Its not just the weapons themselves, its the fact that it would bog down and frustrate the Russians into not making much progress. Putin doesn't have endless resources to continue fighting in Ukraine and there will be a tipping point where he either deescalates into negotiation or escalates by using WMDs. At that point, all of this trivial NATO tap dancing about no fly zones will fly out the window.
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.
Its not just the weapons themselves, its the fact that it would bog down and frustrate the Russians into not making much progress. Putin doesn't have endless resources to continue fighting in Ukraine and there will be a tipping point where he either deescalates into negotiation or escalates by using WMDs. At that point, all of this trivial NATO tap dancing about no fly zones will fly out the window.
Yeah I agree with that (if chemical weapons or other "conventional" WMD are used, the game changes).
This will not happen. No matter how crazy Putin is, the generals around him would rather nuke Paris or London than carpet bomb Kyiv. It is like the "orthodox Jerusalem" for the religious Russians. And the regime while losing many of its supporters seems to have most of the religious fanatics still on the loyal side. Destroying Kyiv is probably the quickest way to incentivize another sort of uprising in Moscow, and lose power in Russia.
Don't presume Putin is above anything in this war, especially given his track record in Chechnya, Syria, the bombing of apartment buildings in his own country, and what he has already done in Mariupol and Kharkiv in the preceding three weeks.
She is. It takes a whole different level of despicable for a woman to be called as such, but she's among the few deserving it.
Check out my "highly accurate" paraphrase of your opposition to a no fly zone.
What you are doing, and you know you are doing this, is inverting Zelensky's "need" in order to cast him as the belligerent antagonist. He requests a no fly zone or the means by which Ukraine can itself defend. Why? Not to escalate things into a nuclear war, but to stop people being blown up by bombs. Similarly you (and I) don't want a no fly zone because you think it may escalate to a nuclear exchange, not because you have a fetish for innocent death.
So again, stop with the sophistry.
I think the Feds need to take a fresh look at where Marge is getting her funding.
They're quite good, right? Great news if true
The risk that it might escalate is not a sensible risk to take given the potential nuclear consequences if it does escalate.
Moreover, it's highly likely that would escalate, given that establishing a no-fly-zone means it'd first be necessary to destroy all Russian anti-aircraft missile systems that have a capability to bring down NATO planes in Ukrainian airspace. Some of those systems are sited in western Russia. Do you think Putin would just sit back and watch?
What I was doing was pointing out the logical outcome of a NFZ in the context of Zelenskyy's invocation of MLK. The original invocation is itself inverted, as MLK was a pacifist. Zelenskyy's demand for a NFZ is belligerent and is framed as non-belligerent by distorting the original value of MLK's speech. But it was one comment that wasn't intended to provoke, but was intended to summarize the corruption of MLK when tied to a demand that could, very easily, lead to nuclear escalation. That being said, I'm happy to let anyone read it how they want as a two-page exchange on the topic serves only to derail.
I don't think the NFZ will happen due to a lack of political appetite. but it could work imo. Putin would be incentivized to not shoot down any NATO planes for fear of what would happen next, especially if he's already running out of military and economic resources. So a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west could work.
That is certainly one of the key points. Because the NATO commanders would likely say that they can't risk their aircraft and crews if those sites can't be targeted, and the decision to target those sites is a political one. That makes it a bit of a non-starter.
You just know she will fundraise on it.
I'm not putting anything beyond him. But I genuinely believe it is very different for the Russian public. The regime could sell the atrocities of Grozny and Aleppo as necessary "collateral damage" when fighting for their allies against "terrorists". In both cases, there was a "legitimate" ally being protected from the "radical rebels". And the victims weren't Christian orthodox civilians. It was Muslims fighting each other, and the regime could sell the idea that it had every right to support its allies regardless of the "collateral damage". This narrative can't possibly apply to Kyiv, no matter what propaganda they have. I can't see it. The day Putin gives the unequivocal order to carpet bomb Kyiv is the day he gets overthrown by his own.
The Russian apartment bombings happened across multiple cities in Russia to primarily white, slavic Russians. Do you think a guy who is willing to murder his own citizens to create a fake provocation so he can seize greater control of the nation's security apparatus has any problem with bombing cities in foreign countries ?
If there was an EU defence opt-out, since the EU is not now directly defending Ukraine from the current invasion, and since NATO via the UN's article 5 is also not now directly defending Ukraine, why would this suddenly change in the event of a 2nd Russian invasion ?
I think Ukraine's main priority, ahead of access to EU funds (etc), would be obtaining a sure deterrence against a 2nd invasion. That can only come if there are EU troops and bases in Ukraine, with no Ukrainian opt-out from the EU defence pact. Otherwise, Ukraine will be left merely hoping that Russia doesn't do it all again, and merely hoping that EU military forces would come directly to help them.
Putin and his cronies are not worried about some EU or NATO invasion of a nuclear-armed Russia. They know that is never going to happen. Instead they are worried about the example of Ukrainian freedom, independence and democracy being spread to the Russian people. This is what it's all about.
Had not heard of her before so did a quick google. The first result was "Calls Daylight-Saving Time a Conspiracy to Control Clocks". Yeah I see she is a nutter then.
Flynn is a terrible example just because he's Michael Flynn, and because you think these guys are right instead of wrong? Michael Flynn was a highly decorated general who gave apparent high level talks and analysis after playing a major role in Afghanistan. It's not like we're talking 30 years ago either, this was within the last decade. He turned out to be batshit insane.
I'm being a bit flippant here, but my point is that I don't really trust someone just because they're a retired general.
She's worse than a nutter, she's a cryptofascist.
He is already bombing Kharkiv and Mariupol. Again, I think a paranoid crazy Putin might give the order to carpet bomb some cities. I certainly don't expect rational Russian generals to carry it out (Especially Kyiv, it has a very particular place).
Flynn is a disgraced charlatan who was on the cusp of jail time and who literally had dinner with Vladimir Putin. No one with half a brain listens to him or considers him a legitimate talking head on anything at this point.
Fastest short range anti-aircraft missile on the market. That's a big deal.
Let's be real. There is no hallowed place anywhere in this world that Putin wouldn't bomb if it meant he could achieve any one of his batshit objectives. He would rather leave Kyiv like Mariupol than leave it intact, if he thought he could sell it as a domestic win prior to a withdrawal.
It would mean the same to the Ukrainian side. Any cessation in shooting would result in them being able to get armed to the gills with sophisticated western weapons.
This is absolutely true. It's the question whose supply stream is faster. Ukrainian army will also have to orchestrate evavuations, though, taking their attention elsewhere.
Why would Putin agree to a limited NFZ and humanitarian corridor in the west, given that this would only help the flow of the defensive weapons into Ukraine that are killing his troops, armour and aircraft? And even if he did agree, why would anyone now trust a single word he says?
It would give Putin the perfect opportunity to escalate short of attacking a NATO country. He could shoot down a NATO jet and claim that the Ukrainians did it, or that it was an accident, or that the plane had strayed into Eastern Ukraine, or that the jet had attacked Russian troops etc. The possibilities for miscalculation are endless - and the stakes too high to risk it.
Because once Ukraine is in the EU, the collapse of their economy would be a massive disaster for the entire Union. Even without being legally obliged to defend Ukraine, the EU will have to do it. All EU countries will have too much to lose if they allow Ukraine to be occupied.
Yes that's true. Stopping democracy is an important component. And it is true that nobody is ever going to invade Russia. But the regime in Moscow has a fear (justified or not) of Ukraine being used against Belarus and Crimea.
He would be forced to do so for fear of triggering article 5. Remember that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has repeatedly invited the US and others in to their country to do this. The burden will therefore be shifted onto Russia to not trigger article 5. Unless you think Putin is suicidal, there is a a pretty good chance he will feel incentivized to avoid needless military conflict at a time when he's incredibly weak.
The UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to stop it invasion, saying it had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin’s justification for the war, that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the east of the country, Julian Borger writes.
The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.
The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.
The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.
The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.
The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.
The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.
That still boils down to mere hope on Ukraine's part, not a guarantee. It's not enough.
Shooting down Nato planes in Ukraine wouldn't trigger article 5.
Well thanks. That's good to know.
You're welcome.
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Sorry, but "a pretty good chance" - even if assumed to be true - is not sufficient. The potential end consequences - the permanent end of all sentient life on earth - from an escalation that leads a full-scale nuclear exchange, far outweigh any alleged small chance that it could happen.
The line has to be drawn somewhere - and its drawn around an attack on a NATO country.