Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Having read the whole thread on Twitter, I can't say that Kasparov makes a particularly convincing argument. Perhaps he should stick to the day job.
Not a view that you would have got much support for one week ago.
An Estonian ship is reportedly sunk "following an explosion", whilst near a Ukranian port. Estonia is in NATO. Is that the attack on a NATO member that triggers action?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I didn't say it was a perfect solution and would be absolutely reliant on the 27 countries actually pulling together and fronting up with cash. However such a force, were it to exist, would have the ability to intervene in Ukraine and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia to challenge Russian aggression and expansionist policies.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I didn't say it was a perfect solution and would be absolutely reliant on the 27 countries actually pulling together and fronting up with cash. However such a force, were it to exist, would have the ability to intervene in Ukraine and other non-NATO countries bordering Russia to challenge Russian aggression and expansionist policies.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states.
NATO is constrained by it's founding principle of defence of its member states.
I can't see that principle changing massively under an EU construct. Look at the issues around qualified majority voting - can you honestly see the 27 signing up to allow the Commission to commit their forces to combat? All it would do is duplicate command structures and add confusion. It would also require the EU to duplicate the top end capabilities - and logistics mass - provided by the US (and to a degree the UK).
The world in general does not have a problem with Russians as people. It does have a problem with the psychotic gangster in charge and would probably breathe a sigh of relief if he succumbed to the window safety issues that appear to be prevalent in Russia.
Turns out we have more than enough conventional capability, air power in particular. Russian forces would be swept aside with ease. I suspect Vlad has got this message loud and clear, hence his threats to go nuclear - that's all he has left in the locker.
Yup, I think people were taken in by all the Russian propaganda (e.g. all that S400/Su57 blah blah BS). Personally I had my doubts about their capabilities, given their leaden performances in Syria, Libya, their non-intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh etc. The signs were definitely there.
Yup, I think people were taken in by all the Russian propaganda (e.g. all that S400/Su57 blah blah BS). Personally I had my doubts about their capabilities, given their leaden performances in Syria, Libya, their non-intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh etc. The signs were definitely there.
Only half a speed-brake
Picked from elsewhere:
I think this is a perfectly apt summary of Vladimir Putin's thinking, taken from another discussion:
* You are the Russian president, essentially the lifetime ruler of the world's largest state, which stretches over a sixth of the landmass - the time difference between Crimea and New Chaplin is 11.5 hours
* You've got Ukraine in your near border area, which has long been divided into "pro-Russian" and "pro-Western" parts
* The access you have to your military base in Crimea is anything but certain and secure in the long term, but you simply can't (and won't) give up Sevastopol
* who you send to the Ukraine are effectively conscripted boys
- if the lads can take the whole Ukraine on the fly, great. It didn't cost you much and you got more than you wanted (at this stage).
- the boys won't do too well there? OK, you'll "sell" the loss of a few hundred soldiers to your people as "the heroic struggle of our children against fascism" - and you'll send more soldiers after them, but already heavily armed professionals, who will turn the "western" Ukraine (which you don't want) into scorched earth and to "eastern Ukraine" bring the remains of the "young heroes who fell for the liberation of Novorossiya from the fascist yoke" And with Novorossiya there will be a "brotherhood sealed with blood"
- you cannot lose militarily, because your army is objectively stronger than the army of Ukraine and nobody else can intervene militarily there, because you have nuclear weapons
- economic sanctions won't hurt you personally and you'll pose it as a question of honour to the ordinary Russians - "do you choose national pride or slavery to Western fascists"?
- The only ones who can protest significantly are the rich oligarchs. But when you ascended to the throne 20 years ago, you "cleansed the motherland" of those wealthy Western sellouts and thieves" that arose under Yeltsin - and the people applauded you then.
- So you're going to destroy the western part of Ukraine, driving half a million or even a million people out of there
- The West will be overwhelmed by the next wave of refugees.
- You'll have safe access to Crimea.
Well, if you can withstand (maybe) a year of (only partial) sanctions anyway, they will start working with you again because you have the raw materials they need
You will keep "Novorossiya" (eastern Ukraine) and destroy the western part of Ukraine to make its revitalization very expensive for your enemies
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
* You are the Russian president, essentially the lifetime ruler of the world's largest state, which stretches over a sixth of the landmass - the time difference between Crimea and New Chaplin is 11.5 hours
* You've got Ukraine in your near border area, which has long been divided into "pro-Russian" and "pro-Western" parts
* The access you have to your military base in Crimea is anything but certain and secure in the long term, but you simply can't (and won't) give up Sevastopol
* who you send to the Ukraine are effectively conscripted boys
- if the lads can take the whole Ukraine on the fly, great. It didn't cost you much and you got more than you wanted (at this stage).
- the boys won't do too well there? OK, you'll "sell" the loss of a few hundred soldiers to your people as "the heroic struggle of our children against fascism" - and you'll send more soldiers after them, but already heavily armed professionals, who will turn the "western" Ukraine (which you don't want) into scorched earth and to "eastern Ukraine" bring the remains of the "young heroes who fell for the liberation of Novorossiya from the fascist yoke" And with Novorossiya there will be a "brotherhood sealed with blood"
- you cannot lose militarily, because your army is objectively stronger than the army of Ukraine and nobody else can intervene militarily there, because you have nuclear weapons
- economic sanctions won't hurt you personally and you'll pose it as a question of honour to the ordinary Russians - "do you choose national pride or slavery to Western fascists"?
- The only ones who can protest significantly are the rich oligarchs. But when you ascended to the throne 20 years ago, you "cleansed the motherland" of those wealthy Western sellouts and thieves" that arose under Yeltsin - and the people applauded you then.
- So you're going to destroy the western part of Ukraine, driving half a million or even a million people out of there
- The West will be overwhelmed by the next wave of refugees.
- You'll have safe access to Crimea.
Well, if you can withstand (maybe) a year of (only partial) sanctions anyway, they will start working with you again because you have the raw materials they need
You will keep "Novorossiya" (eastern Ukraine) and destroy the western part of Ukraine to make its revitalization very expensive for your enemies
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
I had a weird moment of reverie yesterday when I imagined what would happen if Vlad was removed from power and Russia became a sane, responsible nation. How different would the world be?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Trying to figue out how to get it into service? https://twitter.com/i/status/1499677142476599299
\maybe it is self-inflicted and the crews don't care about their instructions.
"Here's a thought...
Have you ever heard someone ask "If you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler? "
Well, maybe a Russian General somewhere may be able to test a similar idea now, and no time-machine required."
It's not a guarantee, but looking at the desperate situation of the Russian Forces should a third party enter the fight, the Outcome is clear and not good: End of Mankind.
dead_pan hit the nail on the head regarding the real conclusion: Conventionally the Russian Armed forces have reached their limit with Ukraine, which ist about the military power of 1/7th of the combined European forces.
They are so much on their limit that Vlad is already now pointing out the level of desperation by hinting at his nukes. Nukes were always the last instrument of desperation for the one who was just about to be wiped out.
dead_pan hit the nail on the head regarding the real conclusion: Conventionally the Russian Armed forces have reached their limit with Ukraine, which ist about the military power of 1/7th of the combined European forces.
They are so much on their limit that Vlad is already now pointing out the level of desperation by hinting at his nukes. Nukes were always the last instrument of desperation for the one who was just about to be wiped out.
Last edited by henra; 4th Mar 2022 at 12:41. Reason: corrected orthografic errors
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
RT Russia editor-in-chief Maria Baronova resigned with the words:
How are we to regard Russia and the Russian people in future - assuming we’ve got one? Their general public appear to behave much as any other modern Europeans, yet their soldiers (their own sons and husbands) are corrupt barbarians. The much-vaunted Russian military are showing themselves to be incompetent and ill-equipped thugs whose only real threat to the West is nuclear weapons. Their strutting elite are a bunch of amoral gangsters solely obsessed with accumulating vast personal wealth and possessions. Their government behaves as though the last hundred-odd years never happened, and seem to regard their main enemy as their own people. Much of this was well known before this calamity, but how can we establish any future trust-based relationship with them unless there are seismic changes amounting to a revolution there?