..
Hard to compete with a sophisticated geopolitical thinker like yourself but I'll try.
Nowhere have I said anything about 'placating Russia'. Russia should be defeated on the field of battle as much as possible and all aid should be given to Ukraine to do this. Russia should be weakened economically through sanctions. Russia should be isoltated diplomatically. Russia should bear huge costs for launching this illegal war. Putin should be jailed, or ideally just die.
I hope that's clear enough and the false argument you are trying to impute no longer exists in your mind.
The question I am trying to ask is what happens after that. Having won the war, how do we, the West (in which Ukraine is now most definitely a part), win the peace?
And, long-term, which may be decades, that involves engaging with Russia and making their interests aligned with our interests. Punishment is precisely the wrong way to achieve that objective. As seen with Germany post WW1.
Macrons idea is how they are going to dodge the issue of Ukrainian membership.
For the WW2 Germany and the nazis had allies all over the world, with most of them also sharing their ideology. This is not the case now with Russia. Also, they are much more incompetent than the germans back then. They need to be economically crushed back to the situation in the 90s where they were selling the weapons on the black market and what they didn't sell was rotting away.
Russian soldiers apparently murder two civilians
You've not answered the questions you said were easy to answer. So, why should we not consider you an idiot or a liar?
Nobody said it was going to be easy... will it cost more, yes. To quote Mastercard... not being an energy slave to Russia? PRICELESS!!!
"Awful beyond words" are you fukking kidding us?! Awful beyond words is already happening... to Ukraine, and would happen to other countries if allowed, right up to the baltic countries.
Placating Russia is a terrible idea. Russia is clearly too big, break the bugger up, denuke it and the West will allow it out of the dog house to beg at the dinner table. That's what should happen to the rump Russia, Siberia and the other former Russian republics can be treated better. Russia is in bits. Will they nuke the world and themselves. Not likely, Putin will drink his special tea long before then.
Nice comparison but it misses the fact that Russia already has a fanatic dictator running the show, and has always had dictators running the show.
Best thing to do is iron curtain them, undermine their influence and power then watch their republics break away.
Worked with the Soviets and will work with their successors.
It's two things.
Replacing Russian energy, particularly gas, is not 'easy' and it is not something that can be done at the drop of a hat. And it is not cost-free. Changes like this normally occur over decades, not weeks and months. I was illustrating that the people claiming it to be 'easy' don't even know the basic facts that would prove or disprove their opinion. As none of them could supply these facts.
The second, and more important one, is 'what to do with Russia after the war?'. Or what I would call winning the peace. A lot of the more hyperbolic posters would espouse the opinion of isolating them and effectively turning them into a giant North Korea.
This is a terrible idea, awful beyond words, and would guarantee another conflict within relatively short order. If you don't believe me, just look at the lessons of recent history. Defeated Germany had enormous, punitive reparations inflicted upon it post-WW1. Did this serve the world well? No, it had the opposite effect as a resentful, angry populace turned to a fanatic for answers.
Just like Germany, Russia is too big and too strategic to just wall off and hope they come to their senses in time. So, in our own selfish interest, we should have a long-term plan for engaging with them and encouraging them into the fold.
Because the alternative is more war.
Something we haven't really engaged with yet but I hope strategic thinkers in Western capitals are doing so.
I'm pretty sure he just fat-fingered his post; 150 would be a much more reasonable estimate. Not even an entire BTG and all of its staff including logistics/engineering/infantry etc. would add up to 1,500.
150 would still be a significant loss from a single engagement; and clearly their loss in equipment was also substantial.
Russians: the sooner we lose all our equipment, the quicker the war ends and we can go home (or heaven)
I have heard the phrase “they will teach this in military school” used a lot since the war started but I think in this case it’s true
That is massive from one attempt to cross a river.
I'm quoting and paraphrasing what it said in the article. Take it up with the Spectator editors if you have any issues there.
As for the word "trust" you seem to have issue with. Let me quote the piece I paraphrased
"In theory, the European Union has a mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty) – so if Sweden was attacked, the rest of the EU would come to its aid. But this does not seem to assure the Swedes any more than it assures the Poles or the Baltics. Sweden has sought, and will tomorrow be offered, a place under Britain’s nuclear umbrella – with the UK offering interim protection that has (so far) been denied"
In theory, the European Union has a mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty) – so if Sweden was attacked, the rest of the EU would come to its aid. But this does not seem to assure the Swedes any more than it assures the Poles or the Baltics. Sweden has sought, and will tomorrow be offered, a place under Britain’s nuclear umbrella – with the UK offering interim protection that has (so far) been denied"
As detailed the EU mutual defence clause does indeed cover where an "EU Member State is the target of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States must assist it by all the means in their power". And yeah that would include bigbillybollix incursions or other physical threats to a countries sovereignity by the likes of Russia. We're not necessarily talking over Russia going Nuclear. Plenty of stuff below that level. I believe the issue is not with the clause rather the likes of Germany and others who appear to increasingly less interested in EU cohesion and more interested in showing they won't upset Russia. Hence the Swedes hightailing it over to Blighty for the interim
If you think otherwise to that oped fine.
Again and what has been repeated many time, Not all EU countries are in NATO. So NATO can't "protect European nations" regardless
1,500 dead !!!
There's some remarkable similarities in these two beasts, and not just in their both having invaded countries because of their claims that the minority were being persecuted, but also their atrocious war crimes and supposed mental frame of mind.
But I've also noticed there are some uncanny similarities in their respective physical appearance:
The eyes: piercing and evil, that look right through you
The ears: almost identical in shape and size
The chins: both well rounded jaw bones
The lips: thin and giving a mean appearance
Height: Both alleged to be approximately 5ft 7in to 5ft 8in
Weight: Both alleged to be approximately 157 pounds
Testicles: Hitler's medical records prove he only had one testicle. And Putin has no balls at all, threatening the world with nukes
They could almost be related.
They could also both be said to be Frankenstein.
For as Frankenstein said: "As the memory of past misfortunes pressed upon me, I began to reflect upon their cause—the monster whom I had created, the miserable daemon whom I had sent abroad into the world". Later acknowledging that the “cause” of his misfortunes is something he himself “created.”
Having been ‘examined by two Rushian souldiers and having given them cigarettes the two Ukr elderly looking civilians are walking away and are both shot in the back
And it's grainy in the distance for the most part. I watched it and didn't feel bad about gore or anything like that. The actions performed by the russians are bad (putting it likely), but it's not gory. It's the kind of thing that can be seen on a news channel.
I know that Iran allows cruise missiles launched from Russia & the Caspian Sea fly over it's territory on the way to attack targets in Syria. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34465425
Not exactly allies but collaborating in a military context. https://english.alaraby.co.uk/analysis/how-iran-and-russia-became-frenemies-syria
Including recent & potential future arms sales https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/is-iran-going-on-an-arms-shopping-spree-in-moscow/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2021/12/30/is-iran-really-about-to-buy-russian-su-35se-fighter-jets/?sh=6211c000204d
No .
But it does show 2 civilians getting shot
If you disagree with his opinion, then say so. Otherwise your just coming across as a prat.
Probably not going to watch this, but does the woman shown here get shot?!
There is footage of individuals looting the premises; in particular their faces.
We also know for example that Ukraine has been using facial recognition on both prisoners and bodies; so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they'll get a hit on some of these scumbags even if they're not checking manually.
But yes in general there's not a lot of hope that Russia or many Russian troops will be held directly accountable for their actions in Ukraine.
You stated Sweden didn't trust the EU's defence clause in the context of a NATO application; i.e. because they're afraid of Russian attacks.
I'm saying that the EU mutual defence clause was never likely to be used for military support in the event of a Russian invasion; for example. So it has nothing to do with "trust"; it's about the fact there is nothing in the treaty which ensures they will be given military aid.
Again and has been repeated multiple times: the military defence treaty which protects European nations is NATO. It is not (and has never been) the EU.
I never mentioned "large scale conflicts" in case you're thinking I did. I was referring to countries like Sweden or Finland being invaded or their sovereignty physically threatened
Specifically the EU defense clause states that
When an EU Member State is the target of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States must assist it by all the means in their power.
It also details that in regard to any country who is a member of NATO (and not all EU countries are) that.
"Such commitments are to be consistent with the commitments made by Member States as members of NATO."
Problem is there will be no war crimes trial
Probably the clearest evidence of a war crime caught on camera yet:
The EU's self-defence clause isn't really about large-scale or conventional military conflicts; NATO membership is what provides EU countries with military security and this fact is even encoded in the EU's mutual defence article.
For example if Russia were to attack an EU state which wasn't a member of NATO there is no obligation on NATO members of the EU to come to that countries aid as per the mutual defence clause; or rather that any aid would likely fall far short of "boots on the ground" much as with Ukraine.
Russia cant attack well, there tactics are more defensive, the army tank is still useful if used right with infantry and air support. I think Russia were expecting a Ukraine of 2014 and basically just roll there tanks in with little resistance.
I think Macron is keeping in mind its a bad idea to back Putin into a corner, and wants allow him away out, making peace is going to be very difficult going forward.
the more the artillery ukraine can get the more they can counter
Macron? The same guy who told us that Ireland had no choice in accepting a set number of asylum seekers that were residing in Calais at the time. Have you noticed that he has started to bite his lip in the same manner as Bill Clinton when he pauses in his speeches? Very odd.
What is also odd is his new proposition of a new "European Political Community", that countries like the UK and Ukraine could join. You know, like the EEC, before this German-Franco-centric behemoth that now exists, where 25 countries are subservient to the wishes and wants of two egomaniacal leaders.
But that’s an aside. Why do I get the feeling that by the time this thread in near its completion, that I will be fluent in Ukrainian and will automatically positively react to Ukrainian-drone-themed music as soon as I hear it. A number of posters rightly pointed out that we should not rejoice in the death of any human being, but, and this is a big but, when I see videos of a repressed people fighting back against a totalitarian regime, it is a prime example of an underdog fighting back against a bully.
The whole nature of conventional war has changed. Russia should have learned from the Armenia–Azerbaijan border war, but they did not, thankfully. Technology and drone capabilities has introduced a totally new dimension to conventional warfare.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62b46f6e38eb602cce4522002caf2975.svg)