Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Raja Clavata]

It was a throw away comment John. Not to be taken too seriously (like a lot of the posts on this thread...)

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Raja Clavata said:

It was a throw away comment John. Not to be taken too seriously (like a lot of the posts on this thread...)

Yes, I fully accept that - but I suspect that many don't actually think what the consequences might be of (even a false alarm) of a missile heading for Putin's plane.

There was an interesting documentary about 9/11 to which one of the main interviewees was George Bush (junior) who was president at the time.  The question was one of the first things he was asked by his 'team' - retaliation?

Amongst the first calls he received via his secure comms were from Putin and the Chinese leader (Xi then?) assuring him it wasn't them and offering their help. 

Bush was put on board Air Force 1 with escorts and flown to a safe Air Force base whilst they assessed what attacks especially to the Pentagon and White House had happened/might happen.

There was real alarm that a major conflict could be triggered by any sudden knee jerk reaction to a small group of terrorists actions.  It is a very real prospect when things are so tense and the 'buttons' are in the hands of a very few rather isolated elderly men.

[Raja Clavata]

25 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Yes, I fully accept that - but I suspect that many don't actually think what the consequences might be of (even a false alarm) of a missile heading for Putin's plane.

There was an interesting documentary about 9/11 to which one of the main interviewees was George Bush (junior) who was president at the time.  The question was one of the first things he was asked by his 'team' - retaliation?

Amongst the first calls he received via his secure comms were from Putin and the Chinese leader (Xi then?) assuring him it wasn't them and offering their help. 

Bush was put on board Air Force 1 with escorts and flown to a safe Air Force base whilst they assessed what attacks especially to the Pentagon and White House had happened/might happen.

There was real alarm that a major conflict could be triggered by any sudden knee jerk reaction to a small group of terrorists actions.  It is a very real prospect when things are so tense and the 'buttons' are in the hands of a very few rather isolated elderly men.

Fully concur! Indeed, I've written previously on this thread about avoidance of "corner cases" where things can escalate very quickly and in ways previously deemed unimaginable.

On balance, I suspect any wrong-doing or attempt at wrong-doing at Putin would be an internal job but for the reasons highlighted might be ruled out as too risky in the big scheme of things.

[Raja Clavata]

No words...

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Got to be honest, I think that's arrogant. Who the hell is Russia, or anyone else to invade a country and then mock Ukraine for having the audacity to fight back. 

I really don't understand your thought process. 

It's not my thought process, I was being deliberately sarcastic at ordnance for the way he doggedly keeps banging on about this. 

On one hand they complain about people being killed, then when I suggest negotiations, the answer is 'Why should they, Russia should just stop' 

Well, because innocents are being killed for one thing, and Russias not going to stop! 

'Well if Russia don't stop, they need to keep fighting, cos WW2 blah blah.... 

I get frustrated at the ridiculous quasi logic, it's been 5 months now, Ukraine isn't winning, Putin isn't dead or removed, and Russias economy hasn't collapsed. Is it not time to try a different tack? 

Yet I get called everything from an pig apologist to a 5th columnist, kremlin dog over it. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Edit: not just airlines, Russian registered aircraft of all types

Serbia is allowing Russian aircraft to land, from there they can then take connecting flights pretty much anywhere. 

I was in Turkey a few weeks ago, place was as full of Russkies as it ever was, highly unlikely they came overland. 

[Raja Clavata]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Serbia is allowing Russian aircraft to land, from there they can then take connecting flights pretty much anywhere. 

I was in Turkey a few weeks ago, place was as full of Russkies as it ever was, highly unlikely they came overland. 

Indeed. Quite sure it's also true of Northern Cyprus, been over-run by Russians for a while now.

I was in Madrid over the weekend and a fair few there too.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Raja Clavata
added Madrid

[harrycatcat1]

22 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Serbia is allowing Russian aircraft to land, from there they can then take connecting flights pretty much anywhere. 

I was in Turkey a few weeks ago, place was as full of Russkies as it ever was, highly unlikely they came overland. 

I'm in Turkey now and there are a lot of Russian's here in tbis complex according to the staff. 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, harrycatcat1 said:

I'm in Turkey now and there are a lot of Russian's here in tbis complex according to the staff. 

Getting their teeth done? 🙂 

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

Getting their teeth done? 🙂 

Replacements for their wooden dentures ? 😄

[ordnance]

Quote

I know you feel for the people , but if the intention was to kill as many civilians as possible, then they would just carpet bomb city suburbs ?
Again dont take this as me defending it , but the way its portrayed as deliberate, just doesnt make sense.

Every time a Russian missile kills civilian's they claim it was the Ukrainian's, it was a military target, it was fake news etc. It would be sort of hard for them to make similar claims if they were carpet bombing city suburbs, would it not You seem to believe that nice Putin and the Russian army would never do something like that even thought they have form and used the same tactics in Syria, your naivety just doesn't make sense. 

[oowee]

10 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Serbia is allowing Russian aircraft to land, from there they can then take connecting flights pretty much anywhere. 

I was in Turkey a few weeks ago, place was as full of Russkies as it ever was, highly unlikely they came overland. 

How do they get there without crossing EU air space?

 

So Russia cuddles up to Iran. Iran want the bomb and talks on nuclear power have stalled following Trumps tantrums leaving space for Russia to engage.  Israel will do anything to stop Iran getting a bomb.  Very scary stuff.

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, oowee said:

How do they get there without crossing EU air space?

There isn't a bar on airspace, just landing. 

Just like there isn't a bar on Russian gas 🤔

47 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Every time a Russian missile kills civilian's they claim it was the Ukrainian's, it was a military target, it was fake news etc. It would be sort of hard for them to make similar claims if they were carpet bombing city suburbs, would it not

*Bangs head on wall*

So they're only deliberately targeting civilians if there's an excuse for it, that no one believes? 

OK. 

[12gauge82]

23 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It's not my thought process, I was being deliberately sarcastic at ordnance for the way he doggedly keeps banging on about this. 

On one hand they complain about people being killed, then when I suggest negotiations, the answer is 'Why should they, Russia should just stop' 

Well, because innocents are being killed for one thing, and Russias not going to stop! 

'Well if Russia don't stop, they need to keep fighting, cos WW2 blah blah.... 

I get frustrated at the ridiculous quasi logic, it's been 5 months now, Ukraine isn't winning, Putin isn't dead or removed, and Russias economy hasn't collapsed. Is it not time to try a different tack? 

Yet I get called everything from an pig apologist to a 5th columnist, kremlin dog over it. 

Fair enough, although in my personal view I think it wrong.

the argument that Russia is somehow liberating Ukraine is a nonsense, if they were, the Ukrainians would be welcoming them with open arms the moment the Russian armour rolled in, Ukraine would have fallen in days like Afghanistan did after the Americans left.

as has been documented, the exact opposite was true, look at the fiece resistance across most of the country, they've fought to the last man in some areas. 

The analogy of ww2 is also relative, yes a very different war and driving factors, but very similar in that an aggressor has attacked and invaded, a free, self governing country, Ukraine has every right to defend itself to the last man if they decide. Which is exactly what the UK had planned if the nazis had initiated op sea lion and invaded Great Britain, take a listen to Churchills famous speach. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

the argument that Russia is somehow liberating Ukraine is a nonsense, if they were, the Ukrainians would be welcoming them with open arms the moment the Russian armour rolled in, Ukraine would have fallen in days like Afghanistan did after the Americans left.

as has been documented, the exact opposite was true, look at the fiece resistance across most of the country, they've fought to the last man in some areas. 

Ive not seen a single person on this thread or elsewhere, insinuate anything along those lines.
Russias attack is naked aggression.

 

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

The analogy of ww2 is also relative, yes a very different war and driving factors, but very similar in that an aggressor has attacked and invaded, a free, self governing country, Ukraine has every right to defend itself to the last man if they decide. Which is exactly what the UK had planned if the nazis had initiated op sea lion and invaded Great Britain, take a listen to Churchills famous speach. 

If WHO decides ?
Is it up to the Ukrainian government to decide that cities are turned to rubble , and tens of thousands of civilians die to satisfy the defiance of the ruling class ?
Yes its the Russians fault its happening , but when the Russians occupy a town, the Ukrainians shell it to kill as many 'orcs' as possible, even if there are civilians still there.

Upgrading weaponry, and escalating this war, will have but one result, more needless death.

The analogy of WW2 as far as the UK is concerned is weak, yes we were bombed, lost servicemen and civilians, but it pales against the losses suffered by Russian, AND Ukrainian peoples by the nazis.
Its not an excuse, but it helps to understand the mentality of these people.
Comparing them to us , who have not been occupied by a foreign power for 1000 years, not suffered the slaughter of millions of citizens, and the country levelled, is a poor comparison.
Im sure we would have fought, for a while, if Sealion had been successful, but the last man ? I doubt it.

[Mungler]

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Upgrading weaponry, and escalating this war, will have but one result, more needless death.

Yes, that is what happens and has to happen when one country invades another and the other refuses to simply roll out the red carpet and let them in / stay.

The whiff of your critique is that this is all needless because Ukraine should just give up and no other country should lend or provide support to Ukraine because that would be contrary to having Ukraine give up and welcome the Russians in.

Returning to the French analogy, that nation rolled over in WW2 to save Paris (and that is because the French are cultural snobs). They could have braved it out and helped wear down the German war machine, and even leaving aside that the majority of French happily jumped in with the Germans and deportation of Jews almost immediately, they kicked the can down the road and left it to others to deal with the German war machine. I digress.

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Yes, that is what happens and has to happen when one country invades another and the other refuses to simply roll out the red carpet and let them in / stay.

At what point do you say enough is enough, when everyones dead , and the country you fought for is a wasteland ?

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

The whiff of your critique is that this is all needless because Ukraine should just give up and no other country should lend or provide support to Ukraine because that would be contrary to having Ukraine give up and welcome the Russians in.

Very tempted to give analogies where Russia could have supported countries that the US has needlessly invaded, but you tend to call that whataboutery, in an attempt to nullify it....
Simple question, would Ukraine have been invaded if they had made it clear that they wouldnt be joining NATO, and they would never host offensive NATO troops and materiel on its borders, thereby pacifying the Russians to any perceived security threat ?
Im not saying they HAD to, they have every right to govern themselves as they see fit, form alliances as they see fit, and enter into any pacts they desire.
But diplomacy is a two way street, and one nations right to self determination, can be anothers (perceived) threat of aggression.

Like....Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Returning to the French analogy, that nation rolled over in WW2 to save Paris (and that is because the French are cultural snobs). They could have braved it out and helped wear down the German war machine, and even leaving aside that the majority of French happily jumped in with the Germans and deportation of Jews almost immediately, they kicked the can down the road and left it to others to deal with the German war machine. I digress.

You do 

 

[Mungler]

51 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

At what point do you say enough is enough, when everyone's dead , and the country you fought for is a wasteland ?

That is a double edged sword and at some point the Russian people will ask those same questions when the body bags keep landing and the Country goes bankrupt. It will take time, but it will happen.

However, it is and remains a stark choice for Ukraine - roll over, be murdered and / or enslaved or fight and defend your home and your freedom. Indeed, it appears that the Ukrainian people have chosen, for now, to fight and to place their freedom above brick and mortar.

As for your question "would Ukraine have been invaded if they had made it clear that they wouldn't be joining NATO?" the answer to that is "Yes, absolutely." Ukraine was getting invaded regardless of any NATO ambitions. Indeed, if you consider that Ukraine's threatened joining of NATO (something previously promised to them and green lighted by Russia) triggered the invasion then you are being deliberately and desperately blind in your search for some rationalization or justification that doesn't paint Russia as the land grabbing war monger that it demonstrably is and continues to be in that region.

[Mice!]

8 minutes ago, Mungler said:

That is a double edged sword and at some point the Russian people will ask those same questions when the body bags keep landing and the Country goes bankrupt. It will take time, but it will happen.

I expect those questions will want to be asked, but can they be?

As for Russia going bankrupt,  why when they are still selling gas to countries in Europe?

As long as there are sanctions in place and there are no negotiations taking place it will just be more of the same, Russia might as well keeping pushing forwards, they'll see no reason to withdraw. 

 

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, Mungler said:

As for your question "would Ukraine have been invaded if they had made it clear that they wouldn't be joining NATO?" the answer to that is "Yes, absolutely." Ukraine was getting invaded regardless of any NATO ambitions.

How on earth could you possibly know that ?
Did they (re) grab the Baltic states before they joined NATO ?
Did they annex Belarus in a land grab ?
Did they roll over Moldova when the Transnistria conflict happened ?
Did they take Georgia or Chechnya when they could have easily ?
Did they take the whole of Ukraine in 2014 before western weapons and training came along , while it had no leadership and the army was in disarray ?
We are lead to believe that Finland had to join NATO to protect its borders, Sweden too apparently ?

Just how dangerous was Russia prior to Ukraines invasion ?

No doubt you will take this as me defending Russia, get those ideas out of your head, this is about explaining why these events have happened, rather than clutching at some manufactured idea of crazy Ivan rampaging through Europe, with only Uncle Sam to protect us.
No one thought like this between 1991 and 2014, but there is no profit in peace.

I know hes annoying , but watch this from Brand from 1.10 onwards.

 

[oowee]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

How on earth could you possibly know that ?
Did they (re) grab the Baltic states before they joined NATO ?
Did they annex Belarus in a land grab ?
Did they roll over Moldova when the Transnistria conflict happened ?
Did they take Georgia or Chechnya when they could have easily ?
Did they take the whole of Ukraine in 2014 before western weapons and training came along , while it had no leadership and the army was in disarray ?
We are lead to believe that Finland had to join NATO to protect its borders, Sweden too apparently ?

Just how dangerous was Russia prior to Ukraines invasion ?

 

Putin was not in a position to take the Baltic states when they joined NATO. 

The Ukraine invasion in 2014 keeping Russia occupied no doubt saved Moldova when they severed military co operation.

They own Belarus and Chechnya and Georgia is controlled and dominated. No need to annex if you can control and manage. One fight at a time. 

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

Putin was not in a position to take the Baltic states when they joined NATO. 

I did say before they joined NATO.
The Baltics gained independence peacefully from the USSR in 1991, and didnt join NATO till 2004, thats plenty of time for Russia to move in and take them.

They didnt.

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

The Ukraine invasion in 2014 keeping Russia occupied no doubt saved Moldova when they severed military co operation.

The Transnistria war was in 1992, when Russian and Ukrainian forces , along with Transnistrian separatists defeated (aggressor)  Moldova, again a very simple job to annex Moldova.

They didnt.

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

They own Belarus and Chechnya and Georgia is controlled and dominated. No need to annex if you can control and manage. One fight at a time. 

I will concede that Belarus and Chechnya are effectively vassal states, destabilisation of these countries would be the only reason the Russians would need to move in.
Georgia is NOT controlled, it is highly resistant to Russian control , western backed since the S.Ossetia war of 2008,  where Georgia was the aggressor, Russia could easily have annexed Georgia then,

It didnt.

[Rewulf]

Where theres a will theres a way.

Follow the money.

 

[oowee]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I did say before they joined NATO.
The Baltics gained independence peacefully from the USSR in 1991, and didnt join NATO till 2004, thats plenty of time for Russia to move in and take them.

They didnt.

The Transnistria war was in 1992, when Russian and Ukrainian forces , along with Transnistrian separatists defeated (aggressor)  Moldova, again a very simple job to annex Moldova.

They didnt.

I will concede that Belarus and Chechnya are effectively vassal states, destabilisation of these countries would be the only reason the Russians would need to move in.
Georgia is NOT controlled, it is highly resistant to Russian control , western backed since the S.Ossetia war of 2008,  where Georgia was the aggressor, Russia could easily have annexed Georgia then,

It didnt.

No my bad english i meant before they joined. It was a new world and Russia was finding its feet. There was every reason to believe at that time that the country could become democratic.

The same with Moldova too early too uncertain. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think what we are seeing is the result of an increasingly introverted state that is simply unable to realise its potential for the corrupt way in which it is structured. Ukraine 2014 gave confidence and confirmed the lessons learnt from Chechnya. 

I am sure they could have invaded wherever but actions need to be seen in the context of the time horizon.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, oowee said:

I am sure they could have invaded wherever but actions need to be seen in the context of the time horizon.

Very true.

22 minutes ago, oowee said:

It was a new world and Russia was finding its feet.

This piece is quite long , but fascinatingly insightful into the Russian mindset.
It reads like a microcosm of what was to come later.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/the-august-war-ten-years-on-a-retrospective-on-the-russo-georgian-war/