[Politics] Should NATO send in troops and planes

[WATFORD zero]

The next steps should be more crushing sanctions, I dont know how we do it, but even saying we're working sanctioning all oil and gas exports, will send ruble diving further still.

I read coca cola and pirelli are planning on staying, guess there will be other, the cancel culture brigade need to do some sort of petition to stop using products, whilst they profit from a state murdering people. Try and guilt trip every western company to leave including the luxury good providers.

Agree completely that the way to stop Putin is primarily economically, not solely militarily. Although I believe supplying Ukraine with weapons, finance, technology and specialists (both military and training/technologists) should continue.

There are still massive amounts the West can do with sanctions, but I do worry that the Russian tentacles and influence that go deep into Political and Commercial organisations across the West may need to be exposed, addressed and cut off to really do this effectively.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

So you are of the firm, 100% belief that he absolutely would not 'press the button'?

If Putin is prepared to press the button in retaliation against a non nuclear defence of Ukrain, he'd be perpared to press the button in a pre-emptive tactical strike against the west. Why not?

On the other hand if there is a fear he can be provoked into using nuclear weapons by any military move against him this ties our hands. His threat is to use nuclear weapons if we do anything.

So, given that, I . . . . don't know what we should do, and expect we will do nothing, and that means Putin has already won.

Perhaps there are plans in place about which we know nothing. In the UK we have the Cobra committee (what's that I hear? The sound of someone laugh-spitting a mouthful of beer?). And the US could use the Star Wars system developed by Reagan, right?

In any case the massive lot of nuclear weapons held by the US could be deployed before Putin could launch his, surely?

Failing that the US could shoot his nukes out of the sky, er, couldn't they?

Incidentally, where does this leave UK's 'independent nuclear deterrant'? We must have it for a reason. Are we only allowed to use it if Putin has already launched his weapons? And if so, what's the point of that?

Forgive me for naivety, but what has our diplomatic and military strategy, and indeed its political management, been all about for the last 50 years? Did we not have any contingency for dealing with a leader of a nation with nukes who says 'I will do what I want, and if you try to stop me I'll nuke you'? It doesn't look like we had any. Have we always been this ill prepared, or have we taken our eye off the ball with all the hubris about evil Blair and the war against fake WMDs, followed by evil Europe and the great Brexit victory? And in America, the war against Crooked Hilary, and the great victory against fake news.

Dear oh dear. No wonder Putin is so emboldened.

 

[birthofanorange]

If Putin is prepared to press the button in retaliation against a non nuclear defence of Ukrain, he'd be perpared to press the button in a pre-emptive tactical strike against the west. Why not?

On the other hand if there is a fear he can be provoked into using nuclear weapons by any military move against him this ties our hands. His threat is to use nuclear weapons if we do anything.

So, given that, I . . . . don't know what we should do, and expect we will do nothing, and that means Putin has already won.

Perhaps there are plans in place about which we know nothing. In the UK we have the Cobra committee (what's that I hear? The sound of someone laugh-spitting a mouthful of beer?). And the US could use the Star Wars system developed by Reagan, right?

In any case the massive lot of nuclear weapons held by the US could be deployed before Putin could launch his, surely?

Failing that the US could shoot his nukes out of the sky, er, couldn't they?

Incidentally, where does this leave UK's 'independent nuclear deterrant'? We must have it for a reason. Are we only allowed to use it if Putin has already launched his weapons? And if so, what's the point of that?

Forgive me for naivety, but what has our diplomatic and military strategy, and indeed its political management, been all about for the last 50 years? Did we not have any contingency for dealing with a leader of a nation with nukes who says 'I will do what I want, and if you try to stop me I'll nuke you'? It doesn't look like we had any. Have we always been this ill prepared, or have we taken our eye off the ball with all the hubris about evil Blair and the war against fake WMDs, followed by evil Europe and the great Brexit victory? And in America, the war against Crooked Hilary, and the great victory against fake news.

Dear oh dear. No wonder Putin is so emboldened.

He may well win this awful battle, but, given enough time (and a lot of good luck), he won't win the war.

 

[usernamed]

Insanity by many persons definitions including mine = threatening use of nuclear weapons. So yes, Putin is insane. We don’t need him to prove it. Just threaten it is unsurpassed.

I respectfully disagree. Threatening people to get what you want is not, in itself, insanity. It’s the act of a thug, but not insane. To follow through on the threat would be insane, but the threat itself is calculated.

It relies on the recipient believing the threat to remain effective. I accept I seem to be in a minority, but I have significant doubts regarding Putin’s willingness to act on his threat.

The threat is not going to go away. It will be repeated on every occasion we stand against Putin’s actions. Given that, why wait? The threat will always be present all the while Putin and his disciples rule Russia.

Where do you set our boundary? An existing NATO nation? Are non-NATO lives worth less than NATO lives?

I hate this, I want peace, but delaying is only going to increase the death and destruction before we are forced into this regardless. Putin has already gone too far. I’ve no hate for the Russian population who believe Putin’s protecting them from a threat, but the political leadership currently in Russia and the apparatus for population suppression needs complete removal.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Putin's 'incursions' into - the Crimea, Syria WERE our business !

In terms of UK as a Sovereign nation and the purpose of NATO, no they weren't so the rest of your post is pointless. However.

This man has to be stopped and taken out right now .

That was not the question on the poll. If the question was "should Putin be bumped off, should the opportunity arise" then the answer is now a clear "yes". That's not boots on the ground though. It would take a Kremlin insider.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Agree completely that the way to stop Putin is primarily economically, not solely militarily. Although I believe supplying Ukraine with weapons, finance, technology and specialists (both military and training/technologists) should continue.

There are still massive amounts the West can do with sanctions, but I do worry that the Russian tentacles and influence that go deep into Political and Commercial organisations across the West may need to be exposed, addressed and cut off to really do this effectively.

Tell me more.

What sanctions have we not implemented? And why have we not implemented them?

I know about the refusal to impose a no fly zone, but this is because NATO would have to shoot down Russian planes to obtain this and that means actual war.

What else can we do?

The Russian winter paralympic team have already been sent home. What more could we possibly do?

 

[Bodian]

I think that is over simplifying things to say its "because I don't want to die". I don't want humanity as a species to die, and a nuclear war will end with the destruction of life on this planet. Sending troops into the Ukraine won't save lives, if everyone is then obliterated in the ensuing nuclear war. And sending NATO troops into the Ukraine will lead to a nuclear war. Therefore we must do everything we can to find an alterantive.

It's not so much the entire obliteration that scares me. If we did have a nuclear war and we were all quickly obliterated, then that's that. No, what really concerns me is having a nuclear war, and surviving. What will life be like after that - unimaginable really.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

He may well win this awful battle, but, given enough time (and a lot of good luck), he won't win the war.

I hope you're right.

Some encouraging anecdotes. I was listening to a Russian speaking Ukranian, BBC's Ukrain correspondent, who lives (lived) in a Russian speaking part of Ukrain. He says he's never met a Ukranian Nazi (fancy that). But this is the lie told tothe Russian troops.

But he and other Russian speaking Ukranians do not want Russian troops there. He recounted seeing an old man, in his 80s, shouting at Russian soldiers in one of the occupied parts. The man then dropped to his knees (I immediately thought he was going to say the soldier shot him)....and said 'In the name of God, I curse you'. In Russian. The troops were . . .. I think the expression is gobsmacked.

Just imagine that.

Perhaps there is hope.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I get really concerned that every time one of our Tory politicians is challenged about the lack of transparency re Russian money and influence in this country is met with “ah, but we were first to do this and first to do that”, rather than answer the damn question. We really do appear to have almost as corrupt a government as everywhere else. I suspect that all the Russian money secreted away in the U.K. has now been secreted away elsewhere.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

It's not so much the entire obliteration that scares me. If we did have a nuclear war and we were all quickly obliterated, then that's that. No, what really concerns me is having a nuclear war, and surviving. What will life be like after that - unimaginable really.

It certainly would be if Putin managed to survive it too.

 

[birthofanorange]

It certainly would be if Putin managed to survive it too.

If he did, I'd like to think that unspeakable, very very slow, painful things were done to him.

 

[AmexRuislip]

I wonder if the NATO / Georgia joint exercise will go ahead at the end of March



https://shape.nato.int/nato-exercises

 

[AmexRuislip]

First NATO response....

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192695.htm

 

[Seagull58]

I respectfully disagree. Threatening people to get what you want is not, in itself, insanity. It’s the act of a thug, but not insane. To follow through on the threat would be insane, but the threat itself is calculated.

It relies on the recipient believing the threat to remain effective. I accept I seem to be in a minority, but I have significant doubts regarding Putin’s willingness to act on his threat.

The threat is not going to go away. It will be repeated on every occasion we stand against Putin’s actions. Given that, why wait? The threat will always be present all the while Putin and his disciples rule Russia.

Where do you set our boundary? An existing NATO nation? Are non-NATO lives worth less than NATO lives?

I hate this, I want peace, but delaying is only going to increase the death and destruction before we are forced into this regardless. Putin has already gone too far. I’ve no hate for the Russian population who believe Putin’s protecting them from a threat, but the political leadership currently in Russia and the apparatus for population suppression needs complete removal.

Yes, that's exactly where the boundary is set and that is what defines NATO. An attack on any NATO country is an attack on NATO. An attack on any non-NATO country is not an attack on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance to protect its members from the Putins of the world. It's not there to protect Ukraine and other non-members.

 

[birthofanorange]

Yes, that's exactly where the boundary is set and that is what defines NATO. An attack on any NATO country is an attack on NATO. An attack on any non-NATO country is not an attack on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance to protect it's members from the Putin's of the world. It's not there to protect Ukraine and other non-members.

It seems harsh, when put that way, but you are correct.
If (and it's a big IF), the world comes through this, somehow, things will never be the same again. I'd like to think (being a bit of an old hippy-type) that it will bring the world closer together, so the horror that Ukraine is going through is never repeated.
Naive? Probably. Hopeful? Yes. Likely? Toss a coin.

 

[jcdenton08]

It's not so much the entire obliteration that scares me. If we did have a nuclear war and we were all quickly obliterated, then that's that. No, what really concerns me is having a nuclear war, and surviving. What will life be like after that - unimaginable really.

If the worst does happen, I hope to go suddenly in the blink of an eye from impact, rather than a long excruciating death from radiation poisoning.

Morbid, but a real possibility.

 

[Icy Gull]

I suppose another Russian revolution is too much to hope for

 

[WATFORD zero]

Tell me more.

What sanctions have we not implemented? And why have we not implemented them?

I know about the refusal to impose a no fly zone, but this is because NATO would have to shoot down Russian planes to obtain this and that means actual war.

What else can we do?

The Russian winter paralympic team have already been sent home. What more could we possibly do?

I read the first line and thought 'Oh shit, he expects a proper response' and that always takes a bit of time and thought to ensure it's factual and correct, especially when you're well into your second glass.

Then I read the rest

 

[Swansman]

Yes, that's exactly where the boundary is set and that is what defines NATO. An attack on any NATO country is an attack on NATO. An attack on any non-NATO country is not an attack on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance to protect it's members from the Putin's of the world. It's not there to protect Ukraine and other non-members.

NATO is not a defensive alliance, it is a "join us or get bombed by us and/our member states" alliance.

There's also nothing that indicates that "it's not there to 'protect' Ukraine and other non-members"... if this is the case, why the involvement in Yugoslavia in the 90s?

 

[The Clamp]

I understand the argument for sending troops in. But the risk of nuclear war is too great. The fact is he has the nukes and would very likely use them in the event of NATO intervention. But then he might use them anyway. The problem being, whatever the outcome, we’ll never know what the other option would result in.

What a bunch of absolute monsters the human race is. We live on a planet, possibly the only one able to support life, full of wildlife, beauty, resources and with an infinite possibility of love, harmony, sustenance and equality for all.

We have taken that immense gift and actually created a near world-wide situation where at any given moment we could deliberately wipe ourselves out in just about the most horrific way possible. By our own hand.

It’s been my belief that Earth would be far, far better off without humans but nobody sane wants armageddon. Trust humans to also come up with a way that would also kill all other life on earth.