Ukraine illegally invaded by Putin's Russia

Everyone: "The world has gone to gooseberry fool thanks to covid, can things possibly get any worse?"
Russia: "Hold my beer"

Roll on the Nukes, with luck Leeds will get targeted and I will be a crispy critter faster than I can think "Oh gooseberry fool".

I'm going to simulate this scenario on Civ 6. Will let you know what happens.

Unfortunately I live a stone's throw from AWE where they make all the trident missiles.. they'll definitely target that in the event of war meaning I'm toast within minutes.

LewisD wrote:Unfortunately I live a stone's throw from AWE where they make all the trident missiles.. they'll definitely target that in the event of war meaning I'm toast within minutes.

I'm within the blast radius of an airbase, so I'll be getting the deckchairs out for a nice instant suntan.

Fortunately, the chances of anything like that happening are so miniscule. All NATO can do is leave them to it and let the world sanction Russia indefinitely until they return the territory to Ukraine.

It's going to be a mess for the Russian army if they go through with it. From what I've read, the Ukrainian army is much better prepared compared to Crimea in 2014. How it will play out is anyone's guess at the moment.

LewisD wrote:Unfortunately I live a stone's throw from AWE where they make all the trident missiles.. they'll definitely target that in the event of war meaning I'm toast within minutes.

I'm 5 minutes from Gatwick so we'll probably see the missile detonate from our garden

Alvin Flummux wrote:So, they want to seize half of Ukraine, and half of Kyiv, because they're feeling insecure about a border they share with a peaceful neighbor? Seriously? What a pathetic excuse.

What's next, expanding up to the Carpathian Mountains just because that's a bit more defensible?

Who's the peaceful neighbor? Even then I don't think that's the right way to look at it; Russia is close to the EU which in the event of war or even trade sanctions forms a united front against them, and if they wanted to invade they'd only have to traverse flat ground. It's fine when they have buffer states like ukraine and belarus, but if ukraine shifts towards NATO and the EU there is a very easy path into russia from them for NATO forces.

A stronger russia then means more defensible borders, warm sea ports, and reclaiming their lost industry, all of which are provided by ukraine. This would presumably grant russia more weight on the world stage in order to stand aside china and america, which are currently far ahead of them as they already have these things (among other reasons ofc).

Imrahil wrote:

LewisD wrote:Unfortunately I live a stone's throw from AWE where they make all the trident missiles.. they'll definitely target that in the event of war meaning I'm toast within minutes.

I'm within the blast radius of an airbase, so I'll be getting the deckchairs out for a nice instant suntan.

Fortunately, the chances of anything like that happening are so miniscule. All NATO can do is leave them to it and let the world sanction Russia indefinitely until they return the territory to Ukraine.

It's going to be a mess for the Russian army if they go through with it. From what I've read, the Ukrainian army is much better prepared compared to Crimea in 2014. How it will play out is anyone's guess at the moment.

Well Ukraine certainly has the manpower after they incorporated the neo nazi militias into their standing military
Also again yeah ukraine is hugely industrialised so their production of war material would probably outpace what the russians are capable of especially when pushed into a corner

VlaSoul, do you recognise the right of self-determination and do you agree that it applies to the Ukrainian people?

Herdanos wrote:VlaSoul, do you recognise the right of self-determination and do you agree that it applies to the Ukrainian people?

Perhaps it appears I am in support of the russians?
I do not, to be clear, I just find the reasons behind this situation interesting and I'm not a huge fan of the way the general discourse surrounding it has developed (same to discourse on all enemies of the west)

To be honest I don't like the ukrainian government at all either, nor the frankly massive presence of fascism and naziism in the country, but ultimately a people should have the right to self govern. I don't like how that idea has played out in the modern world, but I agree it's an important principle that should be upheld.

VlaSoul wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:So, they want to seize half of Ukraine, and half of Kyiv, because they're feeling insecure about a border they share with a peaceful neighbor? Seriously? What a pathetic excuse.

What's next, expanding up to the Carpathian Mountains just because that's a bit more defensible?

Who's the peaceful neighbor? Even then I don't think that's the right way to look at it; Russia is close to the EU which in the event of war or even trade sanctions forms a united front against them, and if they wanted to invade they'd only have to traverse flat ground. It's fine when they have buffer states like ukraine and belarus, but if ukraine shifts towards NATO and the EU there is a very easy path into russia from them for NATO forces.

A stronger russia then means more defensible borders, warm sea ports, and reclaiming their lost industry, all of which are provided by ukraine. This would presumably grant russia more weight on the world stage in order to stand aside china and america, which are currently far ahead of them as they already have these things (among other reasons ofc).

Imrahil wrote:

LewisD wrote:Unfortunately I live a stone's throw from AWE where they make all the trident missiles.. they'll definitely target that in the event of war meaning I'm toast within minutes.

I'm within the blast radius of an airbase, so I'll be getting the deckchairs out for a nice instant suntan.

Fortunately, the chances of anything like that happening are so miniscule. All NATO can do is leave them to it and let the world sanction Russia indefinitely until they return the territory to Ukraine.

It's going to be a mess for the Russian army if they go through with it. From what I've read, the Ukrainian army is much better prepared compared to Crimea in 2014. How it will play out is anyone's guess at the moment.

Well Ukraine certainly has the manpower after they incorporated the neo nazi militias into their standing military
Also again yeah ukraine is hugely industrialised so their production of war material would probably outpace what the russians are capable of especially when pushed into a corner

The first question you ask is a weird one to even being up in the current geopolitical climate; quite obviously it's the Ukraine. Are you arguing the answer to the question could be Russia?

VlaSoul wrote:

Herdanos wrote:VlaSoul, do you recognise the right of self-determination and do you agree that it applies to the Ukrainian people?

Perhaps it appears I am in support of the russians?
I do not, to be clear, I just find the reasons behind this situation interesting and I'm not a huge fan of the way the general discourse surrounding it has developed (same to discourse on all enemies of the west)

To be honest I don't like the ukrainian government at all either, nor the frankly massive presence of fascism and naziism in the country, but ultimately a people should have the right to self govern. I don't like how that idea has played out in the modern world, but I agree it's an important principle that should be upheld.

I'm trying to fully understand your position; how should the discourse have developed?

Were the US to sit over 100,000 troops on the border of a sovereign nation in preparation for an invasion, would you also be posting only on the media discourse of the massed troops or would you be feeling outraged at the pressure said nation was being put under?

Olympics 2008 in Beijing: Russia invades Georgia.

Olympics 2014 in Sochi: Russia invades Ukraine.

Olympics 2022 in Beijing: Russia stresses it is a peaceful country threatened by every neighbour, and just wants some security guarantees. Some Tankies actually believe this.

Preezy wrote:So... chances of this being a World War 3 flashpoint?

Taiwan is the much more likely flash point for that. Whilst the USA has "strategic ambiguity" on defending Taiwan, it's hard to see how the USA could do nothing about it.

andretmzt wrote:I think it was also a very important area for food production in the Soviet Union, but who knows whether having food security into the future is part of Russia's thinking.

The reality of climate change ("geography determines history") is that this is increasingly outdated strategic thinking, assuming it's not overly focused on the short term. Siberia is becoming ever more suited to being the bread basket of Russia. Russia already has policies in place to encourage farmers to relocate to hinterlands.

Same goes for "year round warm water ports". An argument for the past and present but might not be a problem later this century.

Russia should be much more concerned by the land border it shares with China rather than any land border in Europe. How does a country thousands of miles away from the Arctic call itself a "Near Arctic Power" if it doesn't include taking a chunk of Siberia?

Edit: fixed spelling.

Rocsteady wrote:The first question you ask is a weird one to even being up in the current geopolitical climate; quite obviously it's the Ukraine. Are you arguing the answer to the question could be Russia?

Oh, genuinely I thought they meant poland or romania

Rocsteady wrote:

VlaSoul wrote:

Herdanos wrote:VlaSoul, do you recognise the right of self-determination and do you agree that it applies to the Ukrainian people?

Perhaps it appears I am in support of the russians?
I do not, to be clear, I just find the reasons behind this situation interesting and I'm not a huge fan of the way the general discourse surrounding it has developed (same to discourse on all enemies of the west)

To be honest I don't like the ukrainian government at all either, nor the frankly massive presence of fascism and naziism in the country, but ultimately a people should have the right to self govern. I don't like how that idea has played out in the modern world, but I agree it's an important principle that should be upheld.

I'm trying to fully understand your position; how should the discourse have developed?

Were the US to sit over 100,000 troops on the border of a sovereign nation in preparation for an invasion, would you also be posting only on the media discourse of the massed troops or would you be feeling outraged at the pressure said nation was being put under?

This is another heavily propagandised war where the very real human tragedy of the situation is leveraged for political maneuvering by the would be allies of the victim, in that NATO would use Ukraine as a foothold against their enemies, in this case russia, as it stands as a threat to the
liberal capitalist hegemony they (NATO) uphold. Be it russian occupation or ukrainian control restored, either way the ukrainian people themselves would be living under a non-democratic and borderline facsist regime, which would be promptly ignored by the wider world in the latter outcome. One side here is framed as morally upstanding while the other isn't, and I think that's a fundamentally incorrect way to look at geopolitics in general.

Swarms of Russian attack helicopters spotted heading to the border.

I think the ball's already rolling on this war. The only question is how big it's going to get.

Grumpy David wrote:Russia should be much more concerned by the land border it shares with China rather than any land border in Europe. How does a country thousands of miles away from the Artic call itself a "Near Artic Power" if it doesn't include taking a chunk of Siberia?

I love that in a thread about Russia invading Ukraine, Grumpy D manages to make it all about China.

Grumpy David wrote:How does a country thousands of miles away from the Artic call itself a "Near Artic Power"

Someone's been watching The Apprentice.

Vermilion wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:How does a country thousands of miles away from the Artic call itself a "Near Artic Power"

Someone's been watching The Apprentice.

Maybe he means this kind of artic power...

Knoyleo wrote:

Vermilion wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:How does a country thousands of miles away from the Artic call itself a "Near Artic Power"

Someone's been watching The Apprentice.

Maybe he means this kind of artic power...

The true artic/arctic power:

VlaSoul wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:The first question you ask is a weird one to even being up in the current geopolitical climate; quite obviously it's the Ukraine. Are you arguing the answer to the question could be Russia?

Oh, genuinely I thought they meant poland or romania

Rocsteady wrote:

VlaSoul wrote:

Herdanos wrote:VlaSoul, do you recognise the right of self-determination and do you agree that it applies to the Ukrainian people?

Perhaps it appears I am in support of the russians?
I do not, to be clear, I just find the reasons behind this situation interesting and I'm not a huge fan of the way the general discourse surrounding it has developed (same to discourse on all enemies of the west)

To be honest I don't like the ukrainian government at all either, nor the frankly massive presence of fascism and naziism in the country, but ultimately a people should have the right to self govern. I don't like how that idea has played out in the modern world, but I agree it's an important principle that should be upheld.

I'm trying to fully understand your position; how should the discourse have developed?

Were the US to sit over 100,000 troops on the border of a sovereign nation in preparation for an invasion, would you also be posting only on the media discourse of the massed troops or would you be feeling outraged at the pressure said nation was being put under?

This is another heavily propagandised war where the very real human tragedy of the situation is leveraged for political maneuvering by the would be allies of the victim, in that NATO would use Ukraine as a foothold against their enemies, in this case russia, as it stands as a threat to the
liberal capitalist hegemony they (NATO) uphold. Be it russian occupation or ukrainian control restored, either way the ukrainian people themselves would be living under a non-democratic and borderline facsist regime, which would be promptly ignored by the wider world in the latter outcome. One side here is framed as morally upstanding while the other isn't, and I think that's a fundamentally incorrect way to look at geopolitics in general.

But one is much more morally upstanding than the other. To equate the two is disingenuous bullshit.

Poland isn't much behind the Ukraine in democratic indices but were Russian armies to be sat at the border, I'd be pretty pissed at suggestions that either way, we're strawberry floated. I would very much take the 'liberal capitalist hegemony' that involves some free media and a democratic vote every few years than the totalitarian alternative we've seen recently in Belarus where I know people who have been tortured and had family locked up for attending protests.

It's easy to sit from the UK and say we shouldn't pick sides but we absolutely should. Ukraine's political system is far from perfect but it's a strawberry floating hell of a lot better than the current alternative. And right now, those are the two options. If you feel strongly about Ukranian democracy once this crisis is over give me a shout and we can attend pro-democracy protests in CE/EE together.

Could someone explain "Sanctions" to me, as though you would a five year old please. Apologies if this makes me sound utterly stupid, but I've never really understood what they are for, or achieve in times like this.

Is it like "oh, you've been naughty - we're telling all the countries not to sell you anymore Haribo Tangfastics or BIC pens" ?

Because surely Russia can play the reverse Uno card and refuse to sell, I dunno, oil to any country that allows sanctions against them?