Should the EU/NATO use direct military action to help defend Ukraine?

[Riklet]

NATO shouldnt use direct military action but no NATO members should be stopped from helping Ukraine.

IMO, the Ukrainians have to fight the war by themselves, but for sure, they should be helped. We have to adapt our views to reality, not to idealism and lofty morals. I liked Yannis Varoufakis article in some ways, he is a great writer, but it's also very weak. The man lacks ambition and bottle (as we know from his stint in government). This war is only 1 month old and it may well go on for years. Why has Ukriane already lost? I am certain military action combined with discontent at home (which we should support as much as possible) can and will push the Russians back. Where is the guarantee the Russian government are just trying to create a buffer zone in the east to protect themselves from NATO? Until a week ago they wanted the whole of Ukraine. And how can Eastern European countries be expected to trust and even suck up to Russia when they are the biggest lying bullies in the playground... readily willing to deploy their entire Syria-hardened military against a civilian population while lying about the whole thing and denying every single crime.

The best aim now IMO is to create a buffer zone by fully pushing the Russians out of Ukraine. Not letting them into NATO either or allowing it to develop into a full conflict but also now allowing it to be a brutal repeat of Chechnya and Syria where the Russian government got its way at terrible cost. I don't think its warmongering to help a country defend itself under these circumstances.

 

[tim]

But, Putin isn't interested in that ATM, Zelenskyy has been asking for direct talks with him for weeks, but the silence from the kremlin has been deafening, despite pressure from other countries such as Turkey, Israel, and even China.

The Russian regime almost certainly is interested in getting themselves out of the current mess. Whilst there is public silence, that doesn't mean that negotiations are not happening via back channels.

 

[tim]

I worry that NATO will make the decision for Zelensky on what's good for Ukraine.

NATO, of course, won't decide anything: it's a paper tiger. Individual NATO members particularly the more powerful ones make decisions and may action collectively but in itself it isn't a political actor whatever the conspiracy theorist on one side or the deluded idealists on the other side believe.

 

[cupid_stunt]

The Russian regime almost certainly is interested in getting themselves out of the current mess.

They are interested in getting into a position where they can declare at least some sort of victory, they are not there yet, so there's no sign of them wanting to get out of the current mess ATM.

That's why they are regrouping for a bigger push in the east & south.

Whilst there is public silence, that doesn't mean that negotiations are not happening via back channels.

As I pointed out this morning peace talks are ongoing, but they are not 'high level' talks, because Putin isn't ready for that, he wants to grab more land first.

 

[Dogsauce]

& as someone pointed out upthread, an end to fighting doesn’t mean an end to killing. Whatever enclave Russia carves out of their winnings will be brutally repressed, as the domestic population is.

 

[RD2003]

& as someone pointed out upthread, an end to fighting doesn’t mean an end to killing. Whatever enclave Russia carves out of their winnings will be brutally repressed, as the domestic population is.

That isn't entirely true. If you involve yourself in politics in contemporary Russia then you put yourself at risk.* But, as in the post-Stalin USSR, everyday life is what we'd recognise as normal (this may change if the economy sinks.)

Putin, whatever else he is, is not Stalin.


*For the hysterics: I do not think this is a good thing.

 

[dilute micro]

I don't know why people think Ukraine can afford to settle with Russia annexing Ukrainian land. Russia has to be beaten and kicked out for Ukraine to have a chance at recovery. Ukraine can't afford to maintain a huge army on a new border that is much larger than pre-invasion. They can't do that and rebuild. If Russia is allowed to keep what they control now that will be, to some degree, a win, meager as it is. At the very least that will put Ukraine under constant threat. If Putin can't have Odesa he can at any point in the future claim Ukraine was saying mean words and destroy it building by building so that nobody has it and at the same time strangling Ukraine's economy. Taking out Ukraine's last means of exporting grain would ultimately be worse than the missiles. The past 8 years show these two countries have trouble maintaining any sort of a ceasefire. That doesn't bode well. At what time would it make sense to start rebuilding in a war that may never actually stop?

 

[tim]

This is the craziest, damndest shit. Every morning I have to remind myself that this is real. If 40 years ago someone described what's happening - denazification, Wagner group, neo-nazis, Mozart group, fascist symbols, paying Russia billions, polite little green men, mass killings, mass graves, a former comedian president who stays and fights, a heavyweight boxing champ mayor, iron curtain, threats of nuclear war........., I would have thought this was the imagination of a bad fiction writer. But no, this is real.

Forty years ago they would have assumed you were talking about President Ronald Reagan, a man who made his name as the side-kick of a Chimpanzee in "Bedtime for Bonzo". The neo-Nazis would be the Reagan backed ones slaughtering the peasants, workers and revolutionary vicars in Central America and dumping their bodies in mass graves.


There would also be the real Nazis further south in the Continent. Among the latter those living in Buenos Aires were living under the threat of being nuked by Maggie the Milk Snatcher as a result of a war over some rocks, started by scrap metal dealers.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Nelson Mandela was breaking rocks on a penguin infested rock just of the Cape of Good Hope.

That said a Russian attack on Kyiv would have been seen as inconceivable as most of us assumed it was part of Russian already

 

[agricola]

I don't know why people think Ukraine can afford to settle with Russia annexing Ukrainian land. Russia has to be beaten and kicked out for Ukraine to have a chance at recovery. Ukraine can't afford to maintain a huge army on a new border that is much larger than pre-invasion. They can't do that and rebuild. If Russia is allowed to keep what they control now that will be, to some degree, a win, meager as it is. At the very least that will put Ukraine under constant threat. If Putin can't have Odesa he can at any point in the future claim Ukraine was saying mean words and destroy it building by building so that nobody has it and at the same time strangling Ukraine's economy. Taking out Ukraine's last means of exporting grain would ultimately be worse than the missiles. The past 8 years show these two countries have trouble maintaining any sort of a ceasefire. That doesn't bode well. At what time would it make sense to start rebuilding in a war that may never actually stop?

TBF I am not sure how true that is - if Russia is beaten (as in kicked out), there is at least as much likelyhood that they will have another go as there is in some kind of "limited victory" scenario where they take the Donbas. Rebuilding / inward investment is not likely in any scenario like that.

The only way this ends in any kind of humane manner is with a negotiated peace that each side respects and adheres to.

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF I am not sure how true that is - if Russia is beaten (as in kicked out), there is at least as much likelyhood that they will have another go as there is in some kind of "limited victory" scenario where they take the Donbas. Rebuilding / inward investment is not likely in any scenario like that.

The only way this ends in any kind of humane manner is with a negotiated peace that each side respects and adheres to.

and there's the problem because i can't see how a peace can be negotiated with someone like vladimir putin who has shown himself less than trustworthy

 

[dilute micro]

TBF I am not sure how true that is - if Russia is beaten (as in kicked out), there is at least as much likelyhood that they will have another go as there is in some kind of "limited victory" scenario where they take the Donbas. Rebuilding / inward investment is not likely in any scenario like that.

The only way this ends in any kind of humane manner is with a negotiated peace that each side respects and adheres to.

No, beaten and kicked out. In other words Russia will have to not want anything to do with Ukraine. That's the unfortunate reality for Ukraine. They cannot afford to lose such important real estate. What you're describing is the reason I worry that NATO will stop caring at some point and settle when Russia is happy.

 

[dilute micro]

and there's the problem because i can't see how a peace can be negotiated with someone like vladimir putin who has shown himself less than trustworthy

A negotiated surrender of more land, especially coastal, from Ukraine will make it easier to finish the job later.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Among the latter those living in Buenos Aires were living under the threat of being nuked by Maggie the Milk Snatcher as a result of a war over some rocks, started by scrap metal dealers.

You seriously let yourself down when you post this sort of nonsense, there was never any threat to Buenos Aires of being nuked.

 

[maomao]

You seriously let yourself down when you post this sort of nonsense, there was never any threat to Buenos Aires of being nuked.

Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits

The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.

www.theguardian.com

 

[cupid_stunt]

Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits

The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.

www.theguardian.com

And?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits

The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.

www.theguardian.com

It always comes down to this with nukes.

The ministry insisted that there was never any intention to use the weapons during the war

In that case, why did you have them?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And?

We're not going to use them, but let's take them just in case.

 

[cupid_stunt]

We're not going to use them, but let's take them just in case.

Some UK warships always carry nuclear weapons, there was no threat to use them in the Falklands war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some UK warships always carry nuclear weapons.

The UK's a fucking menace.

 

[kebabking]

Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits

The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.

www.theguardian.com

Everyone knows that - they were nuclear depth charges, and they were carried by RN ASW ships as standard in the cold war. The ships that carried them had been on NATO ASW duty in the Atlantic, and they formed one of the first groups to head down to the Falklands - they simply received orders to sail south while already at sea, and had no opportunity to offload their nukes before they went.

They were offloaded at sea once the main taskforce caught up with the first group and sent back to the UK. All of which has been extensively, and publicly, written about for the last 40 years.

What are suggesting, that a Frigate was going to sail up the River Plate, lob a depth charge out the back, or use it's helicopter to really fuck up the fountains in Beunos Aires?

I'd almost forgot, but thank you for reminding me maomao, what a fucking idiot you are...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We've got nukes. But don't worry as they're only little ones. And we're going to get rid of them once the other chaps arrive.

If they didn't present any danger, why were they offloaded?

 

[dilute micro]

The UK's a fucking menace.

It was a normal thing back in the day. It was part of the nuclear deterrent against the Soviets.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It was a normal thing back in the day. It was part of the nuclear deterrent against the Soviets.

Was it?

Who knew?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For clarity, I wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament then, and I still want it now.

 

[maomao]

What are suggesting, that a Frigate was going to sail up the River Plate, lob a depth charge out the back, or use it's helicopter to really fuck up the fountains in Beunos Aires?

I didn't suggest anything...

 

[dilute micro]

Was it?

Who knew?

Ship I was on had them for half my time on it. It's actually a big deal to take them off a ship because of security protocols.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ship I was on had them for half my time on it. It's actually a big deal to take them off a ship because of security protocols.

Fucking menace that they are.

 

[agricola]

and there's the problem because i can't see how a peace can be negotiated with someone like vladimir putin who has shown himself less than trustworthy

Indeed, but the alternative (more fighting that Ukraine are not likely to win) is truly awful.

 

[tim]

You seriously let yourself down when you post this sort of nonsense, there was never any threat to Buenos Aires of being nuked.

Well, at least, I'm not the fool wittering on about how much saner and sensible the 80s were.

 

[dilute micro]

Fucking menace that they are.

True, and it would be good if we could do without the things we see every day now.