|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 21, 2024 8:24:04 GMT
I think the only way it will work along the lines you suggest Stu is to allow Ukraine into NATO,whilst Russia would be totally against this it would be an effective deterrent to future incursions as the Russian army is no match for a fully engaged NATO as long as Trump fully commits the US,Putin only understands strength he sees weakness as an opportunity to exploit. If we leave it to European countries to maintain a DMZ ,I fear there would be no collective response . I can't see NATO as an organisation being too willing to introduce a country at war into the agreement. That in itself is effectively a declaration of war and I feel that NATO prefers a role as deterrent rather than aggressor. Nato can't allow new members currently at war or holding territorial disputes. Ukraine can't join unless it signs a peace deal with Russia. At the moment there is little incentive for Russia to stop while it's willing to lose thousands (including North Koreans now) in a battle of attrition. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 21, 2024 8:27:49 GMT
I can't see NATO as an organisation being too willing to introduce a country at war into the agreement. That in itself is effectively a declaration of war and I feel that NATO prefers a role as deterrent rather than aggressor. NATO won't admit Ukraine whilst Russia is still attacking it - and that's basically been one of Putin's key aims since he invaded Crimea in 2014 (six years after NATO offered Ukraine a Membership Action Plan). No matter what land he gains/loses, a far more important aim for him is that Ukraine does not join NATO. That's what will be a key part of any further peace negotiations. We already know from the short-lived 2022 negotiations that Russia is potentially willing to discuss giving back the land they have recently gained in exchange for Ukraine's NATO membership being taken off the table for good. It looks pretty clear now the end game is not what land Russia keeps but what the political future of Ukraine is. Ukraine had to effectively disarm too, meaning Russia could attack a few years later with very little opposition. Russia tends to ignore treaties, no wonder Ukraine turned it down. Don't forget the Bucha and Irpin massacres, they will have given Ukraine a wake up call as to what could be coming. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 21, 2024 8:53:48 GMT
NATO won't admit Ukraine whilst Russia is still attacking it - and that's basically been one of Putin's key aims since he invaded Crimea in 2014 (six years after NATO offered Ukraine a Membership Action Plan). No matter what land he gains/loses, a far more important aim for him is that Ukraine does not join NATO. That's what will be a key part of any further peace negotiations. We already know from the short-lived 2022 negotiations that Russia is potentially willing to discuss giving back the land they have recently gained in exchange for Ukraine's NATO membership being taken off the table for good. It looks pretty clear now the end game is not what land Russia keeps but what the political future of Ukraine is. Ukraine had to effectively disarm too, meaning Russia could attack a few years later with very little opposition. Russia tends to ignore treaties, no wonder Ukraine turned it down. Don't forget the Bucha and Irpin massacres, they will have given Ukraine a wake up call as to what could be coming. I find this all pretty appalling,other Countries in the West pressuring a democratic Country not to do something to appease a vicious,despotic aggressor,if that's the path we are going down then god help us all. No one wants a widening of the War in Ukraine however, rewarding Putin will be a disaster for the west in the not too distant future,what does that say to China,etc. If it was us would we be happy for the US et al to tell us what we have to give up to achieve a phoney peace ?? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 21, 2024 9:03:27 GMT
Ukraine had to effectively disarm too, meaning Russia could attack a few years later with very little opposition. Russia tends to ignore treaties, no wonder Ukraine turned it down. Don't forget the Bucha and Irpin massacres, they will have given Ukraine a wake up call as to what could be coming. I find this all pretty appalling,other Countries in the West pressuring a democratic Country not to do something to appease a vicious,despotic aggressor,if that's the path we are going down then god help us all. No one wants a widening of the War in Ukraine however, rewarding Putin will be a disaster for the west in the not too distant future,what does that say to China,etc. If it was us would we be happy for the US et al to tell us what we have to give up to achieve a phoney peace ?? Send money today or send our sons tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 21, 2024 9:12:29 GMT
I find this all pretty appalling,other Countries in the West pressuring a democratic Country not to do something to appease a vicious,despotic aggressor,if that's the path we are going down then god help us all. No one wants a widening of the War in Ukraine however, rewarding Putin will be a disaster for the west in the not too distant future,what does that say to China,etc. If it was us would we be happy for the US et al to tell us what we have to give up to achieve a phoney peace ?? Send money today or send our sons tomorrow. Never a truer word said!! |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 21, 2024 10:10:25 GMT
NATO won't admit Ukraine whilst Russia is still attacking it - and that's basically been one of Putin's key aims since he invaded Crimea in 2014 (six years after NATO offered Ukraine a Membership Action Plan). No matter what land he gains/loses, a far more important aim for him is that Ukraine does not join NATO. That's what will be a key part of any further peace negotiations. We already know from the short-lived 2022 negotiations that Russia is potentially willing to discuss giving back the land they have recently gained in exchange for Ukraine's NATO membership being taken off the table for good. It looks pretty clear now the end game is not what land Russia keeps but what the political future of Ukraine is. Ukraine had to effectively disarm too, meaning Russia could attack a few years later with very little opposition. Russia tends to ignore treaties, no wonder Ukraine turned it down. Don't forget the Bucha and Irpin massacres, they will have given Ukraine a wake up call as to what could be coming. In the same way Ukraine/the West could say their NATO accession was off the table, wait for the borders to reset and then fast-track it as privately as possible... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 21, 2024 10:39:17 GMT
Ukraine had to effectively disarm too, meaning Russia could attack a few years later with very little opposition. Russia tends to ignore treaties, no wonder Ukraine turned it down. Don't forget the Bucha and Irpin massacres, they will have given Ukraine a wake up call as to what could be coming. In the same way Ukraine/the West could say their NATO accession was off the table, wait for the borders to reset and then fast-track it as privately as possible... Not with Hungary and Turkey needing to ratify the agreement. It'll never be kept secret. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 21, 2024 14:10:46 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 21, 2024 14:29:58 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Depends what size and where. A small one in Ukraine may well result in a massive conventional retaliation by Nato or a Nato country like Poland acting alone. All bets are off once Trump gets in, though. Probably down to individual countries doing it as an ad hoc coalition. Still don't think he'll do it, though. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 21, 2024 15:30:45 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Depends what type. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 22, 2024 7:31:26 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Good question. I wonder what would happen if NK did it for him? There'd probably be much talking. From a Russian perspective, you've got around 50 countries ganging up on you. What do you do to change the course or momentum? |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Nov 22, 2024 7:51:09 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? We'd all be vaporised in a flash ! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Nov 22, 2024 8:37:44 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Good question. I wonder what would happen if NK did it for him? There'd probably be much talking. From a Russian perspective, you've got around 50 countries ganging up on you. What do you do to change the course or momentum? What you do is stop invading other Countries,stop breaking Sanctions,stop killing citizens in other countries,stop imprisoning and killing those who politically oppose you and stop threatening anyone who cares to listen. As for a nuclear weapon,a tactical battlefield weapon devestates an area but leaves very little radio activity,if that happened my guess is it would trigger a large conventional response from NATO or the polar opposite where the European countries would equivocate,wring their hands and do very little . |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Nov 24, 2024 9:29:25 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Just over two years ago there was quite a serious suggestion he might use a tactical nuclear weapon and multiple retired US Generals were interviewed at home and abroad, mostly suggesting very similar things would happen if a tactical nuke was used - so we can guess that was all briefed from the US government because they couldn't say it themselves for political reasons. The short-term response was the US/allies would retaliate (with conventional weapons), destroying the base/unit it was launched from, sinking every Russian ship in the Black Sea and offering Ukraine whatever support it needed to regain all territory lost to Russia. You would also imagine many third-party countries would consider it a line to far and cut political/trade ties with Russia, and there would be calls to remove them from the UN Security Council. One other thing to remember is the US knows where 90% of Russian warheads are and watch them pretty closely. You have to imagine they would spot movement hours - perhaps days - before it was launched and would potentially take action first. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 24, 2024 10:24:11 GMT
He's been tempted before, so what would happen if Putin actually did launch a nuke? Just over two years ago there was quite a serious suggestion he might use a tactical nuclear weapon and multiple retired US Generals were interviewed at home and abroad, mostly suggesting very similar things would happen if a tactical nuke was used - so we can guess that was all briefed from the US government because they couldn't say it themselves for political reasons. The short-term response was the US/allies would retaliate (with conventional weapons), destroying the base/unit it was launched from, sinking every Russian ship in the Black Sea and offering Ukraine whatever support it needed to regain all territory lost to Russia. You would also imagine many third-party countries would consider it a line to far and cut political/trade ties with Russia, and there would be calls to remove them from the UN Security Council. One other thing to remember is the US knows where 90% of Russian warheads are and watch them pretty closely. You have to imagine they would spot movement hours - perhaps days - before it was launched and would potentially take action first. A game of chess. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead79 on Nov 24, 2024 10:34:08 GMT
Good question. I wonder what would happen if NK did it for him? There'd probably be much talking. From a Russian perspective, you've got around 50 countries ganging up on you. What do you do to change the course or momentum? What you do is stop invading other Countries,stop breaking Sanctions,stop killing citizens in other countries,stop imprisoning and killing those who politically oppose you and stop threatening anyone who cares to listen. As for a nuclear weapon,a tactical battlefield weapon devestates an area but leaves very little radio activity,if that happened my guess is it would trigger a large conventional response from NATO or the polar opposite where the European countries would equivocate,wring their hands and do very little . Sounds great. That's not how it works though, well not without compromise, sacrifice or money. Did you know there are millions of people displaced from Sudan atm? If BAE and Thales had investments over there, I wonder if we'd have a thread on here about it? There's a few quid to be made from Ukraine yet, and the other floating nations will keep it going before any nuclear threat become a reality. That's a bit of a desperate move which I can't see Russia need atm tbh. They are winning aren't they? I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 24, 2024 15:48:52 GMT
What you do is stop invading other Countries,stop breaking Sanctions,stop killing citizens in other countries,stop imprisoning and killing those who politically oppose you and stop threatening anyone who cares to listen. As for a nuclear weapon,a tactical battlefield weapon devestates an area but leaves very little radio activity,if that happened my guess is it would trigger a large conventional response from NATO or the polar opposite where the European countries would equivocate,wring their hands and do very little . Sounds great. That's not how it works though, well not without compromise, sacrifice or money. Did you know there are millions of people displaced from Sudan atm? If BAE and Thales had investments over there, I wonder if we'd have a thread on here about it? There's a few quid to be made from Ukraine yet, and the other floating nations will keep it going before any nuclear threat become a reality. That's a bit of a desperate move which I can't see Russia need atm tbh. They are winning aren't they? I'm not sure. Certainly expensive gains, pyrrhic victories perhaps. Funny you should mention Sudan, we tried to raise it at the Security Council in the week Russia vetoed it. At the moment Russia is arming many African dictators, China is spending big money and plenty of expats there iirc. Lots of natural resources, growing populations and migration too, and front line in climate change, including the potential of border wars over farm land and water. The next big conflict is probably not Eastern Europe or the South China Sea, the 21st Century could well be African. |
|
