[Continuation] The Russian Invasion of Ukraine (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
I'm a bit puzzled what you think is the right thing to do.

Do you think that it's better to cause a nuclear war than to let millions suffer unjustly?

I'm not saying that there's nothing more we can do, but I don't see any magic way to stop Putin's aggression in Ukraine other than entering the war ourselves. I don't know that this would necessarily result in a nuclear conflict, but it's quite possible. Thus, if we were to do everything necessary to stop the horror in Ukraine, we just might end up with a nuclear war.

I know you ain't got no time for high-falutin' ethics mumbo jumbo, so what precisely makes it worth a nuclear war to prevent the suffering of the Ukrainians? Or am I overlooking some brilliant plan that could stop Russian aggression without risking a nuclear war?

(Vixen had a suggestion that some SEALs could just take Putin out and be home for dinner. Do you watch the same movies?)
Click to expand...

Who said it would be a nuclear war? Just because a criminal thug threatens you it doesn't mean it will happen.
 
phiwum said:
Entering a war with Russia isn't the same as entering a war with Iraq. Iraq was in no position to lob nukes at Europe, the US and, oh, I dunno, maybe Canada? Australia? I'm probably missing a target nation or two. (ETA: That said, I think the decision to "do something" in Iraq in 2003 was probably a lot worse than not doing something, despite the relatively simpler context.)

But go ahead and stamp. Become incensed because there's no easy solution to this problem but, dammit, there should be. There really should be.

Who wrote this ******* screenplay anyway? Did they run it by a single test audience?
Click to expand...

ISTM that what a lot of people, especially in America, are not getting is that Russia is a rogue state. The rules no longer count.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
After what Lobosrul5 reported the WHO saying, my perspective has shifted.

A hospital building might hypothetically become a legitimate target if occupied by fighters but, to borrow from Lady Bracknell, to bomb one hospital might be considered a misfortune but to bomb sixty four begins to look like they're a bunch of absolute *****.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is attrition. It is not a love by Russia of their fellow Ukrainian Slavs and a desire to save them. It is pure hooliganism, anarchy and hatred, with no hope of achieving any positive end.
 
theprestige said:
Honestly if Nazi Germany had stuck to its borders and not run around demanding to be curb-stomped, they could have had all the Holocaust they wanted, and nobody would have lifted a finger. And fascism would still be seen as a valid political system today, in the same way that communism is seen as a valid political system.
Click to expand...

Not only valid, but it was hugely popular abroad at the time, especially the Italian version.

HOWEVER, if you think about it, revanchism is kind of one of the core parts of any kind of fascism. Whether it's Italy's or Japan's notion that they got shafted when it comes to rewards for WW1, or Germany's obsession with the Versailles treaty, or Hungary's bitterness over the Treaty of Trianon (which gave Transylvania to Romania), or Bulgaria making revanchism a major focus as early as the 1913 defeat in the Second Balkan War, or even fascist Spain made a big deal out of Gibraltar and such. (Which, granted, is almost insignificant to others' dreams of restoring the Roman Empire or such, but it's still there.) And a few others.

So if Germany didn't want to go around revising borders, basically, sure, it might still be popular, but it wouldn't really be fascism. Or not the same as our idea of fascism.

(And that's not even going into the fact that without the whole hammering on the supposed injustice of Versailles treaty and the backstab myth, and wanting to 'right' those wrongs, the NSDAP would probably have just continued to be a minor party, probably would have gotten buggerall votes in the election, and the fight for power in the 30's would have probably involved the KPD communists instead. The KPD being the largest communist party outside of the USSR, more so than even the French communists. So, yeah, totally different Germany to decide if you like or dislike.)
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
After what Lobosrul5 reported the WHO saying, my perspective has shifted.

A hospital building might hypothetically become a legitimate target if occupied by fighters but, to borrow from Lady Bracknell, to bomb one hospital might be considered a misfortune but to bomb sixty four begins to look like they're a bunch of absolute *****.
Click to expand...

The Nazis are fiendish and always hide in hospitals so they just target them from the start.
 
Political process for Finland to apply to NATO under way. If it happens, likely in May
Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto (Green) confirms Iltalehti 's announcement that, if necessary, there will be a readiness to prepare a second report if TP-Utva were to propose NATO membership, and to submit an addendum containing the NATO position to Parliament.

A decision will be made soon
IL sources estimate that a decision will be made in TP-Utva to apply for NATO membership during the first two weeks of May.

However, the decision route built by the government, the president of the republic, party leaders and the parliamentary bureau will allow TP-Utva to make a decision on additional registration, ie applying for NATO membership, even before May Day, during April.

The work of the working group consisting of party leaders is led by the Speaker of Parliament Matti Vanhanen (center).

After TP-Utva has published an additional entry, the state leadership will forward information to NATO headquarters in Brussels that Finland would like to join the Defense League.

The United States is monitoring ratification
Accession to NATO is by invitation and Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington in April 1949, applies.

The IL has asked the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' Unit for EU and Treaty Law how Finland's accession to NATO would take place in practice.
Click to expand...
https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/865bf723-4d71-40a6-8f9d-6ceadb8ce405
 
Arcade22 said:
The Nazis are fiendish and always hide in hospitals so they just target them from the start.
Click to expand...
This is a other example of when I think the propaganda is meant to lampoon as much as excuse. You could reverse the public statements of the state departments of various countries around and it would look a lot like when the U.S. struck the MSF facility in Kunduz or Baghdad in 2003 or Israeli strikes in Gaza (not an invitation to go down that rabbit hole, please :9).

The underlying message is: moral outrage? Oh please, these are just the words of the script we run through. We're playing our part, you're playing your part. The stately quadrille goes on...
 
Vixen said:
Who said it would be a nuclear war? Just because a criminal thug threatens you it doesn't mean it will happen.
Click to expand...

You're right. There's only one way to know whether he'd lob a nuke as he threatens. That is, you go ahead and do what he warned you not to.

If you're lucky, then everything ends up much better than the alternative. If you're not, everything ends up much, much, much worse.

So much worse that I think doing something just because it feels awful not to is a terrible idea. I don't know how likely that a nuclear war would ensue, but I judge it likely enough that I'm not in a hurry to find out.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
This is a other example of when I think the propaganda is meant to lampoon as much as excuse. You could reverse the public statements of the state departments of various countries around and it would look a lot like when the U.S. struck the MSF facility in Kunduz or Baghdad in 2003 or Israeli strikes in Gaza (not an invitation to go down that rabbit hole, please :9).

The underlying message is: moral outrage? Oh please, these are just the words of the script we run through. We're playing our part, you're playing your part. The stately quadrille goes on...
Click to expand...

If only Putin's conscripts had understood all that yelling about liberating Ukraine from Nazis was actually just satire. Guess their sense of humor just wasn't sophisticated enough... Oh well.
 
Vixen said:
ISTM that what a lot of people, especially in America, are not getting is that Russia is a rogue state. The rules no longer count.
Click to expand...

This isn't about rules or niceties. This is about the fact that Putin has nuclear weapons and has said he'd use them if Russia faced an "existential threat". Now, that term is loosey-goosey enough that it's not clear what he means.

The "rule" that two nuclear states fighting is ******* dangerous still counts.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This is a other example of when I think the propaganda is meant to lampoon as much as excuse. You could reverse the public statements of the state departments of various countries around and it would look a lot like when the U.S. struck the MSF facility in Kunduz or Baghdad in 2003 or Israeli strikes in Gaza (not an invitation to go down that rabbit hole, please :9).
Click to expand...

I love how you compare individual exceptional incidents with a clear long-standing practice to target hospitals in order to murder and terrorize civilians.

Then again I guess that's how they are going to frame it later, in typical Russian victim playing style: why everyone blows up hospitals every now and then, they are only making a big deal because we’re Russian?! Russophobia!
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
If only Putin's conscripts had understood all that yelling about liberating Ukraine from Nazis was actually just satire. Guess their sense of humor just wasn't sophisticated enough... Oh well.
Click to expand...
I think the conscripts understand how to hear the message about what the people in power who can do nasty things to them and their families for not complying want. I think Putin knows they can comprehend that message from the chosen phrasing.

Sure, to us it is "typical bellicose rhetoric" or "the ravings of a madman." But cultural lens can be lost in translation, those words indicate the drumbeat to war.

We yell about liberating x place from mustache-twirling villain y in our own turn, as well. "We" not meaning participants in the discussion here, but western societies. Even those of us who fiercely resist such jingoism, of course, know it for what it is when we hear it. We know when "material support for global terrorist operations" or "spreading literature to promote stochastic operations" start getting uttered on news shows, someone, somewhere has a satellite-guided missile heading their way. And most citizens will consider this is correct and normal. Or at least that there is so little they can personally do against the institutions involved and place trying to wring a few more dollars out of their tax return a higher priority.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
I love how you compare individual exceptional incidents with a clear long-standing practice to target hospitals in order to murder and terrorize civilians.

Then again I guess that's how they are going to frame it later, in typical Russian victim playing style: why everyone blows up hospitals every now and then, they are only making a big deal because we’re Russian?! Russophobia!
Click to expand...

I'm comparing the rhetoric involved and pondering if there's not a subtle thumbing the nose involved in it.

Yes, I quite understand the moral duplicity is a farce.
 
Vixen said:
Ziggurat said an acceptable level of slaughter of Ukrainians would be a few hundred thousand because we don't want to risk Putin going nuclear.
Click to expand...

Close enough, I suppose. As he pointed out, though, you've said nothing that meaningfully disputes his position. It's terrible when one can only reasonably choose between great evil and immensely worse evil, but that doesn't actually make choosing the lesser of the two wrong.

Delphic Oracle said:
The Uighurs might disagree on their being "China's own people."
Click to expand...

That could possibly be part of the roots of the problem for that matter.

Jack by the hedge said:
After what Lobosrul5 reported the WHO saying, my perspective has shifted.

A hospital building might hypothetically become a legitimate target if occupied by fighters but, to borrow from Lady Bracknell, to bomb one hospital might be considered a misfortune but to bomb sixty four begins to look like they're a bunch of absolute *****.
Click to expand...

Similarly, when their response to being given a list of hospitals to avoid for humanitarian purposes was to just immediate bomb them all, that eliminated any benefit of the doubt that I'll likely ever be willing to offer them on the subject. Sure, it's possible that a hospital was actually turned into a legitimate military target, but the onus is now on them to actually prove it and that will not be easy, given their record and firehose of lies tactic.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I wonder if poisoning the food supply is a war crime.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, the answer seems to be yes. Including in Ukraine -

Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the use of “poison” as a means of warfare is prohibited
Click to expand...

I'll certainly grant that it's possible that there's a technicality or more applicable rule in play here, of course.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
I love how you compare individual exceptional incidents with a clear long-standing practice to target hospitals in order to murder and terrorize civilians.

Then again I guess that's how they are going to frame it later, in typical Russian victim playing style: why everyone blows up hospitals every now and then, they are only making a big deal because we’re Russian?! Russophobia!
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the joke about little Johnny coming home from school and going, "Dad, the principal said you've got to come to school."
"Why?" Asks the dad. "What'd you do?"
"He said it's because I peed in the pool."
"What the hell?" goes dad, "Everyone pees in the pool."
"Yeah, that's what I told him too," says Johnny, "but he said, 'not from the diving board'."

I'm kinda getting the same vibe from Russia.
 
Bayraktar!

Ukrainan War Army Song. About the drones.



The occupiers came to us in Ukraine,
With the brand new uniform, military vehicles,
But their inventory melted a bit,
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

Russian tankers hid in the bushes,
To sip the ******* shchi with a bast shoe.
But the broth overheated a little bit in the bushes,
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

Sheep came to us from the east
For the "establishment of a great country".
The best shepherd of sheep flocks is
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

Their arguments are all kinds of weapons,
Powerful rockets, machines of iron.
We have a comment on all the arguments
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

They wanted to capture us right away
So we hid a grievance for the orcs.
He makes ghosts out of Russian bandits,
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

Russian police is starting a criminal case,
But still does not find a killer of ruschists.
Who is to blame that there is a capercaillie in our field
Bayraktar... Bayraktar...

The Kremlin freak is conducting propaganda,
The people swallow the words (of the propaganda).
Now their tzar knows a new word
Click to expand...

Catchy.
 
Last edited:
Clearly the way to defeat the Russians is to give them a list of hospitals, orphanages and puppy and kitten sanctuaries to be avoided for humanitarian reasons, but accidentally provide the locations of their own forces instead by mistake.
 
Vixen said:
Who said it would be a nuclear war? Just because a criminal thug threatens you it doesn't mean it will happen.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there is nothing the Russians would respond to with a nuke, or are you proposing some specific action which you don't believe will provoke Russia to escalate?
 
It looks like the looks like the missiles that hit the railway station at Kramatorsk this morning were Tockha-U 9M79-1 tactical ballistic missiles.
This wasn't accidental or 'collateral damage'
It was packed with more than a thousand civilians waiting for trains to evacuate them to the west of the country.

No doubt that it was a deliberate Russian attack to murder as civilians as possible.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It looks like the looks like the missiles that hit the railway station at Kramatorsk this morning were Tockha-U 9M79-1 tactical ballistic missiles.
This wasn't accidental or 'collateral damage'
It was packed with more than a thousand civilians waiting for trains to evacuate them to the west of the country.

No doubt that it was a deliberate Russian attack to murder as civilians as possible.
Click to expand...

russian state media blaming it on Ukrainians before the locals had reported it

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tz0djr/ria_novosti_tweeted_about_the_ukrainian_attack_on/

"One of the ruzzian fascist Telegram channels, on the night of April 7-8, residents of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk and neighboring settlements were advised not to evacuate by rail... Useful information for the court in The Hague."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tz0b6n/one_of_the_ruzzian_fascist_telegram_channels_on/

"The video of the rocket launch appeared on the “Typical Donetsk” channel today at 10:25 It was noted that the missiles were fired from Shakhtar, a city controlled by DNR militants. Probably, these missiles landed at the Kramatorsk railway station."

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tz09ze/the_video_of_the_rocket_launch_appeared_on_the/
 
Last edited:
Russia threatened Finland if they applied for NATO-membership again today.

Russian jets also entered Finnish airspace.

And now there's a massive cyber attack against the Finnish government.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It looks like the looks like the missiles that hit the railway station at Kramatorsk this morning were Tockha-U 9M79-1 tactical ballistic missiles.
This wasn't accidental or 'collateral damage'
It was packed with more than a thousand civilians waiting for trains to evacuate them to the west of the country.

No doubt that it was a deliberate Russian attack to murder as civilians as possible.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely imperative to murder them before they escaped eastern Ukraine.
 
Ryokan said:
Russia threatened Finland if they applied for NATO-membership again today.

Russian jets also entered Finnish airspace.

And now there's a massive cyber attack against the Finnish government.
Click to expand...

I still maintain it is time to start shooting these incursions down (not specifically referencing Finland here but 'The West' in general).

I understand the reluctance to be drawn into a land war and the reluctance to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine but if people are asking what else could we do that (reasonably / hopefully) stops short of triggering nuclear war, I'd suggest this is one worth thinking about as this is protecting our own land.

Preface with a clear instruction to Russia obviously but as a now, inarguably hostile nation that is already in a state of war, armed planes breaching our airspace represent a clear and present danger that should not be accepted. No more 'escorting them off the premises', shoot the buggers down.

I fully accept I'm being an armchair General here and probably being too blase about such a step but it just seems ridiculous that they continue to do this and we're just responding as we've done before they went to war in Ukraine...
 
Ryokan said:
Russia threatened Finland if they applied for NATO-membership again today.

Russian jets also entered Finnish airspace.

And now there's a massive cyber attack against the Finnish government.
Click to expand...

Somewhat counterintuitive but I strongly suspect that they actually want Finland and Sweden to join NATO, only so they can point towards us as "proof" that they are being encircled by NATO. If a neighboring country feels threatened by you and seeks to join a military alliance, the most important thing is to avoid threatening them if you don't want them to join.
 
Last edited:
Ethan Thane Athen said:
I still maintain it is time to start shooting these incursions down (not specifically referencing Finland here but 'The West' in general).

I understand the reluctance to be drawn into a land war and the reluctance to establish a no fly zone over Ukraine but if people are asking what else could we do that (reasonably / hopefully) stops short of triggering nuclear war, I'd suggest this is one worth thinking about as this is protecting our own land.

Preface with a clear instruction to Russia obviously but as a now, inarguably hostile nation that is already in a state of war, armed planes breaching our airspace represent a clear and present danger that should not be accepted. No more 'escorting them off the premises', shoot the buggers down.

I fully accept I'm being an armchair General here and probably being too blase about such a step but it just seems ridiculous that they continue to do this and we're just responding as we've done before they went to war in Ukraine...
Click to expand...
That sounds like the kind of situation that could very easily lead to a plane being shot down. If they shoot our planes down, what then? If we shoot their planes down, what then?
 
shuttlt said:
That sounds like the kind of situation that could very easily lead to a plane being shot down. If they shoot our planes down, what then? If we shoot their planes down, what then?
Click to expand...

Shooting down warplanes in ones own airspace is considered acceptable.

ETA: and Turkey did with a Russian Su24 that flew into its airspace from Syria
 
Last edited:
TBH, I'm starting to think that shooting them down might be a waste of a perfectly good missile. Pull a stunt like Zelensky did. Offer a million dollars and citizenship to any Russian pilot who defects with their plane. Like, once they're in your airspace, open communications and you'll guide them to some temporary airstrip used just for that. (You know, so it's not like there's anything important there they could blow up.)

After one or two take the offer, I think Puting might get the idea to stop :p
 
shuttlt said:
That sounds like the kind of situation that could very easily lead to a plane being shot down. If they shoot our planes down, what then? If we shoot their planes down, what then?
Click to expand...

Whats the difference between bombers over your airspace or tanks rolling onto your soil?

Europe has already banned russian planes from its airspace.

"having tanks on the ground along russian borders sounds like the kinda situation where a tank being blown up when they roll over the border. If the blow up our tank what then? if we blow up their tank what then?"
 
shuttlt said:
That sounds like the kind of situation that could very easily lead to a plane being shot down. If they shoot our planes down, what then? If we shoot their planes down, what then?
Click to expand...

Er that's what I'm advocating - shoot their warplanes down if they enter our airspace. They shouldn't be there in 'normal' times let alone now.
 
As long as Finland isn't a member of NATO, i wouldn't reccomend they start shooting down Russian planes.
 
shuttlt said:
The Russians will consider it acceptable for Finland to shoot down its planes? I don't know if that is true.
Click to expand...

Turkey is a member of NATO, so Russia had no other choice than to accept their plane being shot dowb. Finland is a different scenario.
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
Er that's what I'm advocating - shoot their warplanes down if they enter our airspace. They shouldn't be there in 'normal' times let alone now.
Click to expand...
They aren't necessarily going to just let us do that. Say we try and shoot their planes down, and some of our planes get shot down.... what then? Are we in a situation where there can be dogfights between NATO, or NATO aligned planes and Russian planes and there is no wider consequence? What happens next? Maybe we put in missile batteries along the border? It wouldn't be that improbable to accidentally shoot down a plane on the wrong side of the border. What if they destroy the missile battery? What then? Are we actually willing to get into this kind of dick measuring contest with them? Either somebody blinks first, or effectively that leads to war. To read the descriptions on this thread of the Russians, they don't seem like a blink first kind of people.
 
Ryokan said:
As long as Finland isn't a member of NATO, i wouldn't reccomend they start shooting down Russian planes.
Click to expand...

Why not? What do you think Russia will do?
It certainly doesn't have any troops available to invade.
 
Ryokan said:
Turkey is a member of NATO, so Russia had no other choice than to accept their plane being shot dowb. Finland is a different scenario.
Click to expand...
It was also a different time and a different situation. Are NATO treaties actually worth a hot war with Russia? I don't know the answer, and I suspect NATO does not want to answer the question. It would hardly be the first time that a defence treaty wasn't honoured.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom