Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Spark said:
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.

Any self respecting nuclear power has a 24/7 submarine based deterrent (e.g. Trident). No one knows where the subs are at any one time and it means that effectively anywhere is within range. Land based missiles are secondary and Russia obviously knows this, they just need excuses to justify their land grabs.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, it's mainly peddled by people who are anti American by nature and there is a lot to be anti American about just not this.
 
Spark said:
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.
Click to expand...
It's not really supposed to make sense after putting any thought into it. It's just shit to throw against the wall and if someone already wanted to believe that US is at fault here they will take that reasoning and justify that position with this. That's why it regularly comes back and then almost immediately disappears again.
 
Spark said:
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.

Any self respecting nuclear power has a 24/7 submarine based deterrent (e.g. Trident). No one knows where the subs are at any one time and it means that effectively anywhere is within range. Land based missiles are secondary and Russia obviously knows this, they just need excuses to justify their land grabs.
Click to expand...

There will be an awful lot more Nato troops and weapons in neighbouring countries soon, as they've given them many incentives to join.
 
Gehrman said:
I'm not really sure if people are aware several nato countries already border Russia and NATO could easily lop nukes from Poland. Or from simply the US with modern tech.
Click to expand...

Not only that. But precisely because nukes can be either lopped off from submarines or delivered by airstrikes, there has never been any real incentive to move NATO nukes any further eastward.

Despite NATOs enlargement, new countries have not received nukes and western Germany is still the easternmost part of Europe where NATO nukes can be found. It just wouldn’t bring any real advantage to nuclear equip say the Baltics and Eastern Europe and it would only be used by the Russian propaganda machine to justify paranoia and hostility towards the west. Hey, they even used fear of nukes and Cuba analogies as part of their propaganda about Ukraine (that Foxbatt has swallowed whole), despite it not having any correspondence with reality.

Meanwhile, Russia that already has nukes in Kaliningrad…
 
Foxbatt said:
Ukraine was fecked no matter what. They had no say in their future. Once the maidan coup happened and Russia got Crimea they had no say in anything. No self respecting Ukrainian can accept the loss of Crimea the way it happened.
The Russians and The Americans sacrifice Ukraine in their attempt at domination.
It's just came out in an interview by Corbyn that the military and pompeo said that he would not let him be the PM. So it's valid to say that the Americans have a very strong influence over a lot of countries.
The Ukrainians wouldn't survive a day without the American support.
Click to expand...
How would the US stop Corbyn from becoming PM? Curious who they have that much influence over, the Royals?
 
Spark said:
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.

Any self respecting nuclear power has a 24/7 submarine based deterrent (e.g. Trident). No one knows where the subs are at any one time and it means that effectively anywhere is within range. Land based missiles are secondary and Russia obviously knows this, they just need excuses to justify their land grabs.
Click to expand...

Indeed but there's never a shortage of thick as pig shit people who buy into that nonsense.
 
Foxbatt said:
It's just came out in an interview by Corbyn that the military and pompeo said that he would not let him be the PM.
Click to expand...

It hasn’t “just come out”, and you seem to have it wrong in any case. Here’s how the Washington Post reported it at the time:

During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?”​
​
In response, Pompeo said, “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best,” he said to fervent applause from attendees.​
 
Spark said:
I thought we had moved beyond whole “the US provoked Russia into being aggressors by surrounding the country with missiles”. It’s such a dumb argument based purely on Russian propaganda.

Any self respecting nuclear power has a 24/7 submarine based deterrent (e.g. Trident). No one knows where the subs are at any one time and it means that effectively anywhere is within range. Land based missiles are secondary and Russia obviously knows this, they just need excuses to justify their land grabs.
Click to expand...

They don't mention either that Russia has violated the nuclear disarment treaty signed with Ukraine.
 
MadMike said:
Not only that. But precisely because nukes can be either lopped off from submarines or delivered by airstrikes, there has never been any real incentive to move NATO nukes any further eastward.

Despite NATOs enlargement, new countries have not received nukes and western Germany is still the easternmost part of Europe where NATO nukes can be found. It just wouldn’t bring any real advantage to nuclear equip say the Baltics and Eastern Europe and it would only be used by the Russian propaganda machine to justify paranoia and hostility towards the west. Hey, they even used fear of nukes and Cuba analogies as part of their propaganda about Ukraine (that Foxbatt has swallowed whole), despite it not having any correspondence with reality.

Meanwhile, Russia that already has nukes in Kaliningrad…
Click to expand...


Without going for nukes, one has to ask if and when Ukraine (and perhaps the rest of easternmost NATO countries) would start receiving Tomahawk missiles or equivalents now that Russian forces are firing from as far as the Caspian Sea. Putinists are feeling too safe from their ivory tower at the moment while Ukrainian cities far from the main frontlines are still getting bombed. Whatever that will be, that sense of security has to be shattered at one point anyhow the same way that Tokyo and Berlin felt when the Allies dropped their first bombs on them through minor raids. Regaining psychological advantage is the key here.

What I do not understand about Kaliningrad though is how it has not been included for disarmament in previous iterations of treaties against nuclear proliferation. I doubt that Russia has just introduced nukes to that region right after they pulled out from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.
 
Put-ler knows that his "denazification" of Ukraine has been a total disaster in the eyes of the world. He is no longer a macho and a ruler of an empire, but a sore loser, a Goliath that has been beaten up by David. The only way for him to restore his image is to provoke NATO, make sure that the use of nukes becomes a real possibility, which will force all world leaders to sit at a negotiation table. This is exactly why the senile Rushist is trying to play his neonderthal mind games with Baltic states, Poland etc. On the contrary, NATO leaders are playing their hand very smart. They are not responding to any provocations, but have called the bunker gnom's bluff and are increasing their support to Ukraine. They know full well that if the cnut crosses the line, they have enough means and power to humiliate him in a matter of days, thus are staying cool, while the maniac is spitting out so much venom and hatred but is not taken seriously anymore. The latest strikes at Kyiv are the signs of impotence rather than bravado.
 
Gehrman said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/26/business/russia-oil-sanctions-g7/index.html
Click to expand...

This shows the West made a lot of mistakes. Probably because all our leaders are very weak. With dictators like Putin you really need a hard line. A hard line that they know they cannot cross.

The West had so many options! Including, back in February, giving Russia 48 hours to get out of Ukraine of face the NATO air force in full force. I don't understand why Russia always escalates, and the West always try to not escalate. NATO is much stronger than Russia, including in nuclear arsenal. NATO should be dictating terms, not just trying to avoid offending Putin. Yes, I understand the risks, but Kasparov was correct that dictators like Putin (or Stalin, or Hitler before him), only respect strength, nothing else. The risks are probably higher with a "soft line" than with a "hard line" against dictators like Putin. They don't care about their own soldiers either, or long term dangers to their economy.

A NATO ultimatum could be the best way out for Putin, too, since he could come out as the the wise leader that does not want to destroy the whole planet using nuclear forces. On the other hand, now Putin cannot save face accepting that Ukraine beat Russia, the only way out for him is if NATO beat Russia, because Russians already accept that NATO is bigger and stronger than they are. There is no shame being beaten by superior force. And of course, a direct hit of Russian forces by NATO air force those first days of the war, would actually have saved many lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. The West made the same mistake with Hitler, they could have stopped him in 1936 with minimal loss of life, but they kept trying to negotiate till it was too late.
 
frostbite said:
This shows the West made a lot of mistakes. Probably because all our leaders are very weak. With dictators like Putin you really need a hard line. A hard line that they know they cannot cross.

The West had so many options! Including, back in February, giving Russia 48 hours to get out of Ukraine of face the NATO air force in full force. I don't understand why Russia always escalates, and the West always try to not escalate. NATO is much stronger than Russia, including in nuclear arsenal. NATO should be dictating terms, not just trying to avoid offending Putin. Yes, I understand the risks, but Kasparov was correct that dictators like Putin (or Stalin, or Hitler before him), only respect strength, nothing else. The risks are probably higher with a "soft line" than with a "hard line" against dictators like Putin. They don't care about their own soldiers either, or long term dangers to their economy.

A NATO ultimatum could be the best way out for Putin, too, since he could come out as the the wise leader that does not want to destroy the whole planet using nuclear forces. On the other hand, now Putin cannot save face accepting that Ukraine beat Russia, the only way out for him is if NATO beat Russia, because Russians already accept that NATO is bigger and stronger than they are. There is no shame being beaten by superior force. And of course, a direct hit of Russian forces by NATO air force those first days of the war, would actually have saved many lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. The West made the same mistake with Hitler, they could have stopped him in 1936 with minimal loss of life, but they kept trying to negotiate till it was too late.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the US and the USSR pretty much did all they could to avoid direct confrontation? And people breathed a sigh of relief that they didn't? To some degree I agree with your post, but also if you Nato did what you said they would not be a defensive alliance since Ukraine isn't in Nato.
 
Gehrman said:
Why do you think the US and the USSR pretty much did all they could to avoid direct confrontation? And people breathed a sigh of relief that they didn't? To some degree I agree with your post, but also if you Nato did what you said they would not be a defensive alliance since Ukraine isn't in Nato.
Click to expand...

This is not an argument. Serbia wasn't NATO either. If Ukraine was NATO, and NATO did nothing, then obviously NATO is nothing, we are not that bad.

I acknowledge that we can find many arguments for doing nothing. What I am saying is that history teaches us that doing nothing against dictators, usually costs more in the long term, both in money and in lives.
 
frostbite said:
This is not an argument. Serbia wasn't NATO either. If Ukraine was NATO, and NATO did nothing, then obviously NATO is nothing, we are not that bad.

I acknowledge that we can find many arguments for doing nothing. What I am saying is that history teaches us that doing nothing against dictators, usually costs more in the long term, both in money and in lives.
Click to expand...

Good point about Serbia. Still the baddies didn't have nukes. Personally I would love Nato to swoop in and drive Russia out of Ukraine, but I don't think at the end of the day we want to live through decades of nuclear threats.
 
Gehrman said:
Good point about Serbia. Still the baddies didn't have nukes. Personally I would love Nato to swoop in and drive Russia out of Ukraine, but I don't think at the end of the day we want to live through decades of nuclear threats.
Click to expand...

I am afraid, we are going around, repeating the same arguments.

What I am saying is that the nuclear threats are not going to end, no matter what happens in Ukraine. Putin may win the whole Ukraine, Putin might lose the whole Ukraine, or there will be a stalemate. The nuclear threats will not end. You know why? Because the West has now proved that nuclear threats work!

Actually, if it happens that Putin starts losing ground in Ukraine, he will now be more compelled to use a tactical nuclear weapon. You know why? Yes, you guessed correctly, because the West has already proved that nuclear threats work!
 
One example. In December 2021 Biden said Russia will pay a heavy price if it invades Ukraine. This is weak. He did not specify anything, this sounds like an empty threat.

If Biden said "USAF will obliterate any Russian forces that enter Ukraine", and he meant it, and F-16s started flying inside Ukraine near the Russian border, with F-22s and F-35s and B-52s nearby... do you really think that Putin would ever invade Ukraine? I don't think so. Putin had his forces on the border for 2 months and was waiting to see what the NATO response is. NATO did nothing: that was the green light for Putin.

Of course, I understand that if Biden did that, the whole world would blame him as warmonger. We'd see the global anti-american squad in full force. Well yes, but how many lives would have been saved by this "USAF air show"? Sometimes leaders do not have any good options, they have to choose the least worst option from an array of bad options.
 
frostbite said:
This is not an argument. Serbia wasn't NATO either. If Ukraine was NATO, and NATO did nothing, then obviously NATO is nothing, we are not that bad.

I acknowledge that we can find many arguments for doing nothing. What I am saying is that history teaches us that doing nothing against dictators, usually costs more in the long term, both in money and in lives.
Click to expand...

Except in this case, a lot was done. The only thing that wasn’t was to incentive a NATO shooting war with Russia given the next step would be the use of WMDs (including nukes). Thus in retrospect, the collective policy of arming Ukrainians with NATO caliber weapons was entirely appropriate given that each country had to bear in mind its own domestic political considerations in how it responded (which included assuring their publics, they wouldn’t be risking a nuclear war).
 
frostbite said:
One example. In December 2021 Biden said Russia will pay a heavy price if it invades Ukraine. This is weak. He did not specify anything, this sounds like an empty threat.

If Biden said "USAF will obliterate any Russian forces that enter Ukraine", and he meant it, and F-16s started flying inside Ukraine near the Russian border, with F-22s and F-35s and B-52s nearby... do you really think that Putin would ever invade Ukraine? I don't think so. Putin had his forces on the border for 2 months and was waiting to see what the NATO response is. NATO did nothing: that was the green light for Putin.

Of course, I understand that if Biden did that, the whole world would blame him as warmonger. We'd see the global anti-american squad in full force. Well yes, but how many lives would have been saved by this "USAF air show"? Sometimes leaders do not have any good options, they have to choose the least worst option from an array of bad options.
Click to expand...
And if Russia still invaded?
 
@frostbite I think the right things are being done. Nobody wants a nuclear war. But I think it's clear that Putin is stupid enough to pull the trigger on one. Our leaders should tread as carefully as they can while offering the amount of support Ukraine needs to win a defensive engagement, and never threaten Russia existentially.

We can't set a limit for ourselves on thermonuclear war. EVERYTHING possible should be done to avoid that as a possible outcome. And that means NATO only gets involved once the Russians start shooting at NATO. Never before. But there's a lot we can do and are doing to make sure that life in Ukraine is difficult as possible for Russia both now and in the future and hopefully that is never seen as a reason for that dictator to just end everything in some vengeful nihilistic epilogue to the Western World.
 
frostbite said:
This shows the West made a lot of mistakes. Probably because all our leaders are very weak. With dictators like Putin you really need a hard line. A hard line that they know they cannot cross.

The West had so many options! Including, back in February, giving Russia 48 hours to get out of Ukraine of face the NATO air force in full force. I don't understand why Russia always escalates, and the West always try to not escalate. NATO is much stronger than Russia, including in nuclear arsenal. NATO should be dictating terms, not just trying to avoid offending Putin. Yes, I understand the risks, but Kasparov was correct that dictators like Putin (or Stalin, or Hitler before him), only respect strength, nothing else. The risks are probably higher with a "soft line" than with a "hard line" against dictators like Putin. They don't care about their own soldiers either, or long term dangers to their economy.

A NATO ultimatum could be the best way out for Putin, too, since he could come out as the the wise leader that does not want to destroy the whole planet using nuclear forces. On the other hand, now Putin cannot save face accepting that Ukraine beat Russia, the only way out for him is if NATO beat Russia, because Russians already accept that NATO is bigger and stronger than they are. There is no shame being beaten by superior force. And of course, a direct hit of Russian forces by NATO air force those first days of the war, would actually have saved many lives, both Ukrainian and Russian. The West made the same mistake with Hitler, they could have stopped him in 1936 with minimal loss of life, but they kept trying to negotiate till it was too late.
Click to expand...


I don't like that. People always bring up the appeasement politics towards Hitler as an argument but in truth, maintaining a cool head and deescalating has worked over the last decades. Russia on the other hand is marginializing itself.

I can get this line of thinking and the wish to show Russia a clear line it can't cross. But I for one am happy that the Western leaders deal with this war less emotionally. Time isn't on Russia's side so this is a marathon. Russia has maneuvered itself into a blind alley and as long as the pressure is kept high (sanctions and fierce Urkainian resistence), it will eventually crumble under the weight - and if this is a continuous process, it minimizes the risk of escalation and Putin trying to take the world with him on his way down.
 
frostbite said:
I am afraid, we are going around, repeating the same arguments.

What I am saying is that the nuclear threats are not going to end, no matter what happens in Ukraine. Putin may win the whole Ukraine, Putin might lose the whole Ukraine, or there will be a stalemate. The nuclear threats will not end. You know why? Because the West has now proved that nuclear threats work!

Actually, if it happens that Putin starts losing ground in Ukraine, he will now be more compelled to use a tactical nuclear weapon. You know why? Yes, you guessed correctly, because the West has already proved that nuclear threats work!
Click to expand...

The West didn't prove that nuclear threats work. The entire world has known they work since the minute the Cold War began. What you're proposing would force a direct confrontation between nuclear powers, which was avoided for the entirety of the Cold War. There's a reason it was avoided, and it's not because Eisenhower or Reagan were too soft on dictators.

I think you're way off when you're suggesting he's more likely to use tactical nukes. The thing about a nuclear deterrent is that it only works if you don't use your nukes. If you start using them anyway the game is up.
 
nimic said:
The West didn't prove that nuclear threats work. The entire world has known they work since the minute the Cold War began. What you're proposing would force a direct confrontation between nuclear powers, which was avoided for the entirety of the Cold War. There's a reason it was avoided, and it's not because Eisenhower or Reagan were too soft on dictators.

I think you're way off when you're suggesting he's more likely to use tactical nukes. The thing about a nuclear deterrent is that it only works if you don't use your nukes. If you start using them anyway the game is up.
Click to expand...

But if Russia used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, they still wouldn't be attacking a nuclear armed enemy. I can remember Obama talking about a red line in Syria and it amounted to nothing. Also didn't Biden say just recently that he wouldn't use nukes if Russia attacked Ukraine with nukes?
 
Gehrman said:
But if Russia used a tactical nuke in Ukraine, they still wouldn't be attacking a nuclear armed enemy. I can remember Obama talking about a red line in Syria and it amounted to nothing. Also didn't Biden say just recently that he wouldn't use nukes if Russia attacked Ukraine with nukes?
Click to expand...

That's true, but neither did the US use nukes against China during the Korean War, despite MacArthur's requests. The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan either, nor India against Pakistan (though I suppose they may have if a full-scale war broke out). People can talk about red lines all they want (and break their promise later), but at the end of the day the one that still hasn't been crossed is the nuclear attack.

I can't find anything about Biden saying that. I found some stuff from May about the US which seemed to say the opposite, but no direct quote from Biden.
 
nimic said:
That's true, but neither did the US use nukes against China during the Korean War, despite MacArthur's requests. The Soviets didn't use them in Afghanistan either, nor India against Pakistan (though I suppose they may have if a full-scale war broke out). People can talk about red lines all they want (and break their promise later), but at the end of the day the one that still hasn't been crossed is the nuclear attack.

I can't find anything about Biden saying that. I found some stuff from May about the US which seemed to say the opposite, but no direct quote from Biden.
Click to expand...

I can't remember the source on the Biden comment but I believe it was posted in this thread. Can't really be arsed to go looking for it but it was along the lines of "We will respond forcefully and with all our might but not with nukes".
 
Raoul said:
Except in this case, a lot was done. The only thing that wasn’t was to incentive a NATO shooting war with Russia given the next step would be the use of WMDs (including nukes). Thus in retrospect, the collective policy of arming Ukrainians with NATO caliber weapons was entirely appropriate given that each country had to bear in mind its own domestic political considerations in how it responded (which included assuring their publics, they wouldn’t be risking a nuclear war).
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand, but the problem is that Biden clearly said before the invasion that NATO will not defend Ukraine, there there are zero chances NATO will use its superior air force. This gave the green light to Putin, which resulted to a lot of death and destruction. These lives are lost forever. I believe that a show of force would actually had saved these lives.

Of course I might be wrong, but still it is hard to understand why the West acts like it is the weaker side. Russians have repeated many times that they are already in a war against NATO, and NATO keeps saying that sorry we cant be directly involved. It is pathetic.

Kasparov had predicted all that in his 2015 book. He also predicted that the longer the West will be trying to avoid direct involvement, the higher the cost it is going to pay (eventually). So far he is right.
 
Last edited:
frostbite said:
Yes, I understand, but the problem is that Biden clearly said before the invasion that NATO will not defend Ukraine, there there are zero chances NATO will use its superior air force. This gave the green light to Putin, which resulted to a lot of death and destruction. These lives are lost forever. I believe that a show of force would actually had saved these lives.

Of course I might be wrong, but still it is hard to understand why the West acts like it is the weaker side. Russians have repeated many times that they are already in a war against NATO, and NATO keeps saying that sorry we cant be directly involved. It is pathetic.

Kasparov had predicted all that in his 2015 book. He also predicted that the longer the West will be trying to avoid direct involvement, the higher the cost it is going to pay (eventually). So far he is right.
Click to expand...
Again...
Carolina Red said:
And if Russia still invaded?
Click to expand...
 
frostbite said:
Yes, I understand, but the problem is that Biden clearly said before the invasion that NATO will not defend Ukraine, there there are zero chances NATO will use its superior air force. This gave the green light to Putin, which resulted to a lot of death and destruction. These lives are lost forever. I believe that a show of force would actually had saved these lives.

Of course I might be wrong, but still it is hard to understand why the West acts like it is the weaker side. Russians have repeated many times that they are already in a war against NATO, and NATO keeps saying that sorry we cant be directly involved. It is pathetic.

Kasparov had predicted all that in his 2015 book. He also predicted that the longer the West will be trying to avoid direct involvement, the higher the cost it is going to pay (eventually). So far he is right.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with people like Kasparov on most of his views about Putin, but then again he has the luxury of being a pundit and advocating much more aggressive tactics. Politicians are still responsible for policies that protect the lives of their constituents, which means advocating for a more measured approach that doesn’t incentivize an actual Russia-NATO shooting war that could result in the annihilation of millions. Slowly choking the life out of the Putin regime, both expand politically, is therefore the more prudent policy. The Russian system will eventually crack and implode without the economic means of sustaining itself.
 
Raoul said:
I generally agree with people like Kasparov on most of his views about Putin, but then again he has the luxury of being a pundit and advocating much more aggressive tactics. Politicians are still responsible for policies that protect the lives of their constituents, which means advocating for a more measured approach that doesn’t incentivize an actual Russia-NATO shooting war that could result in the annihilation of millions. Slowly choking the life out of the Putin regime, both expand politically, is therefore the more prudent policy. The Russian system will eventually crack and implode without the economic means of sustaining itself.
Click to expand...

How many Ukrainians will die till the Russian system implodes?

And if their system implodes, is there a higher or a lower probability of a nuclear war?

(Compared to a clear cut USAF air show in December 2021. )
 
Carolina Red said:
And if Russia still invaded?
Click to expand...

If the Russians knew that USAF is serious about it they wouldn't dare invade. Why would they? It would be a certain defeat for them.

But even if they did invade, USAF would destroy the first few tanks in their columns and the whole thing would probably end there.

Do you think that Putin would go full nuclear holocaust in this case? Just because he lost a few tanks? Then, if he loses the war a few months from now, why wouldn't he do the same? After all, the Russians are certain that without American help, Ukraine would not be able to fight for long (and they are not wrong).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.