Support military intervention in Russian/Ukraine conflict?
Poll: Support military intervention in Russian/Ukraine conflict?
Total Members Polled: 289
Discussion
No. The difference between this and previous conflicts is that Russia (unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) is very capable of striking the UK mainland, either with conventional or nuclear weapons. I think we should send as much materiel support to Ukraine as we can, continue to use ISTAR assets to help the fight, but once we actually have British 'boots on the ground' the risk of rapid escalation is too great. As unpleasant as the situation is in Ukraine, it is limited and localised to a small area. UK (and by extension NATO/USA) vs Russia and all bets are off.
LimaDelta said:
No. The difference between this and previous conflicts is that Russia (unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) is very capable of striking the UK mainland, either with conventional or nuclear weapons. I think we should send as much materiel support to Ukraine as we can, continue to use ISTAR assets to help the fight, but once we actually have British 'boots on the ground' the risk of rapid escalation is too great. As unpleasant as the situation is in Ukraine, it is limited and localised to a small area. UK (and by extension NATO/USA) vs Russia and all bets are off.
The sad fact of the matter is that we'll happily attack countries that won't be able to fight back (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria) at least not in conventional terms. Russia is a completely different kettle of fish, both in terms of military strength but also because of the amount of economic damage it can do.Arguably Ukraine IS one case where the West should take military action if it's serious about defending democracy. However it would be better if we re-arm and start fighting them economically rather than militarily.
I feel the situation in other conflicts has been aiding the country from themselves and interior uprisings (and of course protecting assets and oil...)
However this a country on a different country.
Any troops on ground from Britain or anybody else within NATO is in effect turning it into WW3.
Interesting times...
However this a country on a different country.
Any troops on ground from Britain or anybody else within NATO is in effect turning it into WW3.
Interesting times...
Ukraine is not a NATO member. It would be different ( would it?) if a NATO member were attacked.
Ukraine may hold out for a while as Putin is unlikely to withdraw. That is a message he doesn’t want to send.
Longer term potential for treating other non NATO bordering countries could arise in Putin’s desire to protect Russia by expanding his control ( some of his comments hint at protection and denying NATO membership options.
Ramping up military presence in NATO countries adjoining non NATO that might be targets is going on.
Will Putin extend invasions to other countries?
Ukraine may hold out for a while as Putin is unlikely to withdraw. That is a message he doesn’t want to send.
Longer term potential for treating other non NATO bordering countries could arise in Putin’s desire to protect Russia by expanding his control ( some of his comments hint at protection and denying NATO membership options.
Ramping up military presence in NATO countries adjoining non NATO that might be targets is going on.
Will Putin extend invasions to other countries?
Not a hard no but I would prefer today (ideally last week) we send lots of weapons first. In the end do we let Russia take another country and ultimately they are a pariah now the west is going to move away from there oil and gas, trade, sport, media involving russia. They have literally gone back to the 70s over night.
Fusion777 said:
Reminds me of "Yes, Minster", when Hacker says that we should always protect the weak against the strong.
Humphrey asks why then we don't send troops into Afghanistan (this was in the 80s) to protect them against the Russians. Hacker simply replies "The Russians are too strong".
Exactly this. Russian anti-air/aerial denial is fearsome, and to a lesser extent, ground and naval forces. The British public and politicians do not have the stomach for losses of people, ships or aircraft. The ability to suck up the deaths and ship losses during the Falklands War would not be the same here. Iraq/Afghanistan could only be tolerated due to the small number of daily/weekly/monthly casualties. Humphrey asks why then we don't send troops into Afghanistan (this was in the 80s) to protect them against the Russians. Hacker simply replies "The Russians are too strong".
The loss of a single RN ship's compliment, even a platoon of soldiers or a handful of F35/Typhoons or heaven forbid, a full C17/A400. Whilst we could inflict severe peer losses on the Russians, Putin can suck up the loss of his young people, we can't.
The attack on Ukraine is pretty much absorbing the whole deployable capacity of the Russian army.
They couldn't take on NATO conventionally.
That said I would support doing precisely what Russia did in Eastern Ukraine, sending in "civilian volunteers". If they happen to bring Exactor and Starstreak all the better.
They couldn't take on NATO conventionally.
That said I would support doing precisely what Russia did in Eastern Ukraine, sending in "civilian volunteers". If they happen to bring Exactor and Starstreak all the better.
No.
Despite the Russia bad, Ukraine good messaging we are getting this is a long running and complex saga which can't be solved by zapping the bad guy. More like a civil war than ally versus enemy. That is in no way a defence of Putin or this act, but a reality which seems to be easiky overlooked.
I'm not claiming any particular knowledge or expertise on the practical side of it but I suspect that successfully repelling Russia would require an enormous commitment of people and equipment, and long term political will which we don't really have. And if we were successful, then what? Commit to decades of having troops stationed in Ukraine and a new cold war?
The worst case scenario is unthinkable, but even short kf that it seems more likely that we would make things worse, either by becoming involved in a protracted ground war or by turning it into an air/missile war which usually seems to mean even greater civilian casualties.
I'm going to sound like a massive lefty pacifist here but I think the best we can do at this stage is offer humanitarian support and hopefully help broker a lasting peace.
Despite the Russia bad, Ukraine good messaging we are getting this is a long running and complex saga which can't be solved by zapping the bad guy. More like a civil war than ally versus enemy. That is in no way a defence of Putin or this act, but a reality which seems to be easiky overlooked.
I'm not claiming any particular knowledge or expertise on the practical side of it but I suspect that successfully repelling Russia would require an enormous commitment of people and equipment, and long term political will which we don't really have. And if we were successful, then what? Commit to decades of having troops stationed in Ukraine and a new cold war?
The worst case scenario is unthinkable, but even short kf that it seems more likely that we would make things worse, either by becoming involved in a protracted ground war or by turning it into an air/missile war which usually seems to mean even greater civilian casualties.
I'm going to sound like a massive lefty pacifist here but I think the best we can do at this stage is offer humanitarian support and hopefully help broker a lasting peace.
Whats on Second said:
Eric Mc said:
Not whilst they are not part of NATO.
they are a partner in NATO, which is at least a first step, NATO has fannied about with ukraine and georgias full NATO membership since 2008 , russia is behind all the machinations as usualwhen West and East Germany united in 1990, it was agreed between the USA and what was still then, just about, the USSR, that in return for allowing the unified Germany to be part of NATO (including what was East Germany), NATO would not expand any further Eastward into what were previously Warsaw Pact countries. The Soviet Union was promised that NATO was all about stopping the Westward spread of communism, not about pushing Westernism eastwards.
That promise has not been kept. That is the crux of Russia's grievance. The West's answer is that the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, so the agreement isn't valid, and the democratically elected govts of Poland and the others wanted to join NATO.
duncs said:
Ground troops, no.
Helping a multinational effort to enforce a no-fly-zone, maybe, if it ends up the only way to prevent an absolute massacre of the civilian population. Although even this comes with huge dangers that I suspect I can't begin to understand.
I’d go along with this.Helping a multinational effort to enforce a no-fly-zone, maybe, if it ends up the only way to prevent an absolute massacre of the civilian population. Although even this comes with huge dangers that I suspect I can't begin to understand.
Not on our own but as part of NATO if Putin goes absolute bat s
t crazy and starts actively and deliberately massacring civilians or starts using chemical weapons then I’d be comfortable with the idea of getting more involved but I’m fully aware that we’d take significant losses (yes, I know that’s easy for me to say sitting here on my sofa) but I think we’d prevail. Our gear seems to be quite a bit more advanced than the ruskies although they have more of it but numbers never give the true story.I've voted "yes" but I've taken that to mean intervention by NATO rather than the UK acting alone (which I wouldn't support). I wouldn't see that intervention meaning troops on the ground immediately either - establishing a no fly zone is the first step I'd envisage.
And I'm afraid I really don't get this argument of "they're not a NATO member so we shouldn't intervene"; Article 5 obliges collective action if a member state is attacked but that doesn't mean NATO can't do anything if a friendly non-member is attacked. And after all, NATO chose to get involved in places like Afghanistan and Iraq so why on earth can't it give greater support to the Ukraine? Yes the opposition is much more dangerous but chances are they're going to have to face Putin down sooner or later so maybe best to bite the bullet now?
And I'm afraid I really don't get this argument of "they're not a NATO member so we shouldn't intervene"; Article 5 obliges collective action if a member state is attacked but that doesn't mean NATO can't do anything if a friendly non-member is attacked. And after all, NATO chose to get involved in places like Afghanistan and Iraq so why on earth can't it give greater support to the Ukraine? Yes the opposition is much more dangerous but chances are they're going to have to face Putin down sooner or later so maybe best to bite the bullet now?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff