Ukraine

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

It's a darkly interesting thing to consider how this might have played out if the Ukrainians had retained their nuclear arsenal.

 

Would they have used it if they felt they were on the edge of loss? And as Russia would no doubt have responded in kind, would such an exchange have remained limited to those two countries? Probably so tbh, similar to India and Pakistan. It wouldn't have been pretty, though.

I don’t think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept its Nukes.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Why?

...because she's clearly got to respond to what he's said about her given the current geopolitical situation and there are precious few responses that she can give that will both key in with her own viewpoints on such things and distance herself from the guy.

 

Seems that she went for a reasonably generic "I don't think you're the right person to be talking about this" while not saying anything at all about whether or not the point he made was right or wrong.

 

Just now, Strokes said:

I don’t think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept its Nukes.

I would agree.

 

As per above, how ridiculous is the state of humanity when it seems to be more logical to rely on such horrific weapons to ensure we're not bastards to each other?

 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...because she's clearly got to respond to what he's said about her given the current geopolitical situation and there are precious few responses that she can give that will both key in with her own viewpoints on such things and distance herself from the guy.

 

Seems that she went for a reasonably generic "I don't think you're the right person to be talking about this" while not saying anything at all about whether or not the point he made was right or wrong.

 

She is probably as well not to go further into debate on this at the moment. If people are prepared to use it as leverage rather than debate honestly. 
An abhorrent person sharing a viewpoint on something not relevant to what makes them abhorrent, shouldn’t really be noteworthy.

 

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would agree.

 

As per above, how ridiculous is the state of humanity when it seems to be more logical to rely on such horrific weapons to ensure we're not bastards to each other?

 

Absolutely, we are a very strange bunch of creatures aren’t we?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

She is probably as well not to go further into debate on this at the moment. If people are prepared to use it as leverage rather than debate honestly. 
An abhorrent person sharing a viewpoint on something not relevant to what makes them abhorrent, shouldn’t really be noteworthy.

 

Absolutely, we are a very strange bunch of creatures aren’t we?

Yeah, I think it's the only thing she really could have done - hence me mentioning it must have been a mite awkward, IMO.

 

And yes - though I think no more strange than a lot of other animals. What makes it different (probably worse) is that we're (as far as can be ascertained) the only species that is aware of how strange we are and yet proceed to be so anyway when we could, with will, choose not to.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I think it's the only thing she really could have done - hence me mentioning it must have been a mite awkward, IMO.

 

And yes - though I think no more strange than a lot of other animals. What makes it different (probably worse) is that we're (as far as can be ascertained) the only species that is aware of how strange we are and yet proceed to be so anyway when we could, with will, choose not to.

With nearly 8 billion people on the planet, the chances of us all deciding not to be cùnts at the same time, is pretty slim unfortunately.  
Maybe we do need a Thanos 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

With nearly 8 billion people on the planet, the chances of us all deciding not to be cùnts at the same time, is pretty slim unfortunately.  
Maybe we do need a Thanos 

 

...shame he failed to either correctly identify the problem or the solution, really.

 

But sometimes I do indeed despair at finding adults in international relations, rather than man-children driven purely by selfish need.

 

Anyhow, back on topic, it does increasingly look like the Russians are going to look for Crimea and the Donbass and call it a day there. I wonder if the Ukrainians will go for that.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

...shame he failed to either correctly identify the problem or the solution, really.

 

But sometimes I do indeed despair at finding adults in international relations, rather than man-children driven purely by selfish need.

 

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Anyhow, back on topic, it does increasingly look like the Russians are going to look for Crimea and the Donbass and call it a day there. I wonder if the Ukrainians will go for that.

I hope not, although it’s probably better for us all (short term) if it gets resolved and swept under the carpet. I don’t see why they should.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Strokes said:

I hope not, although it’s probably better for us all (short term) if it gets resolved and swept under the carpet. I don’t see why they should.

It's one of those situations where doing what's morally "right" is taking a large risk with not only one's own life but the lives of a lot of other people.

 

I really don't begrudge them the choice, it certainly isn't easy.

[yorkie1999]

11 hours ago, Line-X said:

 

Should be the music they play at the ground before the game

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Japan won’t get nukes; it’s just an emotional response to the situation. If anything Ukraine have proved you can defend your country without nukes. Who seriously is going to attack Japan anyway?

Interesting that you should mention this. Russia is to conduct military exercises on islands that are contested by Japan in an apparent response to Tokyo's decision to impose sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. Four islands known to Russia as the Southern Kurils and Japan, the Northern Territories are the centre of a long-term dispute between both nations and is the reason that astonishingly Russia and Japan have not yet signed a peace treaty to end World War II...so rather like North and South Korea, they are technically still at war. 

 

Earlier this week, Russia was negotiating with Japan with the aim of redressing this, but have withdrawn from talks owing to Tokyo's stand against Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Russia's Eastern Military District (or what's left of it that wasn't deployed westward) has announced that it will be undertaking military drills on the islands with immediate effect. 

 

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, Line-X said:

Interesting that you should mention this. Russia is to conduct military exercises on islands that are contested by Japan in an apparent response to Tokyo's decision to impose sanctions on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine. Four islands known to Russia as the Southern Kurils and Japan, the Northern Territories are the centre of a long-term dispute between both nations and is the reason that astonishingly Russia and Japan have not yet signed a peace treaty to end World War II...so rather like North and South Korea, they are technically still at war. 

 

Earlier this week, Russia was negotiating with Japan with the aim of redressing this, but have withdrawn from talks owing to Tokyo's stand against Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Russia's Eastern Military District (or what's left of it that wasn't deployed westward) has announced that it will be undertaking military drills on the islands with immediate effect. 

 

It’s still just emotive sabre rattling though, the idea that Japan and Russia would actually go to a hot war with each other is insanity, especially after this last month. 

[Lionator]

One thing I find incredible is that Biden’s approval ratings in the US have actually dropped over the last month. Yet from the outside it seems like he’s handled this incredibly well in very difficult circumstances. I suppose American’s don’t like presidents who back away from war. 

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

Japan won’t get nukes; it’s just an emotional response to the situation. If anything Ukraine have proved you can defend your country without nukes. Who seriously is going to attack Japan anyway?

I suppose the threat of a nuclear war also goes out of the window for an attacking force as well. If the US amassed an army large enough to invade Russia on the ground, what use is a nuclear bomb on your own territory.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Lionator said:

One thing I find incredible is that Biden’s approval ratings in the US have actually dropped over the last month. Yet from the outside it seems like he’s handled this incredibly well in very difficult circumstances. I suppose American’s don’t like presidents who back away from war. 

Partly that, partly only noticing the "gasoline" prices going up, partly at least some of them not caring if he was the Second Coming because he's not a Repub, I think.

[Lionator]

16 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

I suppose the threat of a nuclear war also goes out of the window for an attacking force as well. If the US amassed an army large enough to invade Russia on the ground, what use is a nuclear bomb on your own territory.

I guess they’d bomb Washington as a get out of here thing, but ultimately mutually assured destruction means that these two countries will be unlikely to ever purposefully attack each other anyway. 
 

I was a bit worried a month ago when Putin put his nuclear forces on alert but it seems pretty clear now that was just to deter other countries putting boots on the ground in Ukraine. 

[SpacedX]

29 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It’s still just emotive sabre rattling though, the idea that Japan and Russia would actually go to a hot war with each other is insanity, especially after this last month. 

Of course...but it's interesting that a treaty post WWII was never signed and now, as they were looking to redress that and actually explore the prospect of commercial collaboration over the Southern Kurils/Northern Territories, the invasion of Ukraine has scotched all of that. 

[MPH]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally, they have other WMD than the nuclear devices. A chemical strike on a population centre would be devastating.

 

But yes, the NK's know they don't win any conflict with the South - the best they could hope for is the destruction of both countries, which is not their objective.

 

Seoul is relatively close  to the  NK border isn’t it? I’d imagine  any foot solder war would be short lived but not before unsustainable damage to  at least just the city of Seoul.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

One thing I find incredible is that Biden’s approval ratings in the US have actually dropped over the last month. Yet from the outside it seems like he’s handled this incredibly well in very difficult circumstances. I suppose American’s don’t like presidents who back away from war. 

 

They blame him for the rising cost of food/ goods and petrol which was already quite high before the invasion. A lot of Americans think from their pockets.

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

Seoul is relatively close  to the  NK border isn’t it? I’d imagine  any foot solder war would be short lived but not before unsustainable damage to  at least just the city of Seoul.

Around forty klicks, yes - so well within missile and artillery range.

 

From what I've read, if the shit ever did hit the fan the SOP would be to abandon Seoul for the reasons you state here, withdraw to more easily defensible areas while air power eliminates as much of the artillery and other long range weaponry as possible, and then counterattack decisively.

 

Edit: Or at least only leave behind a token defence that would buy time for the NK artillery to be neutralised at which point the decisive counterattack would be possible.

Edited 26 March 2022 by leicsmac

[yorkie1999]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

I don’t think Russia would have invaded had Ukraine kept its Nukes.

If Ukraine had kept its nukes, it wouldn't have been able to hit Russia, apart from the far east. The icbm's that were on Ukrainian territory were aimed at the US and had a 5-10000km range, which is basically how far away they have work, you can't half fill them with fuel so they have a shorter range.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

If Ukraine had kept its nukes, it wouldn't have been able to hit Russia, apart from the far east. The icbm's that were on Ukrainian territory were aimed at the US and had a 5-10000km range, which is basically how far away they have work, you can't half fill them with fuel so they have a shorter range.

I’m pretty sure if they had decided to keep them and as foes and allies have changed. So would their development. It’s been 25+ years.

[LiberalFox]

I don't think Ukraine maintaining a nuclear deterrent would have been politically or economically viable. It's not just deciding to keep what is on your territory, it's having the expertise and ability to maintain complex systems that were mostly Russian and getting the international community to accept it as well as domestic support. Look at what Ukraine's military was like in 2014 to see what sort of priority the armed forces had over there. 

 

Ukraine trying to retain nukes in the early 90s with a view to defending vs Russia would be a bit like if Scotland votes for independence and Sturgeon decides they are going to claim trident and aim the missiles at targets in the rUK. 

 

I don't consider our own nuclear deterrent fully independent because the Trident missile system is built and maintained in the US. 

[Countryfox]

55 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

Ukraine trying to retain nukes in the early 90s with a view to defending vs Russia would be a bit like if Scotland votes for independence and Sturgeon decides they are going to claim trident and aim the missiles at targets in the rUK. 

 

Lets hope wee Willie Kranky ain’t reading this …. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

If you've ever fancied being a Russian general, there's never been a better time to apply, loads of vacancies.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60807538

 

Maybe it's not a surprise that some of their kit is a bit crap, but they're really rubbish at doing war aren't they?

[oxford blue]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Well the Ukrainians now wish they hadn’t given up theirs three decades ago ……

...but Russia had the 'key' to be able to use them. It was the basis of the 1994 Budapest Agreement in which Ukraine agree to give up all their nuclear weapons in return for a security agreement - first broken in 2014. 

 

https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184