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

[Badger Boy]

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

Well, that's one interpretation. But another is that they pulled out and left the country to fend for itself, allowing Al Qaeda to recruit en masse and become a huge organisation. The Americans should have kept their hand in whilst pulling out, who knows how differently that country would have turned out if they had?

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

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.

Considering how shocking bad the Russian military have been in Ukraine, opening another front in Moldova isn’t the most sensible tactic. Shocking in just how poor Russian tactics, troops and hardware have been.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Considering how shocking bad the Russian military have been in Ukraine, opening another front in Moldova isn’t the most sensible tactic. Shocking in just how poor Russian tactics, troops and hardware have been.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Far from clear that Putin has the self awareness to realise the level of Russian strategic blunder though

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

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

Interfering in international affairs is fraught with danger and leads to unpredictable consequences

Not that i'm saying the west should never do it. Just that we need to have our eyes open that we can't fully control the consequences of our actions

 

[Triggaaar]

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...

Reading my posts back, I started by saying we should keep them all in place until all lands were returned to Ukraine. That could have implied removing them all once lands had been returned, and you questioned that idea, to which I replied "I'd certainly start lifting them. There has to be some reward for withdrawing."

But even if we removed them all (which isn't what I'm suggesting, because I don't have a definite view on it yet) that still wouldn't be rewarding Russia for invading in the first place - it would put Russia in the same place it started, less troops and equipment it's lost, and with a damaged economy. Not enough punishment for sure, but that's still not the same as 'rewarding' them. Regardless of what happens with sanctions, I'd like to see Russia paying towards the cost of rebuilding Ukraine. That's probably fanciful.

So I'd like to see some sanctions remain even if they withdraw, but if they were to offer a) peace, withdrawal, removal of sanctions or b) they continue to bomb and kill civilians - could you really be happy to go with b)?

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?

I'm sure conversations are had (just as this one here) but I suspect they go along the lines of 'we've got no way of doing it'.

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 !

Sure, but how would you go about it? I imagine he's very well protected.

 

[Eric the meek]

Reading my posts back, I started by saying we should keep them all in place until all lands were returned to Ukraine. That could have implied removing them all once lands had been returned, and you questioned that idea, to which I replied "I'd certainly start lifting them. There has to be some reward for withdrawing."

But even if we removed them all (which isn't what I'm suggesting, because I don't have a definite view on it yet) that still wouldn't be rewarding Russia for invading in the first place - it would put Russia in the same place it started, less troops and equipment it's lost, and with a damaged economy. Not enough punishment for sure, but that's still not the same as 'rewarding' them. Regardless of what happens with sanctions, I'd like to see Russia paying towards the cost of rebuilding Ukraine. That's probably fanciful.

So I'd like to see some sanctions remain even if they withdraw, but if they were to offer a) peace, withdrawal, removal of sanctions or b) they continue to bomb and kill civilians - could you really be happy to go with b)?

I'm sure conversations are had (just as this one here) but I suspect they go along the lines of 'we've got no way of doing it'.

Sure, but how would you go about it? I imagine he's very well protected.

'There has to be some reward for withdrawing'. Not necessarily. It depends who is winning !

Did Ukraine or the west offer a reward for Russia withdrawing their troops surrounding Kyiv? No. The official Russian line was that they withdrew those troops to refocus on Donbas. But the resistance they met in trying to take Kyiv might have been a contributary factor !

But I understand what you mean. Give them a carrot. Ease off with some sanctions. Keep some sanctions just in case they go back on their word.
By the way, I believe the sanctions are really biting. When Putin said they would lead to a world food crisis, I believe he was talking about Russia. We shall see. Your a and b scenario seems a tad unlikely, given the continuing aggression and belligerence from the Kremlin.

How I would go about reaching Putin? I wouldn't attempt it. Leave it up to the Russians. I'll bet the Pentagon have a whole range of ideas that can be actioned remotely, and which they are modeling. Some will be out there, but some will be almost obvious. I believe the answer lies in the US continuing to flex its economic muscle. So we increase sanctions further. Shut off the oil and gas cashpoint. Cripple Russia's economy. No container ships. No trade. No trains into Siberia. No planes there either. No welcome anywhere. Give Putin his food crisis. Why change a winning formula?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

[Tweet]1518904362319421440[/Tweet]

 

[Eric the meek]

'Kremlin accuses UK of 'provoking' Ukraine into attacking Russia'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 17:26

Translated, this means:

1. Russia is indignant that Ukraine should retaliate, having had half its cities pulverised by Russian artillery.
2. Russia is outraged at being attacked on its own territory. Military targets being hit inside Russia are more difficult to hide from the general population.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

Tim Westwood being a bellend is now priority news ahead of WW3.

Drop the bomb, Vladimir, I beg you.

 

[Triggaaar]

'There has to be some reward for withdrawing'. Not necessarily. It depends who is winning !

Can you give an example of a situation where Russia is forced to stop firing missiles on Ukrainian cities?

Did Ukraine or the west offer a reward for Russia withdrawing their troops surrounding Kyiv? No.

Removing troops from one area is completely different to a complete cessation of hostilities.

Your a and b scenario seems a tad unlikely, given the continuing aggression and belligerence from the Kremlin.

Given that we were talking about whether or not to remove sanctions if Russia were to withdraw from Ukraine, what other scenarios can you come up with (that are more likely than my a & b)?

How I would go about reaching Putin? I wouldn't attempt it. Leave it up to the Russians.

You said "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![/QUOTE]
So you were talking about facilitating regime change, but you've changed that to 'leave it to the Russians'.

I believe the answer lies in the US continuing to flex its economic muscle. So we increase sanctions further. Shut off the oil and gas cashpoint. Cripple Russia's economy. No container ships. No trade. No trains into Siberia. No planes there either. No welcome anywhere. Give Putin his food crisis. Why change a winning formula?

I agree that we should increase sanctions further if at all possible. But we can't cut of the oil and gas, because too many countries are dependent on it, and where countries do stop using it, Russia will be trying to sell to India and China etc. Of course we should do all we can to limit this, but I've seen nothing yet to say we can do enough.

 

[portlock seagull]

Another day draws to an end, hopefully another closer to Ukraine’s final victory and Putin’s end. Obviously goes without saying a pox on him, Russians and everyone who supports them.

 

[rogersix]

No, you've got that completely wrong. The sanctions didn't exist before the war.

there have been sanctions in place since 2014

 

[Triggaaar]

there have been sanctions in place since 2014

I'm only referring to removing some/all of the new ones if they withdraw from Ukraine's land - any that existed before the invasion would be subject to other requirements.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Tim Westwood being a bellend is now priority news ahead of WW3.

Drop the bomb, Vladimir, I beg you.

I get that this war is more important than pretty much anything else going on right now, but are you 'kin insane?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Tim Westwood being a bellend is now priority news ahead of WW3.

Drop the bomb, Vladimir, I beg you.

I know you are joking but people are always saying stuff like this whenever another news story is reported. It’s not a distraction. It’s not evidence of anything. It’s just other stuff being reported as well.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

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

Why aren't there more soldiers in the SBS?

Reason 1. no squadie can find the camp and end up trying to report for duty at the caravan park.

Reason 2. Many soldiers can't pass dive training.

 

[Eric the meek]

Can you give an example of a situation where Russia is forced to stop firing missiles on Ukrainian cities?

Removing troops from one area is completely different to a complete cessation of hostilities.

Given that we were talking about whether or not to remove sanctions if Russia were to withdraw from Ukraine, what other scenarios can you come up with (that are more likely than my a & b)?

You said "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!
So you were talking about facilitating regime change, but you've changed that to 'leave it to the Russians'.

I agree that we should increase sanctions further if at all possible. But we can't cut of the oil and gas, because too many countries are dependent on it, and where countries do stop using it, Russia will be trying to sell to India and China etc. Of course we should do all we can to limit this, but I've seen nothing yet to say we can do enough.

Briefly, my answers to your points are:

1. When they run out of missiles.
2. I used the scenario of the withdrawal from Kyiv as an answer to your claim that withdrawal must come with a reward. Clearly it doesn't.
3. One scenario would be - Russia can't afford to wage war any more, because it can't make more tanks and can't pay its troops' wages. This is the beauty of sanctions.
4. They are the same thing. Regime change can come from within Russia. It is a common fallacy to think it must come from outside.

 

[Eric the meek]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804

Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland.

Putin thinks he can just cross out 'euros' and write in 'rubles' where the contracts stipulate how to pay.

It's a masterclass in how to lose trust and trading partners.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804

Russia is now adopting a high risk strategy of weaponising fossil fuels, by halting gas supplies to Bulgaria and Poland.

Putin thinks he can just cross out 'euros' and write in 'rubles' where the contracts stipulate how to pay.

It's a masterclass in how to lose trust and trading partners.

He's self-sanctioning now lol.

 

[Eric the meek]

He's self-sanctioning now lol.

In all this train crash, I honestly can't remember a single decision by Putin that I thought was the right one.

He's even wheeled out the top Russian lawmaker to give himself credibility:

'Gazprom right to suspend supplies to Bulgaria and Poland - Russia's top lawmaker'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-61224804 8:55