Russia

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not just America though. Besides, it's most likely going to be an incremental thing anyway like I said earlier. Russia will just wait for things to die down and a bit and then keep going. 

Or Vlad dies and a more reasonable successor arrives on the international stage, one with less baggage hanging over from the Cold War.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Or Vlad dies and a more reasonable successor arrives on the international stage, one with less baggage hanging over from the Cold War.

How likely is that? If he ends up dying he will just be replaced by a kgb crony equally ruthless and hard nosed to keep his place at the top. 

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's not just America though. Besides, it's most likely going to be an incremental thing anyway like I said earlier. Russia will just wait for things to die down and a bit and then keep going. 

Waiting isn’t going to make NATO any smaller or move its borders though.

Invading, and perhaps more importantly, holding Ukraine, will have significant cost as well.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

Waiting isn’t going to make NATO any smaller or move its borders though.

Invading, and perhaps more importantly, holding Ukraine, will have significant cost as well.

You've said yourself you don't think that Russia will stop at Ukraine. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Or Vlad dies and a more reasonable successor arrives on the international stage, one with less baggage hanging over from the Cold War.

I would love a capture similar to Saddam’s but instead of bringing to trial they chop him into pieces slowly and painfully. 

[Lighthouse]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

You've said yourself you don't think that Russia will stop at Ukraine. 

Which is why we will have to put military hardware in the Baltics.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Which is why we will have to put military hardware in the Baltics.

What we should do and what we will do are two different things which is my point. I'll believe it when I see it. 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

You've said yourself you don't think that Russia will stop at Ukraine. 

I don’t think they want to stop at Ukraine.

I do think that a united response against Russia over Ukraine is likely to make Putin calculate it’ll cost too much to go up against NATO.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

I don’t think they want to stop at Ukraine.

I do think that a united response against Russia over Ukraine is likely to make Putin calculate it’ll cost too much to go up against NATO.

Given what I've posted below, doesn't seem like a good start for unity does it. 

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Given what I've posted below, doesn't seem like a good start for unity does it. 

That’s not a good sign for Ukraine, but it in no way indicates that NATO wouldn’t respond to an invasion of a NATO country.

[whelk]

Johnson actually impressive in his speech to Parliament

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

That’s not a good sign for Ukraine, but it in no way indicates that NATO wouldn’t respond to an invasion of a NATO country.

The point is it doesn't seem like we do have a united response over Ukraine which isn't going to make Putin calculate anything other than once again displaying the West's lack of unity and division. 

[Jimmy_D]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point is it doesn't seem like we do have a united response over Ukraine which isn't going to make Putin calculate anything other than once again displaying the West's lack of unity and division. 

I don’t think removal from SWIFT is off the table, but regardless of that, sanctions currently in place are having a massive impact on the Russian economy already.

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point is it doesn't seem like we do have a united response over Ukraine which isn't going to make Putin calculate anything other than once again displaying the West's lack of unity and division. 

It’s one of thousands of possible sanctions which hasn’t been agreed upon yet. That is all.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Which is why we will have to put military hardware in the Baltics.

 

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What we should do and what we will do are two different things which is my point. I'll believe it when I see it. 

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/02/22/us-attack-helos-f-35s-and-infantry-heading-to-baltics-amid-ukraine-invasion/

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, whelk said:

Johnson actually impressive in his speech to Parliament

Sanctions against Belarus is a good move.

[egg]

58 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Because they don’t want to break a treaty that obliges them to?

I’m really not sure why you think it’d be such a small thing to do that.

Because the ramifications are a European war, or if the USA get involved, a world war. 

I'm really not sure why you think it'd be such a small thing to do that to protect a small Baltic state. 

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s one of thousands of possible sanctions which hasn’t been agreed upon yet. That is all.

They've had quite a while to discuss it all but still can't come to agreement. Not a good sign. 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

I don’t think removal from SWIFT is off the table, but regardless of that, sanctions currently in place are having a massive impact on the Russian economy already.

It should have been on the table and delivered without delay. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Because the ramifications are a European war, or if the USA get involved, a world war. 

I'm really not sure why you think it'd be such a small thing to do that to protect a small Baltic state. 

So why not remove the possibility of a war and simply cede the 3 Baltic states to Russia now ?

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Because the ramifications are a European war, or if the USA get involved, a world war. 

I'm really not sure why you think it'd be such a small thing to do that to protect a small Baltic state. 

When they signed up to NATO it was on the understanding they'd follow through with article 5. The whole purpose of signing up to NATO is for mutual self defence. If they aren't providing that then why are they still members?

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Because the ramifications are a European war, or if the USA get involved, a world war. 

I'm really not sure why you think it'd be such a small thing to do that to protect a small Baltic state. 

And the vast majority of the public have zero interest in some small Eastern European backwater. They just want to be left alone to eat McDonalds and browse amazon. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It should have been on the table and delivered without delay. 

The fact it hasn't been is telling in itself. 

[badgerx16]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

And the vast majority of the public have zero interest in some small Eastern European backwater. They just want to be left alone to eat McDonalds and browse amazon. 

The same is probably true for the Russian general population.

[egg]

51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

And the vast majority of the public have zero interest in some small Eastern European backwater. They just want to be left alone to eat McDonalds and browse amazon. 

Sad but true. I'm with you on this. I think he'll probably stop, for now, at Ukraine. I think that's primarily as dealing with resistance in such a large country will take time. If/when he decides to move further west, I can't see any appetite for Nato to step in as the consequences would be severe. Regardless, its a fucked up situation, and completely unnecessary. 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by egg

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

When they signed up to NATO it was on the understanding they'd follow through with article 5. The whole purpose of signing up to NATO is for mutual self defence. If they aren't providing that then why are they still members?

There's about 5 pages mate on this. I approach it on what I see as a credible reality - WW3 will not happen if Putin decides he wants Lithuania. 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The same is probably true for the Russian general population.

The difference is Putin can just disregard them or threaten them with prison. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So why not remove the possibility of a war and simply cede the 3 Baltic states to Russia now ?

Is that an actual question? 

[Jimmy_D]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Because the ramifications are a European war, or if the USA get involved, a world war. 

I'm really not sure why you think it'd be such a small thing to do that to protect a small Baltic state. 

Like I said, the ramifications of breaking the NATO treaty would be too big to ignore.

If we didn’t want to be obliged to defend them, the time to decide that was when they were admitted to NATO.

[moonraker]

41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The point is it doesn't seem like we do have a united response over Ukraine which isn't going to make Putin calculate anything other than once again displaying the West's lack of unity and division. 

Its an opening gambit and only one sanction of many.  

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

It should have been on the table and delivered without delay. 

 

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The fact it hasn't been is telling in itself. 

Why? Who’s decided that cancelled SWIFT payments, on the first day of fully fledged invasion, is THE defining moment of NATO’s alliance? This needs to be a calm and measured response which hurts Russia more than it hurts us. There will a lot of ongoing discussion about the best road to take. The Ruble is down 12% against the Pound in the last week.

[moonraker]

If many reports are to be believed the people on the streets of Moscow are not very happy with their leader.

[whelk]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

And the vast majority of the public have zero interest in some small Eastern European backwater. They just want to be left alone to eat McDonalds and browse amazon. 

I think you have no idea of the mood of disgust across the general public. Your defeatism and pessimism is not mirrored by anyone I know. 
House of Commons in rare sign of unity was clear this is nothing that will be underplayed. 
Yet you go finding a tweet about SWIFT and hang your hat on it making conclusions. 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

I think you have no idea of the mood of disgust across the general public. Your defeatism and pessimism is not mirrored by anyone I know. 
House of Commons in rare sign of unity was clear this is nothing that will be underplayed. 
Yet you go finding a tweet about SWIFT and hang your hat on it making conclusions. 

Oh sure. The public will be baying for Russian blood when the missiles start blowing up British troops in Lithuania. Would you be prepared to go to the front line to defend NATO interests? 

Edited 24 February, 2022 by hypochondriac

[moonraker]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

I think you have no idea of the mood of disgust across the general public. Your defeatism and pessimism is not mirrored by anyone I know. 
House of Commons in rare sign of unity was clear this is nothing that will be underplayed. 
Yet you go finding a tweet about SWIFT and hang your hat on it making conclusions. 

Agree friends and family have expressed outrage and believe we must react decisively.

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Oh sure. The public will be baying for Russian blood when the missiles start blowing up British troops in Lithuania. Would you be prepared to go to the front line to defend NATO interests? 

So when Russia starts invading NATO countries, you think the British public will be disgusted if we act in defence of our own alliance? You think everyone in Britain wants to sit here, trembling in our boots, until we have Russian bombers circling over Buckingham Palace, then take action?

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

So when Russia starts invading NATO countries, you think the British public will be disgusted if we act in defence of our own alliance? You think everyone in Britain wants to sit here, trembling in our boots, until we have Russian bombers circling over Buckingham Palace, then take action?

He has the cowardly collaborator spirit. 

[whelk]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Oh sure. The public will be baying for Russian blood when the missiles start blowing up British troops in Lithuania. Would you be prepared to go to the front line to defend NATO interests? 

Yes I would. Past my best though. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yes I would. Past my best though. 

Well if it happens it will lend your argument more credibility once you've travelled out there. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So when Russia starts invading NATO countries, you think the British public will be disgusted if we act in defence of our own alliance? You think everyone in Britain wants to sit here, trembling in our boots, until we have Russian bombers circling over Buckingham Palace, then take action?

That's a short sighted question for me. This issue how Putin reacts to us if we put boots on the ground / send in warplanes where his lot are active. I see an armed response, potentially bringing this shit to our shores. Would that scenario cheer or disgust the British public? 

[whelk]

 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, whelk said:

 

Imagine that the level of protesting being reported will have taken Putin by surprise a bit, considering what they’re risking.

As for here, I can only speak for myself and the people I’ve spoken to today, but it’s been unanimous that any leader that broke the NATO treaty would lose our support.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So when Russia starts invading NATO countries, you think the British public will be disgusted if we act in defence of our own alliance? You think everyone in Britain wants to sit here, trembling in our boots, until we have Russian bombers circling over Buckingham Palace, then take action?

I don't think it will play out as you suggest it will. Like I said, it will be incremental movements over a period of time rather than a rushed invasion across multiple countries. Given that, no one in the west will want to risk ww3 by having actual troops on the ground fighting Russia. Once the consequences are known such as Internet being down, energy prices through the roof, food prices skyrocketing, mobile phone infrastructure being attacked etc along with many dead Britons, the narrative will be "we are going through all of this for the sake of some tiny Eastern European nation that used to be part of Russia anyway. Its not so different from Ukraine, why are we going through all this pain when we can just negotiate with Putin and sort it out more peacefully."

Its not about what I want, but I bet that narrative will be more prominent than the alternative. People have principles but they don't want to pay the nevessary price for them. It's why green policies have such popularity up until the point that it's explained what is required to have them. 

 

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

Is that an actual question? 

That is what the punctuation suggested. If NATO will not provide direct military intervention in support of an invasion of the Baltic states., surely it would be economically and humanitarily better to simply concede.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

That's a short sighted question for me. This issue how Putin reacts to us if we put boots on the ground / send in warplanes where his lot are active. I see an armed response, potentially bringing this shit to our shores. Would that scenario cheer or disgust the British public? 

Exactly. If Russia shell any part of this country then there would be mass panic and the question will be raised about why we are risking death and destruction over something so small (like an invasion of Lithuania.) 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't think it will play out as you suggest it will. Like I said, it will be incremental movements over a period of time rather than a rushed invasion across multiple countries. Given that, no one in the west will want to risk ww3 by having actual troops on the ground fighting Russia. Once the consequences are known such as Internet being down, energy prices through the roof, food prices skyrocketing, mobile phone infrastructure being attacked etc along with many dead Britons, the narrative will be "we are going through all of this for the sake of some tiny Eastern European nation that used to be part of Russia anyway. Its not so different from Ukraine, why are we going through all this pain when we can just negotiate with Putin and sort it out more peacefully."

Its not about what I want, but I bet that narrative will be more prominent than the alternative. People have principles but they don't want to pay the nevessary price for them. It's why green policies have such popularity up until the point that it's explained what is required to have them. 

 

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

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

That is what the punctuation suggested. If NATO will not provide direct military intervention in support of an invasion of the Baltic states., surely it would be economically and humanitarily better to simply concede.

To avoid war then probably. That's the choice that everyone will have to make and I don't think the West has the stomach for a full blown war. Probably better as well for Ukraine to allow Russia to invade with little to no bloodshed given that they will probably succeed either way. Both options terrible though admittedly. 

[Jimmy_D]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Exactly. If Russia shell any part of this country then there would be mass panic and the question will be raised about why we are risking death and destruction over something so small (like an invasion of Lithuania.) 

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.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

To avoid war then probably. That's the choice that everyone will have to make and I don't think the West has the stomach for a full blown war. Probably better as well for Ukraine to allow Russia to invade with little to no bloodshed given that they will probably succeed either way. Both options terrible though admittedly. 

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

[Lighthouse]

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.