Russia invades Ukraine

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

People want the UN to be some kind of righteous champion of human rights and peacekeeping but it's real underlying mandate is to prevent WWIII.

It was formed out of the failure of the League of Nations from preventing WWII (which was in itself formed out of the failure of the detente system from preventing WWI).

There is a reason why the permanent security council includes Russia, the UK, France, US, and China. It's made up of the victors of WWII so they will be able to engage each other as the expected dominant post-war powers.

Preventing WWIII is exactly why nobody is directly helping Ukraine against Russia and only providing supplies and lethal aid. They do not want to stoke Russia into contemplating using its nuclear stockpile.

It's odd that China is considered as one of the victors since back then, they were a third world country with a terrible military and weapons, which is a big reason why the Japanese were able to commit the atrocities they carried out on women and children during the Rape of Nanking. China was so irrelevant back then I'm not sure I would consider them victors of the war other than the fact that their invaders were destroyed by the Americans with the use of nuclear weapons.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's odd that China is considered as one of the victors since back then, they were a third world country with a terrible military and weapons, which is a big reason why the Japanese were able to commit the atrocities they carried out on women and children during the Rape of Nanking. China was so irrelevant back then I'm not sure I would consider them victors of the war other than the fact that their invaders were destroyed by the Americans with the use of nuclear weapons.

Back then the US wanted China as part of it, while the Soviet Union did not. The seat originally belonged to the government of what is now Taiwan and then shifted to the PRC in 1970s.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I am nobody other than me, asking basic questions that a lot of people are asking. Sounds like some people want to move goal posts or redline's. Obama's famous redline come comes to mind.

The US President has called for the removal of Putin, the prosecution of his top officials for war crimes and that NATO will respond if Putin uses chemical weapons. I didn't say this, the US President and other leaders have.

My post was in relation to war crimes and making sure that when this does end that the appropriate people are charged with war crimes. If the people who's sole job is to do that, can't do that, than what the hell are they actually doing?

Putin has planned in a lot of ways for this for years. The rest of the world is responding and on the defensive. The next little while is going to prove very telling to see where the west actually is on certain issues and will have to adjust accordingly one way or another, which to the west's credit, more so than some expected.

I don't know any people wanting to not only attack Russia but to possibly act as dirty as they are.

you specifically said
" we will probably have to respond and the question will be asked, why not sooner?

Sometimes in life you can either be first, smarter or even dirtier than your opponent. Sometimes it's a hell of a lot easier to just be first and ahead of the game."

that's a lot more than than wanting people held accountable for war crimes.
you seem to want NATO to not just respond to what Russia does, but to attack them first, and damn the consequences.

some of us are saying that's the worst possible response.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I don't know any people wanting to not only attack Russia but to possibly act as dirty as they are.

you specifically said
" we will probably have to respond and the question will be asked, why not sooner?

Sometimes in life you can either be first, smarter or even dirtier than your opponent. Sometimes it's a hell of a lot easier to just be first and ahead of the game."

that's a lot more than than wanting people held accountable for war crimes.
you seem to want NATO to not just respond to what Russia does, but to attack them first, and damn the consequences.

some of us are saying that's the worst possible response.

I think I had said it was a poorly written post in terms of how I put forth my words. I still stand by my thoughts that the western countries can increase their overall support and your starting to see that now. It would have been easier and more effective overall to do that sooner, quicker and more proactively

The no fly zone over Ukraine should have been established in the beginning in my opinion. This isn't just about war, it's about the refugee crisis, the economic and health risks associate with this tragedy now too. Europe is dealing with this in full force wither they wanted to or not and it's going to cause significant issues politically in Europe. People are generally tolerant, to a point.

The question is always asked, do we want to get into a war with Russia over Ukraine but the alternative question would be, if we had established a no fly zone at the start, would Russia actually get into a war with us??

Lot's of delays in getting the Ukrainian air force what they have been asking and that is additional fighter jets. There was ton's of back and forth and deal making in the background and now the US is actively supporting countries giving their supply of Mig jets. Wouldn't it have been better to be ahead of the game with this?

We literally have other European countries now moving mountains to provide additional air defense systems, anti aircraft systems, tanks and a whole host of much needed equipment above and beyond what has been delivered already. The question I still ask is, wouldn't it have been better at the start?

I am not advocating for mass bombings of Moscow or anything but I do know that if Putin starts to make moves on Finland and Sweden with their recent declaration of NATO membership or Putin escalates this even further, I don't think sanctions and spineless leadership from the west will be enough.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I think I had said it was a poorly written post in terms of how I put forth my words. I still stand by my thoughts that the western countries can increase their overall support and your starting to see that now. It would have been easier and more effective overall to do that sooner, quicker and more proactively

The no fly zone over Ukraine should have been established in the beginning in my opinion. This isn't just about war, it's about the refugee crisis, the economic and health risks associate with this tragedy now too. Europe is dealing with this in full force wither they wanted to or not and it's going to cause significant issues politically in Europe. People are generally tolerant, to a point.

The question is always asked, do we want to get into a war with Russia over Ukraine but the alternative question would be, if we had established a no fly zone at the start, would Russia actually get into a war with us??

Lot's of delays in getting the Ukrainian air force what they have been asking and that is additional fighter jets. There was ton's of back and forth and deal making in the background and now the US is actively supporting countries giving their supply of Mig jets. Wouldn't it have been better to be ahead of the game with this?

We literally have other European countries now moving mountains to provide additional air defense systems, anti aircraft systems, tanks and a whole host of much needed equipment above and beyond what has been delivered already. The question I still ask is, wouldn't it have been better at the start?

I am not advocating for mass bombings of Moscow or anything but I do know that if Putin starts to make moves on Finland and Sweden with their recent declaration of NATO membership or Putin escalates this even further, I don't think sanctions and spineless leadership from the west will be enough.

Okay, so you put in a no-fly zone. Who enforces it? NATO? You want NATO aircraft shooting down Russian aircraft? That's madness. There's no point in putting in a no-fly zone if it can't be enforced...that just hands Russia a win when they ignore it.

And it would have been premature to give Ukraine a ton of high-quality weapons on day one. There was an expectation Russia was going to dominate this war. Try to find an analyst from pre-war that thought Russia was going to do this poorly. The thought was Russia would kick major ass, so why would you want to give Ukraine a bunch of weaponry if you were concerned it would just fall into Russian hands days or weeks later. It was a reasonable approach at the time, but you're being a Monday morning quarterback.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Okay, so you put in a no-fly zone. Who enforces it? NATO? You want NATO aircraft shooting down Russian aircraft? That's madness. There's no point in putting in a no-fly zone if it can't be enforced...that just hands Russia a win when they ignore it.

And it would have been premature to give Ukraine a ton of high-quality weapons on day one. There was an expectation Russia was going to dominate this war. Try to find an analyst from pre-war that thought Russia was going to do this poorly. The thought was Russia would kick major ass, so why would you want to give Ukraine a bunch of weaponry if you were concerned it would just fall into Russian hands days or weeks later. It was a reasonable approach at the time, but you're being a Monday morning quarterback.

I understand that we are on different sides on this and that is ok. I am by no means a military expert here but in some ways, does some of the semantics really matter? We now have reports that NATO countries and now allowing NATO jet's to be delivered to Ukrainian Air Forces to kill Russian army personal.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Vladimir-Putin

Now in the grand schemes if your Putin, does it really matter if the pilots name is either Igor or Ian if he's attacking your military with US backing? Who do we think is pulling some of the strings from behind the scenes with this airspace backing? Canada? What do we think that these NATO jet's are going to do in Ukraine? Go for a power polish and an oil change?

Like I said earlier, a huge ground swell of activity is happening from NATO countries at rocket like speed to get Ukraine the weapons they have been demanding for a long long time. Mountains of equipment cause now the war has changed. The eastern front battle will be unlike the other battles ragging and Europe and the west know what is at stake if Russia win's this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...days-not-weeks

There is an element of NATO and the west is involved but not really but we are helping directly, but not too directly etc. Putin has always said NATO and NATO policy is 100% American policy, end of story and in that regard, he is right. It isn't Estonia and Romania calling the shots here it's America.

We just got to make sure we come out ahead on this and fast, we don't need a long and protracted war of this scale and this continuing as than NATO and the west's options become very limited and everybody knows this.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I understand that we are on different sides on this and that is ok. I am by no means a military expert here but in some ways, does some of the semantics really matter? We now have reports that NATO countries and now allowing NATO jet's to be delivered to Ukrainian Air Forces to kill Russian army personal.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...Vladimir-Putin

Now in the grand schemes if your Putin, does it really matter if the pilots name is either Igor or Ian if he's attacking your military with US backing? Who do we think is pulling some of the strings from behind the scenes with this airspace backing? Canada? What do we think that these NATO jet's are going to do in Ukraine? Go for a power polish and an oil change?

Like I said earlier, a huge ground swell of activity is happening from NATO countries at rocket like speed to get Ukraine the weapons they have been demanding for a long long time. Mountains of equipment cause now the war has changed. The eastern front battle will be unlike the other battles ragging and Europe and the west know what is at stake if Russia win's this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...days-not-weeks

There is an element of NATO and the west is involved but not really but we are helping directly, but not too directly etc. Putin has always said NATO and NATO policy is 100% American policy, end of story and in that regard, he is right. It isn't Estonia and Romania calling the shots here it's America.

We just got to make sure we come out ahead on this and fast, we don't need a long and protracted war of this scale and this continuing as than NATO and the west's options become very limited and everybody knows this.

This isn't semantics. The west can sell/supply/gift anything we want to Ukraine. That's what we're doing.

If, as an example, the American government sends American pilots and flight crews, using American aircraft, fighting under American flags inside Ukraine - a country not in NATO - then the war has just escalated so America is directly fighting Russia. Now you have the USA and Russia in a hot war.

That you don't get this is perplexing. You may not like the logic, but it's the logic every single country on the planet is following right now, including Russia.

[Monahammer]

The historical precedent for the supply of weapons to armies opposing one of the great powers was set almost immediately within the cold war. It was done a bit more subtly than today, but I think it's the subtlety that has died and not the intent.

The last thing anyone reasonable on earth should want is a nuclear war, which is what a war between Russia and the USA would become, probably pretty quickly. Especially the people of Ukraine, which almost certainly would feel the first nuclear weapon in that conflict.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

The historical precedent for the supply of weapons to armies opposing one of the great powers was set almost immediately within the cold war. It was done a bit more subtly than today, but I think it's the subtlety that has died and not the intent.

The last thing anyone reasonable on earth should want is a nuclear war, which is what a war between Russia and the USA would become, probably pretty quickly. Especially the people of Ukraine, which almost certainly would feel the first nuclear weapon in that conflict.

curves2000 does not understand. I think every single forum member has taken a crack at explaining this to them for weeks now. It's the weirdest thing.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by Sliver

curves2000 does not understand. I think every single forum member has taken a crack at explaining this to them for weeks now. It's the weirdest thing.

At this point he's either a troll or a dunce - either way, he's on the ol' blocky-block list.

[FlamesAddiction]

Right now, that one degree of separation from the one supplying the weapon to the one pulling the trigger does seem to be enough to prevent a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. I am not completely convinced that this will always be the case however, depending on how the war continues to unfold. We definitely need to consider a real possibility that eventually Russia strikes NATO first and that Putin considers material support for Ukraine an act of war equal to providing personnel.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I think I had said it was a poorly written post in terms of how I put forth my words. I still stand by my thoughts that the western countries can increase their overall support and your starting to see that now. It would have been easier and more effective overall to do that sooner, quicker and more proactively

The no fly zone over Ukraine should have been established in the beginning in my opinion. This isn't just about war, it's about the refugee crisis, the economic and health risks associate with this tragedy now too. Europe is dealing with this in full force wither they wanted to or not and it's going to cause significant issues politically in Europe. People are generally tolerant, to a point.

The question is always asked, do we want to get into a war with Russia over Ukraine but the alternative question would be, if we had established a no fly zone at the start, would Russia actually get into a war with us??

Lot's of delays in getting the Ukrainian air force what they have been asking and that is additional fighter jets. There was ton's of back and forth and deal making in the background and now the US is actively supporting countries giving their supply of Mig jets. Wouldn't it have been better to be ahead of the game with this?

We literally have other European countries now moving mountains to provide additional air defense systems, anti aircraft systems, tanks and a whole host of much needed equipment above and beyond what has been delivered already. The question I still ask is, wouldn't it have been better at the start?

I am not advocating for mass bombings of Moscow or anything but I do know that if Putin starts to make moves on Finland and Sweden with their recent declaration of NATO membership or Putin escalates this even further, I don't think sanctions and spineless leadership from the west will be enough.

A very short answer to your questions is:
Because this is a completely unprecedented situation and a scenario which countries had not prepared for.

I can't think of a war anywhere where so many countries, including many smaller countries, are this united and determined in supporting another country in a war they could theoretically have just ignored.

There were no protocols to do something like this, no one was obligated to give anything, Ukraine wasn't in any union where this kind of help was pre-planned.

In some cases countries needed to make changes to laws to donate equipment. Money is a question, logistics are a question, you need to figure out what you have that you can part with that the UA can use.

Fighter jets especially are not something anyone has just lying around in storage. They are extremely expensive and extremely rare. You also can't give jets that Ukrainians don't have pilots and mechanics for, and you have the questions of escalation to consider.

I don't disagree that a no-fly zone should have been established already, but i would argue that it's already a miracle just how strong and fast the west has responded so far.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Right now, that one degree of separation from the one supplying the weapon to the one pulling the trigger does seem to be enough to prevent a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. I am not completely convinced that this will always be the case however, depending on how the war continues to unfold. We definitely need to consider a real possibility that eventually Russia strikes NATO first and that Putin considers material support for Ukraine an act of war equal to providing personnel.

For sure.

[burn_this_city]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1513943338713497603

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I think I had said it was a poorly written post in terms of how I put forth my words. I still stand by my thoughts that the western countries can increase their overall support and your starting to see that now. It would have been easier and more effective overall to do that sooner, quicker and more proactively

The no fly zone over Ukraine should have been established in the beginning in my opinion. This isn't just about war, it's about the refugee crisis, the economic and health risks associate with this tragedy now too. Europe is dealing with this in full force wither they wanted to or not and it's going to cause significant issues politically in Europe. People are generally tolerant, to a point.

The question is always asked, do we want to get into a war with Russia over Ukraine but the alternative question would be, if we had established a no fly zone at the start, would Russia actually get into a war with us??

Lot's of delays in getting the Ukrainian air force what they have been asking and that is additional fighter jets. There was ton's of back and forth and deal making in the background and now the US is actively supporting countries giving their supply of Mig jets. Wouldn't it have been better to be ahead of the game with this?

We literally have other European countries now moving mountains to provide additional air defense systems, anti aircraft systems, tanks and a whole host of much needed equipment above and beyond what has been delivered already. The question I still ask is, wouldn't it have been better at the start?

I am not advocating for mass bombings of Moscow or anything but I do know that if Putin starts to make moves on Finland and Sweden with their recent declaration of NATO membership or Putin escalates this even further, I don't think sanctions and spineless leadership from the west will be enough.

The US is the lynchpin nation in NATO and the way this war has gone so far has been virtually ideal for American strategic interests. Has it been spineless, or has it just been America First?

[burn_this_city]

Good twitter thread on the make up of Russian KIAs. No one from Moscow proper has been officially reported KIA, all from low income regions where there is high unemployment.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1513873378284818443

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

https://twitter.com/user/status/1513943338713497603

Why does he have a Ukraine shoulder patch?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why does he have a Ukraine shoulder patch?

Pro-Russian Ukrainian Oligarch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Medvedchuk

[jammies]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why does he have a Ukraine shoulder patch?

Maybe he thought it would provoke suspicion if he wandered around in camo with a Russian patch.

[Bs&Cs]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's odd that China is considered as one of the victors since back then, they were a third world country with a terrible military and weapons, which is a big reason why the Japanese were able to commit the atrocities they carried out on women and children during the Rape of Nanking. China was so irrelevant back then I'm not sure I would consider them victors of the war other than the fact that their invaders were destroyed by the Americans with the use of nuclear weapons.

China bogged the Japanese army down in a brutal guerilla war that lasted nearly a decade. The inability of the Japanese to win the war in China sapped their resources and manpower rendering complete focus on their war with the Americans impossible. They had a place at the table when the conditions for the surrender of Japan were decided. Neither Stalin or the Western Allies considered them or their contributions to the war effort irrelevant.