Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
Realistically, the USA/Trump administration are going to negotiate a deal with Russia first and then bring it back to Ukraine/Europe. I suspect this deal will be sent back and forth a number of times.No surprise there
It’s up to the European allies to support Ukraine and agree a ‘best deal’ scenario. Unfortunately, I can’t see Russia or Putin getting the punishment (reparations & giving back all the invaded territory with Ukraine joining NATO) they surely deserve but peace is the most important thing. Putin needs to be given a narrative to claim victory, that’s not the same thing as getting everything he wants.
- Aug 7, 2003
- 8,275
Agreed.
I disagree. Peace is not the most important thing. Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, and in 1940 Hitler offered peace (with the alternative being to destroy the great British empire). Should we have accepted?
A just peace would be worth it, but there's absolutely no way Putin will be offering that. So Ukraine should fight until Putin loses.
Putin needs to be defeated. That doesn't mean that Ukraine needs to push the Russian army back, that's not necessary. But it means Ukraine needs to defend itself while Russia collapses.
Last edited:
- Jan 18, 2009
- 5,001
It may be that I am a very stupid man, unable to comprehend macro geo politics and military strategy like you on a parochial football team’s message board. However, the reason that survey, in my opinion, is so very important at this time is that we (in the west) are potentially a step closer to military confrontation with Russia.
It would appear many on here are comfortable with that position and confident of a positive outcome for the west if that was to happen (it would appear for some even with or without the US). I’m less confident, and remain of the view that peace, even if imperfect for Ukraine, is preferable to full scale military confrontation with Russia at this time.
This is because just like our European peers, the U.K. is not a top tier military power with a resilient industrial strategy or capacity to wage a sustainable war and digest thousands of casualties. It was in the past but not now, and some of the data provided on military capacity speaks for itself.
Critically then, even if we had the budget and a million tanks and thousands of jets, one critical factor is still required to wage war, it’s called, the will to fight. It is defined as follows:
The physical will to fight is critical to a country’s determination to persist during conflict, transcending national boundaries. It encompasses the capability and capacity to initiate and sustain engagements underpinned by factors such as training, leadership, equipment, personnel, and logistics.
It is explored in the current Russo/Ukraine conflict here:
The Ukrainians and Russians have the will to fight. The survey indicates, for the generation that would be required to do so with the Russians that it is not even close to a sustainable level for the U.K. to engage in anything other than a limited and short term conflict with Russia.
Therefore for all the fighting talk on this message board and positivity with respect to outcome, there is a key underlying weaknesses with this country’s ability to wage war, especially with an opponent like Russia.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
TLDR.
Here's a clip of a Russian soldier who you claim has the will to fight.
***WARNING*** Discretion required
Mod edit: clip removed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for posting. He is such a clear thinker, and it's very important input to this thread
You make it sound like we have a binary choice - an imperfect peace (which actually isn't one of the choices, as I will explain) or full scale war.
Starting with the imperfect peace you mention, Putin won't offer that. He'll offer a ceasefire (which he will pretend is peace) and he'll use the time to build his war economy and his army, ready for a much bigger invasion of Ukraine and the Baltics in the coming years. An imperfect peace would be where Ukraine lose some of its land, but it does get a lasting peace with guarantees (like joining Nato and having Western troops stationed there) - and that's not on offer.
There are of course more sensible options than the 2 you offer. For example, Nato members increasing spending, and increasing support of Ukraine, and making it clear to Putin that he will never win a war against either Ukraine or the rest of Europe. Once that became clear, the only reason for Putin to continue his lost war would be to keep the vultures at bay and protect himself, and those around him would realise the game is up.
I also disagree with your analysis of our will to fight. If our country were under threat I think you'll find a lot of people are willing to fight.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
On Landsbergis's points 12-14, China, what is your take on the chances of any of that happening? I recall that a few weeks ago, China offered their services as a host/mediator, and the US told them to get lost. I assume the response would be stronger if they tried again? Or if Ukraine invited them in?Thank you for posting. He is such a clear thinker, and it's very important input to this thread
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
You are right. Good advice.
That was out of a field for me, and haven't got my head round it. He may be right.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
Mods, sorry about that. It won't happen again.
Ukraine aren't stupid enough to invite them in. China and Russia declared themselves allies with no limits, so inviting them in would be the same as surrendering.
In the hypothetical scenario where Ukraine did invite China in (and no doubt Russia would approve) it's not really up to anyone else to stop them. The US wouldn't be able to stop them, it's Ukraine's country to do with what they wish. But Ukraine won't.
It's a piss-take by China really.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
Landsbergis has thrown up a curved ball though. He admitted he was feeling down after the security conference. Perhaps he just made an emotional response aimed at the Americans. China's involvement in Ukraine hasn't cropped up before, apart from breaking some sanctions etc.
armchairclubber
Well-known member
Whilst not understanding some of the logic in some of your previous post / discussion I do agree with the above. Furthermore, the UK has recently rid itself of one of the most corrupt and unpopular governments known in our lifetime and to this generation.
It has been replaced, at least stats would suggest for the time being, by one of the most unpopular prime ministers and governments to take office, with the backing of just 20% of the electorate, which shows apathy.
Foreign policy and involvement is already under scrutiny and campaigned against elsewhere.
Realistically, while many may agree with a tough and consistent stance on Russia being verbalised by Starmer & Healey, if the marketing of joining the forces were to change from the regular careers and skills type life experience and training we see advertised, to that of a more realistic front line engagement with Russia, I'm not sure that the uptake would be higher.
It may also be a challenge to persuade recruits that fighting or even being stationed in a foreign land is once again for our own protection, taking more recent wars and involvement into account.
Well Trump has put a downer on things, so there's reason to be down about that. If raising concern can focus minds that's also worthwhile.
I can't say I'm not concerned, because I don't know how Europe and Ukraine will react to the mad options Poorump come up with. But I am hopeful that Ukraine and Europe point out how unworkable the suggestions are, Russia continue to fall.
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,342
Yes, interesting and plausible - including what many have already said on here that Trump will be driven mainly by commercial aims rather than humanitarian concerns.
- Aug 24, 2020
- 7,988
I've been hoping for a video like this one. It is two days old, so predates the Munich Security Conference.
Listen carefully to Jason Jay Smart from 7:40.
The war - and the peace - are both about money.
For Trump to get the rare earths, which are principally in the Russian controlled territories, how does he expect to get them, if he doesn't give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to liberate those territories? He wants Europeans to pay for those weapons.
Listen carefully to Jason Jay Smart from 7:40.
The war - and the peace - are both about money.
For Trump to get the rare earths, which are principally in the Russian controlled territories, how does he expect to get them, if he doesn't give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to liberate those territories? He wants Europeans to pay for those weapons.
Last edited:
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 3,342
Yes, NATO members need to increase defence spending. For too long we’ve (European members of Nato) relied on the break up of the Soviet Union to justify defence reductions - and depended too much on the US.