Yup - What I was driving at is The military being the military, will have plans in place, resources ready and assets prepped for all scenario outcomes.
Current Affairs Ukraine
- Thread starter Mutzo Nutzo
- Start date
- Status
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
No. That option is in there. It is likely to be discarded, because even with our improved hard-kill capabilities resulting from targeting improvements in the last decade, Russia probably still would have enough to inflict unacceptable losses in reply.
The important thing is this: no one knows for sure. Not even us.
PeregrineT
Player Valuation: £40m
Why does Putin keep making the nuke threats? Because its all he has at this point. He has been threatening to use nukes for decades. The actual reality that the leaders in Russia(those still mentally there) know the moment they drop a nuke, Russia ceases to exist. Putin ceases to exist. Any one of them and their power cease to exist. Its not even a matter of whether the west wants to respond brutally, it has to. The alternative to have let a madman freely nuke and kill hundreds of thousands and forever alter the world, without crushing those that did it, would be to hand the world to them. They would now have gotten away with the worst thing possible, and could blackmail and destroy the world in a way Hitler could only dream of.
Drico
Player Valuation: £70m
I'm not even certain it wasn't war-gaming an invasion of the Baltics. But the outcome at the time, apparently, was no nuclear response. This was controversial due to NATO's defence pact.
Anyway, as regards the current situation, I think most of us can agree that what Putin has done is abominable. Where I think there is room for more debate is in the response. Many people in the West who abhor Putin will be asking themselves: "how involved do we really need to get in this?"
I mean, speaking for myself, are we really going to risk nuclear destruction for Ukraine? This is the bitter realpolitik of things. I am not saying we should or we shouldn't. I am simply saying that this is the question. There are no easy answers to this. If we do risk it, we had better be absolutely and definitively correct in our judgement that we will not be fried. If we don't risk it, are we sacrificing the Ukrainians? Are we saying: there is a line, but it is only at NATO/EU borders? Ukraine, it seems to me, is the horrible victim of its geography. The idea that Ukraine will have some "total victory" is for the birds. Unless the Putin regime somehow collapses in on itself, I can't see how that could ever happen. At some point, there is going to have to be negotiations and bitter concessions. When that is, who knows? The Ukrainians have every right to defend themselves. But this is dangerous for the rest of us, too. Horrible times.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
At a minimum, negotiations have to start and right now. Ukraine cannot be allowed to go down the road that Zelensky suggested (of abandoning any pretence at them once the annexations were announced).
Putin is clearly planning to, when linked crises hit, say that it is the fault of the West because they refuse to negotiate. The best response to that is to in advance clearly negotiate and thereby expose any Russian attempts at wrecking those negotiations - ideally by involving as many non-Western leaders as possible in those talks (so the Mexican proposal to have Modi, the Pope and the UN Secretary General is one that should be first up).
Refusing to do this will just reinforce the points that Putin made in that speech, and those leaders of countries who get into trouble (over food / gas / whatever) will inevitably go to him because he has those things that they need.
I reckon Russian could EASILY get away with dropping a few nukes on Ukraine.
The West would condemn them, but we wouldnt retaliate.
bluestevon
Player Valuation: £80m
Yeah don't think they've invaded another European country since they did the Czechs in 1938
Drico
Player Valuation: £70m
This is almost certainly true, in my opinion.
There is a reason Ukraine was never allowed into NATO or the EU. It's the same reason Georgia was kept out. The West does not want to have to die to protect those countries. Bitter but true.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
The problem with backing an ally is that it emboldens them. When the variables land just right, this has a way of dragging nations into conflicts they would prefer to avoid, rather than deterring them.
This is probably the reason our security commitment to Taiwan was ambiguous. We didn't want them provoking the PRC, in the full knowledge that we would show up and guarantee the independence they so fiercely desire.
Aye - I hear ya. I think from the US side of the house they know that China, North Korea and Iran are all looking at this situation with a keen interest.
If the US effectively abandons Ukraine to avoid the sunshine scenario then does that mean it’s open season for China to take a pop at Taiwan or for the Norks to attack the south or for Iran to have a go at Israel?
I think world order is now in the balance / I’m just worried that we have Biden at the top of the tree.
bluestevon
Player Valuation: £80m
A NATO country invaded another unilaterally thru are pretty much waving article 5 as the aggressor. Like to see Poland do that like
So you’re judged by how many countries you invade now? Or how many lives you destroy?
Come on - you’re better than that
Doesn't seem to be any plans to de-escalate anytime soon on the horizon.
I think we've been edging closer to ww3 over the past month or so.
Hope I'm wrong and someone steps up and does the necessary in the Kremlin.
I think we've been edging closer to ww3 over the past month or so.
Hope I'm wrong and someone steps up and does the necessary in the Kremlin.
- Status