The Ukraine War

[Ramarena]

I’m not sure the end of Putin changes a huge amount. 

There is a saying I’ve heard mentioned a number of times from mainly Polish people, when talking about Russia, “Russia is not so much a country, it’s more an ideology, they are taught from birth”.

Get rid of Putin and it’ll be, meet the new boss, he’s very similar to the last one. The Russian hierarchy is full of these people, Putin has made it so, as he didn’t want any challengers/dissenters.

Im not sure where it will end, he’s had plenty of off ramps and not taken them. That said he’s had opportunities to go nuclear and not taken those either except for his saber rattling.

History has taught him to keep throwing Russian/Soviet bodies at it till you get your way, so that’s what he’s doing.

What we do know is he’s ducked up monumentally. 

He had Russia on the cusp of being bought in from the cold (geopolitics wise) and he’s gone and thrown it all away.

[Ramarena]

8 minutes ago, Archied said:

The simple fact is that to all intents and purpose the war is Russia v nato/ the west , we are arming them not only to defend themselves but to take crimea , now whether you think we should be arming them or not it’s a very dangerous situation and who can say where that leads on a world scale

You mean re-take Crimea.

[Crewton]

I don't know that we, the West in toto, HAVE been supplying Ukraine with much weaponry that is specifically designed for all-out assaults. Most of the hardware appears to be primarily defensive, anti-aircraft/missile/tank/drone etc, specifically because we don't want Ukraine taking the war beyond their pre-2014 borders, though I stand to be corrected. 

[Day]

2 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't know that we, the West in toto, HAVE been supplying Ukraine with much weaponry that is specifically designed for all-out assaults. Most of the hardware appears to be primarily defensive, anti-aircraft/missile/tank/drone etc, specifically because we don't want Ukraine taking the war beyond their pre-2014 borders, though I stand to be corrected. 

Defensive weapons or not, had we not been this war would be over now. 

By supplying the equipment we have kept Ukraine in the game, it’s allowed them to take out Russian equipment, pushed them back towards the border. 

With that they have now started to engage in counter attacks on the Crimea bridge, even after that attack NATO hasn’t really come out to condemn it but pledge more support to Ukraine.

The Ukraine Defence Twitter account talking up more counter attacks in response to those Russia have made recently.

I mean we’re in the thick of it, without being, having just completed training 10,000 Ukraine troops sending them back over to the battlefield. Hard to see how this doesn’t turn into an all out war in the next few weeks.

[Ramarena]

4 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I don't know that we, the West in toto, HAVE been supplying Ukraine with much weaponry that is specifically designed for all-out assaults. Most of the hardware appears to be primarily defensive, anti-aircraft/missile/tank/drone etc, specifically because we don't want Ukraine taking the war beyond their pre-2014 borders, though I stand to be corrected. 

Indeed. The weaponry given so far is upon an agreement not to strike Russian territory.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/01/us-says-ukraine-will-not-use-us-supplied-rocket-systems-to-hit-russian-territory

This is also why the US has refused Ukraines request for the ATACMS long range missile system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/us/ukraine-war-missile.html

Also let’s be fair here, Ukraine have also been incredibly restrained with their attacks all things considered.

[Ramarena]

5 minutes ago, David said:

Defensive weapons or not, had we not been this war would be over now. 

By supplying the equipment we have kept Ukraine in the game, it’s allowed them to take out Russian equipment, pushed them back towards the border. 

With that they have now started to engage in counter attacks on the Crimea bridge, even after that attack NATO hasn’t really come out to condemn it but pledge more support to Ukraine.

The Ukraine Defence Twitter account talking up more counter attacks in response to those Russia have made recently.

I mean we’re in the thick of it, without being, having just completed training 10,000 Ukraine troops sending them back over to the battlefield. Hard to see how this doesn’t turn into an all out war in the next few weeks.

Absolutely, and I have a dim view of them, but the U.S intelligence community have done some phenomenal work assisting Ukraine.

[Alph]

54 minutes ago, Archied said:

The simple fact is that to all intents and purpose the war is Russia v nato/ the west , we are arming them not only to defend themselves but to take crimea , now whether you think we should be arming them or not it’s a very dangerous situation and who can say where that leads on a world scale

I think that's where the thread has had some tension. Because to avoid the situation we are in I think it's perfectly reasonable to blame or talk about other nations actions in antagonising Russia.

And the not so secret war between Russia and America has been going on for decades all across the globe. Opposing each other in every possible way using all kinds of sabotage and proxy wars etc etc on and on. 

I think the point up to the war The West particularly America has a lot to answer for (not claiming Russia has been a victim). I know some won't agree. 

But trying to have that debate has been tough because it crosses over into what Russia are doing now. 

I do think we're actually right to support Ukraine and we shouldn't have to apologise for that. They have no rightful claim to Ukraine and whatever threat they see coming from there is no reason for them to go full scale assault like they have. 

The world can't allow a nation like Russia (or America) to start empire building. 

But then we're back at the pre war again with who exactly has covertly empire building and whether that's a threat to Russia and other opposing countries. 

But in this specific war. In this very specific war, then I think we have to make sure Ukraine has a future. They might be a new nation but they exist for real and those in Russia that refuse to see it belong in the bin with the those American war mongers that surrounded JFK. 

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, David said:

Defensive weapons or not, had we not been this war would be over now. 

By supplying the equipment we have kept Ukraine in the game, it’s allowed them to take out Russian equipment, pushed them back towards the border. 

With that they have now started to engage in counter attacks on the Crimea bridge, even after that attack NATO hasn’t really come out to condemn it but pledge more support to Ukraine.

The Ukraine Defence Twitter account talking up more counter attacks in response to those Russia have made recently.

I mean we’re in the thick of it, without being, having just completed training 10,000 Ukraine troops sending them back over to the battlefield. Hard to see how this doesn’t turn into an all out war in the next few weeks.

Russia have been supplied with arms by their 'allies' like Iran and possibly N Korea, so you could argue it's global already.

It only turns into an all-out war if Russia attacks a NATO member. There will undoubtedly be a conventional US retaliation if Russia uses a nuke and how Putin responds to that will determine how nasty this gets.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Ramarena said:

I’m not sure the end of Putin changes a huge amount. 

There is a saying I’ve heard mentioned a number of times from mainly Polish people, when talking about Russia, “Russia is not so much a country, it’s more an ideology, they are taught from birth”.

Get rid of Putin and it’ll be, meet the new boss, he’s very similar to the last one. The Russian hierarchy is full of these people, Putin has made it so, as he didn’t want any challengers/dissenters.

Im not sure where it will end, he’s had plenty of off ramps and not taken them. That said he’s had opportunities to go nuclear and not taken those either except for his saber rattling.

History has taught him to keep throwing Russian/Soviet bodies at it till you get your way, so that’s what he’s doing.

What we do know is he’s ducked up monumentally. 

He had Russia on the cusp of being bought in from the cold (geopolitics wise) and he’s gone and thrown it all away.

Given Poland's history with Russia, particularly in the 20th century, it's hardly surprising that they mostly seem to have a very negative view of the Russian government. I think you are probably right in that Putin has surrounded himself with like minded people as much as he possibly could.  But what they say to Putin and what they think themselves could actually quite different.  Remember before the war when Putin humiliated his own head of foreign intelligence in public for not being as pro war as Putin thought he should be.  It was clear that Naryshkin was eager to avoid war at the time...maybe there are more like minded people in the Russian government.  Who knows? 

And also it's clear to everyone, including those Russians in government, that Putin has, as you say, ducked up monumentally.  This is his war, his doing and it's very hard for him to back down.  But if he was removed, the new president could very plausibly blame Putin for all the mistakes that went before and take Russia on a different path, without much embarrassment to themselves. I think given how badly the war is going that this is a very real possibility.  Of course, it all depends on who the successor is.

At least twice before, individual Russians have by their actions, saved the world from a nuclear war.  Maybe there is another Vasily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov waiting for their moment to shine!  If only Putin could wander near some of those famously treacherous Russian windows, things may have a chance of getting a lot better in the near future.  

Edited October 13, 2022 by Highgate

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

The simple fact is that to all intents and purpose the war is Russia v nato/ the west , we are arming them not only to defend themselves but to take crimea , now whether you think we should be arming them or not it’s a very dangerous situation and who can say where that leads on a world scale

Take back Crimea, you mean, surely?

[Eddie]

[Archied]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Take back Crimea, you mean, surely?

From when?
just like them argies taking back the falklands , bloody cheek ,

would we have armed Ukraine to take back crimea or backed it before this current situation?

anyway as I stated ,no matter where you stand on arming Ukraine it puts the west / nato at war with Russia and that’s where we are now , how much further it escalates is the concern 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Archied

[Ramarena]

2 hours ago, Highgate said:

Given Poland's history with Russia, particularly in the 20th century, it's hardly surprising that they mostly seem to have a very negative view of the Russian government. I think you are probably right in that Putin has surrounded himself with like minded people as much as he possibly could.  But what they say to Putin and what they think themselves could actually quite different.  Remember before the war when Putin humiliated his own head of foreign intelligence in public for not being as pro war as Putin thought he should be.  It was clear that Naryshkin was eager to avoid war at the time...maybe there are more like minded people in the Russian government.  Who knows? 

And also it's clear to everyone, including those Russians in government, that Putin has, as you say, ducked up monumentally.  This is his war, his doing and it's very hard for him to back down.  But if he was removed, the new president could very plausibly blame Putin for all the mistakes that went before and take Russia on a different path, without much embarrassment to themselves. I think given how badly the war is going that this is a very real possibility.  Of course, it all depends on who the successor is.

At least twice before, individual Russians have by their actions, saved the world from a nuclear war.  Maybe there is another Vasily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov waiting for their moment to shine!  If only Putin could wander near some of those famously treacherous Russian windows, things may have a chance of getting a lot better in the near future.  

It’s possible and I hope a sane Russian leader can emerge.

Problem is, some of the people who might have been able take that different direction, or fund it seem to have mysteriously committed suicide recently.

[Ramarena]

14 minutes ago, Archied said:

From when?
just like them argies taking back the falklands , bloody cheek ,

would we have armed Ukraine to take back crimea or backed it before this current situation?

We didn’t, but now we do. Different leaders do different things and the threat level was also different when Russia went for a full invasion. It’s not black and white there are many shades of grey.

There’s no argument that Crimea is a disputed territory. I don’t necessarily think Zelenski would go all out for Crimea, sure it’s valuable because of its gas reserves. But the threat of declaring Crimea a target to re-take is also valuable as a stick to beat Putin.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Ramarena
Missed word

[Eddie]

40 minutes ago, Archied said:

From when?
just like them argies taking back the falklands , bloody cheek ,

would we have armed Ukraine to take back crimea or backed it before this current situation?

anyway as I stated ,no matter where you stand on arming Ukraine it puts the west / nato at war with Russia and that’s where we are now , how much further it escalates is the concern 

Are you seriously legitimising the 2014 'referendum' on Crimea becoming part of Russia? It strikes me that Russia has as much right to the territory as Greece, Turkey, Iran and half a dozen other countries either in existence now or in the past.

As far as the current situation is concerned, Ukraine's response (and that of NATO) is more to do with Russia's invasion of the East of the country in February this year, surely?

Edited October 13, 2022 by Eddie

[uttoxram75]

Are we expecting Ukraine to give up a corner of their country to a far bigger and stronger invader like Ireland did? I suppose they'll have little choice in the end barring nuclear war. Then it won't matter anyway.

[Alph]

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

Given Poland's history with Russia, particularly in the 20th century, it's hardly surprising that they mostly seem to have a very negative view of the Russian government. I think you are probably right in that Putin has surrounded himself with like minded people as much as he possibly could.  But what they say to Putin and what they think themselves could actually quite different.  Remember before the war when Putin humiliated his own head of foreign intelligence in public for not being as pro war as Putin thought he should be.  It was clear that Naryshkin was eager to avoid war at the time...maybe there are more like minded people in the Russian government.  Who knows? 

And also it's clear to everyone, including those Russians in government, that Putin has, as you say, ducked up monumentally.  This is his war, his doing and it's very hard for him to back down.  But if he was removed, the new president could very plausibly blame Putin for all the mistakes that went before and take Russia on a different path, without much embarrassment to themselves. I think given how badly the war is going that this is a very real possibility.  Of course, it all depends on who the successor is.

At least twice before, individual Russians have by their actions, saved the world from a nuclear war.  Maybe there is another Vasily Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov waiting for their moment to shine!  If only Putin could wander near some of those famously treacherous Russian windows, things may have a chance of getting a lot better in the near future.  

Wasn't Khrushchev also a leader that understood war must be avoided? An enemy of America no doubt but also during the Cuban Missile crisis I think he played a role in calming things. I might be wrong. 

But it wouldn't be right to assume everyone in power in Russia is an ex KGB Soviet Union dreamer stuck in the 60's. There must be many who above all else care about Russia more than NATO, border disputes, oil prices etc etc. They must care about the condition Russia will be in by the time Putin is done. Those who would applaud Putin if he delivered Ukraine but now see him as an incompetent strategist. 

I don't think same as @Davidthat we are headed for a wider conflict. It's not a daft thing to think though. 

I do think if Ukraine keep pushing, winter comes, Russians can't get supplies and they become cold and hungry then start deserting or dying to well fed and rested Ukrainians... That Putin if in power will drop the big bombs on them. I really do. 

And he'll say "America did it in Japan and set the precedent." as soon as the last echos fade. 

Then I think the West will do absolutely nothing. Not with military. Because to do so takes us to what David rightly worries about. 

I mean there's a part of me that wants Ukraine to seek peace talks and kind of appease Putin. It's wrong but their war can go 2 ways as I see it. Putin is removed from within or Ukraine loses. That's always how it's seemed to me. Even if they win they'll lose because Putin will go as far as it takes and The West won't. 

 

[Archied]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

Are you seriously legitimising the 2014 'referendum' on Crimea becoming part of Russia? It strikes me that Russia has as much right to the territory as Greece, Turkey, Iran and half a dozen other countries either in existence now or in the past.

As far as the current situation is concerned, Ukraine's response (and that of NATO) is more to do with Russia's invasion of the East of the country in February this year, surely?

I’m not legitimising anything as I really don’t know enough about the workings and the feelings of the people in Ukraine and Russia but I do know parts of Ukraine are a bit of a mess in terms of national loyalties very much like Ireland, I just get a worrying vibe that zalenski has started to set his sights on more than defending and winning back territory that has recently been invaded and also goading putin to the point we have two leaders backing each other into a corner with neither looking for peace but rather an all out win and destroying the other ,

my point is that the west really need to be very careful where we are going with this because no matter how we on a forum debate the rights and wrongs and fall into the trap of tub thumping this could go very very badly to a point where there’s no winners ,im sure there’s millions on the ground in war affected areas of Ukraine ( and Russian s sent to fight) that just want some kind of peace and the killing to stop and the west needs to be putting pressure on both leaders now to find this

[Day]

7 hours ago, Alpha said:

Wasn't Khrushchev also a leader that understood war must be avoided? An enemy of America no doubt but also during the Cuban Missile crisis I think he played a role in calming things. I might be wrong. 

But it wouldn't be right to assume everyone in power in Russia is an ex KGB Soviet Union dreamer stuck in the 60's. There must be many who above all else care about Russia more than NATO, border disputes, oil prices etc etc. They must care about the condition Russia will be in by the time Putin is done. Those who would applaud Putin if he delivered Ukraine but now see him as an incompetent strategist. 

I don't think same as @Davidthat we are headed for a wider conflict. It's not a daft thing to think though. 

I do think if Ukraine keep pushing, winter comes, Russians can't get supplies and they become cold and hungry then start deserting or dying to well fed and rested Ukrainians... That Putin if in power will drop the big bombs on them. I really do. 

And he'll say "America did it in Japan and set the precedent." as soon as the last echos fade. 

Then I think the West will do absolutely nothing. Not with military. Because to do so takes us to what David rightly worries about. 

I mean there's a part of me that wants Ukraine to seek peace talks and kind of appease Putin. It's wrong but their war can go 2 ways as I see it. Putin is removed from within or Ukraine loses. That's always how it's seemed to me. Even if they win they'll lose because Putin will go as far as it takes and The West won't. 

You don’t believe NATO will respond in any military way at all if Putin drops a tactical nuke on Ukraine?

Just can’t see it, whilst I don’t believe it will be nuke for nuke, Macron has even said France won’t get involved in that, bombs will fly as the US will want to protect their “World Police” image.

Right now Putin is the one looking weak and a wally, if he sets a nuke off and the US do nothing with the NATO sheep, it’s them that will look weak to the rest of the world.

They all want to portray this image of power and strength.

China will be looking on and thinking, we may as well take Taiwan.

 

[TuffLuff]

Without sticking my ore in too much in this debate, I do like John Sweeney’s war reports on Twitter and I think a largely agree with the points he makes here.