The first sentence is also the reason Russia will not go near the Baltic states. NATO absolutely has to invoke Article 5 (I believe it will) and do whatever is necessary should its territory be attacked.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Sorry, this is just stupid sexism. There are no indications that women who are leading countries are behaving more peaceful or whatever than men do.
Just came to post it, watching now. Has English subtitles.
Edit: Now fully subtitled in English
Last edited:
NATO would not even need to threaten the use of nuclear weapons if the Baltic States were invaded. The invading forces would be totally destroyed by conventional means inside 24 hours.
But what's the point of that? Like you said it would be minimal protection. The upside would be minimal while the potential risks to make things far worse are really high. So far the West of the country has been largely spared anyway. Why then draw such an arbitrary line that would hardly make a difference on the ground but create the conditions for things to escalate quickly?
NATO has drawn a clear line that they're following, material support but no direct involvement. There's really no point in blurring that line for something as half arsed as a 40 mile no-fly zone.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that NATO has already shown a limited ceiling to act in under the threat of nuclear war, while Russia has shown an unlimited thirst for aggression which does not exclude nuclear war. The stronger will probably wins.
Would the Baltic States even need any help?
There are constantly NATO soldiers in the Baltic states as a show of force and support. So it's simply not a question you need to ask, as attacking them means attacking the military of a dozen other NATO states
If there's one thing we've learned about Putin its that everything we thought he wouldn't dare do, he did.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The point is to protect a region where there are currently a couple of million refugees situated? Maybe for some it's not worth the risk, but for me if we could save a few more lives by intercepting a few missiles....well every little helps.
People say that's an escalation, but really who defines what an escalation is? Putin? It's infuriating.
The UK is training them in and delivering starstreak missiles and sending Sky Sabre to Poland, maybe they’ll be able to train them to use that and then get that over the border with some luck. Even if just starstreak, if they have enough systems that’s an effective deterrent for any aircraft. I thought I’d seen other countries were going to donate S300s as well.
A couple of million or 7.6 billion, your choice.
Aaaand i still don’t know why people think this is realistic.
It is however obvious that actively getting involved will have major consequences, and there’s little interest in being the ones responsible, Russia isn’t the only ones involved as they rely heavily on China. If Russia forces the issue by doing something insanely daft then we’ll be forced to act.
I'd prevent the certain death of couple of million people over the very hypothetical death of 7.6 billion people.
And again, the threat of 7.6 billion people dying is not going to mysteriously disappear if the country being invaded is called Latvia instead of Ukraine. It's something we're going to have to get used to going forwards if Putin stays in power.
I swear you’d be one of those that would have allowed Hitler to have his way with all of the Jews and other undesirables if his words were backed with nuclear weapons.
Yeah I'm hoping the S300s do go, but I doubt it. It is a big investment for the donating country, and Russia sure as hell is not going to replace them anytime soon if they get destroyed.
Not doing your plan and ‘paralyzed into inaction’ are two very different things.
Zelensky ready to discuss neutral status, approved via referendum and with third party guarantees.
This is genuinely one of the most incredible interviews I have ever watched. The level of insight you get to see a war-time President discussing everything so candidly as it has been unfolding is unmatched. It’s another aspect to Zelenskyy’s public profile that you don’t really see in the English-language media. This is much more journalistic and has provided a platform to really do a deep-dive on Ukrainian-Russian relations.
Unfortunately the English subtitles seem to run out half-way through, so I will have to find somewhere to watch the second half later.
Last edited:
The obvious rejoinder is that planning to take over Ukraine is not the same as planning a WW3 against NATO, and you would hope at that point there would be a Palace coup.
What would you do in that situation exactly?
Same as what we did? Why is this a question?
It would need to be put to a referendum, which is highly unlikely during wartime. Even if it was somehow possible, the Ukrainian public would reject it given they are on the cusp of putting the Russians on the back foot.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, but I would advocating intervening if necessary, whilst managing the risk of escalation as much as possible. You can’t just allow nuclear powers to carry out genocides and wipe out whole segments of European people. That’s a sickening thought.
Neutral in what sense? Militarily, politically or both? He has repeatedly said he doesn’t see a NATO membership in the foreseeable and NATO would not have Ukraine while there’s disputed territories. But why would Ukrainians waive away their right to join a political union like EU? That’s what started it all with Euromaidan in 2014.
That doesn't make sense, given Hitler didn't have nukes, that's why it's a question.
Obviously because he didn't we intervened.
If Putin didn't we'd be in Red Square celebrating his death right now.
It's exactly what we've done for 77 years.
Do whatever horrible shit you want to everyone else but if we go to war we're destroying everything and everyone. Or are you suggesting MAD isn't a thing?
Doesn't make it any less shit, but it's prevented nuclear annihilation.
No boots on the ground, no planes in the sky, no missiles being intercepted near our borders despite a possibility of them being a threat to millions... We're not doing too much really. Yes, we have armed Ukraine to the teeth but we certainly haven't given them everything they need either. There is a clear limit to our willingness to get involved.
Is it the fear of nuclear war? I don't know. But I'm curious to know where the break to this limit is. Specifically bombing civilians is so far not that limit. Chemical weapons? Let's find out soon.
But, it does make me laugh that in light of all we are witnessing, there are some who believe that all it takes is a single Russian boot over a NATO borderline and we would suddenly abandon all fear of nuclear annihilation.
I think its complete nonsense given that the concept of neutrality is little more than a concession to Putin so he can continue fomenting unrest within Ukraine in the absence of third party involvement. If on the other hand, Putin wants to withdraw to pre 24 Feb 2022 lines, then the Ukrainians should take that, since it would mean the Russians are out of Ukraine with the exception of pre 24 Feb Donbas troops. Putin will obviously not accept that since it would humiliate him domestically. This is why the Ukrainians should continue fighting while the sanctions continue to corrode the Russian economy from within. This will eventually result in the Russians running out of weapons, troops, and logistical capacity, with no domestic capability to replenish lost war hardware because of the sanctions. This will eventually bring Putin to his knees.
The threat of 7.6 billion killed is not going anywhere, nevermind the actions taken by NATO or any other involved. Even world peace won't eliminate the technology and knowledge from existing and being available.
I understand NATO's position: they're esentially a deffensive alliance, their red lines are intact, and actually going to war (particularly against another superpower with nukes at their disposal) is an extremely costly decission (economically, geopolitically, in lives, in internal politics, etc). But I think their messaging has been inconsistent so far and that they removed too soon from the discussion any option of being military involved.
Even in a non-civilian-rescuing situation and if we consider pure geopolitical egoism, you could argue that A) a big enemy of NATO's worldview and mere existence has revealed itself, B) it has also revealed to be too weak for challenging NATO, at least for the moment, C) it has foolishly exposed itself and seem to be there for the taking, D) There's an option to gain the gratitude of an important ally that has proven itself worthy in the battlefield and happens to have a lot of oil, gas and cereal, and E) there's an option to stop and intervene this weak enemy to eventually becoming a vassal, provider state to the Big, strong future enemy a little more to the east. But yeah, that would also mean that you have to actually go to war and put your own civilians at risk. Which I think is the real red line here.
I understand NATO's position: they're esentially a deffensive alliance, their red lines are intact, and actually going to war (particularly against another superpower with nukes at their disposal) is an extremely costly decission (economically, geopolitically, in lives, in internal politics, etc). But I think their messaging has been inconsistent so far and that they removed too soon from the discussion any option of being military involved.
Even in a non-civilian-rescuing situation and if we consider pure geopolitical egoism, you could argue that A) a big enemy of NATO's worldview and mere existence has revealed itself, B) it has also revealed to be too weak for challenging NATO, at least for the moment, C) it has foolishly exposed itself and seem to be there for the taking, D) There's an option to gain the gratitude of an important ally that has proven itself worthy in the battlefield and happens to have a lot of oil, gas and cereal, and E) there's an option to stop and intervene this weak enemy to eventually becoming a vassal, provider state to the Big, strong future enemy a little more to the east. But yeah, that would also mean that you have to actually go to war and put your own civilians at risk. Which I think is the real red line here.
I’m not sure anything equivalent to what is happening in Ukraine has happened on the doorstep of the West since WWII, hence why we have had a decade of policy changes from European countries during this month of war.
There’s been proxy wars in Asia and bits and pieces elsewhere too, but nothing like this in Europe or North America.
Yes, we aren’t actually fighting the war. To say that means we aren’t doing too much is just silly.
You’re talking to one of them.
I think the real revelation is that there are two classes of citizens: the ones that live in a country with nukes (or that is part of a military deffensive alliance with nukes), and the ones who don't. The latter are exposed to be invaded, the former aren't. But that's nothing new at all. It's just that being an european NATO neighbouring country the one being invaded, it
feels like this truth is too on the nose for us.
Why is Europe your line in the sand?
This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.
It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.
Why is Europe my line in the sand for Europe? I would think that is self-evident. It’s a far greater threat to the security and prosperity of the EU/NATO countries than Vietnam or Korea or Syria are by sheer proximity and what it would mean if Ukraine were to be conquered/controlled by Russia.
Correction: we're helping Ukraine to defend itself against an unwarranted Russian invasion as best we can without risking a nuclear escalation by directly engaging in combat with the Russian military.
To say that we are "using" Ukraine is just plain wrong.
Yes it's not our war to fight, and yes therefore I can accept no boots or planes. But surely we are, at least, big and strong enough to stand up to Putin in the name of whatever that is good and protect a few civilians within our arms reach?
We're not going on the offensive, we're staying exactly where we are and protecting a few innocent lives within our capability.
I'm not looking for a war, but I do feel deflated to think we really can't (or won't) do just a little bit more.
There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.
I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past?
Yes, but the fight is the same and the tactics are the same. It's just like every other proxy war fought since WW2. We can't engage directly cause of MAD so we're doing everything but.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Neutrality (provisionally) accepted as previously reported, demilitarization still a contentious point, and Zelensky talking about reaching a compromise on the Donbas region and refusing to try retake Russian held territories. Next round of talks 28th-30th March. Progress.