• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)

Status
Not open for further replies.

It'll be interesting to see how meaningful the West's move away from reliance on Russian oil and gas is now. The problem with really tough sanctions - especially for the EU - is that the various countries have different levels of economic reliance on Russian energy sources. Germany may well rattle it's antique sabre, but I can't see them actually following through with a cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 project long-term, for example. It would hurt them too much. I really hope that the EU is able to reach unanimity on a sanctions package that will really hurt, but that's going to be politically difficult.

The only sensible way to contain Russian lunacy is by hobbling it economically. To do that meaningfully the West needs to insulate itself from economic blow-back. Weaning Europe off Russian energy is absolutely key.
 
Cow said:
Again, where is the proof that he will go for more countries? There isn’t any. He’s been explicit in his reasons for wanting Ukraine, he’s wanted it for years, this has been playing out for years.

If we stand up to aggression like you claim we should, where does that end? How far does ‘standing up’ go when there’s a nuclear option? Do the people standing up to him back down at the last minute possibly giving him even more power than he could ever have dreamt of? Sometimes, and some people really struggle with this, it’s safer and wiser to accept a defeat and walk away, as awful as it is given the situation
Click to expand...

Would you “accept defeat” if a hostile, nuclear power successfully invaded the UK, and the Americans decided not to get involved?

Hypothetical scenario. Just wondering what your threshold for action is.
 
Suomifinland said:
I am deeply worried.

1. Russian nuclear use doctrine. Authorised (not that means anything at min) if "territory of Russia is threatened even by conventional force". He declares eg. Estonia as really part of wider Russia, he's taken on there & he declares that Russian land is threatened.

2. I've always had an interest in Putin & he's changed. He looks different & acts different. He had happy support of his cabinet & now they are terrified of him. Something is very much not right. He's 70 & I wonder if he is ill, or whether alleged 2 years of isolation have made him go a bit north Korea.

I think an internal "wtf is he doing" internal Russian action is only way out of this past a large confrontation.
Click to expand...
Put pressure on the Russian people to oust him
Switch their cashpoints off (it can be done), stop all trade with the russians, stop all russian flights to the civilised world, stop all russian shipping from docking in the civilised world.

Turn the screw
 
Cow said:
There has been for years prior to this man. This war has been going on for years. Do people really think all of this has just happened in the last few weeks?
Click to expand...
It has surprised me how many people have thought just that. Someone at work asked me to explain the situation a couple of weeks ago as they had no idea.

As someone who has basically read about the war on a weekly basis for seven years in the more intellectual media (FT, Economist, etc) I struggle to imagine what it must be like in the minds of people who don’t follow proper news.
 
MonkeyLove said:
Interesting take from someone who knows what they are talking about

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
I know they are seen as the big bad army but if you look at their military spending as a nation, I would be surprised if they had the money to modernise a very large army, spend money on stationing troops out of bases for a long time, launch an attack on and then hold a country like Ukraine. It just doesnt add up.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Cow said:
Again, where is the proof that he will go for more countries? There isn’t any. He’s been explicit in his reasons for wanting Ukraine, he’s wanted it for years, this has been playing out for years.

If we stand up to aggression like you claim we should, where does that end? How far does ‘standing up’ go when there’s a nuclear option? Do the people standing up to him back down at the last minute possibly giving him even more power than he could ever have dreamt of? Sometimes, and some people really struggle with this, it’s safer and wiser to accept a defeat and walk away, as awful as it is given the situation
Click to expand...
You’ll never get “proof” until it’s too late. He’s not going to broadcast his intentions to have the rest of the world stop him.

Do we just let him do what he wants until he dies? There’s a line to be drawn somewhere and history has taught us that the sooner that’s done the better.
 
Frijj said:
Would you “accept defeat” if a hostile, nuclear power successfully invaded the UK, and the Americans decided not to get involved?

Hypothetical scenario. Just wondering what your threshold for action is.
Click to expand...
The Americans would have to. Its the most basic principal of nato and has been since 1949.
 
Suomifinland said:
I am deeply worried.

1. Russian nuclear use doctrine. Authorised (not that means anything at min) if "territory of Russia is threatened even by conventional force". He declares eg. Estonia as really part of wider Russia, he's taken on there & he declares that Russian land is threatened.

2. I've always had an interest in Putin & he's changed. He looks different & acts different. He had happy support of his cabinet & now they are terrified of him. Something is very much not right. He's 70 & I wonder if he is ill, or whether alleged 2 years of isolation have made him go a bit north Korea.

I think an internal "wtf is he doing" internal Russian action is only way out of this past a large confrontation.
Click to expand...
I saw something that suggested he may be suffering from covid-induced paranoia. With his age that could be true, or he could be in mental decline due to other age-related factors. When he was addressing his ministers on live TV some of them looked surprisingly disturbed by the nature of his speech.
 
Wrenthorpe Mackem said:
Beware applying Godwins law. It has been used to justify every disastrous foreign intervention such as Suez, Iraq, Afghanistan.

All unmitigated disasters.
Click to expand...

I asked this here. Did you reply? Apols if I missed it. Very active thread.

Frijj said:
I never said he was. You said we shouldn’t take action because that risks nuclear war. So I was asking what your threshold is for action.

Would you send troops if it was Estonia?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wild Card said:
I know they are seen as the big bad army but if you look at their military spending as a nation, I would be surprised if they had the money to modernise a very large army, spend money on stationing troops out of bases for a long time, launch an attack on and then hold a country like Ukraine. It just doesnt add up.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
The lad on the left can't be more than 16
You must be logged on to see media items
 
Sweeper said:
It'll be interesting to see how meaningful the West's move away from reliance on Russian oil and gas is now. The problem with really tough sanctions - especially for the EU - is that the various countries have different levels of economic reliance on Russian energy sources. Germany may well rattle it's antique sabre, but I can't see them actually following through with a cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 project long-term, for example. It would hurt them too much. I really hope that the EU is able to reach unanimity on a sanctions package that will really hurt, but that's going to be politically difficult.

The only sensible way to contain Russian lunacy is by hobbling it economically. To do that meaningfully the West needs to insulate itself from economic blow-back. Weaning Europe off Russian energy is absolutely key.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how well we’d be able to disrupt their economy. China has already picked a side and I’d be amazed if Putin hasn’t already calculated the economic risk involved. He won’t have expected us to do absolutely nothing.
 
Frijj said:
Would you “accept defeat” if a hostile, nuclear power successfully invaded the UK, and the Americans decided not to get involved?

Hypothetical scenario. Just wondering what your threshold for action is.
Click to expand...
Not comparable. We are founder members of NATO, therefor the US would be compelled to assist if called on, as would the rest of NATO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top