Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Eurotrash said:

Yes, because the alternative is worse.

Click to expand...

We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?

Kentonio said:

For me, the failure to act makes nuclear war more likely, not less. This war isn't just about Ukraine, and Putin has said that clearly. If he wins, he moves onto the next target, and before long that target is going to become the NATO member Baltic states. He'll rationalize it to himself as the west are weak, they didn't stop me before, and they won't risk their own safety by trying to stop me now for the sake of a small country no-one really cares about. And he'll be wrong.

It really is exactly the same mentality that led Hitler into WW2. It's important that people realize that.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.

tomaldinho1 said:

I do think long term though it’s hard to ignore Russian aggression and supporting Ukraine is the right, albeit hard domestically, thing to do. $1b is a huge amount of money, no doubt, but it’s a drop of water in ocean of the US economy, issue is surely more on policies and things that should be improved before money is thrown in?

Click to expand...

It's not considered a drop in the ocean when thousands of other things are discussed in terms of improving social lives of people, let alone talking infrastructure investment. In the context of the budget, yes it is but then I see locally public transport projects struggle to finish for not having the budget for it in millions

Russian aggression should be controlled by developing alternate sources of energy. Europe put all their eggs in Putins basket which was a dumb thing to do but there is still time. Make a two year plan to get off of it.

tomaldinho1 said:

Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.

Click to expand...

This means war between China and Japan. India v Pakistan. We'll have to support Israel against the Palestinians, probably. Tibet loses its claim, maybe Taiwan as well. We'll have to get involved in West Sahara. Probably hundreds of other disputes I'm not familiar with.

NotThatSoph said:

We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?

Click to expand...

No, I do not prefer a nuclear war. However, we can't continue to let Russia use the threat of nukes to prevent us from intervening. Because Russia will just keep going, and it will keep getting worse and worse. The longer we wait, the higher the price will be.

Eurotrash said:

No, I do not prefer a nuclear war. However, we can't continue to let Russia use the threat of nukes to prevent us from intervening. Because Russia will just keep going, and it will keep getting worse and worse. The longer we wait, the higher the price will be.

Click to expand...

It will not keep getting worse. Russia could not invade Kiev for instance and unity of NATO powers and aid to ukraine blocked them in what otherwise would be a take over of Ukraine. Putin was pushed back. Now, he needs face saving (as does Zelensky). Cede Donbas and/or Crimea to Russia with a bridge on it or something and end the war. Russia suffered. Them getting a hold of pro russian regions does not give them the indication they can do what they want.

So I really don't get the logic that peace at this stage will show Putin he can do what he want. He absolutely did not do what he wanted.

tomaldinho1 said:

Exactly, it really is this simple. You have to draw a line some time, it's 2022 for goodness sakes, and say every country right now on the map is sovereign - any act of aggression by others to change that has to be stamped out and the aggressor made to pay tenfold. Putin is a throwback to a time humans didn't know better, he's a dinosaur, essentially trying to erase the proof of how much better life can be post Russia.

Click to expand...

See above. The line was drawn. Beyond this point, we can decide to punish Russia with attacking them directly but more war is not worth it. Putin is on his back and I really think he just needs a face saving. If you corner a mad dog he will bite you in the process of killing himself.

Kentonio said:

For me, the failure to act makes nuclear war more likely, not less. This war isn't just about Ukraine, and Putin has said that clearly. If he wins, he moves onto the next target, and before long that target is going to become the NATO member Baltic states. He'll rationalize it to himself as the west are weak, they didn't stop me before, and they won't risk their own safety by trying to stop me now for the sake of a small country no-one really cares about. And he'll be wrong.

It really is exactly the same mentality that led Hitler into WW2. It's important that people realize that.

Click to expand...

No it's not. There was no thing like nukes and nato when Hitler started invading countries. The moment Putin invades a nato country, he will have to deal with all of Nato. Ukraine isn't that and he is failing there.

Eurotrash said:

No, I do not prefer a nuclear war. However, we can't continue to let Russia use the threat of nukes to prevent us from intervening. Because Russia will just keep going, and it will keep getting worse and worse. The longer we wait, the higher the price will be.

Click to expand...

You're calling for direct military attacks against Russia. That is an act of war, it will start a nuclear war. If you don't prefer nuclear war to the current situation, why are you calling for actions that are mutually understood to mean nuclear war?

shamans said:

It will not keep getting worse. Russia could not invade Kiev for instance and unity of NATO powers and aid to ukraine blocked them in what otherwise would be a take over of Ukraine. Putin was pushed back. Now, he needs face saving (as does Zelensky). Cede Donbas and/or Crimea to Russia with a bridge on it or something and end the war. Russia suffered. Them getting a hold of pro russian regions does not give them the indication they can do what they want.

So I really don't get the logic that peace at this stage will show Putin he can do what he want. He absolutely did not do what he wanted.

Click to expand...

Letting Russia take Ukraine piece by piece is surely allowing them to get away with it. Those regions are not even that pro Russian, it's only what Russia wants you to believe. Russia have not suffered nearly enough, officially ceding Donbas with already taken Crimea would be a win for Putin no doubts. Not as big win as he intended but a win nevertheless. Give 10 more years and they will be back for a round 3, to take even more territory because why not.

dove said:

Letting Russia take Ukraine piece by piece is surely allowing them to get away with it. Those regions are not even that pro Russian, it's only what Russia wants you to believe. Russia have not suffered nearly enough, officially ceding Donbas with already taken Crimea would be a win for Putin no doubts. Not as big win as he intended but a win nevertheless. Give 10 more years and they will be back for a round 3, to take even more territory because why not.

Click to expand...

Two things can be true. Pro Russia with some propaganda. Completely anecdotal but I dated a girl from that part of Ukraine who only wanted to be referred to as Russian.

Therefore I don't think they can take Ukraine piece by piece. They couldn't get to Kiev and that means something. As for 10 more year, this is the time to ween off of Russian resources and slowly build independence. There were many steps that could have been taken to avoid this and the second time we should listen to the warning signs.

shamans said:

Two things can be true. Pro Russia with some propaganda. Completely anecdotal but I dated a girl from that part of Ukraine who only wanted to be referred to as Russian.

Therefore I don't think they can take Ukraine piece by piece. They couldn't get to Kiev and that means something. As for 10 more year, this is the time to ween off of Russian resources and slowly build independence. There were many steps that could have been taken to avoid this and the second time we should listen to the warning signs.

Click to expand...

Knowing us, we will scrap all plans to do that the very same minute a peace treaty is signed. We had 8 years from 2014 to do the same but we managed to become even more dependent on Russian resources than ever before. There is simply no way Russia would stop there after taking Donbas. It's not only Putin who wants to invade all the neighbour countries, it's pretty much the entire fecked up nation and they will never stop until they either achieve that, or be crushed so hard that they abandon those ideas, similar to how Germany fell. There will never be peace until one of those happens.

shamans said:

It's not considered a drop in the ocean when thousands of other things are discussed in terms of improving social lives of people, let alone talking infrastructure investment. In the context of the budget, yes it is but then I see locally public transport projects struggle to finish for not having the budget for it in millions

Russian aggression should be controlled by developing alternate sources of energy. Europe put all their eggs in Putins basket which was a dumb thing to do but there is still time. Make a two year plan to get off of it.

Click to expand...

That times takes and is why is happening though. The aid to Ukraine isn’t so Ukraine can go and win the war (that will take years) it’s so they can hold Russia at bay. Time is Russia’s enemy right now, Europe has gone into overdrive to wean itself off Russian energy and sanctions are snowballing.

I get the point but then alsoI’d imagine if you looked into your local gov’s use of funds, they’d be more to blame re public transport than the $1b to Ukraine.

NotThatSoph said:

This means war between China and Japan. India v Pakistan. We'll have to support Israel against the Palestinians, probably. Tibet loses its claim, maybe Taiwan as well. We'll have to get involved in West Sahara. Probably hundreds of other disputes I'm not familiar with.

Click to expand...

I get it’s an idealistic viewpoint because so many counties have disputed territories but it wouldn’t happen as you say if the major countries were United. Some counties would try to use force, like Russia is doing now, but if everyone else (and that’s the issue there will always be some division) responded against them no one else would try a similar thing.

For example, let’s say in a ridiculous hypothetical scenario China had suddenly become really pro free speech and decided it was their future to become more Western. Xi could literally stop the war with a single phone call, potentially so could Modi.

Again, never going to happen but here’s to hoping.

NotThatSoph said:

You're calling for direct military attacks against Russia. That is an act of war, it will start a nuclear war. If you don't prefer nuclear war to the current situation, why are you calling for actions that are mutually understood to mean nuclear war?

Click to expand...

No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?

I am calling for an military intervention that will include attacks on the Russian invaders. This does not by any means guarantee a nuclear war.

Eurotrash said:

No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?

I am calling for an military intervention that will include attacks on the Russian invaders. This does not by any means guarantee a nuclear war.

Click to expand...

Attacks on Russian troops is war on Russia unless you're being obtuse.

Just like Russian attacks in Iraq on US troops would have been war with the US.

dove said:

Knowing us, we will scrap all plans to do that the very same minute a peace treaty is signed. We had 8 years from 2014 to do the same but we managed to become even more dependent on Russian resources than ever before. There is simply no way Russia would stop there after taking Donbas. It's not only Putin who wants to invade all the neighbour countries, it's pretty much the entire fecked up nation and they will never stop until they either achieve that, or be crushed so hard that they abandon those ideas, similar to how Germany fell. There will never be peace until one of those happens.

Click to expand...

Crushing Russia hard wont happen unless they do try and invade more countries or more of Ukraine.

Though I question Putin's intelligence and foresight, surely even he is not deluded enough to go for more. He fall back from Kiev and other regions to focus on the Donbas so I do think he has understood the impact of it and that he can't just mess about with invasions.

Right now he is battered enough but they will need a face saving.

People will hate the use of this word but at some point, we do have to be realistic as does Zelensky and that will mean negotiations. You're buying yourself enough time so you can get back on track and ween off of Russia and build defensive forced in case there is something similar in the future.

I think there are better and more productive ways to Punish Russia.

tomaldinho1 said:

I get it’s an idealistic viewpoint because so many counties have disputed territories but it wouldn’t happen as you say if the major countries were United. Some counties would try to use force, like Russia is doing now, but if everyone else (and that’s the issue there will always be some division) responded against them no one else would try a similar thing.

For example, let’s say in a ridiculous hypothetical scenario China had suddenly become really pro free speech and decided it was their future to become more Western. Xi could literally stop the war with a single phone call, potentially so could Modi.

Again, never going to happen but here’s to hoping.

Click to expand...

To say this for the millionth time, Modi doesn't have that clout with Moscow and India is dependent on Russian military supplies and maintenance to defend against China due to the situation in the Cold War. That's why you haven't heard any pressure from the West towards India throughout this crisis and, if anything, Western cooperation with India has increased during the war. The long term goal would be for India to produce more weapons domestically and diversify their stockpiles with Western countries to strengthen their resiliency in these sorts of crises.

NotThatSoph said:

This means war between China and Japan. India v Pakistan. We'll have to support Israel against the Palestinians, probably. Tibet loses its claim, maybe Taiwan as well. We'll have to get involved in West Sahara. Probably hundreds of other disputes I'm not familiar with.

Click to expand...

You forgot North vs. South Korea but ya a lot of different conflicts could erupt. Ironically, the one conflict that may stay stable would be India v Pakistan as both sides have a history of good relations with both the West and Russia/China. This would only change if China decided to invade India, which is possible in a World War event.

harms said:

When was this if you don’t mind me asking? The situation had changed quite a lot since 2014 and there couldn’t have been a bigger reason to abandon pro-Russian views as an Eastern Ukrainian than the 24th of February and everything that happened next.

That’s not to say that there are no people that support Russia there — ridiculously enough I’ve met Mariupol survivors that believe that they were saved from Ukrainian Nazis by Russian troops (I really can’t understand how that’s possible but there’s that), but it’s an absolute minority.

I don’t know how any Ukrainian will be okay with giving Mariupol, Kherson, Melitopol & Severodonetsk away after they’ve seen what happens/happened there.

Click to expand...

This was 2015/16. In America though. So it's possible she wasnt the voice of the locals. You would know more, but I am wary of western propaganda when it comes to wars on that the "locals" want. From my own research it seems there is or at least was some pro russian sentiment in the region and mix it win the propaganda.

Eurotrash said:

No and no. I have never called for an attack against Russia. Ukraine is not Russia, or do you believe it is?

I am calling for an military intervention that will include attacks on the Russian invaders. This does not by any means guarantee a nuclear war.

Click to expand...

Attacking Russian targets is an attack on Russia. What do you think the US would have done if the Russians bombed them in Iraq or Afghanistan?

sport2793 said:

You forgot North vs. South Korea but ya a lot of different conflicts could erupt. Ironically, the one conflict that may stay stable would be India v Pakistan as both sides have a history of good relations with both the West and Russia/China. This would only change if China decided to invade India, which is possible in a World War event.

Click to expand...

True, but if we're talking about grand scale military intervention in every territorial dispute then we'd have to choose the side if either India or Pakistan. It's stableish now, but won't be if we go all in in favour of whoever.

harms said:

The whole East was pro-Russian at least to some extent before 2014. What happened after that had significantly upped the stakes — most of those who ended up on the Ukrainian side got, well, disillusioned with their neighbor (while those who found themselves in Peoples Republics of Donetsk & Lugansk often got radically anti-Ukrainian).

I’d expect that the return to the borders of pre-February the 24th is the only deal that Ukraine can possibly take. The country and people have never been united like they are now and they’re not going to leave their people (those who have lived & identified as Ukrainians pre-invasion) under the Russian rule. It’s going to be a defeat to them.

Click to expand...

I've been hearing that as well, but recently I am hearing from some outlets that Ukraine's own population would rather go for an end to this at some cost. How true would you say that sentiment is?

MuFc_1992 said:

Sorry I meant EU. Anyways, what is the general sentiment in those countries towards their govt. being against Ukraine joining EU? I thought Germany and France were the ones who were being weak on Ukraine but it seems like Netherlands, Denmark etc. are getting a free pass from the press. I know due process matters but Ukraine will have to be built from ground up after this so, not sure why they are being so pedantic about everything.

Click to expand...

I think in the Netherlands, there is a lot of sympathy for the current plight of Ukraine (and to support their war effort) - but that's not the same as supporting Ukrainian EU membership. There is a strong sentiment there that eastern European EU countries are being costly to western Europe and don't always fit EU values (in reference to developments in Poland and Hungary, or levels of corruption in Romania and Bulgaria), and people won't want to add to that by having Ukraine brought in premarturely (before they meet membership criteria). There's also a bit of xenophonia, where eastern Europeans are often seen as different from western Europeans (a lingering Cold War sentiment?). Those are not new sentiments, and the Dutch government parties really won't lose votes over vetoing things in this regard.

BayernFan87 said:

How did Hungary manage to get into the EU?
Were they so different when they joined or were the prerequisites not as hard?

Click to expand...

TwoSheds said:

I think over the years a fair few countries have sneaked in that technically didn't meet the criteria but yes their current president has eroded and corrupted their democracy to a great degree using similar tactics to the likes of Putin and Boris.

Click to expand...

I think that, previously, there was more of a sentiment that the EU is a pan-European movement to bring all of Europe together, and build up everyone to western European levels of wealth. I think some eastern European countries were let in with that sentiment - and I think that has diminished after it turned out progress wasn't as quick as hoped (see my examples above), leading to a more strict and lower entry process. Hence countries like Montenegro taking a while now to get in at all. (From Wikipedia: "Montenegro officially applied to join the EU on 15 December 2008, and membership negotiations beginning on 29 June 2012. With all the negotiating chapters opened, the country enjoys a widespread support among EU members' officials, and accession of the country to the EU is considered possible by 2025.")

onemanarmy said:

Until the political system in the US is changed, all presidencies will be exactly the same.

Click to expand...

What we see right now with Biden will be the best we will have unfortunately, Republicans can make it far, far worse.

sport2793 said:

To say this for the millionth time, Modi doesn't have that clout with Moscow and India is dependent on Russian military supplies and maintenance to defend against China due to the situation in the Cold War. That's why you haven't heard any pressure from the West towards India throughout this crisis and, if anything, Western cooperation with India has increased during the war. The long term goal would be for India to produce more weapons domestically and diversify their stockpiles with Western countries to strengthen their resiliency in these sorts of crises.

Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical scenario and I did caveat it with ‘potentially’.

Its frustrating how the phrase "pro-Russian" is almost universally used as if it means "happy to be invaded by and annexed by Russia".

Its a ridiculous notion. I'm yet to see evidence any significant amount of people held such views prior to 2014, in the east, in Crimea, or anywhere.

shamans said:

This was 2015/16. In America though. So it's possible she wasnt the voice of the locals. You would know more, but I am wary of western propaganda when it comes to wars on that the "locals" want. From my own research it seems there is or at least was some pro russian sentiment in the region and mix it win the propaganda.

Click to expand...

In North America there's a long held stereotype that Ukrainians are stupid. You might have noticed it when you were in Winnipeg as it's prominent among non-Ukrainians in the Canadian prairies and the midwestern US states. I wonder if that influenced her declaration of ethnicity?

Simbo said:

Its frustrating how the phrase "pro-Russian" is almost universally used as if it means "happy to be invaded by and annexed by Russia".

Its a ridiculous notion. I'm yet to see evidence any significant amount of people held such views prior to 2014, in the east, in Crimea, or anywhere.

Click to expand...

Not that its evidence but the discussion in this thread does suggest prior to 2014 there have been pro-russian locals. Not sure why you find it so ridiculous

Gehrman said:

So essentially you want a direct war between nuclear powers? Because that is what would happen.

Click to expand...

Better try gambling than letting tens or hundreds of millions of people die from starvation. You show strength now, you force your enemy to stand down instead of letting him become greedier. And besides, all of those lessons from military exercises from Western powers on maintaining freedom of navigation near Chinese waters better be put to use here. Warships should be protecting that sea corridor for Ukrainian grain to get out.

And, no, Putin does not deserve an off-ramp nor anything that would save his face. What he does here by witholding grain is just another type of scorched earth policy that fecks up the world.

shamans said:

See above. The line was drawn. Beyond this point, we can decide to punish Russia with attacking them directly but more war is not worth it. Putin is on his back and I really think he just needs a face saving. If you corner a mad dog he will bite you in the process of killing himself.

Click to expand...

NotThatSoph said:

You're calling for direct military attacks against Russia. That is an act of war, it will start a nuclear war. If you don't prefer nuclear war to the current situation, why are you calling for actions that are mutually understood to mean nuclear war?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Russia and Putin doesn't see it like this, you are looking at it from a purely Western, can't we all just get along perspective. Why should Ukraine and the brave ukrainian citizens give anything up to Russia, because in 5-10 years they'll come again. Its the long game for Russia. Chechenya, Georgia & Ukraine are part of a much bigger plan. They've threatened Sweden, Moldova, Finland, it won't stop. Once people get their heads around this it'll be easier to understand why, as a parent, is rather us all deal with Russia now then let our children deal with them.

People say an attack on Russians is an act of war, well I say they aren't in Russia, no one is invading Russia, just defending Europe and Ukraine.

We can't let Russia do what they want for infinity because they have nukes. No one thought they'd attack a European country, yet they did & no one did anything. No one thought they'd annex Crimea and manage to shoot down a PASSENGER PLANE in the process, but they did and no-one did anything. They levelled Georgia and Chechnya, and no one did anything. They committed atrocities in Syria and Africa, no-one did anything. Russia is blocking food supplies to the entire world, no one is doing anything.

If Russia leave enough time between each act, everyone turns and says 'nows not the time, leave them with it. They've got nukes so.....it is whoever they're currently invadings problem. In the end, every small country becomes Russian, Russia is bigger, the threat becomes bigger.

Sometimes you just have to say enough is enough, draw a line and set a deadline for retreat, or else Nato ( with every member increasing military spending ) will send every plane, ship and soldier to destroy whoever is left in Ukraine. Russia understands violence and strength, not democracy and negotiation. It needs lead time, but in the end, to save future generations the same fate, our kids at the end of the day, we have to do it.

Russia will not stop.

NotThatSoph said:

We're living the alternative right now. Do you prefer a nuclear war to this?

Click to expand...

I'd say ukranians are living the alternative. We aren't.

shamans said:

Not that its evidence but the discussion in this thread does suggest prior to 2014 there have been pro-russian locals. Not sure why you find it so ridiculous

Click to expand...

I'm pro-Ireland, I want want Manchester to become part of Ireland. ...Wait, actually that's a bad example.

I'm pro-France, love the country, have friends and family that live there, etc. I don't want Manchester to be part of France, would resist any rhetoric pushing us that way and certainly am a few country miles from wanting them to stage an armed invasion to take over us. I'd just move there if I loved it that much.

Its as ridiculous as suggesting language used is also grounds for hostile takeover.

shamans said:

It will not keep getting worse. Russia could not invade Kiev for instance and unity of NATO powers and aid to ukraine blocked them in what otherwise would be a take over of Ukraine. Putin was pushed back. Now, he needs face saving (as does Zelensky). Cede Donbas and/or Crimea to Russia with a bridge on it or something and end the war. Russia suffered. Them getting a hold of pro russian regions does not give them the indication they can do what they want.

So I really don't get the logic that peace at this stage will show Putin he can do what he want. He absolutely did not do what he wanted.

Click to expand...

If they come out of this war having taken over 20-25% of Ukraine's territory then it would seem like they can co whatever they want. If they can just decide to launch an invasion on a neighbour and take part of their land. What stops Russia regrouping and rearming and doing the same 4-5 years down the line?

Let's not forget they took part of Georgia a decade ago and annexed Crimea 7 years ago now they want Donbas. Which country/region is next?

No I against the West intervening directly but at this stage I feel Nato have to keep arming and training Ukraine until Russia are pushed out of Ukraine completely.

Nice shot.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date