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

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



usernamed

New member
Aug 31, 2017
763
There is still a huge reluctance to escalate by putting " Boots on the ground " as we know Putin is unhinged and his response could be brutal.

However, there is a point, unknown as yet, when an atrocity so bad is committed that a government is forced to act in support of Ukraine. That might be the watershed moment and you might see a rapid domino effect of countries taking up arms.

I notice that the Polish Ambassador is refusing to leave Kyiv, would his death or injury at the hands of the Russians constitute the international incident that would trigger the above I wonder ?

If we’re going to be perpetually stymied by Putin having nuclear weapons, then we’re basically saying, “go ahead Putin, fill your boots”

There comes a point where we have to call his bluff. It seems arbitrary to sit and watch one country being destroyed and wait for him to invade the next one before acting.

I honestly hope that the sanctions placed on Russia either bring him back from this madness, or the Russians decide they’d like to present themselves to the world as a sane nation of intelligent people, and replace their own leadership.

Problem is, he’s possibly not well, he’s spent decades subjugating his own people, and has his own private army. I can’t see a mechanism by which he ever steps down voluntarily. Even if he does, what’s to stop another fully indoctrinated West-hating FSB/SVR talking head from just popping out the woodwork and taking his place.

As much as Jolly Red Giant did indulge in a colossal quantity of whataboutery, I suspect he’s right that only a mass movement of people inside Russia who are prepared to die to bring about change can enact a genuine change in leadership and Russia’s outlook. Even then, there’s no guarantee that their outlook would necessarily be friendlier toward the West, but it would give us the chance to build bridges.
 




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,772


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,705
The Fatherland
Going slightly off topic, does anyone else find BBC’s Naga Munchetty both irritating and rude in her interview technique?

Can’t say I have. I presume you think it’s her tone? Do you have any clips where you think she’s being rude? No agenda, just intrigued.
 




Seagull27

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2011
3,368
Bristol
I’m starting to doubt the whole concept of a ‘Nuclear Deterrent’, it seems everyone is afraid of what he might do but he doesn’t seem to be bothered by what we might do, as HWT said earlier not a good look!!!

The last time the Russians backed down iirc was the Cuban Missile Crisis, regrettably we may need to get to that Defcon state to to deal with this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
This could well be my simple logic, but perhaps we do have one advantage if it gets to nuclear warfare:

If Putin decides to use just one or two in the first instance as a warning shot, he can only take out cities in one or two of the many countries who are against him. If he does that, then if the West responds tit-for-tat, we could take out Moscow and another of Russia's biggest cities, which would have a much greater impact on them. With that in mind, Putin may have to escalate to the highest level if he wants to use them, and fire multiple weapons at multiple targets. Obviously the idea of that is terrifying, but it could somewhat mitigate that he might use one as a 'warning shot'.

This is all theoretical, trying to justify that it still stands as a deterrent to Putin. Of course, even if a single nuclear weapon is used then it is a tragedy of the highest order.

The thought crossed my mind that it could be reassuring anyway, but having written it down I'm now not so sure...
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,016
So you are saying we can bring in sanctions in the same way others have, or continually attempt to justify reasons not to ???

I'm glad you cleared that up.

the quote says we could add put someone on sanctions, but there's legal problems to applying it meaningfully. there's a choice to do them for show or do them properly.
 


Baker lite

Banned
Mar 16, 2017
6,309
in my house
I’m starting to doubt the whole concept of a ‘Nuclear Deterrent’, it seems everyone is afraid of what he might do but he doesn’t seem to be bothered by what we might do, as HWT said earlier not a good look!!!

The last time the Russians backed down iirc was the Cuban Missile Crisis, regrettably we may need to get to that Defcon state to to deal with this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’ve dusted off my AGR and I’m at the page in survive to fight that covers having a pony. [emoji1303]
In other news, I have a feeling that the 40 mile Russian convoy, that has stalled in the mud, might be about to be lit up by the Ukrainian javelin team..
 


pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,688
law
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk-un...n-oligarchs-like-abramovich-times-2022-03-03/


yes we can change the law, and being looked at, how far do we go? not sure if those abroad are having their assets seized without compensation, or frozen and will be returned to them once this is over.

In the reuters article it says:

A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that because of the high bar still required to impose sanctions it was now seeking to change the law.

But you also include a quote from a legal expert that the bar is low. Similarly, C4 news interviewed a different legal expert yesterday, who said the same.

So, one the one hand you have the Government who is saying the bar is high and on the other you have the legal industry saying the opposite.
 




WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,772
the quote says we could add put someone on sanctions, but there's legal problems to applying it meaningfully. there's a choice to do them for show or do them properly.

But surely every country has to implement the sanctions within their legal framework or change that framework. I'm struggling with the 'do them for show' bit. Maybe you could point out some other countries sanctions that you think have 'been done for show' and aren't meaningful to help me understand what you are saying.

Thanks
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,016
In the reuters article it says:



But you also include a quote from a legal expert that the bar is low. Similarly, C4 news interviewed a different legal expert yesterday, who said the same.

So, one the one hand you have the Government who is saying the bar is high and on the other you have the legal industry saying the opposite.

my money would be on the legal rather than gov, either way shows ees complicated.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,554
Burgess Hill
I’ve dusted off my AGR and I’m at the page in survive to fight that covers having a pony. [emoji1303]
In other news, I have a feeling that the 40 mile Russian convoy, that has stalled in the mud, might be about to be lit up by the Ukrainian javelin team..

It’s all a bit odd isn’t it (to me anyway, who has no understanding of military tactics). Putting a large % of your armoury and personnel in a huge traffic jam whilst your enemy takes delivery of gifts of 000s of anti-tank missiles and RPGs, and then staying there for a week to give them time to plan how to take the whole lot out doesn’t sound like a great strategy………the lack of any Russian air force involvement is also a bit weird.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,016
But surely every country has to implement the sanctions within their legal framework or change that framework. I'm struggling with the 'do them for show' bit. Maybe you could point out some other countries sanctions that you think have 'been done for show' and aren't meaningful to help me understand what you are saying.

Thanks

exactly, we must do them legally. we should do them meaningfully, not for show. i dont know if they are for show or legally binding elsewhere.
 


cheesy77

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2009
468
This could well be my simple logic, but perhaps we do have one advantage if it gets to nuclear warfare:

If Putin decides to use just one or two in the first instance as a warning shot, he can only take out cities in one or two of the many countries who are against him. If he does that, then if the West responds tit-for-tat, we could take out Moscow and another of Russia's biggest cities, which would have a much greater impact on them. With that in mind, Putin may have to escalate to the highest level if he wants to use them, and fire multiple weapons at multiple targets. Obviously the idea of that is terrifying, but it could somewhat mitigate that he might use one as a 'warning shot'.

This is all theoretical, trying to justify that it still stands as a deterrent to Putin. Of course, even if a single nuclear weapon is used then it is a tragedy of the highest order.

The thought crossed my mind that it could be reassuring anyway, but having written it down I'm now not so sure...
I'm sure one of his generals or from his team said they are capable of firing 500 nukes at once or in a short period of time. Essentially wiping out most countries in the world if he wanted to

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,772
exactly, we must do them legally. we should do them meaningfully, not for show. i dont know if they are for show or legally binding elsewhere.

Every other country is doing them legally.

You just seem to be going round in circles trying to come up with excuses for Britain not introducing sanctions :shrug:

and with that I'm out :bigwave:
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,554
Burgess Hill
the quote says we could add put someone on sanctions, but there's legal problems to applying it meaningfully. there's a choice to do them for show or do them properly.

On the plus side we don’t actually have to specifically apply UK sanctions for them to be at least partly effective though……for example, US/EU sanctions in particular will impact any accounts/transactional activity in the UK in the vast majority of cases. Any institution that has any kind of US presence or uses USD has to comply with US sanctions as well as specific UK sanctions.
 


Insel affe

HellBilly
Feb 23, 2009
24,337
Brighton factually.....
We have family near the power plant, and it was being defended by Ukrainian troops - it seems the Russians were attacking and shelling the perimeter, which they had been a few days ago too (unreported on BBC etc). Russians now control the site as far as we know. The shelling was reckless in the extreme, but if they'd wanted to blow it up it's a big and easy target.
Russians now control the small undefended towns to the immediate south of Zaporozhye, as they are the nodes of the road network. Our parents are in a farming village (Russians not interested in the villages at the moment) and Russians are on all sides.
My guess is they are getting ready for an assault on Zaporozhye - we have 8 close relatives there. Zaporozhye has an ENORMOUS hydro electric damn (incredible engineering). If/when Russia takes that they will control a huge% of Ukraine's electricity supply... I believe that'll be the goal, but many will die in the process, and if the damn is breached it'll be a catastrophe....as if they need more
L

Thank you for that, much appreciated.
my thoughts are with your family and the rest of the Ukraine.
 




Baker lite

Banned
Mar 16, 2017
6,309
in my house
It’s all a bit odd isn’t it (to me anyway, who has no understanding of military tactics). Putting a large % of your armoury and personnel in a huge traffic jam whilst your enemy takes delivery of gifts of 000s of anti-tank missiles and RPGs, and then staying there for a week to give them time to plan how to take the whole lot out doesn’t sound like a great strategy………the lack of any Russian air force involvement is also a bit weird.

Could be using conscripts and cadets as cannon fodder, they are a sitting duck, could be Putins way of spinning this his way, if there was to be a slaughter, he could sell this to the Russian public as an excuse to full out levelling of Kiev.
 




Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
57,292
Back in Sussex
I haven't followed the UK v EU sanctions stuff closely, but the main thing I've heard is a couple of countries requisitioning large yachts that looked to be about to take off.

That's clearly a different matter than, say, expensive properties in London which aren't going to just take flight the next day.
 


Icy Gull

Back on the rollercoaster
Jul 5, 2003
72,015
Can’t say I have. I presume you think it’s her tone? Do you have any clips where you think she’s being rude? No agenda, just intrigued.

Mostly when she’s interviewing Government ministers, she is very different when interviewing “victims” or people she sympathises with.

She asks a loaded question and seldom gives the interviewee time to answer in full before interrupting in what comes across to me in an aggressive manner.

Anyhoo, it seems it’s just me from the responses so far, so carry on :smile:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here