Russia vs NATO

[JAperson]

I just hope that Zelensky knows when to throw the towel in, instead of sending his people in to die pointlessly if or when the time comes.

Why should he surrender? Russia has been losing since the start, which is ridicolous considering the size of Russia's military compared to the Ukrainian military. The thing is the Ukrainian's are fighting for what they believe in and there future, they've got a reason to keep fighting. I hate to keep referring to history but did we give up in 1939 and 1940? No, because we were fighting for a cause. The issue the Russians have got is moral, there troops have got no reason to fight, they get very little out of this cruel war.

 

[Dave]

Why should he surrender? Russia has been losing since the start, which is ridicolous considering the size of Russia's military compared to the Ukrainian military. The thing is the Ukrainian's are fighting for what they believe in and there future, they've got a reason to keep fighting. I hate to keep referring to history but did we give up in 1939 and 1940? No, because we were fighting for a cause. The issue the Russians have got is moral, there troops have got no reason to fight, they get very little out of this cruel war.

It’s actually very hard to invade a country that doesn’t want to be invaded, I think the general rule of thumb is you need an 8 to 1 ratio of invading forces to defending forces (which includes resisting civilians.

Putin clearly thought Ukraine wouldn’t resist.

 

[GaryH]

Problem we have is that both sides have lost a lot of people and both sides will now not back down.

May 9th victory parade is fast approaching and either Putin will

1. Escalate to de escalate possibly by using or threatening to nuke Ukraine to get them to back down or at least talk

2. Declare victory to the Russian people on state TV and try to hold the south east of the country (war continues)

3. Declare war on Ukraine to enable him to call up reservists and conscripts to go and fight (war continues)

4. Declare war on NATO and arm its nuclear weapons threatening to strike in an effort to get the west to back down (unlikely, but as time goes on they need to hit the weapons coming in through NATO countries to have any chance of success)

The stakes whichever way you look at it are high now. The west is engaged in basically a proxy war with Russia and to some extent China. Russia has a bloody nose and the Russian ethos is to never give up and you to die trying, so they won’t back down. The west won’t back down because they see this as a fight for freedom, Good against evil.

Another option is I am reading Putin is undergo some cancer surgery shortly and another senior KGB official will take the reins. Maybe something will happen to putin when under the knife and he will no longer rule. That may open up the door for some diplomacy, who knows.

Edit : BBC news are reporting at 10:56 today Russia has said it will attack any weapons destined for Ukraine, in the country which is supplying them. This is the first time it has threatened to attack a NATO country. In the past it has threatened weapons on Ukrainian soil.

 

[Matt.GC]

Problem we have is that both sides have lost a lot of people and both sides will now not back down.

May 9th victory parade is fast approaching and either Putin will

1. Escalate to de escalate possibly by using or threatening to nuke Ukraine to get them to back down or at least talk

2. Declare victory to the Russian people on state TV and try to hold the south east of the country (war continues)

3. Declare war on Ukraine to enable him to call up reservists and conscripts to go and fight (war continues)

4. Declare war on NATO and arm its nuclear weapons threatening to strike in an effort to get the west to back down (unlikely, but as time goes on they need to hit the weapons coming in through NATO countries to have any chance of success)

The stakes whichever way you look at it are high now. The west is engaged in basically a proxy war with Russia and to some extent China. Russia has a bloody nose and the Russian ethos is to never give up and you to die trying, so they won’t back down. The west won’t back down because they see this as a fight for freedom, Good against evil.

Another option is I am reading Putin is undergo some cancer surgery shortly and another senior KGB official will take the reins. Maybe something will happen to putin when under the knife and he will no longer rule. That may open up the door for some diplomacy, who knows.

Edit : BBC news are reporting at 10:56 today Russia has said it will attack any weapons destined for Ukraine, in the country which is supplying them. This is the first time it has threatened to attack a NATO country. In the past it has threatened weapons on Ukrainian soil.

You're being more than a bit OTT here. This is will likely pretty much follow the same pattern as many other wars both past and present. The main difference here is the fact that it's being waged in Europe in a country that borders a NATO boundary and thus being more widely reported.

Nuclear states waging war without using nukes is nothing new. The west taking the side of who they see as the good guys and pumping them with weapons in a proxy war is nothing new.

That's not to play down the situation, but I think some of the potential scenarios you've put forward read a bit like doomsday tabloid headlines. Putin got over confident due to years of incompetent western foreign policy, rolled the dice and lost. Now he's implementing Plan B. We're likely entering a stage of entrenchment and a long war over disputed territories that's likely to last for many years or at least until Putin pops his cloggs. Western politicians will grow bored of making speeches about it, it'll start fading from news headlines.

It wasn't too long ago we cared about refugees drowning in the English channel. Now it's official UK government policy to drag them off their dingys and punish them by shipping them off to Rwanda. Over 4000 people have died in the Yemini crisis so far this year, I haven't heard a story about that in ages. Western nations shamelessly abandoned Afghanistan after 20 years and 10's of thousands of deaths and left the people of that country in exactly the same (if not worse) situation they started with mere months ago and we don't hear much about that any more.

It's of course a war of very important international concern, alarming and abhorrent. It's right that it's now finally being taken seriously (which it wasn't in 2014). But I wouldn't fall for all the Third World War with nukes stuff being banded around because politicians on both sides want to be seen as big and tough by sounding the drumbeats of war. Of course they want to sound menacing, they need to convince their respective populace to part with blood and tax money.

 

[GaryH]

@Matt.GC respectfully I disagree and think this is now a“Big thing” so to speak where things could escalate now - time will tell.

But I totally agree with your other comments about us waging wars in other countries past and present and selling arms to countries doing the same. Difference is we call civilian deaths “collateral damage”.

Personally I find the arrogance of the west and the double standards very nauseating.

 

[rob666]

There are usually around two dozen wars happening around the world at any one time.
It wasn't World War Three a month ago, and it still isn't.
Putin's world bullying has caused the nauseating, arrogant double standards of the west.
Should the west have just stood by and done nothing?
Tyrants have to be stood up too, and that is happening.
Putin could stop all this by stopping dropping bombs, but he continues, alone.

 

[GaryH]

But to some extent be arrogance of the west continues. We still haven’t addressed or are prepared to address the cause of this war - nato expansion.

If china and Russia formed a defensive pact and put it forces on Americas borders, do we really think the us would be happy with that? No they wouldn’t. So why is it ok for the west to do it to Russia.

Yes Russia shouldn’t have invaded Ukraine but I also agree with Russia that they are now surrounded by NATO countries.

 

[Alsty]

But to some extent be arrogance of the west continues. We still haven’t addressed or are prepared to address the cause of this war - nato expansion.

I'm still not sure what you're suggesting. That some NATO countries should withdraw, or new members shouldn't be admitted? Is that likely when faced with Russian aggression?

If countries such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia left NATO, would Putin be happy and back off, or would he just invade them to restore his vision of the USSR?

 

[JAperson]

But to some extent be arrogance of the west continues. We still haven’t addressed or are prepared to address the cause of this war - nato expansion.

But that's not the cause of the war is it? That's one of Russia's propaganda reasons. The real reason for the war was to take more land for Russia, thinking he could get away with it quite quickly.

 

[GaryH]

Isn’t it?? I’m not so sure. They have been warning about nato expansion and the citing of NATO interceptor missile bases in ex soviet states for nearly 10 years now. Yet the west just ignores them and presses on. Ukraine joining NATO would have been the last straw. I don’t think this is purely a land grab no.

 

[shakey]

Isn’t it?? I’m not so sure. They have been warning about nato expansion and the citing of NATO interceptor missile bases in ex soviet states for nearly 10 years now. Yet the west just ignores them and presses on. Ukraine joining NATO would have been the last straw. I don’t think this is purely a land grab no.

This is most definitely a land grab. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia, and probably several other countries as well. He wants the soviet union back.

He knows NATO is not an actual threat to Russia, but he also knows that if a country joins NATO then he cannot invade them.

Russia is the only aggressor here, there is literally no argument to be had otherwise.

 

[JAperson]

@GaryH Putin wants the Soviet Union back, he's made no secret of it, calling it a golden age and we will reunite Russia. This war was intended to take Ukraine or at least put a puppet government in place.

 

[GaryH]

Let’s go back to the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis. The nuclear treaty and MAD was the end result.

Then the USA a few years later looked at its Star Wars programme to shoot Russian missiles down in space. This annoyed the Russians because it threatened the whole concept of MAD.

Then the USA starts looking at its interceptor programme placing missiles and radar stations close to Russia in ex soviet countries. Again this annoys Russia as it potentially removes the whole concept of mass and threatens Russia.

Then trump tears up the nuclear treaty.

Meanwhile nato continued its expansion towards Russia borders.

The west has basically over the years ignored Russias concerns and shifted the power so that the concept of MAD and equal footing in terms of nuclear defence was no longer in equal balance.

I do believe Russia feels threatened and to say nato is a defence force as it closes closer and closer to Russia borders again is just western ignorance to their concerns and has fuelled this situation.

Let’s face it, the only option Russia had to stop Ukraine joining NATO was to attack it. No one was listening to them.

And as much as I despise Russia for what it is doing I equally despise the west for being so arrogant and ignorant to Russia concerns and treating it as a pharaoh state even before this war commenced.

It could have been prevented.

As for Putin wanting the old USSR back…. Maybe in his dreams but he wouldn’t try and attack NATO countries. This war is about stopping nato getting any closer. Who are we in the west to constantly poo poo russias National security concerns.

Let’s not forget NATO was actually set up to stand together and fight against Russia after 1949. If anything nato to the Russians has always been an adversary. It may be defensive to us but we have no right to expect the Russians to believe it when they see it as a threat.

 

[rob666]

Are you saying the facist Putin is right?
Russia attacked another nation.
NATO didn't.
Let's not forget that basic fact.
Mutually assured destruction still exists, once you have a dozen nuclear warheads, in half a dozen locations, especially under water, it doesn't really matter how many warheads the other side has, mutual destruction is still assured.
Simple, non negotiable fact.

 

[GaryH]

I’m not saying he is right. I’m saying the west isn’t right either. It has been building up to this for a very long time. We could have prevented it.

The west has never illegally invaded another country and killed civilians now has it……,

And no I’m not siding with Russia. Im citing the ignorance and arrogance of the west in all of this and how we portray ourselves as the good guys.

 

[JAperson]

The west is absolutely right. For starters Russia doesn't have to be our enemy, Putin choose that path when he became president, it was going in the opposite direction (to a certain extend anyway). If a new independent, free and democratic country wishes to join a military alliance, why should it not be allowed just because it's closer to somewhere else? Just because Russia wants s spear of influence? Which by the way is illegal itself under international law.
@GaryH I think you are starting to fall for the Russia propaganda, which is what Putin wants, we must be united in the fact that this war had no justification and Putin is simply a war criminal.

 

[GaryH]

When you say russia doesn’t have to be our enemy….. that’s if it falls in line with western beliefs and values. It doesn’t want to. It wants to remain a a communist country, just like China does. And wherever we like that or not, we don’t have the right to dictate that if they want to be our friend, they should be democratic.

All the countries the USA and west have attacked over the years….. the mess we have made of the world. Yet somehow we are the good guys and morally right?

No, not at all and no I don’t believe the west are right just as much as I don’t believe Russia is right, what I’m saying is that we always try and portray ourselves as the good guys, when in fact it is down to this arrogance and ignorance we see much of the trouble in the world now.

Tony Blair and Bush are also war criminals, why aren’t they behind bars? Why isn’t there news reports about the weapons the UK is selling to Saudi which are killing incorrect people in Yemen? Oh yeah because it’s not in Europe and their lives matter much less than ours.

Sorry but the west over the years is just as bad as Russia in all of this. They use thermobaric weapons and we all go mad about it, yet we have left tons of depleted uranium shells across the Middle East slowly killing kids and people in those areas yet no one raises an eyelid about that and the effects on the population, just as no one was concerned about the impact agent Orange had on in Vietnam.

We all have just as much blame in all off this whatever way you look at it but the west won’t back down because “we are the good guys”. Personally when you look at the state of the USA and parts of it looking like a war zone it’s not hard to see why countries don’t want to fall in line with Uncle Sam.

 

[JAperson]

When you say russia doesn’t have to be our enemy….. that’s if it falls in line with western beliefs and values. It doesn’t want to. It wants to remain a a communist country, just like China does. And wherever we like that or not, we don’t have the right to dictate that if they want to be our friend, they should be democratic.

They went through a stage of being democratic, and they Russia isn't communist (neither is China anymore). Putin isn't a communist just a crazy nationalist. They could've carried on down there democratic path but Putin stopped that in its tracks so that he could stay in power.

Tony Blair and Bush are also war criminals, why aren’t they behind bars? Why isn’t there news reports about the weapons the UK is selling to Saudi which are killing incorrect people in Yemen? Oh yeah because it’s not in Europe and their lives matter much less than ours.

Yes they are however that's like saying he bullied me so I'm going to bully him. Two wrongs don't make a right, Putin shouldn't use this as an excuse.

All the countries the USA and west have attacked over the years….. the mess we have made of the world. Yet somehow we are the good guys and morally right?

We are morally better than Putin, does that make everything we've done right? No, of course not, we've done so bad things but we've also done a lot of good. The USA likes war because it funds there arms industry however the UK should be more hesitant to join in with these. Look at Vietnam, we didn't get involved because we knew it was an illegal war that would achieve little. But still it's not a justification for the war.

Sorry but the west over the years is just as bad as Russia in all of this. They use thermobaric weapons and we all go mad about it, yet we have left tons of depleted uranium shells across the Middle East slowly killing kids and people in those areas yet no one raises an eyelid about that and the effects on the population, just as no one was concerned about the impact agent Orange had on in Vietnam.

Hold on a minute, are you suggesting we used chemical weapons? I don't think there is any evidence of that. What we did was wrong however it's no where near as bad as what Putin is doing. Afghanistan for example was starting to remove a terrorist group however we then stayed for 15 odd years to try and bring in a democratic government, the issue is that the US government cannot nation build. The second Iraq war is a different story and that should not have taken place. I will repeat what we did was wrong however it does not mean Putin should be doing this.

We all have just as much blame in all off this whatever way you look at it but the west won’t back down because “we are the good guys”.

Because appeasing Putin like we appeased Hitler will work then will it?

Personally when you look at the state of the USA and parts of it looking like a war zone it’s not hard to see why countries don’t want to fall in line with Uncle Sam.

The US clearly is unfit to be the worlds policeman, it's shown itself uncapable of doing so, we do need to find an alternative. Perhaps a strong alliance between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is the solution.

 

[GaryH]

Did the west use chemical weapons you ask? Depends on your classification of these weapons but if you mean weapons which slowly release poisonous radiation in the area around them, into the soil, water, and hands of people picking them up :

US fired depleted uranium at civilian areas in 2003 Iraq war, report finds | Iraq | The Guardian

Dutch peace group Pax says findings show US was in breach of official advice meant to prevent suffering in conflicts

amp.theguardian.com

Or if you mean a chemical sprayed from the air over foliage and villages and people in those areas:l, and still affects people today:

Vietnam War: French court to hear landmark Agent Orange case - BBC News

It is the first time civilian victims of the highly toxic chemical will have their cases heard.

www.bbc.com

I’d say technically- yes.

And Afghanistan you mention…… Yes the country where we betrayed all those which helped us, left them and their families to Islamic state, just left them there to die and people tried to scramble over walls to escape as the west just pulled out without a care in the world.

We did the same in Syria years ago. Got them to rise up to try and overthrow the government and then changed our minds and just left them to suffer.

Yet we are better than Russia aren’t we …. See what I mean - its ignorance and arrogance from the west which is partly to blame for this.

Edit : just to be clear I’m not saying you are ignorant or arrogant so please don’t think that. I’m referring to the western way of thinking we are always the good guys.

 

[Alsty]

When you say russia doesn’t have to be our enemy….. that’s if it falls in line with western beliefs and values. It doesn’t want to. It wants to remain a a communist country, just like China does.

Russia is not a communist country. It's a kleptocracy.

And wherever we like that or not, we don’t have the right to dictate that if they want to be our friend, they should be democratic.

I don't think the West did take this viewpoint.

After the collapse of the Berlin wall, Germany took the view that if they had good economic connections with Russia then this would foster good relations with Russia; they would respond peacefully and in the spirit of co-operation. The idea being Russia is a sovereign state free to run its own affairs, but helping them to feel included and not ostricised is important for a stable relationship (and ultimately, peace in Europe). The EU has taken this viewpoint to some extent, no doubt steered by Germany, as a way of keeping Russia on side. Significant amounts of money have been spent on Russian gas, oil and coal. Germany alone paid around €200mil[1] per day for these resources.

Credit: CNN

Unfortunately it seems this strategy has backfired, both for Germany and the EU who thought these trading relationships would help ensure peace. Russia will also now find themselves without this revenue stream as a result of both sanctions and long term commitments to remove Russian oil and gas from European markets.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/08/podcasts/the-daily/germany-russia-oil-gas.html?showTranscript=1

All the countries the USA and west have attacked over the years….. the mess we have made of the world. Yet somehow we are the good guys and morally right?

Yet we are better than Russia aren’t we …. See what I mean - its ignorance and arrogance from the west which is partly to blame for this.

I don't consider the West any better for getting involved in conflicts unnecessarily, either. However I don't see why that's relevant to the Russian invasian of Ukraine.

The US clearly is unfit to be the worlds policeman, it's shown itself uncapable of doing so, we do need to find an alternative. Perhaps a strong alliance between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is the solution.

There was furore at the time of the EU Referendum about a European Army. Personally I think a strong defensive force in Europe would be a good thing. However I don't think we should get involved in conflicts unless they're an existential threat to us or our allies.