week ago Boris passed Spencer Perceval in the PM tenure stakes. Gordon Brown next in his sights, by June. He'll make it easily.
What if he wins GE24 against all current expectations
Getting to GE24 without total war would be a result. I dislike the man - you know that - but people having the freedom to re-elect MPs of his and every other party would be a Good Thing.
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.
I have been fascinated by it my entire adult life (am 45). I have seen all of the films, read all of the books, and delved into the scenarios and alt-history timelines. It is literally insane - nobody wins, even the southern hemisphere countries who can expect to survive pretty unscathed.
So wanting to avoid the rapid slide into the total war of WWIII where one side winning forces the other side to cross the nuclear threshhold is not appeasement or cowardice - it is heroism. There is nothing positive about pushing the world into nuclear war. No winners. No right. No wrong. Just death and suffering.
So I look at what is happening in Ukraine I rage. And then I think. And I worry. It is so very wrong that they are being brutalised in this way. All the more reason that we all work to not have the western world smashed entirely as an outcome.
Up here I'm not facing being nuked. Not even likely to get covered in fallout from places that have been nuked. But the death of most of you would be the end of everything - what would be left would be brutal and hard - and my children deserve better than that.
So you will forgive me if I am less gung-ho than some of the naive souls on here pushing blindly and stupidly for the end of things.
@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.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Will you tell Vlad or will I?
I'd like to scratch it on his forehead with a compass, but I regret I will likely not get the chance.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
I was 7 years old in 1999 so I was too young to form an opinion.
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
Are you not really saying then that if a lunatic has control of nuclear weapons then we have no option but to let him do what he likes?
Ever since nuclear weapons became a thing we have all lived with the nightmare scenario that a lunatic somewhere in the world gets control of them. We are now living that nightmare scenario. There are no easy options if you believe, as I do, that Putin is mad enough to press the button.
In the end I believe we are going to have to meet Putin head-to-head and risk that he (or more likely his generals) back down.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
Not forgetting the invasion of Georgia. And Ukraine last time. And Moldova. And further afield the Chinese genocides. And various Middle East wars.
The world is a messy and horrid place and we can’t use force to make it all ok. We had to relearn that in Iraq and Afghanistan when we go hubristic and decided we could remake the world. We can’t - but we can hold on to NATO and defend ourselves and the other members.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
@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.
My point, and reason for my disgust, is that people are using NATO to convince themselves that its rational (!!) to allow war crimes to be committed in Europe.
Rational!
It may be rational and terrible at the same time. Many things are rational whilst also being cold, calculating and ruthless. The calculation that stepping in to prevent further Russian atrocities in Ukraine cannot be countenanced because it risks Putin launching nukes as he cannot otherwise fight back might be wrong, it may be some calculate the chance of that happening is in reality slim and therefore the moral and practical reasons to step in make more sense, but it is not irrational to be hesistant to take that action if one has that fear. Even if it is considered wrong it is not irrational.
Regardless, some may be using the NATO line as a reason for not taking further direction action at this time, let's say for sake of argument. Push come to shove some of those might recant their view that that is indeed a red line if it was crossed. But not all would. A line was been drawn - rational, irrational, it doesn't matter - and having set that line some number would then act.
We know that because Ukraine is a case in point. Some people even now think we should not be helping to arm Ukraine. Russian invasion and atrocity is not a red line for them even to permit that level of response. But the vast majority have said no, that is too much, and we've seen a massive diplomatic and economic response. No, not a military response. But one line has already been crossed, and escalation by Russia would surely see more nations finding their lines crossed.
Watching a Simon Whistler YouTube documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the worst of times there was a back-channel discourse between Kennedy and Khrushchev, with both sides hopiing they could find ways of unpicking the knot they were tied up in.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
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.
I’ve sympathy for your first point, but the reality is that what makes it different is five or six decades of war gaming where each side has worked out how to respond towards known red lines being crossed. And Russia is not just Putin - and especially so when it comes to the launching of weapons which could end everyone’s lives.
Both our and their institutions know that NATO is the red line - as our self limited behaviour in respect of Ukraine has already confirmed.
We stick to them not because it is an absolute guarantee of safety, but because it’s the least worst option we have in the face of armageddon. I don’t like the mad, immoral calculus either. But I can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
Thank you! I couldn't really keep away but managed to chill out a bit. I've been morbidly afraid of nuclear war ever since my teens. My mum says it's because I was born on the week of the Chernobyl disaster. When I was about 16 I bought a NBC suit, gas mask and Geiger counter. I've fetched those out of the wardrobe now.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Will you tell Vlad or will I?
I'd like to scratch it on his forehead with a compass, but I regret I will likely not get the chance.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of 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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
“Desperate for war” really?
Yes because even though you don't realise it that is what you are advocating.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
I am not posturing - I am defending my kids right to live.
Not sure what all the nerds have been up to, very shocked not to have seen this Picard speech be memefied for this war. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
“Desperate for war” really?
Yes because even though you don't realise it that is what you are advocating.
The only person desperate for war is Putin. He literally invaded another country.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
I am not posturing - I am defending my kids right to live.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
I am not posturing - I am defending my kids right to live.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
I will admit to my mental picture of the NATO front line being the BAOR facing off against the 3rd Shock Army in Germany though, and that’s a tad out of date…
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
Not sure what all the nerds have been up to, very shocked not to have seen this Picard speech be memefied for this war. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
I'm not desperate for war. But I know it's essential that we finish Prestupnik Putin. As Kasparov tells us there's no draw or stalemate against him. He has to be beaten.
It's much better to fight him in Ukraine than later in Finland, or near Moscow where he might actually use his nukes.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
Not us, Russia. How does Russia go too far?
By invading a NATO country. I thought we’d covered this?
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
Not us, Russia. How does Russia go too far?
Excellent question. I'd like to hear the answer to this one.
Watching a Simon Whistler YouTube documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the worst of times there was a back-channel discourse between Kennedy and Khrushchev, with both sides hopiing they could find ways of unpicking the knot they were tied up in.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
I am not posturing - I am defending my kids right to live.
Do they have more rights than Ukranian kids?
Yes. Ask any parent if they would sacrifice their own kids in exchange for some stranger's kids.
We can help Ukrainian kids. We can welcome them to our country to take refuge, This disgrace of a government can't even get that right.
A week ago Boris passed Spencer Perceval in the PM tenure stakes. Gordon Brown next in his sights, by June. He'll make it easily.
What if he wins GE24 against all current expectations
A majority of the 15 remaining parliamentary constituencies that haven't been demolished by nuclear warheads?
Wishful thinking I'm afraid. We're too small of a country. I suppose you might have Alistair Carmichael fulfilling the role of PM and Leader of the Opposition.
Watching a Simon Whistler YouTube documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the worst of times there was a back-channel discourse between Kennedy and Khrushchev, with both sides hopiing they could find ways of unpicking the knot they were tied up in.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
I'm sorry, what?!
Norwegian rocket launch. Benign, and warned about beforehand, but the Russians fucked up and got in a panic. The launch briefcase was brought to Yeltsin but he was too drunk to get the key in the threat assessment was downgraded when they noticed the rocket was neither exploding nor even heading towards Russia.
Watching a Simon Whistler YouTube documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the worst of times there was a back-channel discourse between Kennedy and Khrushchev, with both sides hopiing they could find ways of unpicking the knot they were tied up in.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
It’s ok, Yeltsin would have been too pissed to press a button. Remember the good old days when we only had to worry about a permanently drunk Russian leader….? Putin was initially a relief.
A thread slightly more optimistic about eventual outcomes. Worth reading in full.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501676859741904898 Many argue that sanctions are "ineffective". That’s false. They are already highly effective in undermining Russian military efforts and can be made even more efficient. They can guarantee that Russia loses this war if they are goal-oriented and not moral crusade-oriented🧵
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
I'm not desperate for war. But I know it's essential that we finish Prestupnik Putin. As Kasparov tells us there's no draw or stalemate against him. He has to be beaten.
It's much better to fight him in Ukraine than later in Finland, or near Moscow where he might actually use his nukes.
That is gibberish from start to finish. Why might he actually use his nukes near Moscow? And you are talking a good game of bravery but what physical or moral courage are you actually exhibiting by shoutily demanding action in Ukraine? Sounds to me as if you think we'll be safer fighting in Ukraine, at the cost of enhanced damage to the Ukrainians
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
Not us, Russia. How does Russia go too far?
By invading a NATO country. I thought we’d covered this?
You said the rules of the game are that “The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far.” That implies that the Russians could attack NATO if we go to far.
So are you saying the rules of the game are that we let Russia do anything it wants as long as it doesn’t attack a NATO country but conversely we can’t do anything we want, we can only “not go too far”?
I fear for Zelensky that his unprecedented success at helping inspire massive diplomatic response to the invasion has hit a brick wall in terms of additional effort. The public in Europe and elsewhere are outraged and desperate to help, and their governments are keen to demonstrate all they are doing to help, but on the no fly zone issue and direct action even if a fair number might say they back it, I don't think European public will force their politicians to act, even if the USA could be brought on board.
The very destruction that everyone is seeing that is driving their wish to aid Ukraine simultaneously reinforces the message from the politicians about not wanting the war to spread any further than Ukraine - you don't want to see this in your own cities after all.
Watching a Simon Whistler YouTube documentary on the Cuban Missile Crisis. At the worst of times there was a back-channel discourse between Kennedy and Khrushchev, with both sides hopiing they could find ways of unpicking the knot they were tied up in.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
I'm sorry, what?!
Did you not know about that one? A weather experiment was launched atop a sounding rocket in Northern Norway. Its path was directly down missile alley where US-launched ICBMs would be detected - and just for added fun its trajectory was very similar to a Trident missile.
So PVO STRANY detected the launch, categorised it as a likely EMP strike in advance of a full counterforce first strike, and went all the way up the line to Boris Yeltsin. Who for the only time had his nuclear command briefcase open and his authentication codes validated.
I was deep into revision for my A-Levels in Oldham. Would have been unfortunate had I been melted for a mistake.
A thread slightly more optimistic about eventual outcomes. Worth reading in full.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501676859741904898 Many argue that sanctions are "ineffective". That’s false. They are already highly effective in undermining Russian military efforts and can be made even more efficient. They can guarantee that Russia loses this war if they are goal-oriented and not moral crusade-oriented🧵
Russian economic history could look somewhat ironic:
1. Stalin's slaves built industry at the cost of millions of lives 2. Yeltsin transformed these plants to Ltd's 3. Putin destroyed their value in a war 3. Chinese bought these slave-built assets for nothing
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
No, because he knew it wasn’t in NATO.
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
And how do they “go too far”?
Well most of us have decided that would be direct intervention as opposed to equipment and logistical support. In particular that seems to be the expert assessment.
Not us, Russia. How does Russia go too far?
By invading a NATO country. I thought we’d covered this?
You said the rules of the game are that “The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far.” That implies that the Russians could attack NATO if we go to far.
So are you saying the rules of the game are that we let Russia do anything it wants as long as it doesn’t attack a NATO country but conversely we can’t do anything we want, we can only “not go too far”?
Don’t follow your point. It’s entirely consistent. Is going too far would be directly attacking Russia. Them going too far would be directly attacking them. Us arming the Ukrainians is like them helping out the Serbs and Sadam. (Edit - not morally equivalent like the Russians would claim, obviously).
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
I'm not desperate for war. But I know it's essential that we finish Prestupnik Putin. As Kasparov tells us there's no draw or stalemate against him. He has to be beaten.
It's much better to fight him in Ukraine than later in Finland, or near Moscow where he might actually use his nukes.
That is gibberish from start to finish. Why might he actually use his nukes near Moscow? And you are talking a good game of bravery but what physical or moral courage are you actually exhibiting by shoutily demanding action in Ukraine? Sounds to me as if you think we'll be safer fighting in Ukraine, at the cost of enhanced damage to the Ukrainians
You have an uncanny knack of misunderstanding people. I'm not sure if it's annoyingly deliberate or annoyingly not.
Fighting nearer Moscow could lead to nukes. Defending Ukraine won't.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
There have been many genocides and wars in my lifetime sadly, from the Falklands to Rwanda to Bosnia, Chechnya, Iraq to Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and now Ukraine. Just this is a bit closer to home as it is in Europe. We did not intervene with troops and airstrikes in all of those and where we did we sometimes made the situation worse rather than better.
However there has fortunately not been another world war in my lifetime, if we get involved militarily in Ukraine however there most likely would be, this time with a nuclear power. That is why we only take military action as a last resort if he goes beyond Ukraine and attacks a NATO nation as the last line 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'm no longer certain we would fight. "It's too risky, he might be mad".
It doesn't really matter what "NATO" wants or is prepared to do; it's all up to the US.
If they want to fight for the Baltic states then NATO will if they don't then it's пока to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think Biden would and Trump wouldn't.
If Poland is attacked then Europe fights no matter what the US does. That's the real red line.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
Do grow up. I'd rather live as a spineless coward (in the view of @BlancheLivermore) than me and my children die in a nuclear catastrophe.
Some sort of objective correlative as to your much advertised courage would be good, too. Personally I have survived stage 3 and a half cancer on a scale where 4 is curtains, without worrying overmuch, so I think I can reasonably claim not to be governed by abject fear. I'll put you down as pot valiant.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
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 doesn't really matter what "NATO" wants or is prepared to do; it's all up to the US.
If they want to fight for the Baltic states then NATO will if they don't then it's пока to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think Biden would and Trump wouldn't.
If Poland is attacked then Europe fights no matter what the US does. That's the real red line.
Of course, based on what we’ve seen in Ukraine and the modernisation efforts of the Polish armed forces, the Poles might not need much help.
Re: Estonia and co - that’s why the trip wire brigades matter. We’ve wired ourselves in.
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 doesn't really matter what "NATO" wants or is prepared to do; it's all up to the US.
I think it can be safely assumed when people talk about thinking NATO would or would not do something they are factoring in the assumption that the US would be the driver. It's like when people talk about people voting for the PM in a GE - we know that technically none of them are, we vote for individual MPs, but it is essentially shorthand for people backing a party to a degree based on the leader, and that leading to to the number of seats won, and so on and so forth.
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?
Well they probably used them in Chechnya in 1999 but we did nothing. Should we have gone to war with Russia then? After all they killed somewhere in the region of 160,000 civilians in two invasions and I don't remember screams for us to intervene then.
How may may cheeks have you got to turn?
None. I am clear on our line in the sand and content with that as well. It is you and those like you who are desperate for war who seem to have some curious double standards.
I'm not desperate for war. But I know it's essential that we finish Prestupnik Putin. As Kasparov tells us there's no draw or stalemate against him. He has to be beaten.
It's much better to fight him in Ukraine than later in Finland, or near Moscow where he might actually use his nukes.
That is gibberish from start to finish. Why might he actually use his nukes near Moscow? And you are talking a good game of bravery but what physical or moral courage are you actually exhibiting by shoutily demanding action in Ukraine? Sounds to me as if you think we'll be safer fighting in Ukraine, at the cost of enhanced damage to the Ukrainians
You have an uncanny knack of misunderstanding people. I'm not sure if it's annoyingly deliberate or annoyingly not.
Fighting nearer Moscow could lead to nukes. Defending Ukraine won't.
Balls. Kasparov is a nutter, and you are mistakenly reading backwards from nonsense about Cummings and 3d chess and thinking that actual chess has a bearing on the real world which it really doesn't
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 doesn't really matter what "NATO" wants or is prepared to do; it's all up to the US.
If they want to fight for the Baltic states then NATO will if they don't then it's пока to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think Biden would and Trump wouldn't.
If Poland is attacked then Europe fights no matter what the US does. That's the real red line.
Of course, based on what we’ve seen in Ukraine and the modernisation efforts of the Polish armed forces, the Poles might not need much help.
Re: Estonia and co - that’s why the trip wire brigades matter. We’ve wired ourselves in.
I think even Germany would fight if a country is in both NATO and the EU.
Sacrificing Ukraine to Russia is a temporary respite from the threat of nuclear war.
How far are you prepared to go?
I bet Prestupnik Putin is listening.
That Prestupnik thing is as clever as writing bliar for Blair. It just screams I am a wanker, ignore everything I say after here, as definitively as a ! at the beginning of a comment in a block of code.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I haven't seen any instances of it appearing on tanks, but plenty of deployed soldiers have displayed it. A quick google confirms this. It's a thing. And it tells you more about the individuals than it does about the overall army culture.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
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 doesn't really matter what "NATO" wants or is prepared to do; it's all up to the US.
If they want to fight for the Baltic states then NATO will if they don't then it's пока to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think Biden would and Trump wouldn't.
If Poland is attacked then Europe fights no matter what the US does. That's the real red line.
Of course, based on what we’ve seen in Ukraine and the modernisation efforts of the Polish armed forces, the Poles might not need much help.
Re: Estonia and co - that’s why the trip wire brigades matter. We’ve wired ourselves in.
I think even Germany would fight if a country is in both NATO and the EU.
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
Sacrificing Ukraine to Russia is a temporary respite from the threat of nuclear war.
How far are you prepared to go?
I bet Prestupnik Putin is listening.
That Prestupnik thing is as clever as writing bliar for Blair. It just screams I am a wanker, ignore everything I say after here, as definitively as a ! at the beginning of a comment in a block of code.
Yes attacking (EDIT PRESTUPNIK) Putin is just like attacking Blair.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
I think we're pretty close to solving the Fermi Paradox/Great Filter...
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
You've fought under the badge of an ivory-coloured tower?
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
Isn’t second in from the left, bottom row, in the Village People?
@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.
The Red Army? It's not 1942, mate.
Russian tanks have been pictured flying hammer & sickle flags, so it’s not entirely inapt.
US soldiers are sometimes seen with the Confederate flag too, but it's not the Confederate Army.
When have US tanks displayed the Traitor's Cross?
I personally saw it on occasion in Iraq.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
Every man becomes a bit of a Nazi when he starts fighting
@RochdalePioneers its all very well you posturing about us not “risking” the end of the world but it was Putin who invaded Ukraine, it is Putin who is risking the end of the world.
I am not posturing - I am defending my kids right to live.
Do they have more rights than Ukranian kids?
Yes. Ask any parent if they would sacrifice their own kids in exchange for some stranger's kids.
We can help Ukrainian kids. We can welcome them to our country to take refuge, This disgrace of a government can't even get that right.
Indeed a parent may well say that. But that doesn't make the statement either true or morally right.
Thank you! I couldn't really keep away but managed to chill out a bit. I've been morbidly afraid of nuclear war ever since my teens. My mum says it's because I was born on the week of the Chernobyl disaster. When I was about 16 I bought a NBC suit, gas mask and Geiger counter. I've fetched those out of the wardrobe now.
People come and go on PB. It's part of the charm and the tradition. I have long fallow periods myself. Somehow we always seem to return. Perhaps it is because, despite everything, it remains one of the few forums on the internet where you can engage in intelligent discussion with people of widely differing views.
At its best it is both extraordinarily stimulating and enlightening. For me that's enough to compensate for its shortcomings and occasional excesses.
Hope you feel the same in due course, if you don't already.
Sacrificing Ukraine to Russia is a temporary respite from the threat of nuclear war.
How far are you prepared to go?
I bet Prestupnik Putin is listening.
That Prestupnik thing is as clever as writing bliar for Blair. It just screams I am a wanker, ignore everything I say after here, as definitively as a ! at the beginning of a comment in a block of code.
Yes attacking Prestupnik Putin is just like attacking Blair.
Just to remind anyone that missed it.
Prestupnik преступник is Russian for criminal.
And Ishy thinks it's like saying Bliar.
My Russian friend wants me to tell everyone to say it.
People worried about the whole of civilisation being evaporated if we confront Prestupnik Putin..
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
I don't know, I reckon billions of lives and the continuity of the species is worth a fair bit, but what the fuck do I know? Better send in the tanks so in 100 million years the successor civilisation of intelligent frogs can marvel at the moral integrity of our irradiated skeletons.
There are several billion too many of us. The specie is unimportant. It will be destroyed at some stage. Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
Sacrificing Ukraine to Russia is a temporary respite from the threat of nuclear war.
How far are you prepared to go?
I bet Prestupnik Putin is listening.
That Prestupnik thing is as clever as writing bliar for Blair. It just screams I am a wanker, ignore everything I say after here, as definitively as a ! at the beginning of a comment in a block of code.
Yes attacking Prestupnik Putin is just like attacking Blair.
Just to remind anyone that missed it.
Prestupnik преступник is Russian for criminal.
And Ishy thinks it's like saying Bliar.
My Russian friend wants me to tell everyone to say it.
Comments
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?
So wanting to avoid the rapid slide into the total war of WWIII where one side winning forces the other side to cross the nuclear threshhold is not appeasement or cowardice - it is heroism. There is nothing positive about pushing the world into nuclear war. No winners. No right. No wrong. Just death and suffering.
So I look at what is happening in Ukraine I rage. And then I think. And I worry. It is so very wrong that they are being brutalised in this way. All the more reason that we all work to not have the western world smashed entirely as an outcome.
Up here I'm not facing being nuked. Not even likely to get covered in fallout from places that have been nuked. But the death of most of you would be the end of everything - what would be left would be brutal and hard - and my children deserve better than that.
So you will forgive me if I am less gung-ho than some of the naive souls on here pushing blindly and stupidly for the end of things.
Rational!
We have all sworn to protect each other. This must be expressed to any hostile actor. It is a sacred bond. Fuck Putin. All for and one for all. That's it
Good to see you back, Stereodog.
Ever since nuclear weapons became a thing we have all lived with the nightmare scenario that a lunatic somewhere in the world gets control of them. We are now living that nightmare scenario. There are no easy options if you believe, as I do, that Putin is mad enough to press the button.
In the end I believe we are going to have to meet Putin head-to-head and risk that he (or more likely his generals) back down.
The world is a messy and horrid place and we can’t use force to make it all ok. We had to relearn that in Iraq and Afghanistan when we go hubristic and decided we could remake the world. We can’t - but we can hold on to NATO and defend ourselves and the other members.
Regardless, some may be using the NATO line as a reason for not taking further direction action at this time, let's say for sake of argument. Push come to shove some of those might recant their view that that is indeed a red line if it was crossed. But not all would. A line was been drawn - rational, irrational, it doesn't matter - and having set that line some number would then act.
We know that because Ukraine is a case in point. Some people even now think we should not be helping to arm Ukraine. Russian invasion and atrocity is not a red line for them even to permit that level of response. But the vast majority have said no, that is too much, and we've seen a massive diplomatic and economic response. No, not a military response. But one line has already been crossed, and escalation by Russia would surely see more nations finding their lines crossed.
Let us hope that Biden and Putin have similar channels of communication and intentions. We survived Black Saturday in 1962 where WWIII *should* have ended it. We survived Able Archer 83. Both of these had a single human being ignoring orders and protocols to Stop and Think to avert a launch. We survived 25th January 95 where Yeltsin had the codes in the launch computer thanks to a mistake.
Three times in 33 years the world really should have destroyed itself. Lets not risk a 4th occasion.
And Russia is not just Putin - and especially so when it comes to the launching of weapons which could end everyone’s lives.
Both our and their institutions know that NATO is the red line - as our self limited behaviour in respect of Ukraine has already confirmed.
We stick to them not because it is an absolute guarantee of safety, but because it’s the least worst option we have in the face of armageddon.
I don’t like the mad, immoral calculus either. But I can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
If there isn't one then I'm not part of "we"
If there is one, and we're not past it, then fuck yourself the rest of us.
But I would expect you to cheer for either outcome
As stated above, and I agree with every word, this is a game where the actors all know the rules. The Russians will steer clear of NATO if we don’t go too far. Tou may not like the rules of the game, but it’s a game we’ve played since the 50s.
We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jln3mi0vfJU
It's much better to fight him in Ukraine than later in Finland, or near Moscow where he might actually use his nukes.
I'd like to hear the answer to this one.
We can help Ukrainian kids. We can welcome them to our country to take refuge, This disgrace of a government can't even get that right.
It’s ok, Yeltsin would have been too pissed to press a button. Remember the good old days when we only had to worry about a permanently drunk Russian leader….? Putin was initially a relief.
What's our "civilisation" worth if we don't?
Send your replies to Ukraine.
Worth reading in full.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1501676859741904898
Many argue that sanctions are "ineffective". That’s false. They are already highly effective in undermining Russian military efforts and can be made even more efficient. They can guarantee that Russia loses this war if they are goal-oriented and not moral crusade-oriented🧵
So are you saying the rules of the game are that we let Russia do anything it wants as long as it doesn’t attack a NATO country but conversely we can’t do anything we want, we can only “not go too far”?
The very destruction that everyone is seeing that is driving their wish to aid Ukraine simultaneously reinforces the message from the politicians about not wanting the war to spread any further than Ukraine - you don't want to see this in your own cities after all.
So PVO STRANY detected the launch, categorised it as a likely EMP strike in advance of a full counterforce first strike, and went all the way up the line to Boris Yeltsin. Who for the only time had his nuclear command briefcase open and his authentication codes validated.
I was deep into revision for my A-Levels in Oldham. Would have been unfortunate had I been melted for a mistake.
1. Stalin's slaves built industry at the cost of millions of lives
2. Yeltsin transformed these plants to Ltd's
3. Putin destroyed their value in a war
3. Chinese bought these slave-built assets for nothing
Trust the plan
Fighting nearer Moscow could lead to nukes. Defending Ukraine won't.
If you want my point more lucidly expressed then please refer to Kasparov here
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1499441249652293640
However there has fortunately not been another world war in my lifetime, if we get involved militarily in Ukraine however there most likely would be, this time with a nuclear power. That is why we only take military action as a last resort if he goes beyond Ukraine and attacks a NATO nation as the last line of defence
If they want to fight for the Baltic states then NATO will if they don't then it's пока to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I think Biden would and Trump wouldn't.
If Poland is attacked then Europe fights no matter what the US does. That's the real red line.
Some sort of objective correlative as to your much advertised courage would be good, too. Personally I have survived stage 3 and a half cancer on a scale where 4 is curtains, without worrying overmuch, so I think I can reasonably claim not to be governed by abject fear. I'll put you down as pot valiant.
Re: Estonia and co - that’s why the trip wire brigades matter. We’ve wired ourselves in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh09OfNCT5E
How far are you prepared to go?
I bet Prestupnik Putin is listening.
Every atrocity we witness, perpetrate and allow to be repeated as an action of ghe human specie devalues us and goes towards proving we are are not worthy of continued survival.
I used to have the fleg of Fermanagh on my helmet. There were no innocents.
At its best it is both extraordinarily stimulating and enlightening. For me that's enough to compensate for its shortcomings and occasional excesses.
Hope you feel the same in due course, if you don't already.
Prestupnik преступник is Russian for criminal.
And Ishy thinks it's like saying Bliar.
My Russian friend wants me to tell everyone to say it.
I'm sure sides will be taken.