Russia

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Selfish cowardly people don’t. Most have a little bit more moral fibre. Green analogy is pathetic btw

No it isn't its entirely accurate. Almost everyone would support the principle of being more environmentally friendly but its a different story if they're told they have to  restrict flights, drastically reduce meat consumption and stop buying consumable goods to a great extent. In the same way, everyone agrees with the principles of NATO but its a bit different once they have to deal with realities of war and cyber attacks on infrastructure for a few months or years. Let's see how long the noble principles last in the minds of more millenials when faced with that reality (particularly since so many profess to despise many of the supposed values of this country) . My guess is not long at all. I'd support war against Russia in this circumstance by the way, I just don't think that will be sentiment of the majority. 

[kyle04]

I think NATO has every justification in piling in military hardware/troops to its eastern borders ASAP, whilst the Warsaw pact has crumbled NATO is still a legitimate alliance. Whether Putin just wants Ukraine to remain neutral or to gradually reinstate parts of the old CCCP remains to be seen, I don't think the Russian people generally have the stomach for another post war land grab. The old communist idealism has long been dead having proved an utter barbaric failure. The notion of Russian missiles raining down on London while we cower and cry surrender is utter bollocks, the question is not would we be willing to suffer to defend eastern European "backwaters", rather would Putin risk his and his country's downfall for the sake of them. I think not, as bold and ambitious as he may be, he has fewer cards to play than many realise.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Egg, hypo, I really think you’re misjudging the mood of not just Britain but the rest of the free world. Invading Ukraine - a Putin puppet state under Yanukovich less than a decade ago - is completely different to invading a NATO state. You speak as if Russia could just stroll across Europe at will, without consequence or opposition. They can’t.

I think you're misjudging what's being said. Putin is a disgrace. He should not get away with it. In time I'll think he'll go further if not stopped. Where I disagree with you and others is that I don't think the West will intervene militarily if Putin turns his attentions to the likes of Lithuania. That's not strolling across Europe. 

I also think you're misjudging the consequences for us if we intervene militarily against Russia wherever it may be. Nobody wants this shit on our shores. Nobody. 

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

You keep framing the invasion of a NATO country as something small.

Surely then, defending said country would also be ‘small’, but then you say that that could result in military action against the British Mainland, an action that would decidedly NOT be small.

The invasion of a NATO country would NOT be small, and the breaking of the NATO treaty would be a massively unpopular move. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

No I don't and I haven't suggested that. It is my belief that most of the public in their cosseted worlds do not want to deal with the consequences of war should someone like Lithuania be invaded. I coukd be wrong of course but I really don't think I will be given what I know about the average member of the general public in the west. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

I think you're misjudging what's being said. Putin is a disgrace. He should not get away with it. In time I'll think he'll go further if not stopped. Where I disagree with you and others is that I don't think the West will intervene militarily if Putin turns his attentions to the likes of Lithuania. That's not strolling across Europe. 

I also think you're misjudging the consequences for us if we intervene militarily against Russia wherever it may be. Nobody wants this shit on our shores. Nobody. 

Yep this basically. How exactly do you think people would react if Russia started bombing parts of the UK or similar? We haven't seen anything close to that in any of our lifetimes bar a very tiny few. 

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I think you're misjudging what's being said. Putin is a disgrace. He should not get away with it. In time I'll think he'll go further if not stopped. Where I disagree with you and others is that I don't think the West will intervene militarily if Putin turns his attentions to the likes of Lithuania. That's not strolling across Europe. 

I also think you're misjudging the consequences for us if we intervene militarily against Russia wherever it may be. Nobody wants this shit on our shores. Nobody. 

I expect the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Hungarians etc don’t want this shit either. At what point do we say enough and put a stop to Putin’s madness?

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So, I again ask you, where do you draw the line ? Estonia ? Latvia ? Lithuania ? Poland ? Czechia ?

Why do you keep asking what I would do? I've already said I'd support meeting Russia with military force should they invade a NATO country. I'm talking about what I think countries will actually do and what course the public in western nations will support. 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Yep this basically. How exactly do you think people would react if Russia started bombing parts of the UK or similar? We haven't seen anything close to that in any of our lifetimes bar a very tiny few. 

What do you think the world’s response would be to an attack on the UK?

What makes you think Putin would think he had anything to gain from an attack on the UK?

Biden is currently pledging to defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of the USA’s military. What makes you think Putin will believe it’s a bluff?

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I think you're misjudging what's being said. Putin is a disgrace. He should not get away with it. In time I'll think he'll go further if not stopped. Where I disagree with you and others is that I don't think the West will intervene militarily if Putin turns his attentions to the likes of Lithuania. That's not strolling across Europe. 

I also think you're misjudging the consequences for us if we intervene militarily against Russia wherever it may be. Nobody wants this shit on our shores. Nobody. 

So where do you think the West will let Putin stop? If you think he can just invade NATO countries and we will respond with relative indifference, how far CAN he go before we actually use our massively superior military?

 

What exactly do you think is coming to our shores? Putin is not going to send bombers to attack the British mainland, that would be insanity.

[kyle04]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

I expect the Ukrainians, the Poles, the Hungarians etc don’t want this shit either. At what point do we say enough and put a stop to Putin’s madness?

When one Russian boot enters a NATO country?

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yep this basically. How exactly do you think people would react if Russia started bombing parts of the UK or similar? We haven't seen anything close to that in any of our lifetimes bar a very tiny few. 

With absolute fury, what kind of question is that?

[egg]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

So where do you think the West will let Putin stop? If you think he can just invade NATO countries and we will respond with relative indifference, how far CAN he go before we actually use our massively superior military?

 

What exactly do you think is coming to our shores? Putin is not going to send bombers to attack the British mainland, that would be insanity.

How do you think Putin will react if we go toe to toe with his soldiers? He ain't gonna fuck about with sanctions or a chat in Geneva. 

No idea where we draw the line, but I stand by my assertion that the West won't spark WW3 if he has a crack at Lithuania. Sure, there'll let him think we will with rhetoric and troop gathering, but the doing it is another matter. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

With absolute fury, what kind of question is that?

It's a valid question given your bold assertion that we'll be fine if we fuck with Putin. 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, egg said:

It's a valid question given your bold assertion that we'll be fine if we fuck with Putin. 

You think Putin is ready to face the consequences of an attack on the UK?

[Baird of the land]

I’d hope Nato would react differently if it was a nato country.

A lot would depend on US willingness I suspect.

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

You think Putin is ready to face the consequences of an attack on the UK?

I have no idea what he thinks. In this morning’s broadcast he looked and sounded like a second rate Bond villain. The problem is, if you don’t stand up to despots the situation just gets worse. And what makes the UK any more special than Ukraine? They deserve a peaceful life, just as we do.

Edited 24 February, 2022 by sadoldgit

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

With absolute fury, what kind of question is that?

I just think that the vast majority of people have been so comfortable and contented for the vast majority or all of their lives (relatively). For a lot of people their existence doesn't extend much beyond who got kicked out of the x factor this week or who Jordan is dating this month. Many of the British public have very little interest in politics, probably don't even know what NATO is and they certainly don't want to risk their entire way of life being removed to go and defend a country they know barely anything about. Lots of people actually really dislike this country and what it stands for. A small of that is actually justified given how we ceded the moral high ground with things like Iraq. There's been a number of books in recent years about how the West has lost confidence in itself and its ideology and thus I'm not sure that there's a majority who believe that the values that our country stands for is worth fighting for. The tiktok generation and social media idiots will not be baying to go and fight some Russians in Lithuania were Russia to start attacking us I am certain and those people comprise a depressingly large number of the population I am afraid. 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by hypochondriac

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

You think Putin is ready to face the consequences of an attack on the UK?

I've said that I think an attack on the UK is a real possibility if we go toe to toe with his troops on foreign land. Incredibly naive to think otherwise. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

How do you think Putin will react if we go toe to toe with his soldiers? He ain't gonna fuck about with sanctions or a chat in Geneva. 

No idea where we draw the line, but I stand by my assertion that the West won't spark WW3 if he has a crack at Lithuania. Sure, there'll let him think we will with rhetoric and troop gathering, but the doing it is another matter. 

Yep. It will be every economic sanction we can muster, robust defence and cross our fingers that the Russian people get pissed off enough to depose him. We won't risk war imo. We don't have the appetite for it. 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by hypochondriac

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, egg said:

I've said that I think an attack on the UK is a real possibility if we go toe to toe with his troops on foreign land. Incredibly naive to think otherwise. 

Defending NATO is something Putin will fully be expecting. If that results in an attack on the UK, it’ll be because Putin is crazy enough to want to attack the UK anyway.

[Lighthouse]

Just now, egg said:

I've said that I think an attack on the UK is a real possibility if we go toe to toe with his troops on foreign land. Incredibly naive to think otherwise. 

I've no idea where you're getting these ideas from but just occupying Ukraine is going to be a massive economic and military strain for Russia. You speak as if they have the resources to take over the whole of Europe and that we're all too gutless to do anything about it. A Russian attack on the UK mainland would be absolute madness, even Putin knows that. He's not going to send his aging Air Force to take on a couple of hundred Typhoons and F35s, plus half the US Air Force.

[aintforever]

It's not about Estonia or Latvia or wherever they go next, it's about defending NATO. If that crumbles then it will effectively be the return of the Soviet Union and the threat that poses all over again.

Edited 24 February, 2022 by aintforever

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Defending NATO is something Putin will fully be expecting. If that results in an attack on the UK, it’ll be because Putin is crazy enough to want to attack the UK anyway.

Nonsense. We're only in the line of fire if we get into military conflict with Russia. It won't happen if we don't. We may or may not get involved, but if we do, it's nuts to assume that our losses will be contained to foreign soil. 

[Jimmy_D]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yep. It will be every economic sanction we can muster, robust defence and cross our fingers that the Russian people get pissed off enough to depose him. We won't risk war imo. We don't have the appetite for it. 

The NATO treaty means that we wouldn’t be making a decision to go to war, we’d be making a decision to break up NATO. That’s something we wouldn’t have an appetite for.

All this assumes that Putin thinks he can take on NATO, or gambles that NATO will break up. Even without having to go through Ukraine first, that would be a massive leap.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I've no idea where you're getting these ideas from but just occupying Ukraine is going to be a massive economic and military strain for Russia. You speak as if they have the resources to take over the whole of Europe and that we're all too gutless to do anything about it. A Russian attack on the UK mainland would be absolute madness, even Putin knows that. He's not going to send his aging Air Force to take on a couple of hundred Typhoons and F35s, plus half the US Air Force.

I really don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying mate, and you're making a hell of an assumption how any reprisal would be delivered. Thinking that we can get into the ring with impunity is naive in the extreme. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

The NATO treaty means that we wouldn’t be making a decision to go to war, we’d be making a decision to break up NATO. That’s something we wouldn’t have an appetite for.

All this assumes that Putin thinks he can take on NATO, or gambles that NATO will break up. Even without having to go through Ukraine first, that would be a massive leap.

Well it's both isn't it. Like I said though it will probably be a small land grab of a specific region. I'm not an expert of Eastern European geography but no doubt there will be areas of support for Putin and maybe he'd encourage them to request assistance in a similar manner to what he's done here. It's not as cut and dried as people like to suggest. 

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Nonsense. We're only in the line of fire if we get into military conflict with Russia. It won't happen if we don't. We may or may not get involved, but if we do, it's nuts to assume that our losses will be contained to foreign soil. 

‘If’ we get into military conflict with Russia? The minute NATO is attacked we already are.

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I really don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying mate, and you're making a hell of an assumption how any reprisal would be delivered. Thinking that we can get into the ring with impunity is naive in the extreme. 

Okay, just to be clear here. If NATO defends Lithuania with military force, what do you then think Russia's course of action will be?

[egg]

27 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Why do you keep asking what I would do? I've already said I'd support meeting Russia with military force should they invade a NATO country. I'm talking about what I think countries will actually do and what course the public in western nations will support. 

It's not just Badger mate, it's others. I think they believe we're pacifists who want to roll out the red carpet for Putin, rather than people playing a possible tape forward and trying to be objective. Personally I vote for a full on involvement if he steps this up to a Nato member, but the expectation that there'll be no reprisals for us is folly. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Okay, just to be clear here. If NATO defends Lithuania with military force, what do you then think Russia's course of action will be?

Well really it would depend on what that defensive force entails and which countries are doing it but we're really just dealing in hypotheticals at the moment and all we can do is give our opinions. Your view seems to be that the minute that Russia attempts to enter a NATO country that there will be a ferocious response of military might and potential war immediately. I think that if it actually came to that that it wouldn't be as united or as simple as you are suggesting. The NATO alliance has not been tested in this way before and after so many decades of peace, I'm not convinced that the general public would have the stomach for the consequences of war. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

‘If’ we get into military conflict with Russia? The minute NATO is attacked we already are.

We're obliged to under article 5. That's different to actual involvement. 

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Okay, just to be clear here. If NATO defends Lithuania with military force, what do you then think Russia's course of action will be?

A barrage of bombs on Uk. But we will get pissed off with that and withdraw ASAP as X Factor requires our attention. 
This thread will need bumping at some point to see who is right. 
 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

A barrage of bombs on Uk. But we will get pissed off with that and withdraw ASAP as X Factor requires our attention. 
This thread will need bumping at some point to see who is right. 
 

That'd involve Russia attacking a Nato member. Hopefully we'll have no need to resurrect it. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It's not just Badger mate, it's others. I think they believe we're pacifists who want to roll out the red carpet for Putin, rather than people playing a possible tape forward and trying to be objective. Personally I vote for a full on involvement if he steps this up to a Nato member, but the expectation that there'll be no reprisals for us is folly. 

They do think that. They keep calling me a coward or a trump supporter for some reason as if I am suggesting that's what I want to happen. Things are very rarely as black and white as crossing a red line and then going to war no matter how noble the cause. Even if we never see bombs falling in the UK we could very well see serious infrastructure damage, no Internet, energy systems hit etc. How long would people be prepared to put up with things like that? You'd have certain political parties howling about it and saying we were to blame for poking Russia and provoking them to act and in my view that would start gaining traction after a few months of misery. I just don't think that most people want to be involved in politics abroad when it comes down to it. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

A barrage of bombs on Uk. But we will get pissed off with that and withdraw ASAP as X Factor requires our attention. 
This thread will need bumping at some point to see who is right. 
 

I can see you have no desire to discuss this sensibly and prefer to mess about. Fair enough. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That'd involve Russia attacking a Nato member. Hopefully we'll have no need to resurrect it. 

I’ll be long gone having died a glorious death taking out 3 Russian tanks before jumping on a grenade to save a young child who had wandered on to the street

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Well really it would depend on what that defensive force entails and which countries are doing it but we're really just dealing in hypotheticals at the moment and all we can do is give our opinions. Your view seems to be that the minute that Russia attempts to enter a NATO country that there will be a ferocious response of military might and potential war immediately. I think that if it actually came to that that it wouldn't be as united or as simple as you are suggesting. The NATO alliance has not been tested in this way before and after so many decades of peace, I'm not convinced that the general public would have the stomach for the consequences of war. 

I disagree that the European public is that pacifist in all of this. There seems to be universal condemnation and horror at what is happening in Ukraine. I think a lot of people would want to stop them the moment they stepped into NATO territory.

Also, it's not the public that matters but the politicians. How weak is Biden going to want to look in front of China and his republican critics?

[Jimmy_D]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

We're obliged to under article 5. That's different to actual involvement. 

So we should base whether we honour treaties on whether we think Putin is nuts enough to directly attack a nuclear power with the ‘Moscow Criterion’ as part of its Nuclear Policy?

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

They do think that. They keep calling me a coward or a trump supporter for some reason as if I am suggesting that's what I want to happen. Things are very rarely as black and white as crossing a red line and then going to war no matter how noble the cause. Even if we never see bombs falling in the UK we could very well see serious infrastructure damage, no Internet, energy systems hit etc. How long would people be prepared to put up with things like that? You'd have certain political parties howling about it and saying we were to blame for poking Russia and provoking them to act and in my view that would start gaining traction after a few months of misery. I just don't think that most people want to be involved in politics abroad when it comes down to it. 

What is your source that Russia can just take down the internet whenever they choose? Falling for the text book propaganda but keep telling yourself you are the realist. He has got you hook line and sinker

[kyle04]

As far as NATO goes, an attack on Latvia = an attack on US, thats the principle of it regardless of what the cossetted western public think about it. As an alliance, NATO has a bigger stick, militarily, financially. Putin knows this , he's ruthless but certainly no Stalin, it could well all unravel for him when Russian citizens start dying on the streets of Moscow at the hands of their own police

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

So we should base whether we honour treaties on whether we think Putin is nuts enough to directly attack a nuclear power with the ‘Moscow Criterion’ as part of its Nuclear Policy?

I've said that I think we should unleash on Russia if they turn on a Nato member. Any one of them. That's different to whether I think we would do that. 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

As far as NATO goes, an attack on Latvia = an attack on US, thats the principle of it regardless of what the cossetted western public think about it. As an alliance, NATO has a bigger stick, militarily, financially. Putin knows this , he's ruthless but certainly no Stalin, it could well all unravel for him when Russian citizens start dying on the streets of Moscow at the hands of their own police

According to Wiki, there are NATO forces in Latvia from Canada, Albania, Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain so Putin would start a war on those countries straight away.

[egg]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

I’ll be long gone having died a glorious death taking out 3 Russian tanks before jumping on a grenade to save a young child who had wandered on to the street

Good lad, that's the way to do it 😂

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

I've said that I think we should unleash on Russia if they turn on a Nato member. Any one of them. That's different to whether I think we would do that. 

The USA is already sending more forces to NATO countries and pledging to fulfil its article 5 obligations.

[kyle04]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

According to Wiki, there are NATO forces in Latvia from Canada, Albania, Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain so Putin would start a war on those countries straight away.

Well yes, and not just countries who have troops in a particular area. Would be eye watering to see German troops directly involved. Just saying...

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I've said that I think we should unleash on Russia if they turn on a Nato member. Any one of them. That's different to whether I think we would do that. 

I understand that but with regards to the last sentence; why? What makes you think any NATO leaders, or their populations, wouldn't be willing to repel Russian military advances?

[kyle04]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

I understand that but with regards to the last sentence; why? What makes you think any NATO leaders, or their populations, wouldn't be willing to repel Russian military advances?

Whelk's up for it by all accounts.

[egg]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

The USA is already sending more forces to NATO countries and pledging to fulfil its article 5 obligations.

Rhetoric and troop gathering was inevitable. Hopefully Putin won't have a crack at Lithuania/Estonia/Latvia so we won't need to find out if article 5 gets invoked. That said, I still don't think the West would allow that to lead to WW3, but hopefully the rhetoric etc keeps Putin in check. 

I'll leave the discussion here mate. We undoubtedly want the same outcome, and a back and forth on what may happen if Putin gets even crazier, won't get either of us anywhere 👍

[egg]

5 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

Whelk's up for it by all accounts.

He's signed up and on his way to Kyiv as we speak. 

[kyle04]

Just now, egg said:

He's signed up and on his way to Kyiv as we speak. 

Poor bugger, driven mad by the loss of his balloons in the storm, looking for someone to blame. I hope he calms down.