Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

dove said:
Click to expand...

Imposing a no fly zone would mean attacking Russian military which would mean a total escalation and a mutually assured destruction. No fly zone would never happen. As for the other stuff that seems fair.
 
LilyWhiteSpur said:
Sadly they are practically debt free compared to the rest of Europe, any sanctions against them will probably hurt Europe more. I mean if Putin cuts the gas, Eastern Europe, Germany and Italy are fecked.
Click to expand...

If Putin can't sell the gaz, he is fecked. Europe imports about €100 billion a year from Russia's Oil & Gaz. We can't know what China has been telling Putin, but they can't buy all the goods.

We have something like a stalemate with Russia in that regard.
 
Pintu said:



Interesting. I never expected Erdogan to speak up on this. If anything I thought he would be the NATO member staying friendly to Putin.
Click to expand...

Turkey are a bit like China to Russia. It’s always an uneasy alliance. Neither really can tolerate being seen as the junior partner for long.
 
Shakesey said:
I haven't been exposed to Russian propaganda. But that's OK. Your reaction to my post meets my expectations.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you'd been exposed to Russian propaganda, I said you were playing into Russian propaganda.

Though I'm not sure "my mind hasn't been addled by Russian propaganda, it got like this by itself" is a defence I'd reach for.

If you want to criticise NATO, do so where it is relevant. But stop "both sides"-ing a situation where one side is completely and unequivocally in the wrong. There is zero equivalence between Russia and NATO's actions here.
 
Posting dead bodies when thread banner specifically states don't do it
DELETED by Admin.

Reminder : Do not post dead bodies anywhere in this thread. Violators will be warned and threadbanned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paxi said:
Imposing a no fly zone would mean attacking Russian military which would mean a total escalation and a mutually assured destruction. No fly zone would never happen. As for the other stuff that seems fair.
Click to expand...
Well, it doesn't have to be all of them. But now we do literally none of it, just some laughable sanctions that mean feck all in reality.
 
Paxi said:
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be surprising — she lived most of her life abroad, got education in Britain, has a British husband etc. It would've been weird if she wasn't thinking like that, really. And Abramović himself is one of the most emancipated Russian oligarchs.
 
nickm said:
Trump talked tough but America withdrew from the world under his leadership and as such lost its capacity to influence. Eg NATO. People like Putin dont pay attention to tough talk, they pay attention to capability and the will to use it.
Click to expand...

There's still something to be said for that chaotic instability of a crazy moron. I do think it's less likely this would have happened under Trump, as Putin could be far less certain the crazy orange ape wouldn't press the big red button because he got mad his friend Vlad lied to him.
 
onemanarmy said:
Of course you can. We all have. But your narrative is that NATO are like equally guilty as Russia while there isn't much NATO could do without starting WW3.
Click to expand...
My narrative is that all politicians involved in this disgusting war is not without blame. That's it. Putin is clearly the aggressor. So, how is NATO guilty in any way? They should have given Putin the guarantees he demanded that Ukraine would never be allowed to join them. At least that way Ukrainians wouldn't be dying in a war they can't possibly win right now. That is all I'm saying. I'm not pro-Russian. I'm not pro-Putin. I'm not pro-NATO. The amount of blow back I receive on here when I criticize NATO is surreal. But, I understand why it invokes such passionate responses. This is war time, and the suspicion of treason runs deep.
 
spiriticon said:
Uh... it was the fact that we were about to give Ukraine NATO membership that started all of this shit.

Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it would have been better for them to stay "neutral" but with a democratic government. It looks like now they will have an autocratic one.
Click to expand...

It most definately was not.
 
Of course the West made a lot of mistakes in the past years, because this sh*t did not happen overnight. And, of course, NATO mutual defense would be enabled if one member is attacked… it’s WWIII, which may end in 30 minutes for all parties involved, as the endgame. That’s why them, the EU (which is a mutual, imperfect non-aggression union of democracies in the Western Europe), the UK and the US have to buy time until reasonable.

In this instance, any member have to sort them out (eg. Italy summoning its defense committee, putting out instructions for regions and cities, implementing energy cuts to non-fundamental sectors, re-enabling dismissed fossil power plants, coordinating with allies and partners for Vicenza and Sigonella / Global Hawk bases, etc.).

Does it mean Ukraine is fecked? Today, tragically, yes… tomorrow, who knows? Does it mean Putin has won the war? Again… today, tragically, yes… tomorrow, possibly not: he is still playing according to accepted, conventional warfare manual, yet it is not clear how he is going to sustain the wreckage of today and the implications for tomorrow.
 
Random Task said:
Yeah, I'm not remotely convinced of that.
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely interested why you think that?

Other than 9/11 (which wasn't carried out by a country) I can't think of another time a NATO country has been attacked by another non NATO member country in going on a century. Surely there must be a reason for that?
 
Smores said:
It does feel like NATO need to put countries under their protection whilst there's talks underway.

Whether Putin invaded because of it or just used it for a domestic audience, there's no doubting that he wouldn't have invaded if he believed NATO would actually defend Ukraine. That's not shifting fault it's recognising mistakes.
Click to expand...

In this case (and probably all similar cases), that would mean going to war the very second you start talking. There is a reason for the rule of "no disputes" - and I think it's a vital rule.
 
Ukraine president saying to his people they're all they have to protect themselves because nobody is helping, sad and scary it's come to this.
 
sullydnl said:
I didn't say you'd been exposed to Russian propaganda, I said you were playing into Russian propaganda.

Though I'm not sure "my mind hasn't been addled by Russian propaganda, it got like this by itself" is a defence I'd reach for.

If you want to criticise NATO, do so where it is relevant. But stop "both sides"-ing a situation where one side is completely and unequivocally in the wrong. There is zero equivalence between Russia and NATO's actions here.
Click to expand...
Could NATO have stopped this war? If they could, why didn't they? Are they as guilty as Putin? No. No! Are they guilty in any way? Yes. That is my take on the matter. Sorry if it offends you. It is not my intention.
 
Shakesey said:
My narrative is that all politicians involved in this disgusting war is not without blame. That's it. Putin is clearly the aggressor. So, how is NATO guilty in any way? They should have given Putin the guarantees he demanded that Ukraine would never be allowed to join them. At least that way Ukrainians wouldn't be dying in a war they can't possibly win right now. That is all I'm saying. I'm not pro-Russian. I'm not pro-Putin. I'm not pro-NATO. The amount of blow back I receive on here when I criticize NATO is surreal. But, I understand why it invokes such passionate responses. This is war time, and the suspicion of treason runs deep.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you on here mate, bar one point. Putin would not have stopped even if he had been assured that Ukraine would never join NATO. This war instead was not started because of possible NATO membership.
 
Water Melon said:
I fully agree with you on here mate, bar one point. Putin would not have stopped even if he had been assured that Ukraine would never join NATO. This war instead was not started because of possible NATO membership.
Click to expand...
That was the line he kept on peddling, but he probably just used it as an excuse. You're probably right. But if Ukraine was pro-Russian, surely he wouldn't have invaded, would he?
 
owlo said:
Yep looks like same group. Your video above (one of them in the tweets) seems to be spliced from this one. Very confusing at you say.

Click to expand...

Please do not post dead bodies anywhere in the thread. If you post social media content with battle damage (things that were destroyed), please spoiler it.
 
Shakesey said:
My narrative is that all politicians involved in this disgusting war is not without blame. That's it. Putin is clearly the aggressor. So, how is NATO guilty in any way? They should have given Putin the guarantees he demanded that Ukraine would never be allowed to join them. At least that way Ukrainians wouldn't be dying in a war they can't possibly win right now. That is all I'm saying. I'm not pro-Russian. I'm not pro-Putin. I'm not pro-NATO. The amount of blow back I receive on here when I criticize NATO is surreal. But, I understand why it invokes such passionate responses. This is war time, and the suspicion of treason runs deep.
Click to expand...
The reason for the blow back is because you are wrong. Ukraine isn't being invaded because it flirted unsuccessfully with NATO. It's being invaded because Putin thinks Ukraine belongs to Russia and he won't tolerate a democratic government there. That is quite clear from Putins own words.
 
Paxi said:
Click to expand...

You have to ask why?

Just purely blood thirst. If they were that desperate to fight why aren't they on the front line instead of trying to mop up civilians?

Pathetic.
 
@Mihai Thanks for reply before. Trying to keep up. I feel so privileged sitting in my warm home in England. Thoughts for every person in Ukraine and videos of those on the island and that young lad dying to blow up a bridge are inspiring. Fighting for something worthwhile. It's not nationalism. It's a home and a way of life.

@Shakesey If your grand strategy as head of NATO is "to give putin what he wants" to avoid war, it's just laughable.
 
Kadyrov is also a war maniac isn't he? He and Putin isn't a good duo for the west.
 
Shakesey said:
That was the line he kept on peddling, but he probably just used it as an excuse. You're probably right. But if Ukraine was pro-Russian, surely he wouldn't have invaded, would he?
Click to expand...
How can you have it pro-Russian after Crimea annexation and majority of people voting democratically for changes?
 
Shakesey said:
My narrative is that all politicians involved in this disgusting war is not without blame. That's it. Putin is clearly the aggressor. So, how is NATO guilty in any way? They should have given Putin the guarantees he demanded that Ukraine would never be allowed to join them. At least that way Ukrainians wouldn't be dying in a war they can't possibly win right now. That is all I'm saying. I'm not pro-Russian. I'm not pro-Putin. I'm not pro-NATO. The amount of blow back I receive on here when I criticize NATO is surreal. But, I understand why it invokes such passionate responses. This is war time, and the suspicion of treason runs deep.
Click to expand...

Should we give him a reach-around while we're at it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.