Russia Ukraine Update Thread

a reply to: Direne

As I quite clearly stated, Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada is very much a hypothetical and has no bearing on the REALITY of the situation in Ukraine.

All of us have opinions what MIGHT happen in such a situation - the only precedence we have is The Cuban Missile Crisis - but that's all they are; opinions on a hypothetical situation than in all probability will never happen.

As such all comparisons are invalid and irrelevant.

a reply to: midicon

Well said. Maybe Putin dreams of rebuilding the USSR, but had nato and Zelenskyy not given him the motive - perhaps the means to sell the invasion to his inner circle - then would he have invaded. Imo, no he wouldn’t have.

a reply to: Freeborn

I understand the context, but you are missing the crucial thing: missiles in Cuba was a real threat because it reduced the time to detect the missiles, if launched. That's why proximity to US was essential.

But today, distance is not a gamer: you can launch a missile from one end of the planet to half the other way and get a perfect hit, undetected.

(don't try to launch a missile from point A to the other end of the world because, on a sphere, the other end is just... A).

a reply to: McGinty

Why do you think that? Putin invaded and annexed part of Georgia before they had any designs on joining NATO.

In fact, it was that invasion that led Ukraine to seek out NATO membership.

a reply to: McGinty

We can either potentially suffer an extinction event because it’s not fair to tell Ukraine if they can join nato or not, or we can take the bitter pill that not everyone can choose to take military sides if they’re sandwiched between nuclear armed foes.

I can't accept that.

Essentially you are saying weaker nations don't have the right to independence or the right to self-determination. Their status is reliant on the whims and wishes of their stronger neighbours.
Do you honestly believe only countries with nuclear capability have the right to choose for themselves because that seems to me what you are implying? That nuclear countries can dictate and bully non-nuclear countries?
Doesn't seem right to me.

So why not let everyone have nuclear weapons? (No, I don't support that but.....)

There has to be a better way.

Scotland and Mexico have the democratic right to choose to join a Russian military alliance.

But they haven't so its a very much irrelevant and moot point.
We are talking about the REALITY of the situation now and not incredibly unlikely future hypothetical scenarios.

…Which is more or less Putin’s rationale and the stated narrative.

Putin's rationale is to regain Russia's 'lost lands' and cement his place in Russian history books as a truly 'Great' leader and bugger the consequences:
"What is the world without Russia".

Unless we respond to Putin the way we’d expect to be responded to in the above scenario then the conflict and the killing will continue.

Nonsense.
Your above scenario hasn't happened and is very, very, very unlikely ever to happen.
As far as I can tell the only thing Putin respects and will probably respond to is strength and might.

As I have repeatedly stated, I haven't got the answers.
Its a god awful # show.
But burying one's head in the sand and sucking up to Putin will achieve nothing.

I don't want to see this escalate, its a truly frightening thought.....but just bending over and taking it will just lead to further confrontations.

I agree that MIC must be profiting from this conflict....I find that obscene.

As a old mate of mine here on ATS used to say; We need a Full System Reboot, the world has gone #ing mad.
Unfortunately I doubt its going to happen anytime soon.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Take NATO out of the equation would Russia have invaded Georgia?
honest question

Funny there's a whole industrial military complex, not to mention pharmaceutical everyone's retirement money is invested in , yet WAR itself is a crime, does this not make most complicit ?
The politicians never blow each other up ....

wake up

a reply to: all2human

I know not addressed to me but....

Take NATO out of the equation would Russia have acted in such a way with Georgia?
honest question

Of course not....because neither Georgia nor any of those ex-USSR countries would ever have been independent again.
Perhaps even those ex-Warsaw Pact nations.

But I guess we'll never know for certain.

I see lots of 'what ifs' etc all to in some way excuse or justify Putin's actions.....a man who is the very definition of 'autocratic tyrannical megalomaniac'.

originally posted by: McGinty

the US would not want Russian missiles in Mexico - so why is Putin’s demand so unreasonable.

The short answer is, because Russian has proven time and again that their "go to" resolution is via invasion - Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea - where NATO supporting countries have shown that their "go to" resolution is negotiation.

Don't you think during the Cuban missile crisis the US could easily have invaded and decimated Cuba in 63'? There were written assurances from Russia then that there were no missiles in Russia, but ooooooops they were lying...and STILL we didn't invade Cuba. Russia has a track record of lying to mete out their expansionist agenda and securing it via invasion and human toll. In 1983 Stanislav Petrov ignored ALL orders from the premier to launch nuclear missiles at the US because of their own failure - to recognize the difference between sunlight reflection from the clouds from a US based missile launch, he literally saved the world, 1 man....but again their goto was "ready, fire, aim".

The US and NATO tried every diplomatic route available prior to Russia invading, during which time lest we forget that Putin insisted that he had "no intention of invading Ukraine"; just another lie, obviously.

Mexico, Canada are too smart - as well as it being too lucrative for them - to allow themselves to be beholden to the likes of Russia, their respective governments would never even consider such an idiotic alliance, which is why in the last few decades it never became an issue and never will become one.

The US made damned sure that we were not the ones leading the charge in this current conflict, if it weren't for multi-national (almost worldwide) support for Ukraine and it's right to exist and choose, the US would have had no choice but to sit back and watch and hope Putin provided his own exit ramp. He chose....poorly.

a reply to: Freeborn

The nuts and bolts of it is NATO is as much as a problem to world
and the point i'm conveying
Had they not had their fingers in all of these countries we wouldn't be in this predicament

originally posted by: all2human

The nuts and bolts of it is NATO is as much as a problem to world
and the point i'm conveying
Had they not had their fingers in all of these countries we wouldn't be in this predicament

Russia has a 700 year history of expansion and invasion, let's talk about how long NATO has existed.

american journalist killed.

now what?

or am i late to the party again?



www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: all2human

The nuts and bolts of it is NATO is as much as a problem to world
and the point i'm conveying

No it isn't.
NATO was needed as a counter balance to USSR.
It provided a deterrent against Russian expansionism.

Yes, NATO leaders have made mistakes - I think only a fool would deny that but please tell me where NATO has invaded?

Policy mistakes yes.

If NATO was/is so bad why on earth do you think all these countries are so bloody desperate to join it?

Had they not had their fingers in all of these countries we wouldn't be in this predicament

What, you think Putin would have been happy with all those independent countries around him?
Countries that he thinks belong to Russia.
Countries that he thinks should be subservient to Russia.

All of these countries have experienced Russian oppression in the not too distant past and they don't want to experience it again.
And in their eyes the Russian invasion of Ukraine has vindicated and magnified those fears.

I'm not excusing the actions and foreign policies of some countries that are aligned to or are members of NATO but that really has no relevance and bearing whatsoever on this situation.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Why stop at Russia?
Practically every country was the result of expansion and invasion
i'm not interested in a 'who's on first'.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Do you honestly believe only countries with nuclear capability have the right to choose for themselves because that seems to me what you are implying?

No, and suggesting I do think that’s right is a bit low!

Are you suggesting that countries with nuclear capability on all sides of the paradigm don’t tell other countries what to do, or invade them, topple their regimes, instigate coups and install putter regimes?

That sounds like a nice world. Pity we don’t live in it.

www.foxnews.com... Ukraine-Russia war: Satellite images reveal fires, severe damage to residential buildings in Mariupol

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Take NATO out of the equation would Russia have invaded Georgia?
honest question

If nato had never been created? Then we may all be speaking Russian by now.

If nato exists, but had made it clear it would not allow ex-Soviet nation into its club? I think not.

I’ve travelled a lot and the biggest lesson is don’t have opinions about places you haven’t been. I haven’t been to Russia or Ukraine so half the things I say in this thread are breaking that rule. There are doubtless many dominos that fell to lead to this situation, some of which I don’t know, some of which only an elite will know.

So all of our opinions here are worth sh!t, but if I’m going to have one regarding your question and based on the slither of curated reality Im allowed in my flat a long fvcking way from the fighting, then I’ll take my punt on this one: the possibility of Ukraine joining nato was the domino Putin needed to convince his generals to lead their men to war (assuming threats from his henchmen weren’t sufficient).

a reply to: all2human

I just said that Georgia had no plans to join NATO until Russia invaded. So yes, Russia invaded Georgia and it had nothing to do with NATO. Just like Russia's continued occupation of parts of Moldova that's been going on since 1992.

a reply to: alphabetaone

NATO’s composed of countries that are no strangers to expansion and invasion. Rebranding that as nato doesn’t delete this history. Nato was established a force for peace (which I certainly hope remains true). But does it look like that from the east, or does it look like an organisation composed of empiricists?

I’m not saying that’s the case, but I can appreciate how the east might think this.

a reply to: McGinty

I think I know you better than to think you believe that....but that is exactly the way it is coming across.
Ukraine is weak and doesn't have nuclear weapons so it has no right to decide who it wants to align itself to, if anyone.

I agree, we don't live in a very nice world at times.

Again, I don't profess to have the answers.

But I do know that if Putin called an immediate ceasefire it would go a huge way towards ramping down this crisis and then moving some way towards finding a long term solution.
That will never happen as long as he continues with the bombing and killing.