Ukraine: Invasion Imminent?

[Guest makapaka]

4 minutes ago, Jim117 said:

Well Nato wasn’t expanding till masterbrain Putin decided to invade the neighbours

It has continually expanded since its formation, 

[L00b 441]

42 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Course it is. Russia are against the expansion of nato.

 

So nato are expanding - into a land mass that borders with Russia.

 

the risk of that was what got the situation started in the first place.

Wrong across the board.
 

Ukraine not joining NATO early enough, is what got the situation started: Putin thought he’d have a free run without fear of retaliation.

 

Western nations have at long understood what ex-USSR democracies have been clamouring since the mid-2000s. Putin understands force, and force only. Appeasement does not work, it never did, and it never will.

 

So the democratically-elected representatives of the Finnish people, 188 out of 199 of them, have now decided to buy anti-bully insurance. Good for them.

 

I think you missed Putin’s public climb down, day before yesterday, about Sweden and Finland  joining NATO. Couple of pages ago. Clearest sign that Finland and Sweden have done the right thing for themselves.

 

Who gives a **** what Russia wants, after the last 3 months? I mean, beside Putin sympathisers?

Edited May 17, 2022 by L00b

[Guest makapaka]

4 minutes ago, L00b said:

Wrong across the board

Which bits are wrong?

 

are russia against the expansion of nato - yes.

if Finland joins nato will nato be on the border of Russia - yes.

did the war in Ukraine start because Russia was concerned about Ukraine joining nato - yes.

 

So to say otherwise is wrong.

 

you might be pleased about the potential for the escalation of conflict - I’m not really.

 

Doesn’t make someone a putin sympathiser to say so either.

[L00b 441]

14 minutes ago, makapaka said:

are russia against the expansion of nato - yes.

if Finland joins nato will nato be on the border of Russia - yes.

So, sovereign democratic countries should not be free to seek their own associations, because their dictatorial neighbour country doesn’t like it.

 

That’s your argument.

14 minutes ago, makapaka said:

did the war in Ukraine start because Russia was concerned about Ukraine joining nato - yes

Did it?

 

Last I heard, the “special operation” is still about ridding Ukraine of its Nazis.

 

Sod all to do with NATO or EU or (…) membership.

14 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Doesn’t make someone a putin sympathiser to say so either.

It absolutely does, by omission.

14 minutes ago, makapaka said:

you might be pleased about the potential for the escalation of conflict - I’m not really.

I see this development as the exact inverse, i.e. the strongest factor of de-escalation: Putin is now certain to incur NATO retaliation if he ventures across the Finnish border, hence now he won’t.
 

His forces aren’t positioned, and could not conceivably get positioned, in the expected timeframe to Finland’s accession. 

 

It’s a check move, not check mate, which is actually decreasing the potential for escalation to the North along Finland’s border.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by L00b

[Guest makapaka]

50 minutes ago, L00b said:

So, sovereign democratic countries should not be free to seek their own associations, because their dictatorial neighbour country doesn’t like it.

 

That’s your argument.

Did it?

 

Last I heard, the “special operation” is still about ridding Ukraine of its Nazis.

 

Sod all to do with NATO or EU or (…) membership.

It absolutely does, by omission.

I see this development as the exact inverse, i.e. the strongest factor of de-escalation: Putin is now certain to incur NATO retaliation if he ventures across the Finnish border, hence now he won’t.
 

His forces aren’t positioned, and could not conceivably get positioned, in the expected timeframe to Finland’s accession. 

 

It’s a check move, not check mate, which is actually decreasing the potential for escalation to the North along Finland’s border.

 

I think you’ve took a position and aren’t thinking about it with any pragmatism or realism in respect of the consequences.

nato was set up to prevent invasion of the west by the Soviet Union.

 

”the west” now seemingly includes every country up to the border of Russia.

 

i don’t agree with putins actions at all - but I’m worried about an escalation that results in nuclear war - which is becoming more and more likely as things develop.

[L00b 441]

10 hours ago, makapaka said:

I think you’ve took a position and aren’t thinking about it with any pragmatism or realism in respect of the consequences.

nato was set up to prevent invasion of the west by the Soviet Union.

 

”the west” now seemingly includes every country up to the border of Russia.

 

i don’t agree with putins actions at all - but I’m worried about an escalation that results in nuclear war - which is becoming more and more likely as things develop.

I have taken a position indeed, but I disagree with the rest of your opinion.
 

An escalation “that results in nuclear war” would always be at the initiative of Putin.
 

So the choices under your position are 

 

(1) giving in, because he has nukes (20 years of appeasement has yielded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine….continuing to appease is the very definition of rank stupidity)

 

(2) taking a stand with that risk of escalation, balanced by the recognition that Putin is greedy, not mad

 

Giving in because Putin has nukes, means he has a free rein to push his imperialist drive all the way to the western coast of Ireland, insofar as Europe is concerned.
 

Likewise any other nationalist country with nukes, besides kickstarting the nuclear proliferation across the world like it’s the 1960s all over again, as every last country with the means to get nukes does so in a hurry, for getting leverage (-before the neighbour with nukes does a Ukraine on them).

 

No thanks.
 

I grew up in the 70s and 80s on the Continent, near the French-German border. Fighter and bomber jets and attack helos overhead just about every single day of the week,  mass NATO exercises several times a year with tanks and APCs parking in the school car park. Reagan and Thatcher baiting the reds every other day, easy for them as they’re not sat in the Russian Army’s way to Europe’s west coast. I know fear of world conflagration and nuclear war alright.

 

Still no thanks.

Edited May 18, 2022 by L00b

[Jim117 72]

As previously stated Nato hasn’t moved east, the former eastern bloc has moved west as they wisely didn’t believe Russia’s weasely assurances. As for the nukes, the Russian mouthpieces seem to think they live in some parallel universe where only they possess them. Although no one in their right mind wants a nuclear war the reality is that Russia would be blown off the map. So maybe time for them to stop gobbing off about it.

[L00b 441]

It’s a redundant debate anyway: as expected, Sweden and Finland handed in their application this morning.

 

 

[Guest makapaka]

4 hours ago, L00b said:

I have taken a position indeed, but I disagree with the rest of your opinion.
 

An escalation “that results in nuclear war” would always be at the initiative of Putin.
 

So the choices under your position are 

 

(1) giving in, because he has nukes (20 years of appeasement has yielded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine….continuing to appease is the very definition of rank stupidity)

 

(2) taking a stand with that risk of escalation, balanced by the recognition that Putin is greedy, not mad

 

Giving in because Putin has nukes, means he has a free rein to push his imperialist drive all the way to the western coast of Ireland, insofar as Europe is concerned.
 

Likewise any other nationalist country with nukes, besides kickstarting the nuclear proliferation across the world like it’s the 1960s all over again, as every last country with the means to get nukes does so in a hurry, for getting leverage (-before the neighbour with nukes does a Ukraine on them).

 

No thanks.
 

I grew up in the 70s and 80s on the Continent, near the French-German border. Fighter and bomber jets and attack helos overhead just about every single day of the week,  mass NATO exercises several times a year with tanks and APCs parking in the school car park. Reagan and Thatcher baiting the reds every other day, easy for them as they’re not sat in the Russian Army’s way to Europe’s west coast. I know fear of world conflagration and nuclear war alright.

 

Still no thanks.

How is not expanding nato giving into Russia? 
 

again you appear to be disagreeing with facts.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by makapaka

[Guest makapaka]

55 minutes ago, L00b said:

You happen to take that Putin/Russia jurisdiction, executive power, or other legitimate claim over Finland or Sweden capacity for self-determination, as a fact.

I’ve never put forward such argument - nor am I an appeaser ….what an ill judged, offensive post. 

[L00b 441]

7 minutes ago, makapaka said:

I’ve never put forward such argument - nor am I an appeaser ….what an ill judged, offensive post. 

Sure you didn’t. I’m convinced.

 

Tell you what…

 

…seeing as, whenever I explain a position or position to try and engage you in debate (since, after all, you went to the effort of reading my post and quote it with a reply), all I get is a dodging or sniping one-liner not addressing any of points I just made…

 

…why don’t you now take your outrage, real or fake irrespective, to my ignore list 😘

 

Feel free to reciprocate.

[trastrick 866]

6 hours ago, L00b said:

I have taken a position indeed, but I disagree with the rest of your opinion.
 

An escalation “that results in nuclear war” would always be at the initiative of Putin.
 

So the choices under your position are 

 

(1) giving in, because he has nukes (20 years of appeasement has yielded Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine….continuing to appease is the very definition of rank stupidity)

 

(2) taking a stand with that risk of escalation, balanced by the recognition that Putin is greedy, not mad

 

Giving in because Putin has nukes, means he has a free rein to push his imperialist drive all the way to the western coast of Ireland, insofar as Europe is concerned.
 

Likewise any other nationalist country with nukes, besides kickstarting the nuclear proliferation across the world like it’s the 1960s all over again, as every last country with the means to get nukes does so in a hurry, for getting leverage (-before the neighbour with nukes does a Ukraine on them).

 

No thanks.
 

I grew up in the 70s and 80s on the Continent, near the French-German border. Fighter and bomber jets and attack helos overhead just about every single day of the week,  mass NATO exercises several times a year with tanks and APCs parking in the school car park. Reagan and Thatcher baiting the reds every other day, easy for them as they’re not sat in the Russian Army’s way to Europe’s west coast. I know fear of world conflagration and nuclear war alright.

 

Still no thanks.

I was a young man with a family during those years.

 

There was a MAD mutual understanding between the totalitarians and Western allies.

 

It was respected in all negotiations by ALL Presidents.

 

From missile placement to nuclear arsenals to arms and nuclear reduction treaties, negotiations took place to assure that no provocative military actions would be undertaken by each superpower that would affect the geopolitical balance in their traditional "sphere of strategic interset", (their own back yard).

 

It kept the World in relative peace from more European World Wars.

 

Sovereign State Cuba was NOT allowed to join a military alliance with Russia, and neither would Canada or Mexica have been allowed.

 

The reality is that the Western Democracies, are outnumbered by its enemies, and either you have co-existence with these people you throw off all your insulting names, or you put your money where your mouth is, and go to war against nthem. Call them all the horrible names you can think of, the Bears are not cowed by pearl clutching, virtue signalling, Western insults.

 

There are your choices, or you can have your proxy wars, where you can get some satisfaction, at other's expense, like in the Ukraine now. Or you can observe the geopolitical reality of their presence, and engage them in trade and cultural exchanges, that set an example for their long suffering people.

 

It's not helpful to call all who disagree with you on strategy to deal with the Bears, "appeasers" and "Putin Puppets", or worse.

 

Even the Pope can see the fultility in that approach.

 

Pope Says NATO Might Have Provoked Russian Invasion of Ukraine - Wall Street Journal

 

"ROME⁠—Pope Francis said that the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” might have led to the invasion of Ukraine and that he didn't know whether other countries should supply Ukraine with more arms"

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/russia-ukraine-latest-news-2022-05-03/card/pope-says-nato-may-have-provoked-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-E7VAcqXGK8xNoHxJPQFs#:~:text=Pope Says NATO Might Have Provoked Russian Invasion of Ukraine,-By Francis X&text=ROME⁠—Pope Francis said,supply Ukraine with more arms.

Edited May 18, 2022 by trastrick