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

Register Log in

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



Baldseagull

Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,839
Crawley
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.
 




R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,172
Wiltshire
fly high said:
www.bbc.co.uk

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 


R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,172
Wiltshire
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with that 👍
 


R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,172
Wiltshire
Eric the meek said:
Another good article fro Steve Rosenberg.

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

www.bbc.co.uk

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
Click to expand...
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

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
52,880
Goldstone
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 




sparkie

sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
13,233
Hove
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 




Baldseagull

Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,839
Crawley
Triggaaar said:
I disagree because he'll be doing that anyway. Obviously he's not telling them the truth about this Special Military Operation.
Click to expand...
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.
 




R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,172
Wiltshire
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

GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
48,992
Gloucester
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."
Click to expand...
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

Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
6,928
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."
Click to expand...
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

Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
6,928
GT49er said:
But surely it needs to be said.
Click to expand...
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

fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,693
in a house
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?
Click to expand...
I think that is what Ukraine would do with them anyway & exactly what they want them for.
 


fly high

fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,693
in a house
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!
Click to expand...
Guess the problem is there will always be the odd one which goes astray.
 


B

Binney on acid

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 30, 2003
2,659
Shoreham
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?
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see how the state controlled Russian media responds to a watered down proposal from the west.
 








Eric the meek

Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
6,928
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.
Click to expand...
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'.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here