• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

scaramanga said:
I do see how others might prioritise their own comfort over the security of Ukranian people - after all, the EU, UK and US have all made that public policy.

I don't think Putin would break a no-fly zone if NATO set one up. A quick and complete destruction of any aircraft in that area would be an embarrassing loss for him and only serve to make a war with any NATO country less palatable to non-Putin Russians.
Click to expand...

"I don't think" isn't quite strong enough if we're talking about a risk of escalating the conflict to a direct war between Russia and NATO with everything that could entail.

For me you'd have to be certain, that's impossible. Hence, no go on the no fly.
 
braineclipse said:
"I don't think" isn't quite strong enough if we're talking about a risk of escalating the conflict to a direct war between Russia and NATO with everything that could entail.

For me you'd have to be certain, that's impossible. Hence, no go on the no fly.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately in the real world, no benefits are risk free.

If not aiding Ukraine in an effective manner would absolutely guarantee safety for the rest of us I still wouldn't agree, but could understand the argument more. That's not really the case though. If sanctions eventually do end this conflict the best likely result will be that everyone sits around a table and talks about it. The false belief that many people have regarding both sides having to give something in a negotiation means that Putin will probably walk away with Crimea and the two "disputed" regions. There's a chance he may also ensure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO and possibly Finland too. Even without the NATO parts of that deal, it means there is still a dictator in control of thousands of nuclear weapons, still a decent chance of him invading other countries or Ukraine again in the near future, and still a reliance in Germany and Italy on Russian gas (meaning that the sanctions that could really hurt Russia will not be implemented).

If there's any possibility that Putin could launch nuclear missiles first, then rapping him on the knuckles and sending him away with a chunk of Ukraine in his pocket doesn't change that. He's either capable of striking first or he isn't. If he's capable of striking first then allowing thousands of Ukrainians to die doesn't make us safer. If he isn't capable of it, then doing the right thing doesn't come at the cost you think it does.
 
Reportedly Russia bombed a Holocaust memorial in Kyiv. Surely not the actual target as it is close to the TV tower, but a succinct visual of this.
 
scaramanga said:
Unfortunately in the real world, no benefits are risk free.

If not aiding Ukraine in an effective manner would absolutely guarantee safety for the rest of us I still wouldn't agree, but could understand the argument more. That's not really the case though. If sanctions eventually do end this conflict the best likely result will be that everyone sits around a table and talks about it. The false belief that many people have regarding both sides having to give something in a negotiation means that Putin will probably walk away with Crimea and the two "disputed" regions. There's a chance he may also ensure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO and possibly Finland too. Even without the NATO parts of that deal, it means there is still a dictator in control of thousands of nuclear weapons, still a decent chance of him invading other countries or Ukraine again in the near future, and still a reliance in Germany and Italy on Russian gas (meaning that the sanctions that could really hurt Russia will not be implemented).

If there's any possibility that Putin could launch nuclear missiles first, then rapping him on the knuckles and sending him away with a chunk of Ukraine in his pocket doesn't change that. He's either capable of striking first or he isn't. If he's capable of striking first then allowing thousands of Ukrainians to die doesn't make us safer. If he isn't capable of it, then doing the right thing doesn't come at the cost you think it does.
Click to expand...

I think there are other possible outcomes, but that must likely depends on a more or less successful and definitely painful outcome for Ukraine.

Guaranteed safety isn't an option. But the risks associated with escalating the conflict are real. That needs to be factored in.

I think the risks of escalation are not only connected to the first strike nuclear risk.
 
Rorschach said:
Few interesting ideas in here. What do people think about Putin getting an amnesty if he fudges off?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498960950111649793
Click to expand...
I think the list of requirements needs to be non-negotiable and as follows:
  1. No Russian troops anywhere on Ukrainian soil
  2. Russia to agree and admit publicly that Crimea and the two "disputed" regions are a part of Ukraine
  3. Complete Russian nuclear disarmament OR independently verified, free and fair elections in Russia
  4. DMZ along Russia's western border to ensure no more of this kind of nonsense
 
scaramanga said:
I think the list of requirements needs to be non-negotiable and as follows:
  1. No Russian troops anywhere on Ukrainian soil
  2. Russia to agree and admit publicly that Crimea and the two "disputed" regions are a part of Ukraine
  3. Complete Russian nuclear disarmament OR independently verified, free and fair elections in Russia
  4. DMZ along Russia's western border to ensure no more of this kind of nonsense
Click to expand...

Don't always agree with our own capitalistic bunker-incumbent but fully on board here.

The idea that the west should appease Putin in any way shape or form, 'buy him off' being surrendering parts of Ukraine to prevent anything more, is just madness as history proves (and as the the Chief Pinocchio of Belarus inadvertently showed with his map showing a Russian invasion of Moldova to follow).

Putin and his kleptocratic cabal need to be pushed back not settled with. Otherwise NATO and the EU and US and what we take for granted as liberal, democratic freedoms aren't worth a dime.

I'd go a step further with 1) No Russian troops anywhere beyond current Russian borders. No 'peace-keeping' in Kazakhstan or Belarus or Georgia or anywhere at all.
 
scaramanga said:
I think the list of requirements needs to be non-negotiable and as follows:
  1. No Russian troops anywhere on Ukrainian soil
  2. Russia to agree and admit publicly that Crimea and the two "disputed" regions are a part of Ukraine
  3. Complete Russian nuclear disarmament OR independently verified, free and fair elections in Russia
  4. DMZ along Russia's western border to ensure no more of this kind of nonsense
Click to expand...

So a regime change? Either through revolution, military force from the outside or Putin stepping down voluntarily (perhaps getting amnesty).

I think Putin stepping down, taking some sort of amnesty is essentially a non starter unless he has people with guns knocking on his door. Even then not sure. Ethically it's fine by me. He deserves prison, not amnesty, but the suffering it would prevent would more than make up for it.

Regime change by military force from the outside has mixed results in the past at best. See modern history for reference. I also think it's entirely unlikely, unfeasible, but that point only returns us to our escalation disagreement.

Internal revolution, be it by a popular uprising or oligarchs and other garchs ousting Putin has some traction in my head at least. But probably requires the invasion to be a drawn out, brutal and unsuccessful affair. Along with Ukraine helped by money and arms from around the world plus harsh sanctions given time to have a real impact.
 
Lost Mango said:
Don't always agree with our own capitalistic bunker-incumbent but fully on board here.

The idea that the west should appease Putin in any way shape or form, 'buy him off' being surrendering parts of Ukraine to prevent anything more, is just madness as history proves (and as the the Chief Pinocchio of Belarus inadvertently showed with his map showing a Russian invasion of Moldova to follow).

Putin and his kleptocratic cabal need to be pushed back not settled with. Otherwise NATO and the EU and US and what we take for granted as liberal, democratic freedoms aren't worth a dime.

I'd go a step further with 1) No Russian troops anywhere beyond current Russian borders. No 'peace-keeping' in Kazakhstan or Belarus or Georgia or anywhere at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Any peace deal that leaves Putin with continued power and some sort of "win" from this situation that includes what he's seemingly after is kicking the problem down the road.

If Ukraine wanted that over war that would be a conundrum of sorts, but ultimately their decision to make. They've made their choice starkly in the other direction so far and I'm glad to see that supported so far even though the support could have come sooner and with even more impact.
 
braineclipse said:
So a regime change? Either through revolution, military force from the outside or Putin stepping down voluntarily (perhaps getting amnesty).

I think Putin stepping down, taking some sort of amnesty is essentially a non starter unless he has people with guns knocking on his door. Even then not sure. Ethically it's fine by me. He deserves prison, not amnesty, but the suffering it would prevent would more than make up for it.

Regime change by military force from the outside has mixed results in the past at best. See modern history for reference. I also think it's entirely unlikely, unfeasible, but that point only returns us to our escalation disagreement.

Internal revolution, be it by a popular uprising or oligarchs and other garchs ousting Putin has some traction in my head at least. But probably requires the invasion to be a drawn out, brutal and unsuccessful affair. Along with Ukraine helped by money and arms from around the world plus harsh sanctions given time to have a real impact.
Click to expand...
Not a regime change, a restriction on ownership of nuclear weapons. You can have a dictatorship or nukes, not both.

There's nothing to say the Russian people won't vote for Putin in a free and fair election. If they did that then there's no regime change.
 
The USSR hid entire cities, they managed to hide a nuclear accident almost as big as Chernobyl 20 years beforehand.

I don't think we can ensure their compliancy with disarmament, it won't change until freedom and democracy run Russia.
 
some of the stuff i'm reading here is banter. Yeh, i'm sure Putin will just go "you know what, this is a bit too much effort, i'll leave it".

Putin will push for what he wants without regard, even if it ruined Russia.
 
Diamond Lights said:
some of the stuff i'm reading here is banter. Yeh, i'm sure Putin will just go "you know what, this is a bit too much effort, i'll leave it".

Putin will push for what he wants without regard, even if it ruined Russia.
Click to expand...
Putin might just be beyond the level of crazy that we're all worried about. Mainly because he cares about being the one with his name in the history books known for rebuilding the USSR.

That's not the case for those who prop him up though. At what point does the risk of going against Putin get outweighed by the cost of sticking with him? For those that want to visit their mistress in London and send their kids to an English school, hopefully quite soon. I suspect that for all of them it falls well short of Russia being involved in a long, damaging war (nuclear or not) that they are quite likely to lose.
 
The only positive from this mess is the highlighting of Chelsea and evertons links to dirty cash. Abromovich trying to engineer a fire sale of Chelsea fc, and Asminovs extensive sponsorship of everton is now less easy. 3 or 4 sponsorship deals from first dibs on stadium naming right (30m), training ground sponsor etc now canceled.

Should Saudi Sportswashing Machine have more pressure exerted by the media re. the Yemeni war? And City face more scrutiny too? If we are cleaning up, lets keep it consistent!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back