It's a rather impossible situation. IMO NATO and western countries that courted the Ukrainian leadership are being rather.. Cowardly. Letting Ukraine take the 'hit' as it were, like this is all some sort of water-testing for the west as to what will or won't push Putin's regime to war. Putin's regime, however, is one hundred percent to blame. Putin created this situation, no question. As much as I realise that NATO or any other country sending bodies to this war is going to be about as easy a pill to swallow as a urinal cake, because it essentially means the start of WWIII, it's frustrating that innocent people are stuck there just.. Having to endure. For all the world going 'holy **** are the Ukranian's ballsy and tough', well.. Their choice is live on their knees or die on their feet. There's not really another option now.
True enough. It does pose the question though, how much would it take for NATO to do anything? At the moment Putin is "you've got nukes, I've got nukes and I'm going to do what the feck I want, kill as many innocents as I like because you won't do feck all" I guess the only trigger would be the attack on an EU or NATO nation. I imagine nothing will happen while they take Ukraine and possibly Moldova.
My understanding of NATO is that it's a defensive pact - So basically, if Putin's regime doesn't directly attack a NATO member, then NATO would be the aggressors if they "responded", which would probably lead to wild gesturing and 'I told you so!' from Putin. Which, I suppose, is why they won't send bodies to Ukraine's aid. I'm not sure how that affects individual countries. Taking this situation as an example - If an individual NATO member joined in, if the resulting firefight caused casualties to that NATO member (Not intervening under NATO's banner, mind), does that count as an attack on a NATO member? Ultimately I feel like it basically hamstrings NATO countries into doing the bare minimum to avoid being the spark - As much as Liz Truss might get the blame for Putin's regime upping the ante on the nuclear arsenal. I guess NATO members have to debate internally at what point it becomes inevitable - If Belarus hosts Russian nuclear weapons, for example, does that constitute a more pressing threat? Frankly, though, I don't know what crackpipe Putin's on if he thinks this is going to do anything but solidify opinions that Russian border countries need to join NATO to prevent future attacks.
It’s easy to criticise the decision by NATO not to go in and fight but, WW2 cost the lives of tens of millions. One nuclear weapon fired now, could level a much bigger city than Hiroshima or Nagasaki…
The two reasons why we are not considering troops or aim deployments in Ukraine are that it would justify Putin's lies that NATO wants to attack Russia, but secondly that we are no in a position to do so properly. Russia's military is bases right there whereas we aren't deployed even nearby. To make an intervention we would need months of build-up in the Eastern NATO countries. It just cannot work right now, even if it was the right thing to do. However there shuld be a steady increasing deployment to those places, it would make the baltics a lot safer and make the point that if Putin trys to widen the war, he will will get hit very hard immediately.
However we should ask the question, what is the response of NATO if, say Putin uses a tactical nuke somewhere in Ukraine to make the point. I don't think talking about yachts and sanctions will be anything like the answer at that point. Don't have the answer but we can't think of this as an impossible scenario, alas.
Hardly any. Fact is they could annihilate the whole planet with the weapons they have. Over 6000, IIRC. Most of them intercontinental. Right now? I would have little doubt he could strike any one anywhere. There are some missile defence systems but they are not fail proof and they do let a few in (see Israel for latest example). IE, they are affective and Israel definitely won that last missile scrap hands down, but the fact is some will still get through. And one nuke getting through? is more than enough to cause serious damage. I mean, you hit DC and NY? the USA is screwed. Same goes here. Only it's worse here because of how much smaller we are. That said we can retaliate even if the whole of the UK mainland is ash, because ours are at sea. And this is why Ukraine really should have been more careful. Right now? we are still in the age where closest is best. Very fast delivery time, very little warning. This is why Russia and I would believe every one else is going hypersonic. Right now? it would take Russia 20 minutes to hit the UK. Well, unless they have subs out there. Which is why he did not want Ukraine joining NATO. And has been saying that for many years, not just lately. He's most paranoid about the U.S's defence systems because the chances are he doesn't have any. Meaning if there were and exchange? he would theoretically "lose". Not that there would be any winners of course. During the cold war the thing Russia was most paranoid about was Star Wars. Reagan's Star Wars. IE, putting defence systems in space. Of course that never came to be..... Quite what he will get out of putting nukes in Bellend Russia? I have no idea. Maybe he could strike some targets sooner? or maybe he is still trying to counter the fact that he does not want Ukraine in NATO. As I said, if the U.S put big ass nukes in Russia? that would be a big problem, given they are right nextdoor. Edit. To add. It was missile defence systems he did not want in Ukraine. You can understand why, too.
If he nukes Ukraine he will cause himself untold pain. Both in global terms and financially. I read a thesis yesterday about how he may detonate one at sea somewhere or something to get his point across.
If he does go full fruitcake it'll most likely be tactical nukes rather than strategic ones. And if I had 50p to bet I reckon he'd go for a false flag operation, blame and then claim the Ukrainians didn't give up all of theirs in '94, and then respond in kind x 10 as a further justification for his actions.
Of course it will make Russia a complete pariah until there was a complete regime change. But that isn't rally a huge change from where he's heading now. Say he makes up that Ukraine has been given chemical weapons by the US had acquired chemical weapons and was storing them on a military base by the Polish border. Then he has a justification or enough for him for a tactical nuke. Remember he is saving the Russians from Genocide. After the last week, saying "he won't go that far because is is insane and evil" isn't really a full argument.
I mean.. This is screaming at me as a very poor take on the situation. I agree that Ukraine wanting to be part of NATO and the EU is like movement to a bull - But that doesn't make this anyone's fault other than Putin's regime. The world is changing, it's not the time of the iron curtain, and it's not up to every country with a border to Russia to kowtow to a complete **** because he won't accept that. The threats I can understand, that's the kind of regime he runs, but actually doing it? I don't believe the EU, or the west, should stand for that kind of ********. That said, I'm not sure how far I'd push it if I were in charge. It's easy for me to armchair general it and say 'I think we should be in there too' on the basis that we, the western world, courted Ukraine and are now letting them bear the weight of Putin's regime. It strikes me as absolute cowardice to partake in something that is going to enrage a dickhead and then not follow it through. I don't want WWIII, but letting this go on without direct intervention is, to me, the greatest show that the EU, NATO, the west in general is willing to tolerate civilian deaths and suffering of a country for the sake of some rampant **** going 'but nuclear weapons'.
Yes, for NATO. However, there's another alliance: the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. When Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine agreed to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and give up their nukes, they were given certain national security assurances by the other signatories: the United States, the United Kingdom... and, ironically, Russia. Now, those assurances said that we'd come and help if their territorial integrity or political independence were threatened. Which, you can't deny, is what's happening (has happened) in Ukraine. But... we're not doing. Now, that may be because the whole thing blew up when Russia attacked a fellow signatory; it may be because we don't want to enter into a hot war with Russia ourselves; or it may be because those assurances weren't as ironclad as thought. The full text of the Ukrainian version of the document is available on Wikisource. Russia's definitely broken Articles 1 (respect independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine) and 2 (don't use any of your weapons against Ukraine), but Article 4 says that we must "provide assistance to Ukraine [...] if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." So far, we've only had the threat of nuclear weapons, and even then only obliquely and not directed specifically at Ukraine, so Article 4 has not been breached - and the Memorandum says nothing about having to provide aid if one of the signatories is being a dickhole, unfortunately. There are extracts of the document doing the rounds on social media using only the "must provide assistance" bit and ignoring the "in which nuclear weapons are used" bit, but sadly for Ukraine the - very concise - document is clear: signatories won't do jack unless someone threatens to nuke Ukraine - and even then they might arguably have to wait until they actually do nuke Ukraine. It... it wasn't a great deal for Ukraine, I ain't gonna lie. EDIT: Incidentally, even Wikipedia's summary gets it wrong: "The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan." No mention of "if and only if the threat involves nukes." Which is probably why everyone's making the same mistake on the socials: hit up Wikipedia, read above the fold, post an opinion in 280 characters or less - but don't ever bother visiting the actual document...
Well I was just wondering what NATO's tipping point is. On the plus side, there's only been one country who has been crazy enough to drop nukes in wartime and that was America. This is what pains me, the Soviets swung WWII and lost millions, now they're led by a man from the same nutjob isle of the crazy supermarket as the evil Charlie Chaplin.
Not even a good deal for Ukraine, if you ask me. Or the other signatories directly attached to Russia. I think I'm just tired of seeing Putin's regime be a screaming dick to everything and everyone on their borders and the rest of the world going 'um er well maybe, oh look it's gone away nevermind'
I think things are about to get worse: https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...08f3a866fe8022#block-621e227f8f08f3a866fe8022
I'm in firm agreement here dude. Putin is a total dick head. TBH a little Novichok would come in handy here. It's becoming clear that his "Party" or whatever they call it don't really agree with him either. BTW this whole nuke thing? is a total over reaction IMO. Yeah he's talking about them but it's just rhetoric IMO and if not what the bugger can we do about it? pretty much nothing. The news are having a field day with it, though. Money talks as usual. And TBH? we are not standing for it. At first I thought the sanctions were pretty bloody toothless and just lip service but it's not any more. This is how we hurt them. Going in and wasting lives? won't do anything apart from probably get the nukes flying. The way I feel? at some point if it carries on then yeah, we are going to have to do something. End of. However, I just feel that sending people to their deaths for many years would probably be worse than just nuking it out with them. Because I think we all know deep down that it was going to be inevitable one day.
