Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think he means Ukraine should have looked to stay neutral and not write into their constitution that they would join NATO. 

Well if that is the case, it should be realised that it was written into the constitution as a direct result of the 2014 Russian Invasion

They had nothing to lose by doing it, they'd already been invaded by Russia at that point

[blandy]

It doesn’t really matter, this notion of “if things had been done differently”. It’s an unknowable what would have then transpired. I mean it’s ok to theorise that if NATO had, months ago, stated categorically that it would consider any incursion into Ukraine to be something that would trigger a military response, then maybe Putin… or that if Ukraine hadn’t… or if the West had conceded that it would meet more of Putin’s demands… or whatever else. Things might have played out the same, or worse, or differently. We’ll never know. My suspicion is that only the first option I mentioned would have stopped the invasion, but that’s easy to say, and who knows what it would have meant longer term for the world. But NATO didn’t and the reason is that it’s outside NATO’s remit as a defensive set-up for the members (only).

Ultimately Russia led by a paranoid, brutal, deluded crook is always going to be a threat to the world and there is no remotely easy way to change that for the world.

[bannedfromHandV]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

It doesn’t really matter, this notion of “if things had been done differently”. It’s an unknowable what would have then transpired. I mean it’s ok to theorise that if NATO had, months ago, stated categorically that it would consider any incursion into Ukraine to be something that would trigger a military response, then maybe Putin… or that if Ukraine hadn’t… or if the West had conceded that it would meet more of Putin’s demands… or whatever else. Things might have played out the same, or worse, or differently. We’ll never know. My suspicion is that only the first option I mentioned would have stopped the invasion, but that’s easy to say, and who knows what it would have meant longer term for the world. But NATO didn’t and the reason is that it’s outside NATO’s remit as a defensive set-up for the members (only).

Ultimately Russia led by a paranoid, brutal, deluded crook is always going to be a threat to the world and there is no remotely easy way to change that for the world.

Agree with all that except for the last bit, a single bullet to the head could potentially solve the issue .

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Agree with all that except for the last bit, a single bullet to the head could potentially solve the issue .

Many World leaders tend to shy away from sanctioning the assassination of World leaders. Never been sure why.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, avfc1982am said:

Don't most of us. 

I would hope so! In which case, it would probably be better to give a shit about the possibility of nuclear annihilation, rather than 'if it does it will be too late to do anything about it so why worry about it'. There are steps we can take to reduce the possibility of nuclear war, and we should do so. 

[trekka]

The humanitarian corridor to protect civilians has once again failed after the Russians continued to shell along departure lines.  Absolutely disgusting . 

In other news, I hear Russian reinforcements are inbound. 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by trekka

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Agree with all that except for the last bit, a single bullet to the head could potentially solve the issue .

That’s far from easy to do. I’m not sure it necessarily guarantees much, either. I mean how would Russia (or say the US or China) react to assassination of its leader by another nation?

[chrisp65]

I wonder if the current threat of a psycho bombing nuclear power stations will register in the minds of our politicians currently pinning their hopes on us inventing mini nuclear power stations for every town and city?

[sne]

Having your president or whatever assassinated by a foreign force/agency would risk turning him into a martyr and make the people band together against the foreign threat/liberators. Even if the guy was disliked or hated before.

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I would hope so! In which case, it would probably be better to give a shit about the possibility of nuclear annihilation, rather than 'if it does it will be too late to do anything about it so why worry about it'. There are steps we can take to reduce the possibility of nuclear war, and we should do so. 

When you say we, do you mean VT or NATO?! 

 

 

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

A Ukrainian friend of mine, has just gotten on a flight to Poland, to try and get to Kharkiv, to attempt to find her elderly mother who she has now lost contact with, and take her back to Oman.

Pretty grim

In one sense, I almost wish the Ukrainian people weren't SO brave . Live to fight another day and all that.

Just feel like it is a whole lot of death, for nothing in the end, we can't bring those people back.  They'll get honourable mentions, and news segments if they even make it on.

It's all just shite overall.

The report of that 18 month baby dying and the scenes got me yesterday man.

One of the reasons I was annoyed about this whole thing, as I mentioned previous, I feel this whole situation could have been handled more intelligently and strategically, instead of them being amped up into what looks an unwinnable war, on paper, regardless of have many stories of valiance come out.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find this inference Ukraine should have done something different utterly sickening.

Whatever “propaganda” you have, they aren’t the aggressor here. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by bobzy

[sne]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find this inference Ukraine should have done something different utterly sickening.

Whatever “propaganda” you have, they aren’t the aggressor here. 

Think Putin had decided to do this no matter what. Only thing that might have halted it was if China said no at that meeting at the Olympics.

But not sure even that would have mattered. They'd have probably engineered an "accident" to have an excuse.  

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

43 minutes ago, bickster said:

Russia invading Ukraine is releated to supposed NATO expansion (or it was until it was about de-Nazification )

As a member of NATO, it is almost impossible for the UK to remain neutral, like it or not, we have to be involved

It's nothing to do with being drowned in noise, it's more about having a slight understanding about the international relations that are at play here.

Neutrality isn't really an option that we have

My comment about remaining " neutral " wasn't in reference to the NATO nations.

I was referring to the Ukrainian position, at least temporarily, on paper, until we collectively ( As a planet ) could find a way to wrangle agreements for these nations without bloodshed ( Perhaps unrealistic, but I'm not liking the alternative )

Obviously NATO nations have been lending massive support.

My mention of NATO etc, was to point out that, the reason they haven't officially gone in militarily, is because the are trying to be measured, and find a way to help, whilst leaving the door open for the most peaceful ( Well, a bit too late for that ), or least damaging resolution, for the good of all of us.

So I was simply using that, as reference, to why my notion about "  neutrality " or measured and calculated moves, in the first place, weren't as outlandish as it may seem, in the face of it.

Even if it would mean swallowing some national pride, resources, areas or conceding certain things.

I saw an experienced US General claim that Russia actually have no intention of " taking over " the whole of Ukraine, but they 100 percent want the Eastern parts, as they feel it belongs to them.

For example, aren't most of the people on the Eastern Wing ( Donbass ) and so on basically Russian anyway? Or Russian speaking Ukrainians?

Maybe they should just split the nation, into East and West, with signed assurances , by International Law, ratified by the UN or whoever would be the most relevant body, from Putin/Russia that, that's that, and they can't touch Ukraine ( West ) anymore.

Obviously alot of people would be loathe to do this, but if it could be a painless way for everyone to get something they want and live in peace, then hey.

Either way, I think this probably ends with Putin dead. Which is all good, unless whoever replaces him, ends up being worse than him. ( Unlikely I know, but not beyond the realms of possibility ).

[KentVillan]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

My comment about remaining " neutral " wasn't in reference to the NATO nations.

I was referring to the Ukrainian position, at least temporarily, on paper, until we collectively ( As a planet ) could find a way to wrangle agreements for these nations without bloodshed ( Perhaps unrealistic, but I'm not liking the alternative )

Obviously NATO nations have been lending massive support.

My mention of NATO etc, was to point out that, the reason they haven't officially gone in militarily, is because the are trying to be measured, and find a way to help, whilst leaving the door open for the most peaceful ( Well, a bit too late for that ), or least damaging resolution, for the good of all of us.

So I was simply using that, as reference, to why my notion about "  neutrality " or measured and calculated moves, in the first place, weren't as outlandish as it may seem, in the face of it.

Even if it would mean swallowing some national pride, resources, areas or conceding certain things.

I saw an experienced US General claim that Russia actually have no intention of " taking over " the whole of Ukraine, but they 100 percent want the Eastern parts, as they feel it belongs to them.

For example, aren't most of the people on the Eastern Wing ( Donbass ) and so on basically Russian anyway? Or Russian speaking Ukrainians?

Maybe they should just split the nation, into East and West, with signed assurances , by International Law, ratified by the UN or whoever would be the most relevant body, from Putin/Russia that, that's that, and they can't touch Ukraine ( West ) anymore.

Obviously alot of people would be loathe to do this, but if it could be a painless way for everyone to get something they want and live in peace, then hey.

Either way, I think this probably ends with Putin dead. Which is all good, unless whoever replaces him, ends up being worse than him. ( Unlikely I know, but not beyond the realms of possibility ).

Russian-speaking / ethnic Russian Ukrainians are not necessarily pro-Putin or pro-integration. That’s a mistake a lot of people make in this debate. Lots of Russian-speaking Ukrainians have an independent Ukrainian identity.

(Think of it a bit like Welsh and English speakers in Wales.)

[MCU]

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

So you are, if so correct me?

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm genuinely curious. You're claiming one nuclear missile could wipe out our entire country. I'm simply asking you to prove to me with evidence that would be the case. Or are you just assuming?

Edited March 6, 2022 by MCU

[Davkaus]

The idea is to surrender half the country as long as Russia agrees to leave the rest alone? You may as well wipe your arse on a signed agreement from Russia

[avfc1982am]

The idea that the Ukraine can just surrender is stupid anyway. Thousands will still die, women will still get raped once everyone's been disarmed. Russians are indiscriminately shooting and blowing up civilians in the ceasefire corridors at this moment. They are now in Kyiv centre fighting street battles everywhere killing anyone that moves. Russia don't want surrender they want to eradicate and murder a nation before allowing surrender.  

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

41 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find this inference Ukraine should have done something different utterly sickening.

Whatever “propaganda” you have, they aren’t the aggressor here. 

Ok not even sure how you've connected a comment I made about propoganda yesterday, to my recent post, at all.

I feel again, the second part is some people genuinely trying to misunderstand my sentiment, I don't think what I'm intimating is that complicated.

Alright here's a go, say you're a 100 pound woman, you live with an abusive spouse who is 350 pounds, and an ex pro boxer, with a mean temper, and has the ability to end your life in an instant.

You've been chatting with a bloke on the Internet, and it seems like he really cares about you, and is plotting to rescue you from your plight, but has begged you to remain patient, ( As he lives 2000 miles away and doesn't have a visa to enter the country yet ) and try not to do anything to wind up the horrible geezer in the meantime, for a smooth exit, under safe circumstances.

He also happens to be an ex boxer, even bigger, more experienced, and capable than your abusive spouse, but fact is, he can't be there  in person right now.

You've started doing a bit of martial arts yourself, and now feel confident that you can probably do some damage back to the absuive spouse.

Now does the long distance bloke you've been talking to, encourage you to make a move on the abusive spouse, spit in his face even, wind him up and risk death?

You put up a great fight, and actually injure him badly in the process ( He never knew you had it in you ), but you end up being inevitably overpowered and killed anyway.

Or does he coach you how to keep yourself safe, and not fall " foul "and make strategic moves, at least until he can get there to help? As painful as it might be?

Ridiculous example, but it's the best I could conjure up off the top of my head right now.

Such is the moral dilemma.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

The idea is to surrender half the country as long as Russia agrees to leave the rest alone? You may as well wipe your arse on a signed agreement from Russia

No not half, just the Eastern provinces. Which I think equates to less than a third.

I'm sure that's unlikely anyway. I'm just thinking out loud. Lol

[Seat68]

If a nuclear bomb fell on London, chances are some would blame it on Khan. Then they would complain that it was 5 minutes for a tube when it's normally 2 minutes.