Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

frostbite said:
Yes. Most western countries and NATO as a whole was probably too timid, too pacifist, too focused on economy. All that is good actually, and that's the world I'd prefer to live in.

However, these good qualities actually encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine because he believed that NATO will do nothing. I hate Reagan, but if the US had someone like Reagan as President and if he said that an invasion of Ukraine will bring direct military response from the US, Putin would not dare do anything and we'd still have peace and thousands of people would still have their lives intact. Unfortunately, sometimes you need hawks to have peace...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but believing that Putin would not then have invaded Ukraine is to play a gigantic game of nuclear bluff that the world cannot afford, because if your belief had proved unfounded you'd then be in a situation in which the US President would not be able to back down from their threat and would then be sending American troops into direct combat with Russians ... and we all know where that leads.

It's not the way that any responsible U.S President would or should behave,
 
Last edited:
GlastonSpur said:
Sorry, but believing that Putin would not then have invaded Ukraine is play a gigantic game of nuclear bluff that the world cannot afford, because if your belief had proved unfounded you'd then be in a situation in which the US President would not be able to back down from their threat and would then be sending American troops into direct combat with Russians ... and we all know where that leads.

It's not the way that any responsible U.S President would or should behave,
Click to expand...
Indeed, red lines need to be drawn years in advance and they need to make sense and have support from your own population (in a democratic country), that way the adversary can perceive it as credible. In Europe, for the US, that red line is any NATO nation. Even as NATO brought in countries as far east as the Baltic states that red line has remained credible which is quite an accomplishment. Drawing red lines on the fly is both destabilizing and can potential lead to loss of credibility.
 
frostbite said:
Yes. Most western countries and NATO as a whole was probably too timid, too pacifist, too focused on economy. All that is good actually, and that's the world I'd prefer to live in.

However, these good qualities actually encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine because he believed that NATO will do nothing. I hate Reagan, but if the US had someone like Reagan as President and if he said that an invasion of Ukraine will bring direct military response from the US, Putin would not dare do anything and we'd still have peace and thousands of people would still have their lives intact. Unfortunately, sometimes you need hawks to have peace...
Click to expand...

They weren't too timid or pacifist, they were (and are) too corrupt. A kleptocracy full of oligarchs who want to wash their dirty money through your bank's and businesses, want to fund your loony political campaigns, want to invite you to parties on their superyachts and in their mansions? Yes please, step right up. We'll take all of them, Russian, Saudi, Bahraini, come one come all.
 
frostbite said:
Yes. Most western countries and NATO as a whole was probably too timid, too pacifist, too focused on economy. All that is good actually, and that's the world I'd prefer to live in.

However, these good qualities actually encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine because he believed that NATO will do nothing. I hate Reagan, but if the US had someone like Reagan as President and if he said that an invasion of Ukraine will bring direct military response from the US, Putin would not dare do anything and we'd still have peace and thousands of people would still have their lives intact. Unfortunately, sometimes you need hawks to have peace...
Click to expand...

There was universal agreement between Washington elites that the USA would not fight Russia over Ukraine. That consensus emerged in the 90s well before 9/11, never changed and included even the most die-hard hawks. That was also public knowledge. The issue with drawing these “red lines” and giving security guarantees is, that they come with costs. The reason why US security guarantees to Europe/Nato are credible is, because there are over 40.000 US troops in Germany and Italy. Same goes for Japan and SK, where the USA has stationed over 80.000 troops. Security guarantees are about more than just the number of troops, but they can’t be just words. We saw under Obama what happened when you draw red lines that you can’t and don’t want to back up.

We know that Russia always had major interests in Ukraine and the US could have never deterred Russia with empty gestures. Only a permanent major US presence in the country (at the very least similar to their presence in SK) would have made any security guarantees credible. Not doing that has nothing to do with pacifism. It would have been an insane policy against any self-interest of the USA and nobody would have been able to predict all the potentially negative side-effects.
 
TwoSheds said:
They weren't too timid or pacifist, they were (and are) too corrupt. A kleptocracy full of oligarchs who want to wash their dirty money through your bank's and businesses, want to fund your loony political campaigns, want to invite you to parties on their superyachts and in their mansions? Yes please, step right up. We'll take all of them, Russian, Saudi, Bahraini, come one come all.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's corruption (in parts) and especially opportunism. It was idiotic from Germany to become so reliant on Russian gas but it was probably the cheapest solution and politicians - especially in democracies with short legislatory periods - will always fancy the short term over the long term, unfortunately.
 
Zehner said:
Yes, it's corruption (in parts) and especially opportunism. It was idiotic from Germany to become so reliant on Russian gas but it was probably the cheapest solution and politicians - especially in democracies with short legislatory periods - will always fancy the short term over the long term, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Agreed about German gas, you can make arguments for and against for that particular line of business. But the general, not just acceptance, but more red carpet rollout for Russian investment in Europe, despite the well documented cost to the west of Russian money subverting our democracies, well that blind eye we've been turning for decades.

And we've particularly turned it in Britain and the US because kleptocracy aligns pretty well with the interests of our political and ruling classes. Until it turns out it's the "bad kind of kleptocracy" and we were never really friends anyway. Putin is basically the Epstein to the west's Prince Andrew.
 
TwoSheds said:
They weren't too timid or pacifist, they were (and are) too corrupt. A kleptocracy full of oligarchs who want to wash their dirty money through your bank's and businesses, want to fund your loony political campaigns, want to invite you to parties on their superyachts and in their mansions? Yes please, step right up. We'll take all of them, Russian, Saudi, Bahraini, come one come all.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't just the Presidents and the Prime Ministers. It was the average citizens too. Nobody wanted to challenge Russia, or build defences against Russia. The average German citizen did not want his country to spend on the military. And the average German citizen did not worry about Putin. For many people that stance was because they are pacifists, not because they are corrupt.
 
frostbite said:
But it wasn't just the Presidents and the Prime Ministers. It was the average citizens too. Nobody wanted to challenge Russia, or build defences against Russia. The average German citizen did not want his country to spend on the military. And the average German citizen did not worry about Putin. For many people that stance was because they are pacifists, not because they are corrupt.
Click to expand...

True, but those same people definitely were not for Nordstream 2 either. One thing is the pacifistic aspect, the other one is the reliance on Russian resources and red carpets for oligarchs etc.
 
TwoSheds said:
They weren't too timid or pacifist, they were (and are) too corrupt. A kleptocracy full of oligarchs who want to wash their dirty money through your bank's and businesses, want to fund your loony political campaigns, want to invite you to parties on their superyachts and in their mansions? Yes please, step right up. We'll take all of them, Russian, Saudi, Bahraini, come one come all.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. If you think the West didnt see this coming then you are wrong. Loads of people have been warning the West for decades about Russia. Putin already literally already invaded Ukraine in 2008. Everyone in Ukraine is not exactly surprised and they have been preparing for this for years so why are we? Its the same with China. Loads of people warning about China. And the evidence is already there - Genocide of the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet etc. So you have to ask yourselves why we let them do it and why we let them build stronger an stronger. Answer - because the elite are making a sht load of cash from it.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Sorry, but believing that Putin would not then have invaded Ukraine is to play a gigantic game of nuclear bluff that the world cannot afford, because if your belief had proved unfounded you'd then be in a situation in which the US President would not be able to back down from their threat and would then be sending American troops into direct combat with Russians ... and we all know where that leads.

It's not the way that any responsible U.S President would or should behave,
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. If Putin demands Poland and East Germany "or else...", are you going to hand them to him? Of course not. There are always red lines. Nobody wants a nuclear war, not even a crazy dictator like Putin. Putin always calculated what the West will (not) do. He calculated correctly in Georgia and Crimea. He miscalculated now. If he knew that USAF will definitely bomb any Russians invading Ukraine, he would never dare to invade it. He decided to invade Ukraine only after he saw that USA left Afghanistan in such a messy way that it signalled "we don't want any wars, we want peace".
 
frostbite said:
But it wasn't just the Presidents and the Prime Ministers. It was the average citizens too. Nobody wanted to challenge Russia, or build defences against Russia. The average German citizen did not want his country to spend on the military. And the average German citizen did not worry about Putin. For many people that stance was because they are pacifists, not because they are corrupt.
Click to expand...
In addition to this keep in mind, that the USA have quite a lot of military bases in Germany and use that very actively for operations especially in the middle east (Ramstein being the most important base).

USA are seen as the aggressive super power and therefore are met with a lot of skepticisim, Russia appeared to be the natural counter weight to the imperialistic US. This image was never fully true for both sides, but the American aggressiveness simply was much more present in the German public.
 
frostbite said:
But it wasn't just the Presidents and the Prime Ministers. It was the average citizens too. Nobody wanted to challenge Russia, or build defences against Russia. The average German citizen did not want his country to spend on the military. And the average German citizen did not worry about Putin. For many people that stance was because they are pacifists, not because they are corrupt.
Click to expand...

The average citizen doesn't think it's a problem because the public memory of the 2nd world war and the Iron Curtain had more or less faded, and because the media doesn't make a fuss about it. The media don't make a fuss about it because they're friends with the politicians. Both of those parties don't make a fuss because they're often benefitting directly and/or indirectly from Russian money and influence.

Even the Independent newspaper in England (a long way from the most poodletastic, corrupt journalistic shitheaps in this country) is owned by the son of a Russian oligarch whose dad used to run the FSB. Not only that, they made this Russian owner both a British citizen and a Lord with potential access to privileged and classified information! It should be indefensible but here we are, who's going to make a fuss about it?
 
sun_tzu said:
I dont think there will be anywhere safe

whats the betting...
Polonium
Novichok
Going North Korea style with VX
Or going old school and sticking a pick axe in his head
Click to expand...

Accidental fall from balcony apartment
 
UpWithRivers said:
Exactly this. If you think the West didnt see this coming then you are wrong. Loads of people have been warning the West for decades about Russia. Putin already literally already invaded Ukraine in 2008. Everyone in Ukraine is not exactly surprised and they have been preparing for this for years so why are we? Its the same with China. Loads of people warning about China. And the evidence is already there - Genocide of the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet etc. So you have to ask yourselves why we let them do it and why we let them build stronger an stronger. Answer - because the elite are making a sht load of cash from it.
Click to expand...
He invaded Georgia in 08, not Ukraine.
 
sun_tzu said:
I dont think there will be anywhere safe

whats the betting...
Polonium
Novichok
Going North Korea style with VX
Or going old school and sticking a pick axe in his head
Click to expand...

Certainly doesn't help when Twitter reveals his whereabouts like asif a Man's life is some kinda game for sticking up what he believes in, I sure hope Putin is stuck on the Twitter verify he's not a robot page.
 
frostbite said:
Bullshit. The best that any NATO country would have hoped for, is to have peace and prosperity and the Stock Market to go up. That's how politicians get elected in the West. If you think that Biden wanted this you don't know what you are talking about! Biden was forced to do something, but he'd prefer to just forget Afghanistan and have no more wars during his presidency.
Click to expand...
I literally started my answer with ‘Nobody wanted war’ which you seem to have completely ignored.
 
Precaution said:
Certainly doesn't help when Twitter reveals his whereabouts like asif a Man's life is some kinda game for sticking up what he believes in, I sure hope Putin is stuck on the Twitter verify he's not a robot page.
Click to expand...

He's using an ATM. That's not exactly a great way to move around unnoticed.
 
frostbite said:
Bullshit. The best that any NATO country would have hoped for, is to have peace and prosperity and the Stock Market to go up. That's how politicians get elected in the West. If you think that Biden wanted this you don't know what you are talking about! Biden was forced to do something, but he'd prefer to just forget Afghanistan and have no more wars during his presidency.
Click to expand...
I don't think Biden wanted this war, but it seems like the West would rather see the war drag on than for it to end quickly with some sort of a new Minsk agreement.

This article explains it well... And why it might not be a good strategy.

 
Dr. Dwayne said:
He's using an ATM. That's not exactly a great way to move around unnoticed.
Click to expand...

Given the circumstances, you'd forgive him for not walking into a Russian bank with an empty briefcase moments before boarding an out of country flight. Wire transfers aren't exactly ideal at the moment either.
 
Pintu said:
I don't think Biden wanted this war, but it seems like the West would rather see the war drag on than for it to end quickly with some sort of a new Minsk agreement.

This article explains it well... And why it might not be a good strategy.

Click to expand...


This is pretty obvious since no one can trust Putin to abide by any agreement. All it would do is needlessly prolong his regime, during which he would continue fomenting chaos in the region until someone finally puts him out of his misery.
 
UpWithRivers said:
Exactly this. If you think the West didnt see this coming then you are wrong. Loads of people have been warning the West for decades about Russia. Putin already literally already invaded Ukraine in 2008. Everyone in Ukraine is not exactly surprised and they have been preparing for this for years so why are we? Its the same with China. Loads of people warning about China. And the evidence is already there - Genocide of the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet etc. So you have to ask yourselves why we let them do it and why we let them build stronger an stronger. Answer - because the elite are making a sht load of cash from it.
Click to expand...

We let the Russia invade Ukraine it because it was not possible to stop it short of sending NATO military to engage in direct combat with Russians and thereby risking nuclear escalation. Is that what you suggest we should have done?

Hong Kong was handed back to China as a per a very long-standing treaty agreement between the UK and China. Do you suggest we should have broken the treaty and sent troops to defend Hong Kong?

Re. the Uyghurs, again what do you suggest we do? Send NATO troops to invade that part of China?

Tibet was annexed in the 1950s - 70 years ago. It's a bit late to do anything about it now.
 
Pintu said:
I don't think Biden wanted this war, but it seems like the West would rather see the war drag on than for it to end quickly with some sort of a new Minsk agreement.

This article explains it well... And why it might not be a good strategy.

Click to expand...


Do you think Ukraine wants a new Minsk after everything that happened?
 
frostbite said:
Oh, come on. If Putin demands Poland and East Germany "or else...", are you going to hand them to him? Of course not. There are always red lines. Nobody wants a nuclear war, not even a crazy dictator like Putin. Putin always calculated what the West will (not) do. He calculated correctly in Georgia and Crimea. He miscalculated now. If he knew that USAF will definitely bomb any Russians invading Ukraine, he would never dare to invade it. He decided to invade Ukraine only after he saw that USA left Afghanistan in such a messy way that it signalled "we don't want any wars, we want peace".
Click to expand...

Yes, there are always red lines - they exist on a long-standing basis in relation to NATO countries and require military back-up that takes time to put in place. It's not practical or sensible to suddenly invent new red lines on the hoof.

I prefer not to rely on your mere belief that sending NATO troops into Ukraine would have prevented Putin's invasion and not led a significant risk of nuclear escalation.
 
sglowrider said:
I would imagine he would be using his private banker get cash out for him. If he is doing it himself he must be pretty low down the totem pole.
Click to expand...

He's probably low enough to where he hasn't been sanctioned, which means he can still withdraw cash from his non-Russian accounts (ie. his assets haven't been frozen).
 
Raoul said:
Given the circumstances, you'd forgive him for not walking into a Russian bank with an empty briefcase moments before boarding an out of country flight. Wire transfers aren't exactly ideal at the moment either.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure, but you'd think a person who was opposed to this action would have made plans ahead of time. Using ATMs, debit cards and credit cards is the easiest way to reveal your location.
 
GlastonSpur said:
We let the Russia invade Ukraine it because it was not possible to stop it short of sending NATO military to engage in direct combat with Russians and thereby risking nuclear escalation. Is that what you suggest we should have done?

Hong Kong was handed back to China as a per a very long-standing treaty agreement between the UK and China. Do you suggest we should have broken the treaty and sent troops to defend Hong Kong?

Re. the Uyghurs, again what do you suggest we do? Send NATO troops to invade that part of China?

Tibet was annexed in the 1950s - 70 years ago. It's a bit late to do anything about it now.
Click to expand...
Im not suggesting we bomb the sht out of Russia or China. But sucking up to them is not the greatest plan is it? The West needs to be independent of dictatorships. China, Russia etc. Maybe easier said then done but its a matter of when not if they go fking nuts and we need a plan to survive without them
 
UpWithRivers said:
Im not suggesting we bomb the sht out of Russia or China. But sucking up to them is not the greatest plan is it? The West needs to be independent of dictatorships. China, Russia etc. Maybe easier said then done but its a matter of when not if they go fking nuts and we need a plan to survive without them
Click to expand...

China is one of the most integrated economies in the world. How do you propose being 'independent' from it? They have around €400billion invested just in Europe.
 
UpWithRivers said:
Im not suggesting we bomb the sht out of Russia or China. But sucking up to them is not the greatest plan is it? The West needs to be independent of dictatorships. China, Russia etc. Maybe easier said then done but its a matter of when not if they go fking nuts and we need a plan to survive without them
Click to expand...

Russia is now the most sanctioned nation on Earth - in a few months their economy will be in ruins. NATO supplied weapons to Ukraine are having a devastating effect on Russia's invasion force. Europe is now moving as fast as possible to reduce oil and gas reliance on Russia. NATO is ramping up defences in all front-line NATO countries. Germany is now massively increasing its defence spending.

So let's talk about the here-and-now, rather than the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.