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

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



Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
11,839
Crawley
Same thing, in effect - they obviously think it's possible, or even likely, hence the non-direct interference.

We can't be sure that not acting is not what leads to world war 3 either. If sanctions and Ukrainian resistance bring this to an end now, but Russia withdraws having secured Crimea being recognised as Russian, and independence for other regions where Russia can effectively have control, will that be the end of Russian ambitions over Ukrainian land, or other neighbouring states? It could just give Putin time to re-arm, bank assets somewhere less likely to impose sanctions, secure Chinese payment systems and then go again, when much better prepared.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
A trench will be of no use to anyone, should WW3 start. It's quite simple, really.
You said trenches no longer exist, you then said trenches were craters, and now they are no use if WW3 starts.

Well WW3 has already started before 2014. Whether you believe there is a Gerasimov Doctrine or not, the hybrid phase of the war has been going on for over 8 years. And here we are now with soldiers fighting in trenches.

Even a peace deal in Ukraine only pauses this phase of WW3.


And that really is me now escaping from this deep rabbit hole.
 




Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
8,624
My comments on the BBC piece:I don't see how it can be possible to write anything down anywhere that stops a sovereign country joining Nato, particularly when such agreements are made under duress: We promise we won't join Nato. We've joined Nato. We changed our mind/lied/got a new leader etc. Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine.


Similarly, whatever is said now under duress, can be unsaid afterwards. If Ukraine feel they are forced to concede Crimea and/or Donbass to Russia, they can change as soon as Russian troops are out of Ukraine (and defences fortified etc).

How much land is now part of Russia, that was part of Finland? I hate this notion that dictators like Stalin and Putin need to come out with something. Sure, they need to tell their people they have, but you don't give them land. Just let Putin tell his people they've killed the Nazis and all is good with the world.

Right - sorry, who is the winner? If Russia forces Ukrainians out of their land, and replaces them with Russians, who then vote to be part of Russia, the winner is Putin, right?

I think we have no place to judge any agreement reached by President Zelensky as it's not us being blown up and put under the threat of chemical warfare. That said, the fact that Russia are at this table at all and mood music is moving to an agreement, points to the fact they are under enormous pressure militarily and economically and I hope Ukraine don't reach an agreement which doesn't recognise the weakness of the Russian bargaining position, and which they won't stick to anyway.
 


Dorset Seagull

Once Dolphin, Now Seagull
If the Ukrainians do find an agreement by refusing to join NATO and giving up Crimea etc what happens then. Do we all automatically start trading with Russia again and all seized assets get returned? If not then how do things unfold from here on in. Russia would still be in a dire situation economically not knowing how long they will be isolated so its difficult to see where we go from here
 




birthofanorange

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 31, 2011
6,499
David Gilmour's armpit
You said trenches no longer exist, you then said trenches were craters, and now they are no use if WW3 starts.

Well WW3 has already started before 2014. Whether you believe there is a Gerasimov Doctrine or not, the hybrid phase of the war has been going on for over 8 years. And here we are now with soldiers fighting in trenches.

Even a peace deal in Ukraine only pauses this phase of WW3.


And that really is me now escaping from this deep rabbit hole.

WW3 in all received wisdom has not started, and will start when someone/anyone fires the first nuclear missile.

If/when that happens, trenches will be of no use, therefore may as well not exist during WW3.
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
Another thought provoking twitter thread from this author :

[Tweet]1504103672019513345[/Tweet]
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,014
If the Ukrainians do find an agreement by refusing to join NATO and giving up Crimea etc what happens then. Do we all automatically start trading with Russia again and all seized assets get returned? If not then how do things unfold from here on in. Russia would still be in a dire situation economically not knowing how long they will be isolated so its difficult to see where we go from here

might not be overnight, but would expect sanctions to be rolled back quite soon after any treaty agreed. have to really, as the carrot of agreeing to the terms, and as a stick if they go again.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,014
WW3 in all received wisdom has not started, and will start when someone/anyone fires the first nuclear missile.

If/when that happens, trenches will be of no use, therefore may as well not exist during WW3.

cant we just end this, there is no formal definition of "world war 3". could be any war involving many major countries, several regions or continents. there's expectation it would involve nukes, largely due to cold war era. it perfectly possible for a trans-continental, world conflict to occur without them.
 


Rowdey

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 7, 2003
2,588
Herne Hill
WW3 in all received wisdom has not started, and will start when someone/anyone fires the first nuclear missile.

If/when that happens, trenches will be of no use, therefore may as well not exist during WW3.

Jeez, you really do always have to have the last word.. (even with people who have direct insight into the region) - [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] should watch out for his young apprentice..
 


Solid at the back

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2010
2,732
Glorious Shoreham by Sea
Russia will agree peace, spend the next few years trying to assassinate Zelensky and then attempt to install a puppet regime. I think this gets really messy when Zelensky is no longer Ukraine president.
 








birthofanorange

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 31, 2011
6,499
David Gilmour's armpit
cant we just end this, there is no formal definition of "world war 3". could be any war involving many major countries, several regions or continents. there's expectation it would involve nukes, largely due to cold war era. it perfectly possible for a trans-continental, world conflict to occur without them.

Yes, I'll drop it, simply because it's not really relevant to this thread.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
If the Ukrainians do find an agreement by refusing to join NATO and giving up Crimea etc what happens then. Do we all automatically start trading with Russia again and all seized assets get returned? If not then how do things unfold from here on in. Russia would still be in a dire situation economically not knowing how long they will be isolated so its difficult to see where we go from here

In my opinion no. We don’t trade with Russia again until Putin has appeared before a war crimes court.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,014
So all The Hague war crimes stuff just goes away?

well thats a different question. dont be entirely surprised if it does get brushed aside for the sake of peace. same with reparations for damages.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
Same thing, in effect - they obviously think it's possible, or even likely, hence the non-direct interference.
The non-direct interference is the same, but you were using that to say that NATO agree with you that nuclear war is more likely than Putin being defeated. I really don't know what's more likely, but we can't use NATO's decision to stay out, as proof they agree with you.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
We can't be sure that not acting is not what leads to world war 3 either. If sanctions and Ukrainian resistance bring this to an end now, but Russia withdraws having secured Crimea being recognised as Russian, and independence for other regions where Russia can effectively have control, will that be the end of Russian ambitions over Ukrainian land, or other neighbouring states? It could just give Putin time to re-arm, bank assets somewhere less likely to impose sanctions, secure Chinese payment systems and then go again, when much better prepared.
Which is why I would like to see a lot of sanctions remain even if they withdraw. Otherwise, as you say, he'll just come back when better prepared. He's made it clear that he doesn't recognise Ukraine as a nation and he wants it as part of Russia.
 




Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,450
Oxton, Birkenhead
cant we just end this, there is no formal definition of "world war 3". could be any war involving many major countries, several regions or continents. there's expectation it would involve nukes, largely due to cold war era. it perfectly possible for a trans-continental, world conflict to occur without them.

Indeed. I have no idea what this definition of WW3 argument is all about. Completely irrelevant.
 


birthofanorange

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 31, 2011
6,499
David Gilmour's armpit
The non-direct interference is the same, but you were using that to say that NATO agree with you that nuclear war is more likely than Putin being defeated. I really don't know what's more likely, but we can't use NATO's decision to stay out, as proof they agree with you.

Seems crazy that they haven't gone in, then, if they don't think it's more likely than unlikely.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top