Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

[bimble]

"Russia can expect a “dramatic increased response” from the west if Vladimir Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine", a minister has said
“It will trigger an increased response from the west, there’s a dramatic increased response, there’s no question about that"

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Looks like a totally hollow threat to me and i'm sure it does in the Kremlin too.
It has already been made perfectly clear that 'the west' isn't going to risk getting directly involved, weapons and sanctions are fully up and running so i don't see what cards are actually left to threaten / disuade the Kremlin with.

 

[ohmyliver]

I'm not sure it's that misleading, here's the actual guidance (from: Facebook allows posts with violent speech toward Russian soldiers in specific countries)

So any Russians can be the target of violent speech now. I'm sure this is all very helpful in some way that I'm missing.

Given FB's culpability in things like the genocide of Rohingya Muslims, I suspect you're right. I mean it's a company that has put making money from things like social media engagement and related advertisements over morality time and again.

 

[Cid]

"Russia can expect a “dramatic increased response” from the west if Vladimir Putin uses chemical weapons in Ukraine", a minister has said
“It will trigger an increased response from the west, there’s a dramatic increased response, there’s no question about that"

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Looks like a totally hollow threat to me and i'm sure it does in the Kremlin too.
It has already been made perfectly clear that 'the west' isn't going to risk getting directly involved, weapons and sanctions are fully up and running so i don't see what cards are actually left to threaten / disuade the Kremlin with.

Fucking junior ministers spouting bollocks, that's all we need right now.

 

[Flavour]

Feeling a bit down today. Few days ago I thought Ukraine could win this, today I'm not so sure. Russia may not "win", it may not capture Kiev and install a new government in the next 48 hours, even the next week, but as long as Ukraine keeps fighting the Russians will just shell and bomb indiscriminately, destroying the country. I don't think the Ukrainians' ability to keep moral high in their resistance to the invasion will hold forever against this type of warfare.

 

[bimble]

Fucking junior ministers spouting bollocks, that's all we need right now.

but in general, there is nothing left that 'the west' is actually willing to do is there (i mean apart from more of the same, weapons, intelligence & aid).
Any decision to escalate is in Putin's hands only, and there is nothing he could perpetrate upon Ukraine that would change the 'we will not get directly involved' stance.

 

[Cid]

but in general, there is nothing left that 'the west' is actually willing to do is there. Any decision to escalate is in Putin's hands only, and there is nothing he could perpetrate upon Ukraine that would change the 'we will not get directly involved' stance.

Honestly no idea... Though I agree broadly. But it is possible that it might justify something on the broader level... E.g the idea of moving planes to Ukraine. I mean that idea seems to be largely pointless given various factors, but I suppose that is the kind of escalation that theoretically might be justified. if you were being generous with interpretation.

But I don't think it's for <checks> the under secretary of state for tech and the digital economy to be making public statements on this. I mean fuck.

 

[Flavour]

I don't want to find out what the West's reaction would be to the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine. But I do have a horrible feeling that they will be used, and very soon, and blamed on the Ukrainians themselves.

 

[Spymaster]

but in general, there is nothing left that 'the west' is actually willing to do is there (i mean apart from more of the same, weapons, intelligence & aid).

That may well change if they start gassing civilians. That’s a huge red line and the west could be forced to act. If that does happened the results will be catastrophic. So let’s hope it doesn’t.

 

[Yossarian]

I wonder what the chances are of Russian commanders refusing orders to commit further atrocities - indiscriminately gassing civilians doesn't exactly fit in with Putin's rhetoric about Ukrainians and Russians being "one people."

 

[emanymton]

That may well change if they start gassing civilians. That’s a huge red line and the west could be forced to act. If that does happened the results will be catastrophic. So let’s hope it doesn’t.

Yeah they might use slightly stronger words.

 

[ska invita]

I wonder what the chances are of Russian commanders refusing orders to commit further atrocities - indiscriminately gassing civilians doesn't exactly fit in with Putin's rhetoric about Ukrainians and Russians being "one people."

chances small I think, because soldiers

 

[bmd]

That may well change if they start gassing civilians. That’s a huge red line and the west could be forced to act. If that does happened the results will be catastrophic. So let’s hope it doesn’t.

What gets me about this invasion and subsequent UK govt 'interventions' is that they are based on a set of rules that Putin isn't remotely interested in. So when we think if he does X then we'll do Y so he definitely won't bother, then we are going to be proven wrong in some very horrible ways, imo.

 

[Artaxerxes]

chances small I think, because soldiers

We didn’t expect half the Russian army to park up and fuck off home leaving keys ignition either

 

[ska invita]

We didn’t expect half the Russian army to park up and fuck off home leaving keys ignition either

thats a massive over exaggeration of what has happened and its that kind of overly positive spin that is so potentially dangerous

 

[platinumsage]

I wonder what the chances are of Russian commanders refusing orders to commit further atrocities - indiscriminately gassing civilians doesn't exactly fit in with Putin's rhetoric about Ukrainians and Russians being "one people."

Orders aren't typically "indiscriminately gas those civilians", but "we have strong intelleginece that the basements of those buildings are filled full of Nazi elite forces preparing to attack you and your conscripts, gas is the only way to defeat them without heavy losses, quick!"

 

[Spymaster]

Yeah they might use slightly stronger words.

See, I’m not sure what this means really. It implies that the west/NATO should have done more, when in reality the response has been absolutely massive. Short of actually engaging the Russians militarily, they’ve done everything possible. Going any further risked all out war.

 

[Pickman's model]

See, I’m not sure what this means really. It implies that the west/NATO should have done more, when in reality the response has been absolutely massive. Short of actually engaging the Russians militarily, they’ve done everything possible. Going any further risked all out war.

There is all out war. Only we're not fighting it.

 

[dilute micro]

Somebody needs to bust a cap in this guy. Putin sees everyone else - NATO, European armies, US - as weak. He might just believe that if he used nukes first everyone else would back down.

The migs should have been delivered.

 

[Nylock]

See, I’m not sure what this means really. It implies that the west/NATO should have done more, when in reality the response has been absolutely massive. Short of actually engaging the Russians militarily, they’ve done everything possible. Going any further risked all out war.

When Syria launched chemical attacks against their own population, that too was an uncrossable red line. Until it wasn't. The west's response to that amounted to little more than additional finger wagging and harsh words...

 

[contadino]

That may well change if they start gassing civilians. That’s a huge red line and the west could be forced to act. If that does happened the results will be catastrophic. So let’s hope it doesn’t.

It's not even a thin red line. It wasn't in Syria, and nobody was waggling a nuclear threat then.

 

[xenon]

Journalists are asking every military talking head, politician etc what would be done if Putin used any ABC weapons. Of course they're not going to say. Well nothing much. What else can they say except it would gravely change things and demand a more robust response.

 

[kebabking]

See, I’m not sure what this means really. It implies that the west/NATO should have done more, when in reality the response has been absolutely massive. Short of actually engaging the Russians militarily, they’ve done everything possible. Going any further risked all out war.

There is all out war. Only we're not fighting it.

This is the conundrum: if you believe that this war will inevitably spill over NATO's borders, then you aren't discussing whether we will end up fighting in it, merely when we will end up fighting it.

It would be nice if some ditch-related tragedy in Moscow brought about a change of management in Russia, but relying on it, or relying on whatever succeeded the current arrangements being better, would be foolish in the extreme.

Personally, I think Ukraine is Act 4 of many. Act 5 might be Moldova, it might be a slice of Finland, it might be an issue with the ability (or claimed ability) of Russia to transit the land corridor through Lithuania to get to Kaliningrad, it might be Estonia to 'safeguard* the Baltic sea for Russia

And here's the thing: I think that Act 5 is just as likely to brought about by the failure of Act 4 as it is by its success. If Act 4 is a disaster, our friend is going to need something to pull out of the hat pretty quickly, and I'm not sure an extra portion of Cabbage Soup is going to cut the mustard.

 

[emanymton]

See, I’m not sure what this means really. It implies that the west/NATO should have done more, when in reality the response has been absolutely massive. Short of actually engaging the Russians militarily, they’ve done everything possible. Going any further risked all out war.

That's a perfectly fair point.

It's really just frustration, not just at this but st the shit they has been going on for decades. And our "leaders" do nothing about it because they are up to their neck in it.

 

[Dom Traynor]

I think we need to get used to living in a world where tactical nukes are a thing.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I think we need to get used to living in a world where tactical nukes are a thing.

I'm not sure 'living' is the word to use.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the conundrum: if you believe that this war will inevitably spill over NATO's borders, then you aren't discussing whether we will end up fighting in it, merely when we will end up fighting it.

It would be nice if some ditch-related tragedy in Moscow brought about a change of management in Russia, but relying on it, or relying on whatever succeeded the current arrangements being better, would be foolish in the extreme.

Personally, I think Ukraine is Act 4 of many. Act 5 might be Moldova, it might be a slice of Finland, it might be an issue with the ability (or claimed ability) of Russia to transit the land corridor through Lithuania to get to Kaliningrad, it might be Estonia to 'safeguard* the Baltic sea for Russia

And here's the thing: I think that Act 5 is just as likely to brought about by the failure of Act 4 as it is by its success. If Act 4 is a disaster, our friend is going to need something to pull out of the hat pretty quickly, and I'm not sure an extra portion of Cabbage Soup is going to cut the mustard.

The way NATO is acting is imo likely to provoke the response they affect to deplore, namely war with russia. So the current policy being likely to lead to a collision - say the destruction of vehicles clearly marked carrying wounded Russians out of the country by nlaws borne by western-trained troops or the shooting down of a civilian airliner in Russia with a western-supplied missile - either it should cease or a more er active policy be pursued. I advocate no course of action, but point out what is to me obvious

 

[Spymaster]

This is the conundrum: if you believe that this war will inevitably spill over NATO's borders, then you aren't discussing whether we will end up fighting in it, merely when we will end up fighting it.

It would be nice if some ditch-related tragedy in Moscow brought about a change of management in Russia, but relying on it, or relying on whatever succeeded the current arrangements being better, would be foolish in the extreme.

Personally, I think Ukraine is Act 4 of many. Act 5 might be Moldova, it might be a slice of Finland, it might be an issue with the ability (or claimed ability) of Russia to transit the land corridor through Lithuania to get to Kaliningrad, it might be Estonia to 'safeguard* the Baltic sea for Russia

And here's the thing: I think that Act 5 is just as likely to brought about by the failure of Act 4 as it is by its success. If Act 4 is a disaster, our friend is going to need something to pull out of the hat pretty quickly, and I'm not sure an extra portion of Cabbage Soup is going to cut the mustard.

I really hope you're wrong.

If you're correct, a nuclear exchange sooner or later is practically inevitable.

 

[steeplejack]

I'm just not buying that "Moldova's next". This thread is really insightful on the situation in Moldova and the "frozen conflict", and the implications of this one.

 

[Flavour]

I also don't think there's any advantage to be gained from going for Moldova right now, not where the Russian army is clearly so (over?)-stretched

 

[Cid]

I'm just not buying that "Moldova's next". This thread is really insightful on the situation in Moldova and the "frozen conflict", and the implications of this one.

Unrolled:

Thread by @Tom_deWaal on Thread Reader App

@Tom_deWaal: 1 A long🧵on the situation in #Transdniestria/#Transnistria, misconceptions and fears that it could turn into a new front in the war. My main point is there's a shared interest both in Transdniestria (TN...…

threadreaderapp.com