Ukraine

[LCFCCHRIS]

Is there any way this could be seen as NOT as show of support to Russia? So many people are saying that it's just from their university etc. I suppose they also think it's a special operation in Ukraine...

[pSinatra]

 

[westernpark]

Citing the Turkish foreign minister, both sides are close to an agreement. 

[whoareyaaa]

36 minutes ago, pSinatra said:

 

is that Karl Pilkington on the left of Zelenskyy? 

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Citing the Turkish foreign minister, both sides are close to an agreement. 

Where have you seen this?

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Where have you seen this?

Reported on bbc 

 

not sure it means a lot though - see what tomorrow brings 

 

 

[kenny]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Reported on bbc 

 

not sure it means a lot though - see what tomorrow brings 

 

 

Hard to see how any agreement can be trusted.

[westernpark]

11 minutes ago, kenny said:

Hard to see how any agreement can be trusted.

Only way this will end. We are at the point where our security is compromised if Russia do not gain something (effectively end of world scenario), that analysis has been delivered by Western intelligence and many of the lecturers I see everyday. It’s very tough and there are many reasons why we are in this situation, but they will get something. 
Turkey have done well so far out of this. 
Long game with Putin for the West.

[MPH]

33 minutes ago, westernpark said:

Only way this will end. We are at the point where our security is compromised if Russia do not gain something (effectively end of world scenario), that analysis has been delivered by Western intelligence and many of the lecturers I see everyday. It’s very tough and there are many reasons why we are in this situation, but they will get something. 
Turkey have done well so far out of this. 
Long game with Putin for the West.

 

 

But why even bother to make an agreement with Putin? He’ll just rip it up when it suits him 

Edited 20 March 2022 by MPH

[westernpark]

39 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

But why even bother to make an agreement with Putin? He’ll just rip it up when it suits him 

Because it’s better than MAD. We’re past the stage of effectively doing what we’re doing at the moment in the long term. (Sanctions and strong rhetoric). That was for 2014. Nuclear weapons means two things, either limited death or complete death. Putin has completely f-word it up. He does not care now. 
We will return to a level of normalcy by next year, otherwise the future is bleak.

Listen to Christopher Steele, the ex head of Russia desk for MI6, such a brilliant mind. Said as a country we’re the closest we’re to nuclear confrontation in his lifetime, born just after Cuba missile crisis. He said containment for Putin and that’s it. It’s hard to disagree.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, westernpark said:

Because it’s better than MAD. We’re past the stage of effectively doing what we’re doing at the moment in the long term. (Sanctions and strong rhetoric). That was for 2014. Nuclear weapons means two things, either limited death or complete death. Putin has completely f-word it up. He does not care now. 
We will return to a level of normalcy by next year, otherwise the future is bleak.

Listen to Christopher Steele, the ex head of Russia desk for MI6, such a brilliant mind. Said as a country we’re the closest we’re to nuclear confrontation in his lifetime, born just after Cuba missile crisis. He said containment for Putin and that’s it. It’s hard to disagree.

 

so just to make sure I have this right Ukraine, who we are refusing to help  in a physical sense should give up some of their land and sovereignty so we feel more secure?

Edited 20 March 2022 by MPH

[kenny]

10 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

so just to make sure I have this right Ukraine, who we are refusing to help  in a physical sense should give up some of their land and sovereignty so we feel more secure?

That issue aside, much has been said about Ukraine giving Russia a way out.

 

Assuming land is ceeded and non- NATO aggrements are signed then job done. Except that the west's sanctions will remain in place and continue to cripple the Russian economy. Unless the west gives him a free pass on those then he is still in big bother which means MAD are still on the cards.

 

A crummy deal for Ukraine is far from the end of the tale I reckon.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

so just to make sure I have this right Ukraine, who we are refusing to help  in a physical sense should give up some of their land and sovereignty so we feel more secure?

If there's another option that doesn't end in nuclear holocaust, it would be welcomed.

 

Defeating the Russian forces in the field to the degree they leave Ukraine alone entirely requires Nato forces. That step will, in all likelihood, lead to catastrophic escalation.

 

Decapitation strike aimed at Putin himself? Odds of success would be pretty low and any failure would likely be met by a pretty angry response too, especially if it were proven Nato elements were involved.

 

What other options exist?

[westernpark]

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

so just to make sure I have this right Ukraine, who we are refusing to help  in a physical sense should give up some of their land and sovereignty so we feel more secure?

Not necessarily. We need to make sure the other countries that border keep their nerve(at the moment)see the Poland proposals of a peace keeping unit, avoid that. 
That decision you mention, is for Zelensky to decide, but if you are the West, do you want world war 3 or the option you have suggested. There will be other ways, but I believe Ukraine gets flattened regardless, if that’s not agreed upon.
This isn’t just about us, it’s the rest of the world.

We have to contain this guy, it’s the only option. 

[MPH]

52 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If there's another option that doesn't end in nuclear holocaust, it would be welcomed.

 

Defeating the Russian forces in the field to the degree they leave Ukraine alone entirely requires Nato forces. That step will, in all likelihood, lead to catastrophic escalation.

 

Decapitation strike aimed at Putin himself? Odds of success would be pretty low and any failure would likely be met by a pretty angry response too, especially if it were proven Nato elements were involved.

 

What other options exist?

 

my point isn’t about the options but the assumptions that we can tell Ukraine what they should be doing within their own country. With their own sovereignty. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

That issue aside, much has been said about Ukraine giving Russia a way out.

 

Assuming land is ceeded and non- NATO aggrements are signed then job done. Except that the west's sanctions will remain in place and continue to cripple the Russian economy. Unless the west gives him a free pass on those then he is still in big bother which means MAD are still on the cards.

 

A crummy deal for Ukraine is far from the end of the tale I reckon.

 

and what has Putin ever done that makes you think any kind of agreement would be worthwhile? That he’d stick to it?

Edited 21 March 2022 by MPH

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

so just to make sure I have this right Ukraine, who we are refusing to help  in a physical sense should give up some of their land and sovereignty so we feel more secure?

So the huge amount of training we and the US have given the Ukrainian army since 2014, and the thousands of weapons NATO have provided them in the past month are not physical help?

 

And no Ukraine should give up some of that because they don't want a long term war with Russia for land they have not controlled for 8 years, and NATO is not going to risk WW3 by letting them into NATO.  They should however have demands of their own regarding border security.  Then they play the long game and wait for Putin to die.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

So the huge amount of training we and the US have given the Ukrainian army since 2014, and the thousands of weapons NATO have provided them in the past month are not physical help?

 

And no Ukraine should give up some of that because they don't want a long term war with Russia for land they have not controlled for 8 years, and NATO is not going to risk WW3 by letting them into NATO.  They should however have demands of their own regarding border security.  Then they play the long game and wait for Putin to die.

 

No I’d say it isn’t. You can train a flyweight all day long but if you are going to stand by and watch them get beaten up by a heavyweight then it’s not much help really is it?

[Jon the Hat]

59 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

No I’d say it isn’t. You can train a flyweight all day long but if you are going to stand by and watch them get beaten up by a heavyweight then it’s not much help really is it?

Except this isn't boxing, and technology makes a huge difference.  Given everyone expected Russia to take Kyiv in about 3 days, I would say they have done very well, and the training and equipment has made all the difference.

[MPH]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Except this isn't boxing, and technology makes a huge difference.  Given everyone expected Russia to take Kyiv in about 3 days, I would say they have done very well, and the training and equipment has made all the difference.

 Made a difference in so much as they are inflicting casualties upon the Russian army, but their country is still being flattened.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

my point isn’t about the options but the assumptions that we can tell Ukraine what they should be doing within their own country. With their own sovereignty. 

Ah, I see, thank you.

 

Well, in that case I have to say I disagree; if and when a place is willing to see the rest of the world burn for the sake of their own "sovereignty". then everyone else absolutely bloody can and should tell them what needs to be done to make sure that doesn't happen and expect them to stick to it.

 

Sorry, but the principle of nationhood isn't worth the downfall of civilisation to uphold. There is practically no principle that is. (Might extend that to other areas where people think nationhood is paramount too.)

Edited 21 March 2022 by leicsmac

[MPH]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ah, I see, thank you.

 

Well, in that case I have to say I disagree; if and when a place is willing to see the rest of the world burn for the sake of their own "sovereignty". then everyone else absolutely bloody can and should tell them what needs to be done to make sure that doesn't happen and expect them to stick to it.

 

Sorry, but the principle of nationhood isn't worth the downfall of civilisation to uphold. There is practically no principle that is. (Might extend that to other areas where people think nationhood is paramount too.)

 

how exactly is the issue of Ukrainian sovereignty going to cause the downfall of civilization?

Edited 21 March 2022 by MPH

[leicsmac]

Just now, MPH said:

 

how exactly is the issue of Ukrainian sovereignty going to cause the downfall of civilization?

Ukraine refuses to give up any land in negotiations for sake of sovereignty ----> Russia therefore abandons the negotiations and continues its attack, slowly destroying Ukrainian forces in the field ----> International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

Yes, other factors are at work along the way, but that entire chain of disaster dominoes would begin with Ukraine making a decision based on their idea of sovereignty.

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ukraine refuses to give up any land in negotiations for sake of sovereignty ----> Russia therefore abandons the negotiations and continues its attack, slowly destroying Ukrainian forces in the field ----> International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

Yes, other factors are at work along the way, but that entire chain of disaster dominoes would begin with Ukraine making a decision based on their idea of sovereignty.

I think more simply what their government wants - EU / NATO membership - is probably not on the table, because the EU / NATO won't go to war over Ukraine.  The interesting development if that it seems they now would for existing NATO members, where I think beforehand they might not have done for those bordering Russia.

Edited 21 March 2022 by Jon the Hat

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think more simply what their government wants - EU / NATO membership - is probably not on the table, because the EU / NATO won't go to war over Ukraine.  The interesting development if that it seems they now would for existing NATO members, where I think beforehand they might not have done for those bordering Russia.

I would agree here.

 

I guess my point overall here is that if it comes down to a choice between Ukraine having to give up some elements of its land and sovereignty in negotiations and catastrophic escalation, then that choice is pretty obvious and I hope all parties involved see that.