[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

Baldseagull · Saturday at 9:19 AM

The risk is not that Russia would make attacks on NATO countries, the risk is that he might be able to sell a war with NATO to Russians, and be able to have a larger and wider conscription, without losing the tenuous support he has in the population.

I don't think Putin will want to up the stakes before the result of US elections, so now is the time to do it, he will hold off hoping for Trump to come in and appease him. And once his red line has been crossed without a war declaration from him, it will be harder for him to sell it later on, after the US election.

raymondo · Saturday at 9:19 AM

fly high said:
No new pledge on Ukraine missiles after Starmer-Biden talks in Washington

Ukraine has repeatedly urged the UK and US to let it fire long-range missiles against targets inside Russia.

www.bbc.co.uk

Nothing confirmed yet but looking like the cowards are falling again for Putin’s threats. That is not the way to stop a bully.

I thought Kurt Volker's interview on the Today program was very good - he explained clearly that Putin's threats are simply deterrence to the West and should be ignored.
As he said...if Putin wins Ukraine then the war will really escalate as Russia aims for the next country.

raymondo · Saturday at 9:20 AM

Baldseagull said:
The risk is not that Russia would make attacks on NATO countries, the risk is that he might be able to sell a war with NATO to Russians, and be able to have a larger and wider conscription, without losing the tenuous support he has in the population.

I don't think Putin will want to up the stakes before the result of US elections, so now is the time to do it, he will hold off hoping for Trump to come in and appease him. And once his red line has been crossed without a war declaration from him, it will be harder for him to sell it later on, after the US election.

I agree with that

raymondo · Saturday at 9:31 AM

Eric the meek said:
Another good article fro Steve Rosenberg.

This time, about Russians turning fellow Russians in to the authorities.

Steve Rosenberg: Russian snitching evokes ghosts of the past

More Russians have been reporting each other since Ukraine invasion - what are the implications?

www.bbc.co.uk

I've read it now - a very powerful article...the Russian 'genetic code ' becoming more active.
I'm surprised the authorities allow Rosenberg to stay (I'm glad they do!) - he must have some key supporters I think.

Triggaaar · Saturday at 9:35 AM

Baldseagull said:
The risk is not that Russia would make attacks on NATO countries, the risk is that he might be able to sell a war with NATO to Russians, and be able to have a larger and wider conscription, without losing the tenuous support he has in the population.

I disagree because he'll be doing that anyway. Obviously he's not telling them the truth about this Special Military Operation.

Baldseagull said:
I don't think Putin will want to up the stakes before the result of US elections, so now is the time to do it, he will hold off hoping for Trump to come in and appease him. And once his red line has been crossed without a war declaration from him, it will be harder for him to sell it later on, after the US election.

Good point.

sparkie · Saturday at 9:37 AM

Baldseagull said:
The risk is not that Russia would make attacks on NATO countries, the risk is that he might be able to sell a war with NATO to Russians, and be able to have a larger and wider conscription, without losing the tenuous support he has in the population.

I don't think Putin will want to up the stakes before the result of US elections, so now is the time to do it, he will hold off hoping for Trump to come in and appease him. And once his red line has been crossed without a war declaration from him, it will be harder for him to sell it later on, after the US election.

This is his best strategy.

And in any case publically giving permission to use the weapons and then Trump publically withdrawing the permission 4 months later isn't ideal.

raymondo · Saturday at 9:42 AM

Highlights again why Ukraine's own missile program needs to be helped to come to fruition asap.

Baldseagull · Saturday at 9:59 AM

Triggaaar said:
I disagree because he'll be doing that anyway. Obviously he's not telling them the truth about this Special Military Operation.

He is selling it, but it's mostly only those that see only state TV that are buying it. If it's open knowledge that the US is allowing its weapons to strike inside Russia, it will be easier to sway the rest.

raymondo · Saturday at 10:49 AM

The West could deal with this with one simple press announcement, rather than all the grandstanding meetings and hand wringing:
"Russia receives weapons from its allies and uses them, how it wants, to attack Ukraine.
Ukraine receives weapons from its allies and can use them, how it wants, to defend itself."

GT49er · Saturday at 11:01 AM

raymondo said:
The West could deal with this with one simple press announcement, rather than all the grandstanding meetings and hand wringing:
"Russia receives weapons from its allies and uses them, how it wants, to attack Ukraine.
Ukraine receives weapons from its allies and can use them, how it wants, to defend itself."

Perhaps a compromise the wavering yanks could agree to would be to limit the use of long distance weapons inside Russia to military, industrial and transport targets, but not civilian targets?

Eric the meek · Saturday at 11:05 AM

raymondo said:
The West could deal with this with one simple press announcement, rather than all the grandstanding meetings and hand wringing:
"Russia receives weapons from its allies and uses them, how it wants, to attack Ukraine.
Ukraine receives weapons from its allies and can use them, how it wants, to defend itself."

I'm wondering if there may be a bit of smoke and mirrors surrounding this delay in making an announcement.
For instance, there may be value in giving Ukraine permission, but not announcing it, and leaving Putin to wonder about it. This action could save Ukrainian lives.
NATO could do a Putin, and do the opposite of what they are expected to do. But if we announce it, it firms up and becomes official, and Putin could use it for his faux outrage.

It is possible that just the prospect of western missiles hitting Russia, but not actually pulling the lever, may act as a sufficient deterrent. OK, it's unlikely, but it might be worth a pop. A bit like the Kerch bridge maybe. The prospect of the bridge being destroyed may be of more value than actually destroying it.

Eric the meek · Saturday at 11:06 AM

GT49er said:
Perhaps a compromise the wavering yanks could agree to would be to limit the use of long distance weapons inside Russia to military, industrial and transport targets, but not civilian targets?

That's surely a given.

GT49er · Saturday at 11:13 AM

Eric the meek said:
That's surely a given.

But surely it needs to be said.

Eric the meek · Saturday at 11:30 AM

GT49er said:
But surely it needs to be said.

That's an interesting point.

Given that Russia will spin any announcement or lack of announcement in their favour ('you promised you wouldn't aim for civilian targets but look at this..'), do we want to give Putin an open goal to mass mobilise, use nukes or whatever? Bear in mind this is exactly what Ukraine has previously said (no civilian targets with their drones) but Russia has of course come out and claimed one hit a residential block.

I'm not sure I know what the right answer is here!

fly high · Saturday at 11:46 AM

GT49er said:
Perhaps a compromise the wavering yanks could agree to would be to limit the use of long distance weapons inside Russia to military, industrial and transport targets, but not civilian targets?

I think that is what Ukraine would do with them anyway & exactly what they want them for.

fly high · Saturday at 11:47 AM

Eric the meek said:
That's an interesting point.

Given that Russia will spin any announcement or lack of announcement in their favour ('you promised you wouldn't aim for civilian targets but look at this..'), do we want to give Putin an open goal to mass mobilise, use nukes or whatever? Bear in mind this is exactly what Ukraine has previously said (no civilian targets with their drones) but Russia has of course come out and claimed one hit a residential block.

I'm not sure I know what the right answer is here!

Guess the problem is there will always be the odd one which goes astray.

Binney on acid · Saturday at 11:51 AM

GT49er said:
Perhaps a compromise the wavering yanks could agree to would be to limit the use of long distance weapons inside Russia to military, industrial and transport targets, but not civilian targets?

It would be interesting to see how the state controlled Russian media responds to a watered down proposal from the west.

raymondo · Saturday at 11:57 AM

GT49er said:
Perhaps a compromise the wavering yanks could agree to would be to limit the use of long distance weapons inside Russia to military, industrial and transport targets, but not civilian targets?

Maybe...just leave out electricity supply stations you mean

raymondo · Saturday at 12:09 PM

How about:
" Ukraine know what they have permission to target and, unlike Russia, will do all they can to minimize civilian casualties ".

Keeps Putin guessing about where to put his planes and air defense systems.

Eric the meek · Saturday at 12:18 PM

raymondo said:
How about:
" Ukraine know what they have permission to target and, unlike Russia, will do all they can to minimize civilian casualties ".

Keeps Putin guessing about where to put his planes and air defense systems.

Or give him a long list of 'targets' for humanitarian reasons, so he would be under pressure to evacuate those areas. And then if there were casualties afterwards, he could be blamed for not evacuating them having been given a clear warning.

Of course, I'm sure he would still find a way of saying 'not my fault'.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Fiveways Wilf

Fiveways Wilf

Well-known member

Fiveways Wilf

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Fiveways Wilf

Share this page