[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Triggaaar]

The smart thing to do would be to put troops in Ukraine now.

Would it not be better to just give Ukraine all the equipment it needs, while preparing for war? And then in 4 years time, when we have someone else in the White House, possibly going further?

 

[fly high]

Would it not be better to just give Ukraine all the equipment it needs, while preparing for war? And then if 4 years time, when we have someone else in the White House, going further?

Yes, assuming the has left the White House & not changed the rules or left another pile of behind him.

 

[Triggaaar]

We should have done that right at the start. Had NATO immediately come to Ukraine's defence, Putin would have backed down. No doubt.

We should have done it in 2014.

Appeasing dictator warmongers is the route to war.

 

[Mellotron]

We should have done that right at the start. Had NATO immediately come to Ukraine's defence, Putin would have backed down. No doubt.

Whilst I think you're probably correct about him (at least initially) backing down, the problem with that course of action is - as Ukraine ISN'T in NATO - Putin would feel it absolutely vindicated all his views about the overreach of NATO, and it would cause issues potentially for NATO's legitimacy as a purely defensive force for it's members.

I believe it would've caused a split within the ranks of NATO - someone like Trump would certainly be against such actions, and alt-right/pro-russia voices would be heavily anti-NATO, and feel with justified reason.

 

[raymondo]

If it’s only the nuclear plants, does that give more weight to Jake Broe’s theory? Conversely, if it’s nuclear+hydro, maybe that means things towards the Paul Warburg theory?

Or Trump was just spitballing and none of it is true. Zelenskyy did say later that they hadn’t discussed ownership at all.

I don’t know, it’s all so messed up

Yeah, maybe or not, I dunno .
As you say, it's all a mess. Trump's inconsistent comments, each delivered as if they're White House policy, some never mentioned again.

 

[SouthSaxon]

Would it not be better to just give Ukraine all the equipment it needs, while preparing for war? And then if 4 years time, when we have someone else in the White House, going further?

This is the way in my view. By all accounts, drones have changed the nature of front line combat in the last couple of years. The Ukrainians are already well-versed and Europe needs time to learn from them.

This is sobering on that topic, starting at around 7:20. (Short but interesting segment before this on the practicalities of US taking ownership of Zaporizhzhia: in short, they’d not be capable of operating it)

 

[Triggaaar]

Whilst I think you're probably correct about him backing down, the problem with that course of action is - as Ukraine ISN'T in NATO - Putin would feel it absolutely vindicated all his views about the overreach of NATO, and it would cause issues potentially for NATO's legitimacy as a purely defensive force for it's members.

Firstly, it wouldn't vindicate Putin, because NATO members wouldn't be invading Russia, merely helping an invaded country. Secondly, it wouldn't have to be done in the name of NATO, it could just be a coalition of the willing. Much like in the first Gulf War.

Putin knows that his complaints about NATO are completely made up BS.

 

[Mellotron]

Firstly, it wouldn't vindicate Putin, because NATO members wouldn't be invading Russia, merely helping an invaded country. Secondly, it wouldn't have to be done in the name of NATO, it could just be a coalition of the willing. Much like in the first Gulf War.

Putin knows that his complaints about NATO are completely made up BS.

You're answering with a different point - the discussion was about NATO going into Ukraine, not a coalition of the willing. Conflating two completely different things. I also didn't say anything about invading. Russia would paint it as an attack on them by NATO, an alliance that has nothing to do with Ukraine.

It would be hard to argue that it was a "defensive" action, as it's not defending a NATO country but going outside of NATO's borders.

If NATO goes in to protect a country that ISN'T in NATO, that does go against what NATO said it is designed to do.

 

[raymondo]

Zelenskiy spells out what will happen in the next few months.

 

[The Clamp]

We should have done that right at the start. Had NATO immediately come to Ukraine's defence, Putin would have backed down. No doubt.

Absolutely agree. We were weak and Putin saw his chance.

 

[The Clamp]

Would it not be better to just give Ukraine all the equipment it needs, while preparing for war? And then in 4 years time, when we have someone else in the White House, possibly going further?

Four more years of Russian invasion and occupation?

I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

 

[Triggaaar]

Four more years of Russian invasion and occupation?

I don’t think that’s a very good idea.

Ok, so you think we should send in European troops now.

Which countries do you think should send them, how many should they send, how long will it take to kick Russia out, and how many Allied lives will be lost? (obviously I'm not expecting you to know those answers, but you need to be able to guess, if that's what you're saying we should do).

 

[Sirnormangall]

Gazprom lost $13.1 billion in 2024.

This may be the key to stopping Russia in the longer term. It's the sanctions. If they haven't got the money to fund their war chest (to pay for weapons, troops, bot farms etc), then their war effort will grind to a halt. This is why they are keen for sanctions to be lifted.

I like the Ukrainian method of sanctioning Russia at arms' length. It's low risk, low cost and high reward. Cripple Russia's ability to extract, refine and transport it's natural resource wealth. This is why Putin wants a ceasefire in the skies on the energy sector.

Focus on what Russia is complaining about. Whip the engine out. Take it apart, piece by piece.
Why are they against Ukraine joining Nato? Why are they demanding Ukraine be de-militarised? Why are they demanding no more weapons aid for Ukraine?

The answers can be summed up thus: they are complaining about the things stopping them continuing with their war.

I agree but how likely is it that Trump dispenses with US sanctions ? Could be just as bad as withdrawing weapons and intelligence support.

 

[peterward]

Zelenskiy spells out what will happen in the next few months.

"Special responsibility in providing global security" is this some kind of sick f***ed up joke?

It's like saying Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter have special responsibilities in providing child welfare.

We're living in Orwells 1984

 

[peterward]

This is hopefully a good development and Ukraine can make good use of the "long Neptune" without restrictions.

 

[papachris]

"Special responsibility in providing global security" is this some kind of sick f***ed up joke?

It's like saying Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter have special responsibilities in providing child welfare.

We're living in Orwells 1984

Strongly agree with your assessment. It seems like they want a new world order carved up between them

 

[beorhthelm]

If it’s only the nuclear plants, does that give more weight to Jake Broe’s theory? Conversely, if it’s nuclear+hydro, maybe that leans things towards the Paul Warburg theory?

Or Trump was just spitballing and none of it is true. Zelenskyy did say later that they hadn’t discussed ownership at all.

I don’t know, it’s all so messed up

seems like Trump didn't say anything about the other nuke plants, but it was in Rubio briefing. miscommunication? agenda?

a related tidbit reading around, Ukraine get all their nuke fuel from US company Westinghouse, so they already control them indirectly.

 

[beorhthelm]

We should have done that right at the start. Had NATO immediately come to Ukraine's defence, Putin would have backed down. No doubt.

Russia would have turned off the gas, Central and Eastern Europe would have frozen. too easily forgotten just how dependent europe was on Russian gas, only really sorted out this past year.

 

[Eric the meek]

I agree but how likely is it that Trump dispenses with US sanctions ? Could be just as bad as withdrawing weapons and intelligence support.

I'm afraid I can't answer that, as I'm not inside Trump's head. I have no idea of the likelihood of him lifting the US sanctions on Russia, but given his close alignment with Putin, we should be prepared for it to happen.

 

[raymondo]

"Special responsibility in providing global security" is this some kind of sick f***ed up joke?

It's like saying Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter have special responsibilities in providing child welfare.

We're living in Orwells 1984

Well yes. It's the Kremlin's words but Trump won't gainsay it.
Yes, a sick joke. Part of the 'if we say bad things/lies a thousand times people will just numbly accept it as truth or normal ' game