Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[CaptainRAVE]

Imagine being arrogant enough to feel confident that you can assure everyone there's no chance of a nuclear war, given the consequences of being wrong. The fact you're so sure is why I would never listen to someone like you. I'm not saying Putin would use nuclear weapons, but I'm not stupid enough to say there's zero chance, and I wouldn't bet the lives of a billion people on something that isn't certain. This is why NATO Generals have been so cautious, yet a bunch of people in the media and on the internet seem to be frothing at the mouth to give whatever Ukraine needs, despite Russian warnings. The suggestions at the start of the conflict to set up a "no-fly zone" would be ******* hilarious based on how stupid of an idea it was if the consequences weren't deadly serious.

Nor can we be bullied into inaction by their unlikely use.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

But NATO isn't even offering to do that, and nobody's asking for it. Even if they did, do you really believe Putin would use nuclear weapons against NATO forces? That would be the end of Russia. Moscow would be nothing but a smoking crater and a faint memory within 15 minutes.

If you're not keen on the West supporting Ukraine, what's your proposal for ending the war?

I suspect its keep wetting nickers and handing over other peoples lands until ol Putey is somewhere around Wakefield.
Then grow a spine when its too late.

 

[Roar87]

I suspect its keep wetting nickers and handing over other peoples lands until ol Putey is somewhere around Wakefield.
Then grow a spine when its too late.

No, the lines are pretty clear given that NATO is a thing and Ukraine isn't in it.

I MUST imagine you're going over there to fight yourself given that attitude though, or can I assume you're just happy for other people to do the fighting despite being such a tough guy?

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

No, the lines are pretty clear given that NATO is a thing and Ukraine isn't in it.

I MUST imagine you're going over there to fight yourself given that attitude though, or can I assume you're just happy for other people to do the fighting despite being such a tough guy?

Yeah right pull the other one. I can imagine your views would be exactly the same should the conflict move to Poland.
Why would they be any different, its still a far away land. Where do the 40 million Ukrainians go if we hand them over.
Putin is applying the same value to human life there as Hitler did. Yeah I know some will go lol he mentioned Hitler, but it really is no different in that respect.
When you want the land but not the people who inhabit it...
Do you have room for 40 million in your spare room?

Why would I be going over there to fight. I would fight for the UK, and if necessary I would fight in Europe if I was called up.
I'm not that sure I would be much of a benefit tbh, dodgy back, knees and eyesight to some extent. I would probably be not much better than cannon fodder on the front lines.

 

[I cant post photos]

No, the lines are pretty clear given that NATO is a thing and Ukraine isn't in it.

I MUST imagine you're going over there to fight yourself given that attitude though, or can I assume you're just happy for other people to do the fighting despite being such a tough guy?

Oh come on, we all know you're the tough guy here, you got our backs right?

 

[Fuzz]

Where's your line then?
Which bit of ground do they have to take before you consider acting forcibly

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Imagine being arrogant enough to feel confident that you can assure everyone there's no chance of a nuclear war, given the consequences of being wrong. The fact you're so sure is why I would never listen to someone like you. I'm not saying Putin would use nuclear weapons, but I'm not stupid enough to say there's zero chance, and I wouldn't bet the lives of a billion people on something that isn't certain. This is why NATO Generals have been so cautious, yet a bunch of people in the media and on the internet seem to be frothing at the mouth to give whatever Ukraine needs, despite Russian warnings. The suggestions at the start of the conflict to set up a "no-fly zone" would be ******* hilarious based on how stupid of an idea it was if the consequences weren't deadly serious.

You are advocating for the West bowing down to Putin and giving him what he wants. When does that ever work with a bully?

No one is advocating for troops entering Ukraine let alone entering Russia, you are creating something in your mind that simply doesn't exist.

 

[Roar87]

Yeah right pull the other one. I can imagine your views would be exactly the same should the conflict move to Poland.
Why would they be any different, its still a far away land. Where do the 40 million Ukrainians go if we hand them over.
Putin is applying the same value to human life there as Hitler did. Yeah I know some will go lol he mentioned Hitler, but it really is no different in that respect.
When you want the land but not the people who inhabit it...
Do you have room for 40 million in your spare room?

Why would I be going over there to fight. I would fight for the UK, and if necessary I would fight in Europe if I was called up.
I'm not that sure I would be much of a benefit tbh, dodgy back, knees and eyesight to some extent. I would probably be not much better than cannon fodder on the front lines.

I'm very literally saying I agree with Bidens stance in that we defend every inch of NATO soil. If you don't believe that then I don't give a ****.

You are advocating for the West bowing down to Putin and giving him what he wants. When does that ever work with a bully?

No one is advocating for troops entering Ukraine let alone entering Russia, you are creating something in your mind that simply doesn't exist.

If you don't believe Putin will use nuclear weapons then we absolutely should send troops into Ukraine, the US and European armies would probably destroy Russian ground forces at a ratio of 1:1000 casualties in our favour, it would barely even be a fight for us if they didn't use nukes. It would be so one sided it would be a humilation on the level of the US invading Iraq.

 

[Sankari]

You do realise Russia could deploy tactical nuclear weapons and use them against ground forces and that we wouldn't just nuke Moscow in return? Why would you think we'd do that? That would mean every major city in North America and Western Europe would be destroyed within the hour as well. The consequences for a tactical nuclear being used on the battlefield aren't even clear. We could do the same in return, but would we? I doubt it actually.

What makes you think Putin would risk nuclear war with the West by attacking NATO forces with tactical nuclear weapons? That would be sheer suicide.

I lived through the last two decades of the Cold War, when nukes were more likely to start flying than they are today. Putin's empty threats don't scare me.

Again: if you're not keen on the West supporting Ukraine, what's your proposal for ending the war?

 

[Roar87]

What makes you think Putin would risk nuclear war with the West by attacking NATO forces with tactical nuclear weapons? That would be sheer suicide.

For the same reason that if you had a gun and got attacked by Tyson Fury, you'd stand so little chance you'd either get beaten to within an inch of your life or you'd be forced to shoot him.

NATO is so far ahead of Russia militarily that they would have no other option than to use nuclear weapons. They'd be suffering the kinds of casualties that have never been seen in war.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

If you don't believe Putin will use nuclear weapons then we absolutely should send troops into Ukraine, the US and European armies would probably destroy Russian ground forces at a ratio of 1:1000 casualties in our favour, it would barely even be a fight for us if they didn't use nukes. It would be so one sided it would be a humilation on the level of the US invading Iraq.

It isn't our war to fight. None of us have a treaty with Ukraine. We are supplying weapons and intelligence to help them defend their national sovereignty.

 

[Roar87]

It isn't our war to fight. None of us have a treaty with Ukraine. We are supplying weapons and intelligence to help them defend their national sovereignty.

We signed the Budapest Memorandum, we could legally provide security assistance given they've become a victim of aggression from the Russian Federation. We could say it is our war on that basis, if we wanted to. We're currently doing some half baked measures trying to avoid a direct conflict, while I'm being told I shouldn't be scared of a direct conflict. Which is it? Either I shouldn't be scared or I should.

 

[Scougar]

Please look up the legal differences between a treaty and an agreement.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

We signed the Budapest Memorandum, we could legally provide security assistance given they've become a victim of aggression from the Russian Federation. We could say it is our war on that basis, if we wanted to. We're currently doing some half baked measures trying to avoid a direct conflict, while I'm being told I shouldn't be scared of a direct conflict. Which is it? Either I shouldn't be scared or I should.

You are talking about troops marching into Russia which no one has mentioned and I've not seen any leaders or military types advocating for. If we did march into Russia then Putin might indeed use tactical nukes or maybe even strategic nukes because he would rightly be concerned we were attempting to take Russia and impose a new government on the country. Fortunately for us but not your argument, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Roar87]

You are talking about troops marching into Russia which no one has mentioned and I've not seen any leaders or military types advocating for. If we did march into Russia then Putin might indeed use tactical nukes or maybe even strategic nukes because he would rightly be concerned we were attempting to take Russia and impose a new government on the country. Fortunately for us but not your argument, that isn't going to happen.

I said Ukraine, not Russia.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I said Ukraine, not Russia.

Right so no reason to use nukes at all then. And no one is saying send troops into Ukraine. Now if he did use nukes in Ukraine I could see NATO destroying all Russian bases and logistics in Ukraine with cruise missiles and other stand off weapons. I still don't think we'd see troops on the ground in an offensive role.

 

[EddScott]

At the height of the nuclear threats last year there was a report that some kind of back channeling had gone on between US, Russia and China. Media knew something had gone on but not what.

The nuke threats calmed down. A tactical nuke in Ukraine would be highly unlikely to start WW3. More likely any country sympathetic to Russia would be ostracised from trade with the West, China included.

China has probably lost the economic war with US (the communist parts of Chinese government having slowed domestic individual wealth) and is now slowly reverting back to a communist state iIt still needs the West to buy its goods.

China needs the West to buy goods more than it needs a large, unwieldy and mostly skint friend in the form of Russia. Having said that, I think the Chinese peace plan is a con.

However, China is also likely to have insisted that Western involvement should be limited to equipment supply and not boots on the ground. I'm sure there is a balance having to be played out here and Putin probably thinks he's playing both sides against each other whilst the West and China are trying their best not to fall out with each other over something neither of which really wanted to get involved in.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I'm very literally saying I agree with Bidens stance in that we defend every inch of NATO soil. If you don't believe that then I don't give a ****.



If you don't believe Putin will use nuclear weapons then we absolutely should send troops into Ukraine, the US and European armies would probably destroy Russian ground forces at a ratio of 1:1000 casualties in our favour, it would barely even be a fight for us if they didn't use nukes. It would be so one sided it would be a humilation on the level of the US invading Iraq.

Yeah well sorry but I don't believe you.
Because you know what, the NATO agreement says all must treat an attack on one as an attack on all and must come to their aid.

What we would see then is some types saying "well yeah we should go to their aid" lets send them some blankets and some almost out of date RPGs we have.
There would be a vast difference between what we are obliged to do and what we could do.

Also plenty say how part of the provocation (of Russia) is NATO expansion and if NATO hadn't of expanded then Putin wouldn't have done what what did.

Personally I don't see NATO as the limit on doing the right thing.
Do we just hand over any country who isn't a member of NATO?
How do you think thats helping to promote the nuclear non-proliferation.

Non NATO and Non nuclear? Yeah sorry your fair game.

 

[Roar87]

Yeah well sorry but I don't believe you.
Because you know what, the NATO agreement says all must treat an attack on one as an attack on all and must come to their aid.

What we would see then is some types saying "well yeah we should go to their aid" lets send them some blankets and some almost out of date RPGs we have.
There would be a vast difference between what we are obliged to do and what we could do.

Also plenty say how part of the provocation (of Russia) is NATO expansion and if NATO hadn't of expanded then Putin wouldn't have done what what did.

Personally I don't see NATO as the limit on doing the right thing.
Do we just hand over any country who isn't a member of NATO?
How do you think thats helping to promote the nuclear non-proliferation.

Non NATO and Non nuclear? Yeah sorry your fair game.

"I don't believe you" So you're picking and choosing which statements of mine you believe now, based on how well you know me based on some forum posts you read. ******* hell.

Of course NATO expansion is the reason why we're in this mess, who would even disagree with that? The Russians naturally aren't happy the US is basically supporting a pro-Western government in Ukraine that is right on their border, they aren't happy that the US has nuclear weapons in about a dozen countries surrounding them. The argument against that position is that countries are allowed to join NATO because they are sovereign democratically elected governments. I accept the fact that Russia wants to maintain it's sphere of influence because that preserves peace in Europe, but I also support the idea that countries should be allowed to join NATO if they choose. These notions conflict with each other, and it's not an easy situation to resolve.

Not sure why you're making statements like us "handing over" countries that don't belong to us in the first place. There's a lot of conflicts around the world that we don't get involved in.

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

"I don't believe you" So you're picking and choosing which statements of mine you believe now, based on how well you know me based on some forum posts you read. ******* hell.

Of course NATO expansion is the reason why we're in this mess, who would even disagree with that? The Russians naturally aren't happy the US is basically supporting a pro-Western government in Ukraine that is right on their border, they aren't happy that the US has nuclear weapons in about a dozen countries surrounding them. The argument against that position is that countries are allowed to join NATO because they are sovereign democratically elected governments. I accept the fact that Russia wants to maintain it's sphere of influence because that preserves peace in Europe, but I also support the idea that countries should be allowed to join NATO if they choose. These notions conflict with each other, and it's not an easy situation to resolve.

Not sure why you're making statements like us "handing over" countries that don't belong to us in the first place. There's a lot of conflicts around the world that we don't get involved in.

List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Its easy to put a hypothetical position of reasonableness you don't expect to be tested.

Well I for starters don't agree that NATO expansion is why we are in this mess. I believe its 100% on Putin/Russia.
I mean evidence that the direct Putin actions have pushed Sweden and Finland to seek membership, there is nothing like invading your non NATO neighbour and seeing some people saying "thats ok they aren't NATO members" to green light invading any others to trigger the reation, oh we better join NATO then.

I mean NATO, a defensive alliance, has literally never gone to war. Individual members of NATO sure, but they do not get the support of NATO if they go to war.
NATO has literally zero aggressive action throughout its history. You cannot say that for Russia.

Putin wants to bring back the USSR. He saw Ukraine as another block in that conquest.

There are not nukes in about a dozen countries surrounding them at all. There are 5 west countries currently storing US nukes, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey thats hardly surrounded.
Your just trotting out Kremlin based misinformation after Kremlin based misinformation and you wonder why I don't trust your takes?

As I said your position seems to be quite extreme for leaving the Ukrainians to their fate, is that better than saying giving up their lands? As such I would not expect you to support an all in NATO response and to fall in line with one of the limp wristed weak responses some would argue for should a NATO country be attacked.

Ukraine were not seeking NATO membership nor EU membership pre invasion.