Ukraine

[Shane]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Such as?

Well obviously they’re all deranged for going along with him, but i’m guessing you don’t get to the top without some ounce of intelligence (then again looking at our own govt that may not be true! ). 
 

My statement was just blind faith unfortunately, we just have to hope someones got some sense as the best way to end this war is from within, from his own people turning against him. 

[SpacedX]

14 minutes ago, Shane said:

Well obviously they’re all deranged for going along with him, but i’m guessing you don’t get to the top without some ounce of intelligence (then again looking at our own govt that may not be true! ). 
 

My statement was just blind faith unfortunately, we just have to hope someones got some sense as the best way to end this war is from within, from his own people turning against him. 

Posted about this possibility last night. I may be wrong but this looks highly unlikely. 

Edited 10 March 2022 by Line-X

[MPH]

It’s hard to sit and watch a nation get destroyed and no one do anything about it…

[Fazzer 7]

That Lavrov guy is an absolute raving lunatic. How could anyone hold rational negotiations with turd like him, or is it a front for the media?!

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

If Russia deploys chemical weapons, the pressure on NATO to step in will intensify significantly. It raises the question of just how set in stone NATO's current stance (ie, that it won't commit troops or aircraft to directly fight Russia) really is. Would the moral threshold for intervention be crossed if people are being gassed? At what point does the human cost of Russia's actions reach a level of barbarity that requires a direct response from NATO irrespective of Putin's nuclear threats?

...when those threats are proven to be groundless/unlikely enough that such action can be taken 99/100 times without them coming to fruition, given that nuclear exchange will likely kill a hundred times more people (and that's a really conservative estimate).

 

Sorry if that's too much of a mathematicians answer to an emotive problem, but when such large scale terrible outcomes are on the table I hope that the powers that be view such things objectively, if they possibly can.

[The Fox Covert]

Putin is a man on a mission to re-establish the former Soviet empire.

The president of the Belarus puppet state Alexander Lukashenko let the cat out of the bag when he addressed his military top brass and displayed a map of Eastern Europe. If Putin is allowed to succeed in taking Ukraine his next step will be Moldova. Watch Gravitas on YouTube 

 

 

 

 

[The Fox Covert]

Can't resist a bit of gallows humour.

 

From Tammy Golden

Moscow man buys newspaper,

glances at front page, throws it straight out.

Next day, same again. And again.

Eventually seller snaps "Why do you do that?"

Man replies "Oh, I'm just checking for an obituary"

"But obituaries are not on the front page!"

"Oh, but the one I am looking for will be".

[SpacedX]

15 minutes ago, The Fox Covert said:

Putin is a man on a mission to re-establish the former Soviet empire.

The president of the Belarus puppet state Alexander Lukashenko let the cat out of the bag when he addressed his military top brass and displayed a map of Eastern Europe. If Putin is allowed to succeed in taking Ukraine his next step will be Moldova. Watch Gravitas on YouTube 

 

 

 

 

We were discussing the stepping stone of Transnistria earlier this week - but you have to consider what "taking Ukraine" actually means. Yes, they can stifle supply lines from the Black Sea, they can besiege the cities and they may even oust the government and take Kyiv, but this will come at a huge cost and long-term, maintaining rule over such a vast country in the years of insurgency that will follow will be a near impossible task. They will never break the will and the individuality/identity of the Ukrainian people.

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

We were discussing the stepping stone of Transnistria earlier this week - but you have to consider what "taking Ukraine" actually means. Yes, they can stifle supply lines from the Black Sea, they can besiege the cities and they may even oust the government and take Kyiv, but this will come at a huge cost and long-term, maintaining rule over such a vast country in the years of insurgency that will follow will be a near impossible task. They will never break the will and the individuality/identity of the Ukrainian people.

Access to transinistria doesn’t require him to control the whole of ukraine - just the Black Sea strip - surely he can manage that ?? Odessa is the main problem for him unless he cuts that adrift from the remainder of the country by holding the land to the north and allowing a narrow road access to ukraine through a wide strip of land he controls. 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Access to transinistria doesn’t require him to control the whole of ukraine - just the Black Sea strip - surely he can manage that ?? Odessa is the main problem for him unless he cuts that adrift from the remainder of the country by holding the land to the north and allowing a narrow road access to ukraine through a wide strip of land he controls. 

No it doesn't - and we discussed that. I'm not referring to access, rather the notion of 'taking Ukraine' - what does that actually mean? An invasion on another front will be a huge drain on Russia given the cost of this war and the long-term protracted nature of the conflict in Ukraine and the prolonged effect on the Russian military and Russian commerce. 

[ClaphamFox]

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...when those threats are proven to be groundless/unlikely enough that such action can be taken 99/100 times without them coming to fruition, given that nuclear exchange will likely kill a hundred times more people (and that's a really conservative estimate).

 

Sorry if that's too much of a mathematicians answer to an emotive problem, but when such large scale terrible outcomes are on the table I hope that the powers that be view such things objectively, if they possibly can.

Not at all - this relates exactly to the question I'm asking. At what point - if any - will the pressure of the emotive problem become too much for the mathematical answer to hold? Will NATO maintain its 'we won't directly fight Russia in Ukraine' position if there is evidence of horrific war crimes occurring on a large scale? On the radio the other day I heard somebody whose name I've forgotten (he was from a US-based international relations think tank) argue that there will indeed be a 'moral threshold' beyond which NATO will be compelled to act. His suggestion was that the emotional trauma of standing by as atrocities are committed would simply be too much to bear, and NATO would at some point step in. I have no idea personally, but given that it looks very unlikely that Russia can win this war by conventional means, we may soon find out whether or not this threshold exists...

[fox_favourite]

@Line-X - do you see this escalating out of control very soon in your opinion? Are we on the brink of a new world war? 

 

I find the world, like may I can imagine, terrifying. How someone thinks it’s okay for whatever reason to do what is happening in Ukraine to another human is beyond my realm of understanding. In my 30+ years in this world, there have been horrific things happening but this is on another level.

 

I just can’t believe what I see and hear every day is actually happening.

 

And I thought covid would be the big change. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not at all - this relates exactly to the question I'm asking. At what point - if any - will the pressure of the emotive problem become too much for the mathematical answer to hold? Will NATO maintain its 'we won't directly fight Russia in Ukraine' position if there is evidence of horrific war crimes occurring on a large scale? On the radio the other day I heard somebody whose name I've forgotten (he was from a US-based international relations think tank) argue that there will indeed be a 'moral threshold' beyond which NATO will be compelled to act. His suggestion was that the emotional trauma of standing by as atrocities are committed would simply be too much to bear, and NATO would at some point step in. I have no idea personally, but given that it looks very unlikely that Russia can win this war by conventional means, we may soon find out whether or not this threshold exists...

This may sound utterly horrible, but I do actually hope it holds for a long time. Because in a situation like this, the day it doesn't is the day civilisation ends. And I rather like civilisation.

 

(Damn you, Sid Meier )

[westernpark]

I don’t like to use something so trivial as Twitter for an indication of positivity, but I believe Zelensky has mentioned peace talks in a tweet recently. Before it was never surrender! And quite rightly. Maybe something has come out of what has been stated as failed talks, regarding humanitarian issues.

He could be realising that he may be able to only save part of his country and it’s better to have that, than nothing at all. 

 

[SpacedX]

18 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

@Line-X - do you see this escalating out of control very soon in your opinion? Are we on the brink of a new world war? 

 

I find the world, like may I can imagine, terrifying. How someone thinks it’s okay for whatever reason to do what is happening in Ukraine to another human is beyond my realm of understanding. In my 30+ years in this world, there have been horrific things happening but this is on another level.

 

I just can’t believe what I see and hear every day is actually happening.

 

And I thought covid would be the big change. 

No, in all honesty I don't - and I apologise if my posts can come across as pessimistic or doom laden at times.

 

It's ok to be terrified - a nuclear arsenal is precisely that, terrifying. However, since the detonation of Fat Man over Nagasaki on August 9th 1945 although the spectre of nuclear weaponry has hung over the world like the sword of Damocles, the prospect of mutually assured destruction - a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides that would involve the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender - has prevented their use in war for almost three generations. I am confident it will stay that way. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the de-proliferation treaty in 1968 and since the cold war ended, the perceived risk of nuclear war declined appreciably. Over the last quarter of a century there has been detente, an orchestrated relaxing of tensions, between the US and Soviet Union and China.

 

Until now. 

 

The Kremlin knows, that nuclear deployment would likely spell the end of the world - and that means Russia with it. Their so call 'iron clad' alliance with China may be so, but China isn't about to allow this brinkmanship to escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Russia is using their nuclear capability purely as a tool to create fear and imbalance in the world. The fact that the Russian nuclear deterrent was placed on 'high alert' last weekend is testament to the fact that the invasion of Ukraine and the reaction to it has not gone well for the Kremlin. In response, that there has not been any observable response from the United States, NATO, and the EU in terms of changes in the US, French, or British nuclear operations that we can immediately see is reassuring - (although who knows where the submarines are right now). President Putin wants to change the game and regain the initiative, wishing his adversaries to be off-balance and frightened, fearful of how he might escalate next and what Russia may be capable of if the world does not yield to its demands. It may also be another strategic mistake by the Kremlin - a card played too early, because future threats may not be believed. As I suggested today, a nuclear attack at the tactical level may be possible, but then MAD escalation may very possibly ensue.

 

The nuclear threat is there, and it is very normal that it creates feelings of worry and anxiety in a lot of people, but it has been so since WWII and throughout the Cold War. Please recognise that it is completely normal that thoughts about possible use of nuclear weapons and the consequences of this will trigger understandable concern and emotions such as worry and anxiety. The existence of nuclear weapons carries with it an ongoing existential threat to our world and everything we hold dear, which in many ways can be regarded as a greater threat than people's possible individual fear of their own death. For all Mr.Putin's aggression, we need some fear so that we continue to only use nuclear weapons in peace, not war, but we mustn't let our fears get the best of us - even in the current crisis.

 

As terrifying as the situation may seem, it's hard to believe that humankind would kill off our best hope for preventing catastrophic climate change out of an exaggerated fear of nuclear weapons, but that is precisely what we are in the process of doing through the probable idle threats of one dictatorship. Yes, that's all it takes, I get that...and there has even been debate in the West about whether the Soviet Union constructed a system that would allow for the automated launch of nuclear weapons in the unlikely event that the Soviet leadership was decapitated. All very Dr.Stangelove yes, but ten we live in strange times. 

 

The 'Golden Bridge' of retreat will I'm sure be paved and I am confident that it will offer eventual diplomatic resolution. Yes, the situation if Ukraine is set to get far worse. The fact that you are upset by this is because you care and you are moved, not simply about your own survivability - and there is nothing to be ashamed of about that. Please try not to worry. 

Edited 11 March 2022 by Line-X
Typos

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No, in all honesty I don't - and I apologise if my posts can come across as pessimistic or doom laden at times.

 

It's ok to be terrified - a nuclear arsenal is precisely that, terrifying. However, since the detonation of Fat Man over Nagasaki on August 9th 1945 although the spectre of nuclear weaponry has hung over the world like the sword of Damocles, the prospect of mutually assured destruction - a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides that would involve the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender - has prevented their use in war for almost three generations and I am confident it will stay that way. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the de-proliferation treaty in 1968 and since the cold war ended, the perceived risk of nuclear war declined appreciably. Over the last quarter of a century there has been detente, an orchestrated relaxing of tensions, between the US and Soviet Union and China.

 

Until now. 

 

The Kremlin knows, that nuclear deployment would likely spell the end of the world - and that means Russia with it. Their so call 'iron clad' alliance with China may be so, but China isn't about to allow this brinkmanship to escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Russia is using their nuclear capability purely as a tool to create fear and imbalance in the world. The fact that the Russian nuclear deterrent was placed on 'high alert' last weekend is testament to the fact that the invasion of Ukraine and the reaction to it has not gone well for the Kremlin. In response, that there has not been any observable response from the United States, NATO, and the EU in terms of changes in the US, French, or British nuclear operations that we can immediately see is reassuring - although who knows where the submarines are right now. President Putin wants to change the game and regain the initiative, wishing his adversaries to be off-balance and frightened, fearful of how he might escalate next and what Russia may be capable of if the world does not yield to its demands. It may also be another strategic mistake by the Kremlin - a card played to early, because future threats may not be believed. As I suggested today, a nuclear attack at the tactical level may be possible, but then MAD escalation may very possibly ensue.

 

The nuclear threat is there, and it is very normal that it creates feelings of worry and anxiety in a lot of people, but it has been so since WWII and throughout the Cold War. Please recognise that it is completely normal that thoughts about possible use of nuclear weapons and the consequences of this will trigger understandable concern and emotions such as worry and anxiety. The existence of nuclear weapons carries with it an ongoing existential threat to our world and everything we hold dear, which in many ways can be regarded as a greater threat than people's possible individual fear of their own death. For all Mr.Putin's aggression, we need some fear so that we continue to only use nuclear weapons in peace, not war, but we mustn't let our fears get the best of us - even in the current crisis.

 

As terrifying as the situation may seem, it's hard to believe that humankind would kill off our best hope for preventing catastrophic climate change out of an exaggerated fear of nuclear weapons, but that is precisely what we are in the process of doing through the probable idle threats of one dictatorship. Yes, that's all it takes, I get that...and there has even been debate in the West about whether the Soviet Union constructed a system that would allow for the automated launch of nuclear weapons in the unlikely event that the Soviet leadership was decapitated. All very Dr.Stangelove yes, but ten we live in strange times. 

 

The 'Golden Bridge' of retreat will I'm sure be paved and I am confident that it will offer eventual diplomatic resolution. Yes, the situation if Ukraine is set to get far worse. The fact that you are upset by this is because you care and you are moved, not simply about your own survivability - and there is nothing to be ashamed of about that. Please try not to worry. 

Pardon my cynicism, but I think that's entirely easy to believe given human psychology, precisely because one is all that it takes. And that Russian system is (all likelihood) not only implemented, but still operational.

 

If it comes, the herald of the end of civilisation will be a mushroom cloud (either as a succession to increased global temperature causing increased tension over resources or not) and a person saying..."but I did it for my country."

[Blarmy]

9 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No, in all honesty I don't - and I apologise if my posts can come across as pessimistic or doom laden at times.

 

It's ok to be terrified - a nuclear arsenal is precisely that, terrifying. However, since the detonation of Fat Man over Nagasaki on August 9th 1945 although the spectre of nuclear weaponry has hung over the world like the sword of Damocles, the prospect of mutually assured destruction - a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides that would involve the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender - has prevented their use in war for almost three generations and I am confident it will stay that way. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, the de-proliferation treaty in 1968 and since the cold war ended, the perceived risk of nuclear war declined appreciably. Over the last quarter of a century there has been detente, an orchestrated relaxing of tensions, between the US and Soviet Union and China.

 

Until now. 

 

The Kremlin knows, that nuclear deployment would likely spell the end of the world - and that means Russia with it. Their so call 'iron clad' alliance with China may be so, but China isn't about to allow this brinkmanship to escalate to a nuclear confrontation. Russia is using their nuclear capability purely as a tool to create fear and imbalance in the world. The fact that the Russian nuclear deterrent was placed on 'high alert' last weekend is testament to the fact that the invasion of Ukraine and the reaction to it has not gone well for the Kremlin. In response, that there has not been any observable response from the United States, NATO, and the EU in terms of changes in the US, French, or British nuclear operations that we can immediately see is reassuring - although who knows where the submarines are right now. President Putin wants to change the game and regain the initiative, wishing his adversaries to be off-balance and frightened, fearful of how he might escalate next and what Russia may be capable of if the world does not yield to its demands. It may also be another strategic mistake by the Kremlin - a card played to early, because future threats may not be believed. As I suggested today, a nuclear attack at the tactical level may be possible, but then MAD escalation may very possibly ensue.

 

The nuclear threat is there, and it is very normal that it creates feelings of worry and anxiety in a lot of people, but it has been so since WWII and throughout the Cold War. Please recognise that it is completely normal that thoughts about possible use of nuclear weapons and the consequences of this will trigger understandable concern and emotions such as worry and anxiety. The existence of nuclear weapons carries with it an ongoing existential threat to our world and everything we hold dear, which in many ways can be regarded as a greater threat than people's possible individual fear of their own death. For all Mr.Putin's aggression, we need some fear so that we continue to only use nuclear weapons in peace, not war, but we mustn't let our fears get the best of us - even in the current crisis.

 

As terrifying as the situation may seem, it's hard to believe that humankind would kill off our best hope for preventing catastrophic climate change out of an exaggerated fear of nuclear weapons, but that is precisely what we are in the process of doing through the probable idle threats of one dictatorship. Yes, that's all it takes, I get that...and there has even been debate in the West about whether the Soviet Union constructed a system that would allow for the automated launch of nuclear weapons in the unlikely event that the Soviet leadership was decapitated. All very Dr.Stangelove yes, but ten we live in strange times. 

 

The 'Golden Bridge' of retreat will I'm sure be paved and I am confident that it will offer eventual diplomatic resolution. Yes, the situation if Ukraine is set to get far worse. The fact that you are upset by this is because you care and you are moved, not simply about your own survivability - and there is nothing to be ashamed of about that. Please try not to worry. 

Cool, let’s get stuck in (conventionally) then and make sure this **** never does anything like this again*
 

*Intentionally emotion-driven comment. 

[SpacedX]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Pardon my cynicism, but I think that's entirely easy to believe given human psychology, precisely because one is all that it takes. And that Russian system is (all likelihood) not only implemented, but still operational.

 

If it comes, the herald of the end of civilisation will be a mushroom cloud (either as a succession to increased global temperature causing increased tension over resources or not) and a person saying..."but I did it for my country."

And as you know, I am as ever inclined to agree with you - but the post was not about nor of cynical intent. 

[David Hankey]

44 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I don’t like to use something so trivial as Twitter for an indication of positivity, but I believe Zelensky has mentioned peace talks in a tweet recently. Before it was never surrender! And quite rightly. Maybe something has come out of what has been stated as failed talks, regarding humanitarian issues.

He could be realising that he may be able to only save part of his country and it’s better to have that, than nothing at all. 

 

I don't see how "peace talks" can take place whilst the aggressor (Putin) continues to march his troops through a sovereign nation bombing civilians and causing all the devastation his actions are bringing.

 

To my mind the "peace talks" should start as per how the two nations were on 23rd February i.e. before the invasion.

 

How can you negotiate with one arm tied behind your back!!

[westernpark]

5 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I don't see how "peace talks" can take place whilst the aggressor (Putin) continues to march his troops through a sovereign nation bombing civilians and causing all the devastation his actions are bringing.

 

To my mind the "peace talks" should start as per how the two nations were on 23rd February i.e. before the invasion.

 

How can you negotiate with one arm tied behind your back!!

Surely that would mean there is peace. So there would be no need for peace talks?

Putin also wants to be negotiating with Zelensky in that position. The thing I reported was hopefully a sign that there has been some movement between the sides, regardless of what has been reported.

Zelensky has the unbreakable spirit of Ukraine, Putins position has been massively weakened, such as his demands reducing. 
 

[Stivo]

With luck some portions of that Russian army are going to collapse soon. 

[David Hankey]

2 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Surely that would mean there is peace. So there would be no need for peace talks?

Putin also wants to be negotiating with Zelensky in that position. The thing I reported was hopefully a sign that there has been some movement between the sides, regardless of what has been reported.

Zelensky has the unbreakable spirit of Ukraine, Putins position has been massively weakened, such as his demands reducing. 
 

There is no movement simply because Russia has pre-conditions which are totally unacceptable. Prior to 24th February there were obvious tensions which needed to be resolve WITHOUT resorting to war. As someone once famously said "how can you reason with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth". The same can be said of a Russian bear!!

[EnderbyFox]

 

[westernpark]

12 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

There is no movement simply because Russia has pre-conditions which are totally unacceptable. Prior to 24th February there were obvious tensions which needed to be resolve WITHOUT resorting to war. As someone once famously said "how can you reason with a tiger when your head is in it's mouth". The same can be said of a Russian bear!!

There has been movement in some of their demands. Subtle. But it’s a sign.

Clearly this was such an unnecessary invasion and that’s shown in the fact that Putin thought he’d be walking in and taking the country. 

[surrifox]

6 minutes ago, westernpark said:

There has been movement in some of their demands. Subtle. But it’s a sign.

Clearly this was such an unnecessary invasion and that’s shown in the fact that Putin thought he’d be walking in and taking the country. 

Surely he can’t call a halt and leave Zelensky in power in Ukraine . That would be a nightmare for him with liberalism leaking into his benighted country through an open border . He needs a tailors dummy like Lukashenko as head of state