Ukraine

[I am Rod Hull]

7 minutes ago, weller54 said:

But Putin could still threaten to use nuclear weapons as he would see this as a declaration of War (albeit by economic means).. he's not just going to stand around and do nothing, especially if his Country gets to the stage you are suggesting...

.. what would he have to lose?

Everything, everything you know and cherish. NATO needs to stay out of this, it`s not our war and to engage Russia in combat would be idiotic. Putin knows this and so does NATO.

 

As terrible as this situation is.... thousands of casualties are more palatable than millions.

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, weller54 said:

But Putin could still threaten to use nuclear weapons as he would see this as a declaration of War (albeit by economic means).. he's not just going to stand around and do nothing, especially if his Country gets to the stage you are suggesting...

.. what would he have to lose?

The future existence of Russia. 

 

29 minutes ago, weller54 said:

What is then?

Take a look back at this thread over the last week in which the idea of the 'golden bridge' or an 'exit ramp' has been discussed. It may mean that Ukraine is forced to accept neutrality and cede territory, but resolution lies in diplomacy. I'll say again, nuclear annihilation was avoided during the Cuban missile crisis because as opposed to following the recommendations of his military advisers, bombing the shit out of Cuba and going head to head with Russia in the process, Kennedy recognised that both sides needed to back away from the brink and make concessions. He used US missiles in Turkey as his bargaining chip and their removal prompted Krushchev to similarly withdraw Russian nuclear weapons from Cuba. 

 

As painful as this conflict it to watch - and it will get worse - direct intervention from NATO will spell WWIII, which will likely result in a nuclear holocaust. 

[BKLFox]

31 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

I hope we are not dragging our heels sending these next generation SAMs out to Ukraine.

If we’re not prepared to enforce a no fly zone then we should doing everything we can to

help them protect themselves from Russian air strikes.

I’m sure NATO are sending anything and everything they can to support not only because it’s the right thing to do but because selfishly it directly benefits them, for every tank, plane & artillery piece downed weakens Russia and strengthens NATO especially if sanctions stops the ability to replace.

 

 

[SpacedX]

23 minutes ago, I am Rod Hull said:

Everything, everything you know and cherish. NATO needs to stay out of this, it`s not our war and to engage Russia in combat would be idiotic. Putin knows this and so does NATO.

 

As terrible as this situation is.... thousands of casualties are more palatable than millions.

Do you think it's possible to pacify and placate him with green jelly?

[String fellow]

We keep hearing that NATO will defend its territory, but what about other assets owned by NATO countries? Last month, an Estonian ship sank in the Black Sea after hitting a Russian mine. Another thought. If Ukraine is likely to fall to Russian imperialism, could the Ukrainians simply retreat west into Poland en masse and destroy everything that they leave behind? (A scorched earth policy.) 

Edited 12 March 2022 by String fellow

[I am Rod Hull]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Do you think it's possible to pacify and placate him with green jelly?

I could do red flavour but not green. Green flavour is only for personal use.

[SpacedX]

16 minutes ago, String fellow said:

We keep hearing that NATO will defend its territory, but what about other assets owned by NATO countries? Last month, an Estonian ship sank in the Black Sea after hitting a Russian mine. Another thought. If Ukraine is likely to fall to Russian imperialism, could the Ukrainians simply retreat west into Poland en masse and destroy everything that they leave behind? (A scorched earth policy.) 

Neither side will want that and Ukrainians will continue to fight for their country.

 

Kyiv is historic - it was the capital of the Rus Empire, long before Moscow even existed - Putin will not lay it to waste, particularly given his close association and affiliation with the Russian Orthodox church, which is why the possibility of the use of chemical weapons as an alternative is so real and terrifying. The people of Ukraine that remain will not subjugate to his will nor wish to destroy/foresake their own heritage and history.

 

The question is though, would Mr Putin rather have the smouldering ruins of Ukraine adjacent to Russia than its potential membership of NATO? 

Edited 12 March 2022 by Line-X

[StanSP]

 

 

[String fellow]

18 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Neither side will want that and Ukrainians will continue to fight for their country.

 

Kyiv is historic - it was the capital of the Rus Empire, long before Moscow even existed - Putin will not lay it to waste, particularly given his close association and affiliation with the Russian Orthodox church, which is why the possibility of the use of chemical weapons as an alternative is so real and terrifying. The people of Ukraine that remain will not subjugate to his will nor wish to destroy/foresake their own heritage and history.

 

The question is though, would Mr Putin rather have the smouldering ruins of Ukraine adjacent to Russia than its potential membership of NATO? 

Yes, I'm sure you're right. It's interesting to read about the origins of Kievan Rus, which was established in 879 by Oleg, a Viking who established a country of different Slavic and Finnic tribes. The word Rus relates to the red-haired Vikings who moved south during that time. The reference to the Russian Orthodox church reminds me of a chat I had yesterday with a Jehovah's Witness, who said that their version of Christianity is banned in Russia, just as it was in Nazi Germany. 

[Fox1norfolk]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

Don't be too sure about that...

 

Surely has to be Plan B, select the correct room in The Kremlin, and goodnight Mr P !

[MPH]

42 minutes ago, String fellow said:

We keep hearing that NATO will defend its territory, but what about other assets owned by NATO countries? Last month, an Estonian ship sank in the Black Sea after hitting a Russian mine. Another thought. If Ukraine is likely to fall to Russian imperialism, could the Ukrainians simply retreat west into Poland en masse and destroy everything that they leave behind? (A scorched earth policy.) 

 

 

do you realize what you are asking them to do to their own country?

[MPH]

For anyone interested… you can send an email to hundreds of Russians.

 

Ukraine: Spam website set up to reach millions of Russians https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60697261

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, String fellow said:

Yes, I'm sure you're right. It's interesting to read about the origins of Kievan Rus, which was established in 879 by Oleg, a Viking who established a country of different Slavic and Finnic tribes. The word Rus relates to the red-haired Vikings who moved south during that time. The reference to the Russian Orthodox church reminds me of a chat I had yesterday with a Jehovah's Witness, who said that their version of Christianity is banned in Russia, just as it was in Nazi Germany. 

The Viking Prince Woldemar, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy adopting the Christian name Vladimir and later became a saint  According to the the imperialistic Russian narrative, Vladimir was therefore the founding father of the first Russian state and thereby the Russian Orthodox Church. This is why Putin's ties with the latter are so significant. From this theocractic origin, Kiev is seen as the crucible of Russian civilisation. The destruction of Rus’ by the Mongols in the 13th century was not complete since the legacy survived in Moscow where the descendants of Vladimir established a second Russian state which then became the core of the Russian Empire. Hence this 'sacred' nationalist rhetoric perpetuating the myth that Ukrainian lands are sacrosanct and that due to Kievan past and its legacy, the attempt to justify and legitimise Putin's claims that there is no place for Ukrainians in either its history or geography.

[Countryfox]

3 hours ago, Harpenden Fox said:

I suspect the 'least worst' outcome here is for the Eastern regions of Ukraine, the Donbas, split from Ukraine to become East Ukraine, under the influence of Russia, leaving the rest of Ukraine to face towards Europe. Thus creating a 'new' border between Europe and Russia. A solution in which no one is completely happy, but further loss of life is minimised.

I mentioned that a while back as an immediate answer to the problem ..  but unlike Russia who do what one man says we ‘the West’ have to deliberate for days or weeks before we can decide to do anything. This is an anchor that is tied to our decision making which will drag us down. If when he invaded to ‘stop the persecution of Russian speakers’ in those areas,  we (Ukraine and the west) could have said ok you have them, draw up new lines on the map (the initial areas were not that large) and allowed Ukraine to have immediate membership of NATO.  Game set and match ..  and sooo many lives saved. And no he wouldn’t have had the excuse to start a nuclear Armageddon as in effect he had got what he wanted ..  or at least what he SAID he wanted. Imo 

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, westernpark said:

When this is finished and I think we will see an agreement soon  

Sorry mate that ain’t going to happen. 
 

But as I used to say to Leicester Mac a lot before it all kicked off ..  I do hope you are right and I am wrong. 
 

I see the refugee problem going through the roof and Putin, emboldened and encouraged by his yes men, using more banned weapons ..  at some point the west will have to do something and what happens next is anyone’s guess.  

[westernpark]

4 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Sorry mate that ain’t going to happen. 
 

But as I used to say to Leicester Mac a lot before it all kicked off ..  I do hope you are right and I am wrong. 
 

I see the refugee problem going through the roof and Putin, emboldened and encouraged by his yes men, using more banned weapons ..  at some point the west will have to do something and what happens next is anyone’s guess.  

Like I said, I think it will because the other option is the one you infer at the end of your point. I’ve come to my conclusion based on what people who are far more informed than me have said. In my point, I’m not saying it’s over completely, just this stage in the Ukraine-Russia crisis. 2014 for instance, this is just the next stage. I think Russia will halt things and test the West, see if they can get some things back from economic sanctions. Maybe cyber attacks towards us, to push that along.
Under no circumstances should NATO do anything in Ukraine, as frustrating as that is. NATO is defensive. The no fly zone frenzy in the media, partly started by Zelenskiy(no blame there of course!), has quietened down the last few days.

Finally, under no circumstances do I use the Daily Mail to inform my own opinion, but I use it to understand others. Online version is preferring some royal family nonsense over this today! Or it was at least earlier. That’s a marker that reaffirms to me that we will see this less of constant headline news in the future.

[Smudge]

5 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

I mentioned that a while back as an immediate answer to the problem ..  but unlike Russia who do what one man says we ‘the West’ have to deliberate for days or weeks before we can decide to do anything. This is an anchor that is tied to our decision making which will drag us down. If when he invaded to ‘stop the persecution of Russian speakers’ in those areas,  we (Ukraine and the west) could have said ok you have them, draw up new lines on the map (the initial areas were not that large) and allowed Ukraine to have immediate membership of NATO.  Game set and match ..  and sooo many lives saved. And no he wouldn’t have had the excuse to start a nuclear Armageddon as in effect he had got what he wanted ..  or at least what he SAID he wanted. Imo 

As  you imply 'The West' is not a country with one government so getting a consensus is difficult. 

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. The West would have no rights to negotiate such a division division especially when many in the Eastern regions did not want to be a part of Russia. I see a Northern Ireland parallel here.

 

What the West should have done is arm Ukraine with enough armament to defend itself after 2014. However, as I allude to in my first sentence, getting that agreement would have been impossible unless the US plus one or two others did it unilaterally, and neither Obama, Trump or Biden had the stomach for that. I know that is 20/20 hindsight but it's something I said some years ago. As usual my wife never takes any bloody notice

[The Guvnor]

Not sure if this has been mentioned previously.

Having been at best 'tepid' with our responses to this and later particularly the Salisbury poisonings you can understand why Putin feels he can ride roughshod where the fcuk he wants.

 

 

Russia first broke its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum in 2014, with its annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine. The international response at the time was lacklustre – although the US and the UK did subsequently step up their efforts to strengthen Ukraine’s armed forces through training and provision of lethal defensive arms. At the time, a committee of the UK House of Lords noted that:

As one of the four signatories of the Budapest Memorandum (1994), which pledged to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the UK had a particular responsibility when the crisis erupted. The government has not been as active or as visible on this issue as it could have been.

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, westernpark said:

Like I said, I think it will because the other option is the one you infer at the end of your point. I’ve come to my conclusion based on what people who are far more informed than me have said. In my point, I’m not saying it’s over completely, just this stage in the Ukraine-Russia crisis. 2014 for instance, this is just the next stage. I think Russia will halt things and test the West, see if they can get some things back from economic sanctions. Maybe cyber attacks towards us, to push that along.
Under no circumstances should NATO do anything in Ukraine, as frustrating as that is. NATO is defensive. The no fly zone frenzy in the media, partly started by Zelenskiy(no blame there of course!), has quietened down the last few days.

Finally, under no circumstances do I use the Daily Mail to inform my own opinion, but I use it to understand others. Online version is preferring some royal family nonsense over this today! Or it was at least earlier. That’s a marker that reaffirms to me that we will see this less of constant headline news in the future.

Blimey I don’t know where to start with this one ..  basically all I said was, imo, it’s not ‘going to end soon’ like you suggested. (But I hope you are right).  And that he may well  use more banned weapons (such as chemical/gas) ..  and that what happens after that I’ve no idea but the west must do something.  I’ve not mentioned NATO doing anything, not mentioned a no fly zone frenzy, and haven’t got a clue why the Daily Mail or the Royal family have got anything to do with what I said !??! ..  and I can’t see them stopping and ‘testing’ us with cyber attacks ..  Putin is focused on razing Ukraine to the ground. 

[westernpark]

16 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Blimey I don’t know where to start with this one ..  basically all I said was, imo, it’s not ‘going to end soon’ like you suggested. (But I hope you are right).  And that he may well  use more banned weapons (such as chemical/gas) ..  and that what happens after that I’ve no idea but the west must do something.  I’ve not mentioned NATO doing anything, not mentioned a no fly zone frenzy, and haven’t got a clue why the Daily Mail or the Royal family have got anything to do with what I said !??! ..  and I can’t see them stopping and ‘testing’ us with cyber attacks ..  Putin is focused on razing Ukraine to the ground. 

No. I have just given my reasons for why I believe it will end sooner than some are suggesting. 
My reasoning for mentioning NATO, is why I think it’ll end soon. It won’t be escalated, so that’s a contributor to it ending soon. 
Daily Mail evidence was an example that it will soon be leaving our constant consciousness, by the media focusing on other stories, instead of the wall to wall coverage! It’s already beginning essentially. There’s an interesting relationship between media coverage and what politicians do. Lots of analysis suggesting what influences the other and vice versa.  But I believe it will become less of a salient issue in the coming months. Hence media already prioritising other stories.

Cyber attacks were likely in my post-war scenario. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear! 

[LiberalFox]

It won't end soon because it isn't in anyone but Putin's interests for it to end soon. 

 

 

[westernpark]

9 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It won't end soon because it isn't in anyone but Putin's interests for it to end soon. 

 

 

I’d argue that it’s in everyone’s interest for it end soon.

[LiberalFox]

13 minutes ago, westernpark said:

I’d argue that it’s in everyone’s interest for it end soon.

The longer the war goes on, the more the Russian military is degraded and the worse the economic and political situation gets for Putin. That's good for the western allies. People on Russian state TV are already comparing the situation to Afghanistan in the 1980s which ultimately helped speed along the collapse of the USSR.

 

A quick end to the war means allowing Putin to achieve a military victory, gives the Russian military the chance to reorganise and rearm while Russia pivots to China and/or India. 

 

Now it is possible that Zelenskyy opts for a conditional surrender to avoid Kyiv being destroyed / halt the loss of life and economic ruin. That's between him and the Ukrainian people. 

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, String fellow said:

Jehovah's Witness

I don't really get involved the Jehovah Witnesses.

 

I'm more of a Jehovah's Bystander. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

It won't end soon because it isn't in anyone but Putin's interests for it to end soon. 

 

 

This statement doesn't make sense