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

[Triggaaar]

Agreed, but it's not really in the true spirit of democracy is it?

You think?

The world should denounce any votes before they take place, and sanctions and war efforts should continue indefinitely until the lands are returned to Ukraine.

 

[Eric the meek]

You think?

The world should denounce any votes before they take place, and sanctions and war efforts should continue indefinitely until the lands are returned to Ukraine.

Are you sure that's long enough? Would you lift sanctions if Putin had withdrawn from Ukraine, but were still in power?

Surely all that would do is let his sense of injustice fester inside him for a few years, and then he might try again, either on Ukraine, or perhaps an easier target.

Sanctions must remain in place until there is real, verifiable change in Russia and the Kremlin. Any regime change must of course, be done by the Russian people, and not by a handful of Kremlin thugs.

 

[Triggaaar]

Are you sure that's long enough? Would you lift sanctions if Putin had withdrawn from Ukraine, but were still in power?

I'd certainly start lifting them. There has to be some reward for withdrawing. The question then becomes how much everyone pays for the damage to Ukraine.

Surely all that would do is let his sense of injustice fester inside him for a few years, and then he might try again, either on Ukraine, or perhaps an easier target.

If he withdraws, you can be sure that Ukraine and others will prepare for further war.

Sanctions must remain in place until there is real, verifiable change in Russia and the Kremlin. Any regime change must of course, be done by the Russian people, and not by a handful of Kremlin thugs.

So in order to persuade Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, you're offering them precisely nothing - all sanctions will remain in place. So what, exactly, would be the point in them withdrawing? They might was well stay and continue bombing Ukrainian cities forever.

And your idea of the Russian people forcing regime change is (however fantastic it would be) unrealistic. It won't happen.

 

[A1X]

For a touch of lighter relief...

[tweet]1518717785949589506[/tweet]

[tweet]1518719287640436736[/tweet]

 

[Triggaaar]

For a touch of lighter relief...

The 'signature illegible' is my favourite. I've seen the video of all that stuff being 'found' by the Russians. The Russian stupidity is off the scale.

For those who haven't seen it or read about it: The Russians were clearly ordered to write a Ukrainian pro Nazi note, with an illegible signature on it. They followed the order to the T, and wrote 'signature illegible'.

****ing idiots

 

[Eric the meek]

I'd certainly start lifting them. There has to be some reward for withdrawing. The question then becomes how much everyone pays for the damage to Ukraine.

If he withdraws, you can be sure that Ukraine and others will prepare for further war.

So in order to persuade Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, you're offering them precisely nothing - all sanctions will remain in place. So what, exactly, would be the point in them withdrawing. They might was well stay and continue bombing Ukrainian cities forever.

And your idea of the Russian people forcing regime change is (however fantastic it would be) unrealistic. It won't happen.

Why do you offer a reward for invading an independent sovereign country? Because that is precisely what you are advocating. By advocating a reward for withdrawing, you are advocating rewarding Russia for invading, and then subsequently losing its own war, and having to withdraw. Conversely to your view, there should be a punishment for doing this, not a reward, otherwise, they might as well wage war after war, as there is no cost attached to losing any of them.

I am not advocating - persuading - Russia to do anything. Persuasion clearly doesn't work with Russia. Force - not persuasion - is winning the war against Russia's aggression.

I don't share your fatalism about the Russian people. While neither of us can see into the future, to hold your view is to abandon 144 million Russians to another century of oppression.

 

[portslade seagull]

The 'signature illegible' is my favourite. I've seen the video of all that stuff being 'found' by the Russians. The Russian stupidity is off the scale.

For those who haven't seen it or read about it: The Russians were clearly ordered to write a Ukrainian pro Nazi note, with an illegible signature on it. They followed the order to the T, and wrote 'signature illegible'.

****ing idiots

Reminds me of when I was reffing at a 5 aside tournament and one of the parents shouted to his son 'take him out'.
The son literally turned around and punched the opposing player following his dads instructions to the letter. Red card was issued and the parent got some grief from his own team as it left them a player short for the rest of the day

 

[Jim D]

The 'signature illegible' is my favourite. I've seen the video of all that stuff being 'found' by the Russians. The Russian stupidity is off the scale.

For those who haven't seen it or read about it: The Russians were clearly ordered to write a Ukrainian pro Nazi note, with an illegible signature on it. They followed the order to the T, and wrote 'signature illegible'.

****ing idiots

I would expect that a few RIA execs are soon to become MIA.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I don't know how anyone thought he would just let the rest of us help ukraine in the first place

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Russian engineering another front in Trasnistria between Moldova and Ukraine...seems like " terrorist " attacks there will justify opening another front.

@sentdefender

This is the theoretical play, with the bridge at (1) in the map below already struck by a missile.

The author concedes it is a suicidal strategy for Russia, but we might as well look out for any amphibious landings west of the destroyed bridge in the next few days.

[Tweet]1518915244462116868[/Tweet]

 

[Triggaaar]

Why do you offer a reward for invading an independent sovereign country? Because that is precisely what you are advocating. By advocating a reward for withdrawing, you are advocating rewarding Russia for invading, and then subsequently losing its own war, and having to withdraw.

No, you've got that completely wrong. The sanctions didn't exist before the war. My suggestion is that if they withdraw, then some sanctions are lifted. Therefore, there would still be some sanctions in place - more than there were before the war. So it's worse for Russia than it was before the war. So that's clearly not rewarding them for going to war, because it's worse.

That would be like saying we were killing Germans in the war, and we've stopped, so therefore we rewarded them for starting the war. It makes no sense.

Conversely to your view, there should be a punishment for doing this, not a reward, otherwise, they might as well wage war after war, as there is no cost attached to losing any of them.

As above, I've highlighted how reducing sanctions that didn't use to exist is not a reward. Secondly, there has been a huge cost to Russia already (military equipment, personnel, finance etc, not to mention the sanctions), and if they completely withdraw, what exactly have they gained? So they'd wage war after war, losing more and more each time, with zero gain.

I don't share your fatalism about the Russian people. While neither of us can see into the future, to hold your view is to abandon 144 million Russians to another century of oppression.

No it's not - I said that the Russian people won't suddenly rise up to take out Putin. That doesn't mean that people on the inside (which you said wouldn't count as far as removing sanctions) won't take him out - and even if no one takes him out, he's not going to live for centuries longer, and regardless of how his reign ends, we have to hope they get someone better next time.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't know how anyone thought he would just let the rest of us help ukraine in the first place

Well he hasn't stopped us, so what's your point?

 

[beorhthelm]

Sanctions must remain in place until there is real, verifiable change in Russia and the Kremlin. Any regime change must of course, be done by the Russian people, and not by a handful of Kremlin thugs.

sanctions to force regime change rather than punish invasion? sounds rather dodgy ground. if there is not measured lifting of sanctions in reaction to withdrawl, there is less incentive to withdraw, that is the main objective of them

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Apologies for being a pedant but it's special boat service not squadron (changed about 20 years ago) and both SAS and SBS are Tri service coming under directorate of special forces (DSF) which reports directly to the Chief of the Defence Staff. They are not Navy / Army service specific.

You are correct, but you get RM in the SAS but not many army guys join the SBS.
The Hamworthy lot tend to be a lot more exclusive than the Hereford boys

 

[Triggaaar]

sanctions to force regime change rather than punish invasion? sounds rather dodgy ground.

Indeed.

if there is not measured lifting of sanctions in reaction to withdrawl, there is less incentive to withdraw, that is the main objective of them

I asked Eric the same thing:

So in order to persuade Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, you're offering them precisely nothing - all sanctions will remain in place. So what, exactly, would be the point in them withdrawing? They might was well stay and continue bombing Ukrainian cities forever.

 

[vegster]

This is the theoretical play, with the bridge at (1) in the map below already struck by a missile.

The author concedes it is a suicidal strategy for Russia, but we might as well look out for any amphibious landings west of the destroyed bridge in the next few days.

[Tweet]1518915244462116868[/Tweet]

Looks like some sort of intervention come assault is definitely starting, Osintdefender quoting Russian Foreign Ministry " Moscow would like to avoid a scenario in which it will have to intervene in the conflict in Transnistria "

Obviously, there is no conflict in Trasnistria until the Russians land. Looks like that map showing a Russian push through to Transmistria, and highlighting it as Russian territory, in the early days of the war was spot on.

 

[Mackenzie]

https://youtu.be/HGdUtUefjCA

So Russia started a war because of some football ultras? This history channel is well worth a subscribe on YouTube.

 

[A1X]

I don't know how anyone thought he would just let the rest of us help ukraine in the first place

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

It's hardly a new thing. China & the USSR backed North Korea and Vietnam during the wars over there. The US quite openly armed the Afghans against the Soviets.

 

[bhafc99]

The US quite openly armed the Afghans against the Soviets.

And trained them. Thus helping Al Qaeda become far better armed and trained than it ever would have done otherwise.

 

[Eric the meek]

No, you've got that completely wrong. The sanctions didn't exist before the war. My suggestion is that if they withdraw, then some sanctions are lifted. Therefore, there would still be some sanctions in place - more than there were before the war. So it's worse for Russia than it was before the war. So that's clearly not rewarding them for going to war, because it's worse.

That would be like saying we were killing Germans in the war, and we've stopped, so therefore we rewarded them for starting the war. It makes no sense.


As above, I've highlighted how reducing sanctions that didn't use to exist is not a reward. Secondly, there has been a huge cost to Russia already (military equipment, personnel, finance etc, not to mention the sanctions), and if they completely withdraw, what exactly have they gained? So they'd wage war after war, losing more and more each time, with zero gain.

No it's not - I said that the Russian people won't suddenly rise up to take out Putin. That doesn't mean that people on the inside (which you said wouldn't count as far as removing sanctions) won't take him out - and even if no one takes him out, he's not going to live for centuries longer, and regardless of how his reign ends, we have to hope they get someone better next time.

OK, thanks for the clarification. You are talking about a lifting of - some - sanctions, which by definition, is leaving some in place. I don't have a problem with this. I didn't glean that you only meant some sanctions from your initial comment. Perhaps I should have done...

Onto regime change, and who would have thought on 24 February, we would be on here two months later, discussing regime change, not in Kyiv, but in Moscow? Do you think these conversations haven't been going on in Washington?

Call me a cynic, but if you think that the Pentagon, the EU, UK and others have agreed a swathe of sanctions, unparalleled in history, only to prevent further Russian aggression, but to stop short of facilitating regime change in Moscow, then I would say it's a chance missed ! The western world, and many countries outside that world, have suffered at the hands of Russian bully-boy tactics for generations. The Ukraine excursion is proving to be an unmitigated disaster for Russia. The Pentagon especially, is going to be crawling all over this war, deeply analysing Russia's responses to everything, and considering how best to respond to enhance their own interests, which are very likely diammetrically opposed to those of Russia. It's a gilt-edged opportunity to weaken and contain Russia, forever. One of their unspoken objectives, will of course, be regime change in Moscow.