Current Affairs Ukraine

[mmmmsnouts]

I see another whataboutist contender has entered the ring! Not going to go too well for you

 

[BlueToff]

And I weep for them and all political prisoners to be honest, theirs is a path of bravery and truth that we all hope we would have the courage to tread but we pray never have to find out.

My point still stands though, much more of this is needed on masse to elicit if not change of leader then at least change of policy.

The only thing NATO could do is to reduce the amount of support they provide and put Ukraine at the mercy of Russia unfortunately. As far as I'm concerned it remains a simplistic matter, Russia invaded and Russia need to get out.

There is no threat to Russia's borders, there never was. They could literally remove all border posts and no country would attempt any kind of land grab (in the West at least).

But NATO did spread to their borders which specifically was something that should never have happened. It's a factor, not justification, but it all built towards what happened.

NATO I think can do more to end this. The other option, that nobody wants, is declare war on Russia. The halfway house helps nobody.

 

[BlueToff]

I see another whataboutist contender has entered the ring! Not going to go too well for you

Haha not at all, simply suggesting drip-feeding weapons to Ukraine isn't going to help stop a war against a country the size of Russia, which also happens to have possibly the world's single largest nuclear armoury to fall back on.

Something else needs to be done, because Putin isn't going to back off of his own accord.

Sorry for not wanting people to keep dying. I'm clearly evil.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

Apologies, the West has done bad things too - good enough for you?

Just go for people do bad things.

In this case and for this thread Russia are doing dispaicable sub human things in Ukraine to Ukrainian civilians.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

And there's factors that led to Russia's invasion of Ukraine that were also of NATO's doing - so the responsibility is there.

Creating Nazis and Satanists? That is what Putin SMO is meant to be clearing out. And they are going about this by killing and raping women and children and kidnapping people.

I'm using NATO as the blanket term but really it's just about the West coming together and getting this bloodshed to end. All I see atm is a constant supply of weapons that's keeping the war going, and no attempt at actually bringing it to a close. That's not on Ukraine, it's on the more powerful nations and Russia to come together to get something brokered.

NATO can onli stop this war by directly intervening or pulling put support and letting the Russian rapists rampage across the country.

 

[Martin Alvito]

And there's factors that led to Russia's invasion of Ukraine that were also of NATO's doing - so the responsibility is there.

I'm using NATO as the blanket term but really it's just about the West coming together and getting this bloodshed to end. All I see atm is a constant supply of weapons that's keeping the war going, and no attempt at actually bringing it to a close. That's not on Ukraine, it's on the more powerful nations and Russia to come together to get something brokered.

There are two problems here. One is the classic issue that arises when a great power strengthens an ally by supplying them with weapons. It emboldens them. Give the Israelis more sophisticated weapons than the neighbors that want to wipe them off the planet, and they engage in wars of aggression to deny those neighbors sites like Gaza and the Golan Heights from which they can launch attacks with impunity.

The other problem is that the West shares Ukraine's objective of kicking Putin all the way out. The last thing the US wants is the normalization and acceptance of the seizure of Ukrainian territory. That leads directly to an eventual forcible solution to the Taiwan problem, the seizure of the South China Sea and a bunch of other outcomes the US does not want.

Putin isn't going to agree to those terms, so the only way to make that one happen is force.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But NATO did spread to their borders which specifically was something that should never have happened. It's a factor, not justification, but it all built towards what happened.

NATO I think can do more to end this. The other option, that nobody wants, is declare war on Russia. The halfway house helps nobody.

Even if NATO is on their border, what is the threat? Certainly not an invasion.

The only threat is that the potential for Russian people may see how life is led in a Western democracy and wonder why they have to live in fear of a tyrannical despot. Or maybe they wouldn't. However NATO pose literally zero threat to Russia in an invading capacity.

The threat should be feared by their leaders and those who wish to subjugate their societies, not from the people themselves.

 

[Blue Heart]

Even if NATO is on their border, what is the threat? Certainly not an invasion.

Putin needs a majority of his population to believe that a Nato invasion is a very real threat.
Encouraging a fear of the other is one of every fascist demagogue's tools to ensure domestic compliance.

 

[The binman chronicles]

But NATO did spread to their borders which specifically was something that should never have happened. It's a factor, not justification, but it all built towards what happened.

NATO I think can do more to end this. The other option, that nobody wants, is declare war on Russia. The halfway house helps nobody.

If NATO expansion was the be all and end all for Putin then he would be invading Finland right now. He won't as Finland is much more battle prepared and we would all join in anyhow.

It is just another excuse to invade. They may tell their people the lies about the big bad west wanting to destroy Russia to keep them all scared but few in the Kremlin would actively believe that. They just want control over the ex Soviet countries and absolutely do not want to see standards of living being of western countries, as if that happens the gig is up to how it treats it's citizens.

 

[PhilM]

But NATO did spread to their borders which specifically was something that should never have happened. It's a factor, not justification, but it all built towards what happened.

Why? If stable and democratic nations vote to join NATO, is it not within their right to do so? NATO isn't a threat to Russia, but rather it's a threat to Putin.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Even if NATO is on their border, what is the threat? Certainly not an invasion.

The only threat is that the potential for Russian people may see how life is led in a Western democracy and wonder why they have to live in fear of a tyrannical despot. Or maybe they wouldn't. However NATO pose literally zero threat to Russia in an invading capacity.

The threat should be feared by their leaders and those who wish to subjugate their societies, not from the people themselves.

The threat is the capability of striking Russian nuclear forces and their command and control structure faster than they can reply. We developed the targeting capability necessary to kill missile silos without having to just saturate them under Obama. Add forward-stationed missiles with enough velocity to the equation, and a disabling nuclear first strike becomes feasible. Russia would not be able to give the order for a second strike and execute it fast enough.

From Putin's perspective, he can't trust the US when its leaders say, "We would never do that due to the inevitable international outcry," because that situation might change in the future.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Haha not at all, simply suggesting drip-feeding weapons to Ukraine isn't going to help stop a war against a country the size of Russia, which also happens to have possibly the world's single largest nuclear armoury to fall back on.

Something else needs to be done, because Putin isn't going to back off of his own accord.

Sorry for not wanting people to keep dying. I'm clearly evil.

I do have to wonder if said nuclear arsenal actually works. Based on their general incompetence militarily speaking so far.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The threat is the capability of striking Russian nuclear forces and their command and control structure faster than they can reply. We developed the targeting capability necessary to kill missile silos without having to just saturate them under Obama. Add forward-stationed missiles with enough velocity to the equation, and a disabling nuclear first strike becomes feasible. Russia would not be able to give the order for a second strike and execute it fast enough.

From Putin's perspective, he can't trust the US when its leaders say, "We would never do that due to the inevitable international outcry," because that situation might change in the future.

I see your point however the US launching a pre-emptive nuclear on Russia seems astronomically unlikely at least in the foreseeable future. They have not even used nuclear weapons in countries they've actually been at war at since WW2.

China and India are both nuclear powers (to varying extents) and although the technology may not match the US currently that is not to say they may not develop it in the future. Of course technology may have shifted even further when that happens.

I just don't buy that the only option was to invade Ukraine based upon it and also that it was the primary reason for them doing so. Even if it was I still believe Russia are completely in the wrong and it's every country's self determining right to decide which organisation to join or what defence they hold on their soil. The only countries that continuously brag and use inflammatory language regarding nuclear weapons seem to be Russia and North Korea as far as I can see.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

The threat is the capability of striking Russian nuclear forces and their command and control structure faster than they can reply. We developed the targeting capability necessary to kill missile silos without having to just saturate them under Obama. Add forward-stationed missiles with enough velocity to the equation, and a disabling nuclear first strike becomes feasible. Russia would not be able to give the order for a second strike and execute it fast enough.

From Putin's perspective, he can't trust the US when its leaders say, "We would never do that due to the inevitable international outcry," because that situation might change in the future.

The only missile systems the US has forward deployed in Eastern Europe are Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, and Aegis ashore, all of which are defensive anti-ballistic missile systems.

The reason Putin went screwy is that these defensive missile systems have the capability to mitigate or negate Russia’s nuclear first-strike capability.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I see your point however the US launching a pre-emptive nuclear on Russia seems astronomically unlikely at least in the foreseeable future. They have not even used nuclear weapons in countries they've actually been at war at since WW2.

China and India are both nuclear powers (to varying extents) and although the technology may not match the US currently that is not to say they may not develop it in the future. Of course technology may have shifted even further when that happens.

I just don't buy that the only option was to invade Ukraine based upon it and also that it was the primary reason for them doing so. Even if it was I still believe Russia are completely in the wrong and it's every country's self determining right to decide which organisation to join or what defence they hold on their soil. The only countries that continuously brag and use inflammatory language regarding nuclear weapons seem to be Russia and North Korea as far as I can see.

It's about capabilities, not intentions. You wouldn't agree to sit under a sword suspended by a thread of your own free will.

Invading Ukraine won't solve the basic problem. It helps - getting several hundred miles out of the equation buys a minute or two with respect to the missile fields in central Russia - but sooner or later we're likely to be able to launch such a strike from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Turkey that anti-ballistic missiles can't stop.

It's a classic nuclear security dilemma problem. Making yourself completely safe renders the opponent completely unsafe, which is how we get arms races.