[Politics] Should NATO send in troops and planes

[Swansman]

WOW! You think any of those countries political situations at the time of invasion/regime change can be compared to Ukraine? I don’t remember NATO waging war against any of them either. In fact I don’t recall NATO waging war against any country. Maybe an involvement against Iraq, Bosnia and Libya but **** me that is hardly the same as what Russia are doing in Ukraine…imo. There was proper shit going on in those countries before any involvement.

What was going on in Ukraine to justify Russia’s invasion?

A coup d'etat against a democratically elected leader a few years ago. The Ukrainian army and "independent" armies allegedly going rough (killing lots) on Russians in some Ukrainian regions. Does it warrant an invasion? No, but Russia is using the same kind of rhetorics to justify war as the West does when it wants to justify war. The only difference is that we dont believe them because they are Russian, while we believe ours because they are Westerners. Because propaganda works all over the world. Day out day in, year out year in, century out century in... leaders from all over the world always find one or another reason to go kill people.

 

[Seagull58]

NATO has never been a 'defensive alliance' - many countries who are part of NATO have engaged in naked military agression over the past 70 years (the Americans in Vietnam as a prime example - although there are a large number of others) - usually with the tacid or open support of the rest of NATO - who have their 'backs'.

America's involvement in Vietnam was nothing to do with NATO. Australia was involved but not NATO.
It is absolutely a defensive alliance initiated to try and avoid another European-wide war.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

being in an defensive alliance doesnt stop members from taking their own independent actions. they promise to defend each other. when US goes off somewhere like Vietnam, there is no expecation that the Greeks or Germans for example will join in. but if the Greeks or Germans are attacked, there is an expectation the US will help defend them. do you see the difference? i dont know why this is difficult.

NATO is about exercising imperial power - and in the case of NATO, predominantly the imperialist interests of the USA. The assertion you are making is that individual NATO countries can plunder, pillage and destroy other countries - but dare anyone attack one of us and will with throw the full force of the most advance military capabilities against you.

That really is jumping through hoops to defend the rights of the big and powerful against the small and weak.

 

[Eeyore]

Interesting assessment from Byeline on the nuclear threat..

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/04/...ft0Rq901o6UQVlR6izGhI_6Yqp7TdqLO9SJuKkCy2MyR4

Makes me wonder about the shelling of the plant yesterday. Where they hoping for a spillage ?

 

[cheesy77]

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.

This.

No idea what c*** invented nuclear weapons, but we have a lot to thank them for....

Their very existence presents the most ridiculous scenario, the possible self destruction of the entire planet and all life upon it. The human race really includes a lot of absolute ******* imbeciles




Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[birthofanorange]

A coup d'etat against a democratically elected leader a few years ago. The Ukrainian army and "independent" armies allegedly going rough (killing lots) on Russians in some Ukrainian regions. Does it warrant an invasion? No, but Russia is using the same kind of rhetorics to justify war as the West does when it wants to justify war. The only difference is that we dont believe them because they are Russian, while we believe ours because they are Westerners. Because propaganda works all over the world. Day out day in, year out year in, century out century in... leaders from all over the world always find one or another reason to go kill people.

Stop. Just stop. Now.

 

[Poojah]

It surprises me that, so far, more than 20% of people think NATO should be intervening militarily at this moment in time. I’ve also seen suggestions that the west’s reluctance to intervene suggests that Putin’s nuclear deterrence is bigger than ours. That’s simply not the case; the whole notion of nuclear weapons as peacekeeping instruments rests on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); that it is in no party’s interest to strike with nuclear power as the subsequent counter-strikes and subsequent counter-strikes will see more or less everything annihilated

But that’s a very fragile concept to fúck about with. One miscalculation, one misstep, one misread ‘bluff’ and we quite literally have Armageddon on our hands.

Modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, including those capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, move incredibly quickly - about 30x faster than your conventional airliner. Additionally, they can carry multiple, individually targetable warheads so that in effect, one missile could carry out 10 nuclear strikes spanning an area of 500 miles or so. In effect, it’s entirely possible that if one of these missiles was released from Moscow right now, we could have nuclear weapons raining down on London, Brighton and Leeds before you’ve had chance to grab your next beer from the fridge.

One rogue decision and 20 minutes from now you and I, and all our family and friends, could be dead or, worse still - dying. If you’re going to die from a nuclear blast, you better hope it’s an instant death. Vaporised over radiation sickness, any day of the week.

I don’t mean to be graphic; in fact I do because I’m trying to illustrate the stakes. It’s not about being heartless towards the millions of Ukrainians being displaced and the thousands of civilian deaths. Believe me, I find it absolutely heartbreaking and the scenes of human despair in the news this last week have left me utterly crestfallen. Seeing a beautiful, peaceful country destroyed in this way; the lives snuffed, the homes destroyed, the hopes and dreams quite literally up in smoke. It is both a travesty and a tragedy.

But war is not a game. War is grim, as we can see on our tv screens, laptops and mobile phones. This is not about putting the school bully back in his place. School bullies do not have massive armies, planes, tanks, submarines, thermobaric weapons. School bullies don’t have nuclear weapons.

A war between superpowers involving modern military arsenal would be without doubt the most deadly global event in human history, and by some magnitude. It will be unimaginably grim. It is to be avoided at absolutely all costs.

 

[London Irish]

What is the general feeling on NSC

Should NATO get involved with troops on the ground and planes in the air in Ukraine?

What think you? No fence option, that’s where we are at the moment…

Absolutely the stupidest poll in the long history of NSC. Why are people’s brains melting right now? Should be daily primetime showings on TV of The War Game, Threads, and The Day After so people can regain their sanity

 

[portlock seagull]

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.

Echo all of this. Except I’m now loath to use the collective/inclusive “we” as I usually do when commenting about the catastrophes mankind causes. Because I will never understand humans like Putin, they’re made from far darker material than myself and embody the very definition of evil. Someone prepared to extinguish the human race for their own vanity surely cannot be classed as a member of?

 

[portlock seagull]

It surprises me that, so far, more than 20% of people think NATO should be intervening militarily at this moment in time. I’ve also seen suggestions that the west’s reluctance to intervene suggests that Putin’s nuclear deterrence is bigger than ours. That’s simply not the case; the whole notion of nuclear weapons as peacekeeping instruments rests on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); that it is in no party’s interest to strike with nuclear power as the subsequent counter-strikes and subsequent counter-strikes will see more or less everything annihilated

But that’s a very fragile concept to fúck about with. One miscalculation, one misstep, one misread ‘bluff’ and we quite literally have Armageddon on our hands.

Modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, including those capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, move incredibly quickly - about 30x faster than your conventional airliner. Additionally, they can carry multiple, individually targetable warheads so that in effect, one missile could carry out 10 nuclear strikes spanning an area of 500 miles or so. In effect, it’s entirely possible that if one of these missiles was released from Moscow right now, we could have nuclear weapons raining down on London, Brighton and Leeds before you’ve had chance to grab your next beer from the fridge.

One rogue decision and 20 minutes from now you and I, and all our friendly and friends, could be dead or, worse still - dying. If you’re going to die from a nuclear blast, you better hope it’s an instant death. Vaporised over radiation sickness, any day of the week.

I don’t mean to be graphic; in fact I do because I’m trying to illustrate the stakes. It’s not about being heartless towards the millions of Ukrainians being displaced and the thousands of civilian deaths. Believe me, I find it absolutely heartbreaking and the scenes of human despair in the news this last week have left me utterly crestfallen. Seeing a beautiful, peaceful country destroyed in this way; the lives snuffed, the homes destroyed, the hopes and dreams quite literally up in smoke. It is both a travesty and a tragedy.

But war is not a game. War is grim, as we can see on our tv screens, laptops and mobile phones. This is not about putting the school bully back in his place. School bullies do not have massive armies, planes, tanks, submarines, thermobaric weapons. School bullies don’t have nuclear weapons.

A war between superpowers involving modern military arsenal would be without doubt the most deadly global event in human history, and by some magnitude. It will be unimaginably grim. It is to be avoided at absolutely all costs.

Not French are you, per chance?

 

[Poojah]

Not French are you, per chance?

Some very diluted French blood I understand, through my learnings on Ancestry.co.uk. Apparently, my surname, which for a long time I believed to be quite noble, is actually devolved from the nickname for someone with a visible wasting disease, such as leprosy.

Which is nice.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Ukraine On Fire 2016 Oliver Stone

 

[Swansman]

That sounds terrible. I can only hope that in time Swedes will be able to speak, meet and travel freely, access whichever news sources they choose and swap opinions, criticisms and ideas with friends and even strangers in other countries over the internet without fear of retribution or arrest.

Free the Swanny one.

Democracy means "people rule/rule of the people", not "you're allowed can meet up and moan about the leaders the oligarchy picked for you".

As I said it is possible you have democracy in the UK but we certainly do not here - either you are approved of the Wallenberg family or you're ****ed.

 

[portlock seagull]

Some very diluted French blood I understand, through my learnings on Ancestry.co.uk. Apparently, my surname, which for a long time I believed to be quite noble, is actually devolved from the nickname for someone with a visible wasting disease, such as leprosy.

Which is nice.

Thanks for playing nicely, I was being a bit flippant for such a serious matter. Sorry.

Just going back to your well articulated post, it’s a terrible dilemma. How far do we let the bully with the nuclear warheads go? Because I’ve said this to several friends who heartedly agree: we are at an incredibly dangerous moment in all history. It’s not inconceivable all of us here, thousands of miles away, could be dead within the next few days, weeks or months. All of us. That’s how serious things are and could, for a multitude of reasons, go.

 

[birthofanorange]

It surprises me that, so far, more than 20% of people think NATO should be intervening militarily at this moment in time. I’ve also seen suggestions that the west’s reluctance to intervene suggests that Putin’s nuclear deterrence is bigger than ours. That’s simply not the case; the whole notion of nuclear weapons as peacekeeping instruments rests on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD); that it is in no party’s interest to strike with nuclear power as the subsequent counter-strikes and subsequent counter-strikes will see more or less everything annihilated

But that’s a very fragile concept to fúck about with. One miscalculation, one misstep, one misread ‘bluff’ and we quite literally have Armageddon on our hands.

Modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, including those capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, move incredibly quickly - about 30x faster than your conventional airliner. Additionally, they can carry multiple, individually targetable warheads so that in effect, one missile could carry out 10 nuclear strikes spanning an area of 500 miles or so. In effect, it’s entirely possible that if one of these missiles was released from Moscow right now, we could have nuclear weapons raining down on London, Brighton and Leeds before you’ve had chance to grab your next beer from the fridge.

One rogue decision and 20 minutes from now you and I, and all our family and friends, could be dead or, worse still - dying. If you’re going to die from a nuclear blast, you better hope it’s an instant death. Vaporised over radiation sickness, any day of the week.

I don’t mean to be graphic; in fact I do because I’m trying to illustrate the stakes. It’s not about being heartless towards the millions of Ukrainians being displaced and the thousands of civilian deaths. Believe me, I find it absolutely heartbreaking and the scenes of human despair in the news this last week have left me utterly crestfallen. Seeing a beautiful, peaceful country destroyed in this way; the lives snuffed, the homes destroyed, the hopes and dreams quite literally up in smoke. It is both a travesty and a tragedy.

But war is not a game. War is grim, as we can see on our tv screens, laptops and mobile phones. This is not about putting the school bully back in his place. School bullies do not have massive armies, planes, tanks, submarines, thermobaric weapons. School bullies don’t have nuclear weapons.

A war between superpowers involving modern military arsenal would be without doubt the most deadly global event in human history, and by some magnitude. It will be unimaginably grim. It is to be avoided at absolutely all costs.

Every word of this.

 

[beorhthelm]

NATO is about exercising imperial power - and in the case of NATO, predominantly the imperialist interests of the USA. The assertion you are making is that individual NATO countries can plunder, pillage and destroy other countries - but dare anyone attack one of us and will with throw the full force of the most advance military capabilities against you.

That really is jumping through hoops to defend the rights of the big and powerful against the small and weak.

apart from the imperialist US and UK, who do their own things anyway, which country in NATO has done this? and in what way did the superpower US on imperialist mission actually need the defense of the NATO? so we can put those missions into "not NATO" pile, and the defense of the members into the "NATO" pile.

 

[SK1NT]

Unfortunately sending in troops or having a no fly zone over the Ukraine, potentially leading to us having to shoot a Russian plane down would massively escalate things and lead to a potential WW3 or worse Nuclear War.

For the time being we (basically the rest of the world) just have to help Ukraine and any other non NATO country PUTIN wants to invade with unlimited arms, medicines, food, cash all whilst tightening sanctions.

We/NATO have drawn the line in the sand with Putin. Step foot on NATO land will declare war against NATO. This is a clear threat that whether we like it or not will have to act on. I know Putin is a nutter but if he does invade a NATO country then i fear the very worst. I know he's mad but just hope he's not that mad. Unfortunately it leaves the Ukrainian people to battle alone but unfortunately i feel that there is no other choice.

The government does have to up their sanctioning and start confiscating all the yachts and million pound London houses. France and Germany are leading the way with this. Unfortunately though, getting rid of corrupt Russian money from the within our government is like getting the eggs out of a baked cake (not my quote but very apt)

 

[birthofanorange]

Democracy means "people rule/rule of the people", not "you're allowed can meet up and moan about the leaders the oligarchy picked for you".

As I said it is possible you have democracy in the UK but we certainly do not here - either you are approved of the Wallenberg family or you're ****ed.

Look, you clearly have your place on here, but can't you start your own "Swanny" thread, or something? Somewhere that people can go and enjoy your shit?

 

[willalbion]

Sadly I agree. We shouldn't be allowing civilians to be slaughtered.

I get the risks but we can't let a modern day Hitler have his way.

I also think NATO are being too nervous. Given Russian forces are mainly young conscripts and haven't been able the break either the Ukrainian forces or even the civilians it would suggest a few battalions of US, UK and French combat troops - Marines, Paras and Special Forces, wouldn't have an issue. All battle hardened from Afgan, Iraq and, for the French, Africa.

I find incomprehensable that we can allow the slaughter to continue.

That's the awful thing. Putin can get away with murder because of the threat of world war. He knew he'd walk through ukraine basically unopposed. Horrific.

 

[Creaky]

I don’t see how the NATO alliance can enforce either a no fly zone or put forces on the ground as this would give Putin far to many targets to retaliate against.

However I think the US is in a different position. It would take a president with the courage of JFK to do so but they could independently, (not as a NATO force), go into Ukraine and make the same threat against Russia as made by them. Retaliate with nukes and Russia will be annihilated.