Russia invades Ukraine. Volume 2

[Pitre]

Cobnapint said:

Dog Star said:

wiggy001 said:

“Interesting” interview with Bernie Ecclestone just now on Good Morning Britain where Bernie said:

“I would take a bullet for Putin”
“We all make mistakes”
“The Ukrainian President could have stopped this war easily”

Quite incredible.

What the hell ! Has he gone senile? Mind you god knows what sort of backhanders are involved with F1 and Russia.

This.
There's no way BE is going to bad mouth VP. He'd be a gonna.

Deluded old fool.

[J4CKO]

Well Mr Ecclestone, I dont think the feeling is mutual, Vladimir Putin wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire.

Ecclestone needs cancelling for that, if JK Rowling gets all that st over her "transphobic" comments, this daft old needs properly taking to task about supporting a genocidal maniac responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths, untold misery and despair.

Does make you wonder whats going on up there in the world of the global mega rich, maybe Vlad has some dirt on him ? Ghislaine on speed dial type stuff ?

[TonyRPH]

In the same interview, Ecclestone also excused Piquet's racial slur again Hamilton.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/30/bernie-ecclestone-d...

[isaldiri]

Adam. said:

You deal with what is an immediate threat to you.

Unfortunately the reality is that principles are often ignored when abhorrent crimes are committed a long way away.

The immediate threat of a country struggling to successfully invade a far weaker neighbour turning to increasingly antiquated kit with armed forces that are regularly mocked as being incompetent especially on here that we furthermore are entirely happy to let another country fight in order to deal with said threat?

And as far as the US is concerned - east Ukraine is a long way away. They can and have ignored invasions of neighbouring countries by the USSR before. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest the US might not be quite as determined to support Ukraine to 'win' (whatever that might be defined as where various parties might have very different interpretations) as suggested as the conflict continues to drag on.

spookly said:

In my view they are either dealt with now or we have to pick a country/line where we will. Where do you suggest that should be?

Well we have picked a line. The eastern Nato flank ie poland and the baltics. Ukraine was not accepted as a nato country previously because it would have meant the US (and others) committing to protect them if invaded (whatever the entirely inconsequential budapest memorandum says no one realistically ever was going to use military force to safeguard that) after all.

Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 30th June 08:55

[spookly]

isaldiri said:

Adam. said:

You deal with what is an immediate threat to you.

Unfortunately the reality is that principles are often ignored when abhorrent crimes are committed a long way away.

The immediate threat of a country struggling to successfully invade a far weaker neighbour turning to increasingly antiquated kit with armed forces that are regularly mocked as being incompetent especially on here that we furthermore are entirely happy to let another country fight in order to deal with said threat?

And as far as the US is concerned - east Ukraine is a long way away. They can and have ignored invasions of neighbouring countries by the USSR before. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest the US might not be quite as determined to support Ukraine to 'win' (whatever that might be defined as where various parties might have very different interpretations) as suggested as the conflict continues to drag on.

spookly said:

In my view they are either dealt with now or we have to pick a country/line where we will. Where do you suggest that should be?

Well we have picked a line. The eastern Nato flank ie poland and the baltics. Ukraine was not accepted as a nato country previously because it would have meant the US (and others) committing to protect them if invaded (whatever the entirely inconsequential budapest memorandum says no one realistically ever was going to use military force to safeguard that) after all.

Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 30th June 08:55

I think you're under estimating the importance of Ukraine, both in terms of resources and strategic importance. The US and western leaders are not.

[moustachebandit]

isaldiri said:

spookly said:

Fair point. But this one has far greater economic and geopolitical consequences for us (us as in the NATO/Western countries).
Is that morally fair, perhaps not. But I don't think this one can be safely ignored. We've already seen what Putin did after we mostly ignored his annexation of Crimea and his invasion of 2014. And on the back of ignoring chemical weapons use and murders in the UK.
That's the problem with Putin. If nobody stands up to him he isn't magically going to get better, he'll just be emboldened to do worse and see where the line is. About time they were shown that the line exists.

Given the manifest lack of capability of the russians to takeover the whole of Ukraine, the supposed threat of russia to the major powers of nato is hardly so great that the Ukrainians absolutely need to be helped 'to win' (whatever that might mean). It's repeatedly pointed out here how incompetent the russian military is and how they are resorting to using antiquated kit - so exactly what is this overwhelming threat to western security that is so great? Especially given that we are content to let the ukranians do the fighting and dying to defend it rather than actually doing anything ourselves?

fblm said:

Whatabout everywhere else? Again? Really? What is this the fifth, sixth time? If they had invaded Finland would you be sticking to the same line?

Yes whatabout everyone else. Again. you might choose to ignore all that whataboutery (although isn't raising Finland equally doing the whataboutism that you so deplore....?) but it's exactly the reason why I am not as adamant as you are that the great and the good in the US will necessarily continue to be so keen to continue this indefinitely because 'it's the right thing and the bad guys must be punished'. The US and the UK and all the rest have for years been entirely happy to let all manner of unpleasant things in a lot of places pass without particularly being too bothered.

Some points as you seem to keep repeating the same things over and over -

Russia may re-arm at some point, and attempt this again under Putin or whoever else follows him. Sadly the die is cast and the better informed in the military, government & intelligence know that another fight with Russia is inevitable at some pint in the future. The culture, corruption and rhetoric goes too deep to change meaningfully in a generation. Someone will seek to pick up where Putin left off.

By increasing Nato's strength it significantly increases the barrier to Russia trying anything again, alone or with the support of an ally. Russia needs to know that if they pick another fight they will do it against 30 well armed, heavily prepared countries. An incursion into one country will see a response from all. Even if the Russia army is incompetent they can still do damage, level towns and kill civilians ; the scale up of NATO is seeking to prevent that and keep security and prosperity in Europe. Its also a show of force that will resonate with China. Dont be surprised if there isn't a Taiwan, Japan, South Korean version of NATO set up in the following years (Just googled, looks like its on the cards as Japan, South Korea attended the NATO talks that just happened).

Finland and Sweden joining Nato is so that they dont end up in the same situation as Ukraine. They might be able to defend themselves if attacked but they also dont want to be in the same situation as Ukraine and whilst being supported with weapons, are being left to fight it out on their own. Its basic safety in numbers and a big preventative to a future Russian attack.

The war at this stage is Ukraines war, not NATO's which is why NATO troops aren't fighting in Ukraine. NATO countries, outside of NATO have however supplied huge amounts of support, material and weapons. If a wall street article is to be believed Ukraines allies are also working with them on counter insurgency and clandestine strikes. Essentially total commitment from individual NATO members short of sending troops.

There is huge support globally for Ukraine. There is bi partisan support for Ukraine in the US, considering how fractured the US is politically that alone is a strong statement on how aligned the US is on Russia. This is also good business for the US. Defence spending in Europe is going to explode, and the US will be fulfilling orders for military hardware. Globally the desirability of Russian military hardware will have taken a nose dive and the US will also capture those buyers as well. Its in America's interest to ensure Europe is a strong & stable trading partner which is why they also want to ensure that Europe doesn't get dragged into another war. Ukraine will need to be rebuilt, roads, bridges, pipelines, oil and gas fields and the US & Europe will be there to do the work.

This war has also drawn the US back into the heart of European politics and has brought all the countries closer. Over the Trump years Americas reach started to diminish as they pulled back internationally, with European countries placing less importance in aligning with the US. Thats now completely changed in 100+ days. It gives them influence and a leading role in the worlds largest market.

Crippling Russia's economy & military also has another advantage to the US in that it limits Russians ability to influence events in other countries / markets away from US benefit.

The US have staying power. Just look at some of the past conflicts they have been involved in for right or wrong. However its not just America thats involved in supporting Ukraine. America also doesn't have the same pain points that they did in Afghanistan, as they dont have boots on the ground.

Despite the jokes, the US are not the worlds police force and if they dont get involved in certain conflicts its because they have no reason too irrespective of the human cost. The US is involved because the war in Ukraine threatens their allies in Europe and they know that this challenge needs to be met and dealt with otherwise it will only grow and that will cause global problems if Europe falls into all out war, which would impact the US economy heavily. Their involvement is driven by supporting allies & protecting their interests.

America also has an opportunity, along with the rest of Europe to kick Russia in the arse. Russophobia may be a thing, but lets also face it its well deserved. Russia has consistently caused problems globally since WW2 and many ex soviet countries still bear deep scars inflicted on them by their Russian "brothers".

Edited by moustachebandit on Thursday 30th June 09:09

[BikeBikeBIke]

isaldiri said:

Well we have picked a line. The eastern Nato flank ie poland and the baltics. Ukraine was not accepted as a nato country previously because it would have meant the US (and others) committing to protect them if invaded (whatever the entirely inconsequential budapest memorandum says no one realistically ever was going to use military force to safeguard that) after all.

Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 30th June 08:55

If Poland is the line, great. Poland is easier to defend if Russia don't have Ukraine. (Last time we made Poland the line - how did that work out for Europe?)

Obvs I don't agree with you but you seem to be simultaneously advocating withholding military aid *aid* committing our own troops.

The middle ground there is providing aid, but not committing ground troops. So you ought to be happy.

And... As you keep telling us, Russia have nukes you think they are willing to use. So far from harmless (according to you) they are probably the most dangerous country in the world.

A nuclear nation with a chip on its shoulder and an elderly leader who openly talks about using Nukes picking off neighbours one by one is a massive risk. Russia needs to be contained.

[Tycho]

TonyRPH said:

In the same interview, Ecclestone also excused Piquet's racial slur again Hamilton.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/30/bernie-ecclestone-d...

I always thought he was a prick but he's removed all doubt about it now. Utterly deluded.

[BikeBikeBIke]

....and surely now is the time to put Russia back in its box - it's carelessly wrecked its army with a mindless strategy.

Next time they may have a good plan and a well prepared army.

There really isn't going to be a better chance.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

Tycho said:

TonyRPH said:

In the same interview, Ecclestone also excused Piquet's racial slur again Hamilton.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/30/bernie-ecclestone-d...

I always thought he was a prick but he's removed all doubt about it now. Utterly deluded.

That pretty much matches my view.

[J4CKO]

BikeBikeBIke said:

....and surely now is the time to put Russia back in its box - it's carelessly wrecked its army with a mindless strategy.

Next time they may have a good plan and a well prepared army.

There really isn't going to be a better chance.

Trouble is, they can then just sit there sulking and issuing threats of Armageddon, the only way to truly stop Russia is to remove its Nuclear capability, and I cant see that being much of an option.

Like gun owners that go waving them about and threatening folk, they need them removing.

Then you have NK, like the 13 year old who has done two boxing lessons and thinks he can take the world on, another few years and he may be able to.

[BikeBikeBIke]

J4CKO said:

Trouble is, they can then just sit there sulking and issuing threats of Armageddon, the only way to truly stop Russia is to remove its Nuclear capability, and I cant see that being much of an option.

Like gun owners that go waving them about and threatening folk, they need them removing.

Then you have NK, like the 13 year old who has done two boxing lessons and thinks he can take the world on, another few years and he may be able to.

Agree on a counts, but Russia will never give up its Nuclear weapons, it's literally their only leverage.

[vonuber]

isaldiri said:

Well we have picked a line. The eastern Nato flank ie poland and the baltics. Ukraine was not accepted as a nato country previously because it would have meant the US (and others) committing to protect them if invaded (whatever the entirely inconsequential budapest memorandum says no one realistically ever was going to use military force to safeguard that) after all.

So your solution is... what? Let Russia occupy Ukraine? Take all of the Donbas, then shrug our shoulders and say business as usual?

[Jhonno]

isaldiri said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

my point is really that the "commitment" isn't as firm as some would believe, mainly because I believe it isn't based on principles or values, but rather on a calculation of current self-interest. And that *likely* could change over the course of the next few months imo.

I think one isn't supposed to even countenance any doubt whatsoever that said calculation of self interest by US might change and that they at some point might start to consider it in their interests to force some kind of ceasefire in Ukraine to shove the conflict to a lower intensity one out of sight and out of mind.....

It's almost like you don't think a government would discuss all eventualities behind the scenes, even if they forge ahead with one rhetoric/decision..

Plus the obvious of pockets of individuals who have different views on things.

Edited by Jhonno on Thursday 30th June 09:53

[CrutyRammers]

Snake island has taken a proper pounding. This tweet suggests that the Russians have abandoned it, no idea if that's true, but it's clearly been hammered. https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/154242694...

[CrutyRammers]

Actual lol:

The Russian Defense Ministry says that "today, as a step of goodwill, the Russian military has completed tasks on Zmiinyi (Snake) Island and has withdrew the garrison stationed there."

https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/154243141...

[Jhonno]

vonuber said:

Interview with a women from what should have been the vaguely sympathetic (at least compared to the west) region of Kharkiv:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/vngc1q/o...

Strong interview.. Should be more mainstream.

[moustachebandit]

J4CKO said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

....and surely now is the time to put Russia back in its box - it's carelessly wrecked its army with a mindless strategy.

Next time they may have a good plan and a well prepared army.

There really isn't going to be a better chance.

Trouble is, they can then just sit there sulking and issuing threats of Armageddon, the only way to truly stop Russia is to remove its Nuclear capability, and I cant see that being much of an option.

Like gun owners that go waving them about and threatening folk, they need them removing.

Then you have NK, like the 13 year old who has done two boxing lessons and thinks he can take the world on, another few years and he may be able to.

Maybe grind Russia's economy down to 1991 levels or lower through sanctions, cutting off energy & raw materials and leaning on its few remaining supporters to do the same.

The civilised world approaches a desperate Russian president (the economy will be in the toilet, the state will be bordering on another collapse) with an offer that sanctions get lifted with the removal of nuclear capability, as they cant be trusted and with the perilous state of the nation they cant be allowed to fall into separatist hands. They agree as there isn't much option.

Once the nukes are gone they will be brought back into the international community and McDonalds might even make a return. The president (not Putin) can be the leader that lifted Russia out of the toilet after the misguided ventures of past leaders.

They can either cling to their nukes that they cant use without assured mutual destruction, or they can give up the nukes and the financial drain of maintaining them and be the leader that ushers in a new future of prosperity for future Russian generations. By this time Russia will be 30years behind economically, the old guard will have moved on and the younger outward looking generations will take over; as a result they will no longer pose a risk

If they dont then they will see their economy contract and their problems increase. The world will however be keen to avoid a Russian state collapse. Last thing the world needs is a despot filling a power vacuum and claiming a small break-way state in Russia and inheriting weapons & nukes which they then use to bully their neighbours.

Edited by moustachebandit on Thursday 30th June 10:04

Edited by moustachebandit on Thursday 30th June 10:05

[BikeBikeBIke]

CrutyRammers said:

Actual lol:

The Russian Defense Ministry says that "today, as a step of goodwill, the Russian military has completed tasks on Zmiinyi (Snake) Island and has withdrew the garrison stationed there."

https://twitter.com/Flash43191300/status/154243141...

That honestly made me literally gob coffee over my monitor.

Our plan to not humiliate Putin really isn't going well.

[Puggit]

moustachebandit said:

Maybe grind Russia's economy down to 1991 levels or lower through sanctions, cutting off energy & raw materials and leaning on its few remaining supporters to do the same.

The civilised world approaches a desperate Russian president (the economy will be in the toilet, the state will be bordering on another collapse) with an offer that sanctions get lifted with the removal of nuclear capability, as they cant be trusted and with the perilous state of the nation they cant be allowed to fall into separatist hands. They agree as there isn't much option.

Once the nukes are gone they will be brought back into the international community and McDonalds might even make a return. The president (not Putin) can be the leader that lifted Russia out of the toilet after the misguided ventures of past leaders.

They can either cling to their nukes that they cant use without assured mutual destruction, or they can give up the nukes and the financial drain of maintaining them and be the leader that ushers in a new future of prosperity for future Russian generations. By this time Russia will be 30years behind economically and will no longer pose a risk

If they dont then they will see their economy contract and their problems increase. The world will however be keen to avoid a Russian state collapse. Last thing the world needs is a despot filling a power vacuum and claiming a small break-way state in Russia and inheriting weapons & nukes which they then use to bully their neighbours.

Russia has the capability to restart a nuclear program much more easily than probably any other state on the planet.