Would you want it to? Get the feeling that so many western observers of the Ukranian slaughter have only that goal in mind during this war: let's not ever do anything that might provoke the Russians into triggering Article 5.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Invasion vs occupation. The invasion was a relative cakewalk but like in Vietnam the political and public will to occupy diminished over 20 years as the goals of being there were going round in circles. It was nothing to do with being willing to make sacrifices.
And open Putin up to assassination himself.
The best part of Putin's government eventually collapsing is that this vassal clown will go down with him.
Speaking of Afghanistan… the Soviet Union lost somewhere between 1500-2500 men per year during their war there. At this rate, Russia will hit the Soviet KIA total from the Afghan War in another 3 weeks.
While Putin managed to keep an image of cunning or clever statesman (and despot, of course), this guy is a total disaster. Like you said, absolute clown who hopefully will be eaten alive by his own population
He proclaims himself "the last dictator in Europe". I hope he ends up precisly that.
Ah, but putting Russia and Reasonable in the same sentence just doesn't go right now
Something else about nukes in Belarus. Putin was so afraid of NATO bases and missiles in Ukraine he had to invade them, only to bring his own equipment, potentially including nukes, to the NATO boarders in Belarus.
Would not want it to when considering where it could lead, just wondering if an attack on the train would trigger the article.
I don’t think Russia will deploy nukes in there. It’s a dangerous move. Latvia and Lithuania will feel even more threatened than they already are.
Last edited:
They woudnt want to project the mad men with bombs too much though.If such erraric behavior accumulates chances increase for their own preemtive demilitarization. Killing a bunch of nato heads of government does put this convo on the table IMO.
Legally no, only attacks inside the borders as recognised at the moment of the treaty adhesion can trigger article V.
Actually I think European countries are only protected by NATO for their European borders. So France’s Mayotte in east Africa (in Indian Ocean, claimed by Comoros if I’m not mistaken) and Spain’s north African enclaves (claimed by Morocco) are not subject to article V.
It’s not just me that can’t see any other scenario where Putin isn’t finished?
He’s crossed the Rubicon with war crimes and I don’t see the West ever lifting sanctions on Russia as long as he is in charge. So it’s either he somehow agrees to step down safely and his successor picks up the pieces. He’s subject to a coup which will probably lead to civil war or he pushes the big red button and the world we we know it ceases to exist.
But not doing so combined with the last chopper out of Saigon image vibes when the US left behind its own citizens sure looked a lot like fleeing to the watching world. All adds to the notion of a west in retreat ripe for pushback. Ukraine is a flagrant example despite all the 'off-ramps' the US supposedly offered Putin before invasion.
Yeah he's done. He will never be accepted back into the civilized fold in any meaningful way, neither socially nor economically (or any other vaguely relevant way).
He has in the span of 3 weeks managed to destroy the mythology that Russia has a highly competent military worthy of competing with the great powers, and obliterated the Russian currency and economy. Even if he were to magically change his mind and suddenly grovel for a cease fire, the sanctions will remain in place until he is sufficiently weakened to where he can be overthrown from within.
I think, it would be open for debate and interpretation.
Any deliberate attack/killing of a head of state/member of the government is an act of war.
But they are going to a state in open warfare. Russia could claim , it was a mistake (Ukrainian military target) or collateral damage.
Lets just say, it would be an incredibly risky and IMHO stupid move by Russia aka Putin to target them.
But on the other hand you can argue, that the visiting satesmen are taking a gamble with their lifes and a huge risk of further escalating the conflict.
My guess is, that the majority of non affected European NATO members would not outright declare war or support triggering Article 5. But I think, there would be further sanctions (no energy buys from Russia etc) and more direct support to the Ukraine.
Biggest question is, what would Poland do and which support from the USA would they have in their actions.
Last edited:
I'm not convinced they'll store nukes there as well, but don't think the bolded part means anything to Putin
That's a perceptual illusion among those who were generally always skeptical about both wars, not a political or military reality on the ground. As for Ukraine, I don't know what off-ramps Putin was offered when he has been preparing to invade Ukraine for years.
Had to chuckle at this. Perception matters.
Offramps were offered by the not very authoritative Anthony Blinken.
Don't forget the probability of a War Crimes trial. Everything that is happening in Ukraine directly against civilians is being carefully catalogued.
He is going to be tried along with all of those involved in the atrocities. And if found guilty, where does he go to escape.
In my view, when this happens, he is finished as a world leader. As will his power base.
Turns out Blinken was wrong given that they weren't legitimate "offramps" when Putin was already committed to invade. Just like the casual and feckless sanctions Obama offered up after 2014 weren't viable offramps when Putin was already committed to annexing Crimea. Obvious miscalculations in both situations. An offramp is only legitimately in play when it is more attractive to the aggressor than the spoils of his original plans.
Well no, but if it did, do you think NATO would attack, they are going into a warzone.
They could do this over zoom surely, I think it’s a political posturing exercise, all be it slightly dangerous.
My point. Further weakness on display in seeking to dissuade a despot with incentives. Should have been at least offered disincentives that included anything Putin might actually respect.
I’m sure there are plenty of Iraqis, Afghans and others whos families were wiped out without trial by drone strikes and bombs, that would like to know when these war crime trials are going to begin.
Edit: sorry wrong thread.
Last edited:
Thanks!
It's not really about competence though is it? Putin and his gang want full control of people and therefore of resources. It's pure greed and the quite real fear that without that control, they are powerless and fully redundant. They can only continue in order not to lose everything.
Thank makes some sense when you think back to the falklands
and I found reference to the actual definition which is
so North Africa possibly is covered?
Includes also ships and aircraft over the north atlantic and the med.
6,000 fatalities, likely means 3 times that number wounded, captured, surrendered or deserted - making a total of 24,000 out of action one way or another.
If the upper range figure of 8,000 killed is taken instead, then that would suggests a a likely total of 32,000 out of action, equating to 17% of the total estimated invasion force of 190,000.
At the same rate of attrition, in another 3 weeks the Russians will have lost anywhere between 26% and 34% of their total invasion force.
Bear in mind here that European intelligence estimates give higher range figures than the Americans, and the Ukrainian government gives much higher range figures.
In the moment they step in Ukraine the NATO argument is not valid.
100%. He's basically running a mafia organization with nukes.
This could simply be people in America not knowing much about Ukraine (or even where it is) to gain information. Doesn't fit the narrative mind.
Not all media cycles are equal. How many years did the 9/11 cycle last?
Killing the political leader of a country is an act of war, isn't it?
I'm sure Vlad wakes up each morning and immediately scampers to his laptop to read the latest Google trends report on western attention spans, prior to making his next invasion move.
Apparently the train passed Lviv already
ask Franz Ferdinand
That includes Azores and Madeira and Im guessing was in US interest at the time to include Azores (they used to have a base there after the WW2 and Madeira because was a tourist destination for the britsThank makes some sense when you think back to the falklands
and I found reference to the actual definition which is
so North Africa possibly is covered?
