Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.

Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
But do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.
 
Malaysia surprises me, but Singapore really does:



I would say 70% of population holding negative views of Russia sounds about right for Singapore.
Singapore's population mix is about 60-70% ethnic Chinese. A good proportion of them, including new immigrants from China and older Chinese Singaporeans, consume news/propaganda from China. Not surprising if some of them are more sympathetic towards Russia.
But in general, i think for most Southeast Asian countries, the real prevalent attitude is indifference.

Authoritarian states recognize game, I suppose.

This is a really bad generalization. The Singapore Government (aka the state) is one of the most vocal against the invasion in Asia. In fact, the government's stance probably goes further than how the population feels about the invasion.
 
The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.

Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.

This is a very interesting point and well argued.
There is a big difference between threatening the West with Russian nuclear weapons and actually deciding to do it. Because of the MAD probability.

That is why I still don't believe he will do anything more than sabre rattling.

NATO has been caught off guard and is now frantically trying to catch up.
But seriously. I do not see Putin having a death wish.
 
Yes. That's all about invading Ukraine. Not Russia. Read back through it again.
Yes, i talking about Russia invading Ukraine, which is what they were talking about, though I did say as an aside that Russia didn’t have to worry about being invaded themselves thanks to their nukes.

Anyway it seems we’re on the same page now. Don’t make me read it all back again!!
 
The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.

Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
One US military figure commented that the US would respond in equal measure if Russia used tactical nukes, but probably not with tactical nuclear weapons, because they’re not limited to that option, and it’s bad PR. Though he didn’t give any detail beyond that.
 
Yes, i talking about Russia invading Ukraine, which is what they were talking about, though I did say as an aside that Russia didn’t have to worry about being invaded themselves thanks to their nukes.

Anyway it seems we’re on the same page now. Don’t make me read it all back again!!
Ha, deal!
 
Due to a threat of being surrounded by orcs the Ukrainian armed forces are retreating from Lysychansk completely.
 
But do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.
I don't have a good answer to that. I think it's possible he might do something destructive to escalate in the scenario you describe, but if we get get directly involved I think it goes from possible to very likely.
One US military figure commented that the US would respond in equal measure if Russia used tactical nukes, but probably not with tactical nuclear weapons, because they’re not limited to that option, and it’s bad PR. Though he didn’t give any detail beyond that.

I understand why the US says this, but I really hope it's strategic rhethoric under the hopeful presumption that they'll never have to actually follow through. As much as I appreciate the US as our security guarantor, I really would rather not have the warfare spread out of Ukraine, which I think would be a given if the US gets involved in a tit for tat game with Russia. I realize it sounds very cynical saying it, but I don't think most European voters (except Poland and Lithuania maybe) are willing to risk this kind of escalation on the European continent, even with the kind of support we see for Ukraine now.
 
Due to a threat of being surrounded by orcs the Ukrainian armed forces are retreating from Lysychansk completely.

Sauce? Not good news if so really. That's the high ground right?
 
LONDON, June 28 (Reuters) - Russia on Tuesday denied hitting a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk with missiles, saying that it had struck a nearby depot of U.S. and European arms triggering an explosion which ignited a fire in the mall.

[Maury Povich voice] Video shows that to be a lie...
 
Is there any good reason that guy jumped into the lake? Just panic or is there any advantage to it in case of an explosion?
 
I understand why the US says this, but I really hope it's strategic rhethoric under the hopeful presumption that they'll never have to actually follow through. As much as I appreciate the US as our security guarantor, I really would rather not have the warfare spread out of Ukraine, which I think would be a given if the US gets involved in a tit for tat game with Russia. I realize it sounds very cynical saying it, but I don't think most European voters (except Poland and Lithuania maybe) are willing to risk this kind of escalation on the European continent, even with the kind of support we see for Ukraine now.
Unfortunately, the best way to get that outcome, is to ensure Putin believes we would indeed be prepared to risk that. We have to look, act and be prepared to do the things we don't want to, in order to make them less likely. I do think Putin would have to pay a very very high price for using nukes.
 
Can I just say that if the news about the prisoner exchange is infact true, and 95 members of the azov fighters have been returned to Ukraine, then it is one of the best outcomes of recent weeks.glad they're home.
 
Is there any good reason that guy jumped into the lake? Just panic or is there any advantage to it in case of an explosion?
I think he was just going in the opposite direction of the blast, without concern for getting wet. But surely being in water would be good if flaming debris headed your way.
 
I think he was just going in the opposite direction of the blast, without concern for getting wet. But surely being in water would be good if flaming debris headed your way.

Yeah makes sense. I asked because I assume the general population are getting advice on how to act in certain situations and maybe there was something more to it.
 
I love these lists Switzerland are 7th. I repeat, Switzerland are 7th. Money laundering and known corruption paradises somehow manage to find themselves at the top of these lists.

They have specific metrics. Like the police don't randomly stop you for no reason at all and demand a bribe and accuse you of a crime you didn't commit and take you in if you don't offer the bribe.
 
They have specific metrics. Like the police don't randomly stop you for no reason at all and demand a bribe and accuse you of a crime you didn't commit and take you in if you don't offer the bribe.

Which is the issue. The City, Luxembourg or Switzerland are corruptions heaven and yet these rankings gloss over it.
 
They have specific metrics. Like the police don't randomly stop you for no reason at all and demand a bribe and accuse you of a crime you didn't commit and take you in if you don't offer the bribe.

Yep, it's only "3rd world, man-on-the-street corruption" they measure. End of the day Britain is at the centre of a global tax evasion and money laundering web, it's probably the most corrupt nation on earth, but it's "the right kind of corruption".
 



Translating ‘Goodwill’ from russian into a visual format:



Thanks for posting btw, wasn't at all clear from BBC whether the Russians had really left of their own accord.
 
I love these lists Switzerland are 7th. I repeat, Switzerland are 7th. Money laundering and known corruption paradises somehow manage to find themselves at the top of these lists.

Exacty. I don’t need a list to tell me how corrupt the UK is.
 
End of the day Britain is at the centre of a global tax evasion and money laundering web, it's probably the most corrupt nation on earth, but it's "the right kind of corruption".
a lot of european countries are. but take britain's overseas territories into account and it's probably the world's worst for tax evasion.