• 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.

Splits in NATO alliance widening:

You must be logged on to see media items

US will have thought they had a new massive market for LNG - now maybe they don’t?

Germany now completely at loggerheads with the US.
 
Sweeper said:
That's his problem though, as well as the internal fall out from all of this and the effect of the sanctions.

As others have said, Ukraine was never getting Crimea back, and Donetsk/Luhansk have been an almost de facto part of Russia for years. Letting go of them "formally" would actually save Ukraine the headache of the continued war there.

The main problem for Ukraine is likely to be what "neutrality" is taken to mean. You can imagine that after this, Ukrainian citizens will be desperate for NATO and/or EU membership, to warn off any further attacks by Putin.

Also - Europe needs to undertake an immediate strategy of energy self-dependence, which would give us energy security but also wean Europe off Russian gas/undermine the Russian economy massively long term. I'm afraid if that means parking "net zero" for a while, then so be it.


Aye. The 1860s.
Click to expand...
Would NATO accept them?
 
Skellington said:
Splits in NATO alliance widening:

You must be logged on to see media items

US will have thought they had a new massive market for LNG - now maybe they don’t?

Germany now completely at loggerheads with the US.
Click to expand...

Germany haven't exactly covered themselves in glory during this invasion.

The good thing to come of this war is that the people totally reliant on Russia or who are in Russia's pockets have been outed, they stick out like a sore thumb. Lets hope politically they are done for, the likes of Johnson, Trump, Scholz, Farage et al can fuck right off.

With regard to Ukraine becoming neutral, the problem surely is that Putin is a compulsive liar and you couldn't rely on a word he says. Ukraine could agree to his demands and he would conjure up some other horse shit about why he needs to invade. He is a lying, evil, cowardly, wily sack of shit.
 
Last edited:
Az* said:
I’ve no idea mate. That’s why I couldn’t say for sure what would happen.

Iirc in the 80’s the system supposedly detected a launch against USSR(9 sites) and an engineer cancelled the process as he assumed if the USA launched it wouldn’t be just 9 sites. Not sure how true this is but it would suggest others can intervene.

Didn’t a Russian sub go to launch during the Cuban crisis but political superior onboard interviewed and stopped it? That was because they lost radio contact iirc. Again not sure how true these stories are but it suggests, again, others can intervene.

Surely a system like that can’t be left in the hands of just one man. Not even in Russia(I hope).
Click to expand...

You must be logged on to see external links
 
englishman abroad said:
Probably the best outcome the Ukrainians will get. I suspect the west would push for that as a negotiated settlement.
Probably a lot depends on the Russian willingness to keep fighting, if the losses are as high as been reported 10k dead, eventually there losses will become unsustainable. If there's 10k dead I'd assume twice that wounded, that 1/6 of Putins entire invasion force out of action, plus massive losses of equipment. All speculation sadly
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, the Russians need to be told to fuck off especially as the war is going so badly for them.

Crimea and the two eastern regions have been taken by force over the last decade and accepting Russian sovereignty is a big win for Russia as once Ukraine settle then sanctions will be lifted.

I'd be pushing for all land taken by force to be given back and offer the Russians a permanent lease for the port and a neutrality pledge. They won't take it of course and it's important that Ukraine don't overplay their hand but the Russians can fuck off with their land grab and expect Ukraine to recognise it.
 
safcforever said:
Might have been his plan all along. Maybe he just wants the east part and crimea. Also Ukraine never to enter nato
Click to expand...
That's been my take since day 1. He wants land access to Crimea and the eastern part because that's where the majority of the oil is. The NATO thing is a smokescreen. Russia already has land borders with 4 NATO countries. If anything by occupying the whole of Ukraine Russia then give themselves 3 new NATO borders.
I don't think he even wants to exploit the Ukrainian oil and gas, I think he just doesn't want them to exploit it
Then he'll die and the Russians denounce him like Khrushchev did Stalin and blame everything on Putin and not Russia. Everyone will accept this because we'll all be freezing and need the gas back on so we'll take Russia back in the fold whilst Putin becomes the worst dictator since Stalin
 
Az* said:
I’ve no idea mate. That’s why I couldn’t say for sure what would happen.

Iirc in the 80’s the system supposedly detected a launch against USSR(9 sites) and an engineer cancelled the process as he assumed if the USA launched it wouldn’t be just 9 sites. Not sure how true this is but it would suggest others can intervene.

Didn’t a Russian sub go to launch during the Cuban crisis but political superior onboard interviewed and stopped it? That was because they lost radio contact iirc. Again not sure how true these stories are but it suggests, again, others can intervene.

Surely a system like that can’t be left in the hands of just one man. Not even in Russia(I hope).
Click to expand...

They are both verified stories.

The Russia sub was being depth charged and had lost contact. Protocol was that it was therefore down to the senior commanders onboard to decide. Two wanted to launch the nukes. This lad said no
You must be logged on to see external links


If he had said yes they would have been launched and probably set off a chain reaction.

Again, a fannies hair away from catastrophe
 
FC United of Manchester said:
There isn't any point to them whatsoever.
The problem is that not everybody trusts everybody else not to have them though so they want to keep them.
Click to expand...
They seem pretty damn useful if you want to invade a small country next door and tell everyone else to butt out.
Also do you think if NATO was conventional only Estonia would be safer?
 
This, from Reuters:

Russian shelling is preventing the evacuation of civilians from Kyiv, Mariupol, Sumy, Kharkiv, Volnovakha and Mykolayiv, Ukraine’s foreign ministry has said.

“This prevents the safe passage of humanitarian columns with Ukrainian and foreign citizens, as well as the delivery of medicines and food,” it said in a statement.

The ministry called on foreign leaders to force Russia to observe a ceasefire to prevent what it said could be a humanitarian catastrophe.
 
Bulwell said:
Absolutely not, the Russians need to be told to fuck off especially as the war is going so badly for them.

Crimea and the two eastern regions have been taken by force over the last decade and accepting Russian sovereignty is a big win for Russia as once Ukraine settle then sanctions will be lifted.

I'd be pushing for all land taken by force to be given back and offer the Russians a permanent lease for the port and a neutrality pledge. They won't take it of course and it's important that Ukraine don't overplay their hand but the Russians can fuck off with their land grab and expect Ukraine to recognise it.
Click to expand...
Not saying I agree, but some some point the the human cost will force the Ukrainians to the negotiation table.
Putin will want to save face, as someone said this gives him an off ramp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top