|
Post by pg13 on Mar 5, 2022 10:02:53 GMT
When Putin massed his army around Ukraine's border, the US and UK should have sent in their army as a deterrent.
NATO should have done the same.
What a missed opportunity for the West to deter death and destruction which we apparently pride ourselves on doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2022 18:24:02 GMT
Good to see Hungary soften their stance on refugees. We all need to do a big part on that front.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2022 18:26:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Mar 5, 2022 19:18:55 GMT
Good to see Hungary soften their stance on refugees. We all need to do a big part on that front. The goverment dont mind because they are white and christian. I do wonder what all the syrians are making of this
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Mar 5, 2022 19:19:52 GMT
said Moscow was particularly worried portable anti-air Stinger missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists and pose a threat to airlines ----------
Oh the irony π
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2022 19:45:43 GMT
said Moscow was particularly worried portable anti-air Stinger missiles could end up in the hands of terrorists and pose a threat to airlines ---------- Oh the irony π Pretty sure irony is illegal in Russia now. Fifteen years.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Mar 5, 2022 20:37:00 GMT
In August 2017, Ukrainian Research Institute Harvard University had an interview with award-winning historian Serhii Plokhy.
In short, Putin wants to seriously undermine the credibility of NATO and their willingness to defend countries such as Ukraine, Estonia and others.
He wants to expose NATO's insincerity vis a vis defending relatively small countries. As part of that, Putin violated UK sovereign territory in the Salisbury poisonings a few years ago.
He's repeatedly found military weaknesses within NATO and Western powers.
It's a power play with its foundation in Russian Nationalism and Russian Imperial Expansionism.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 6, 2022 4:13:09 GMT
There's a difference in defending Estonia or Ukraine though. Ukraine is not a NATO country, Estonia is. So to expose NATO's supposed unwillingness to defend small NATO countries, Russia should attack a small NATO country, not Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 6, 2022 4:43:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Mar 6, 2022 6:51:17 GMT
There's a difference in defending Estonia or Ukraine though. Ukraine is not a NATO country, Estonia is. So to expose NATO's supposed unwillingness to defend small NATO countries, Russia should attack a small NATO country, not Ukraine. Except NATO has taken action previously that contradicts their own public assertions they are only a defensive alliance. Hence, Putin CAN and does undermine NATO as well as the willingness of the West to defend. See Budapest Memorandum vis a vis Ukraine, for example - from a Ukrainian perspective, that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Every bit of Western inaction towards Russian provocation helps Putin undermine them. The explosion of ammunition stores in Czechia in 2014 is another example as was Salisbury poisonings. The UK and Czechia are both NATO countries he attacked in different ways. Slap on the wrist. The armies that comprise NATO are not in a great state. For example, the Bundestag report in 2018 tells us the German army is decrepit and used painted black broomsticks as machine guns on tanks in an exercise as they had none. Tut, tut, Merkel. An increase in European defence spending has come too late in the game. The only bit of light is that the Russians don't seem able to take Ukraine so easily.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Mar 6, 2022 8:12:34 GMT
Putin knows the west is weak. Hes prepared to do what it takes to reach his ends. He knew he could go to the next stage after he took the crimea and the world stood by.
Sudetenland anyone!?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 6, 2022 8:22:52 GMT
There's a difference in defending Estonia or Ukraine though. Ukraine is not a NATO country, Estonia is. So to expose NATO's supposed unwillingness to defend small NATO countries, Russia should attack a small NATO country, not Ukraine. Except NATO has taken action previously that contradicts their own public assertions they are only a defensive alliance. I guess those situations were less threatening to trigger WW3 or a nuclear war. I don't know whether it would be better or worse to risk a direct confrontation with Russia (thus WW3 or even a nuclear war - you never know how crazy and desperate Putin can get), for example by creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine like Ukraine demands. I guess no one can see the future or possible futures in either case. Kasparov too says it's futile to be cautious, Putin is going to push forward no matter what. I guess this is how it must have been with Hitler before WW2. The big powers tried to avoid confrontation or even tried to appease him. "Ok, we can allow him to take the Sudetenland or Austria, that will satisfy him. He only wants to unify the German majority lands" etc etc. And then it turned out nothing was ever enough for him. And despite all appeasement he pushed forward and always created new excuses as to why he has a right to occupy the next territory. Putin will probably do the same. So maybe it would be wise to stop him now. I guess what the West is scared of is that he might be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 6, 2022 8:29:27 GMT
Putin knows the west is weak. Hes prepared to do what it takes to reach his ends. He knew he could go to the next stage after he took the crimea and the world stood by. Sudetenland anyone!? I think the supposed "weakness" of the West is in its unwillingness to take this risk of a WW3 (which might happen anyway - see how the avoidance of confrontation with Hitler before WW2 wasn't of much use). Militarily I don't think they are weak. NATO is definitely stronger than Russia IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Mar 6, 2022 8:51:54 GMT
Putin knows the west is weak. Hes prepared to do what it takes to reach his ends. He knew he could go to the next stage after he took the crimea and the world stood by. Sudetenland anyone!? I think the supposed "weakness" of the West is in its unwillingness to take this risk of a WW3 (which might happen anyway - see how the avoidance of confrontation with Hitler before WW2 wasn't of much use). Militarily I don't think they are weak. NATO is definitely stronger than Russia IMO. There is no question that NATO member states are weak militarily. The German Bundestag report on theirs is pretty damning and the British Army itself is the smallest we've ever been although we've belatedly been building our strength back up which will take years. The Queen Elizabeth class of carrier warships is an example of the UK doing this which is meant to assert power towards China. But our Trident nuclear defense system needs to be remodernised now. For years now, there's been a not insignificant group of people opposed to spending more on military defense. This contributed towards wearing western militaries as people started voting for these policies. Hopefully now those idiots will pipe down and support the necessity of having a useful military strength upkeep from now on.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Mar 6, 2022 9:41:42 GMT
So maybe it would be wise to stop him now. I guess what the West is scared of is that he might be crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. That's the dilemma... I can see both sides. The risk of large-scale disaster is very real if this escalates further. Most Putin experts seem to agree that there is a genuine chance that he will push that red button. At the same time, how can we just sit by as a country gets destroyed and indeed, where will it then end? In many ways, we're already way too late. I think the way in which this is currently being handled by the EU is not smart. On the one hand, the EU is preaching de-escalation and relying on sanctions. On the other, they are also publically bragging about the number of weapons they are sending to Ukraine. I'm all for the latter, but why do this publically? I get that they want to signal support, but you know that Russia will interpret this as an aggressive military act - it thus runs counter to the strategy of de-escalation. Plus, you're giving them valuable intel for free about the weaponry they can expect to encounter. In terms of military strategy it just does not make sense.
|
|