Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

Having a wake up call isn't defending democracy.
You still allow Putin to profile himself as the victor.
Maintaining a no-fly zone above Ukraine to cripple Putin's invasion would be.
And if you don't have the reach to do it for the whole of Ukraine, do it west of the Dnjepr.

---

That's a declaration of war with Russia and if wouldn't lead to a complete escalation no sane individual should ever want between the Western alliance and Russia, it would in a best case scenario just lead to the Ukrainians never to agree to any peace and prolonging the war for many years to come. And the longer it goes, to more sure it becomes that there will be a Western : Russian escalation, which again, nobody should ever want because it would be the path to World War III and nuclear strikes.

I honestly think declaring a no-fly zone over ALL of Ukraine is worth the risk. We did it in the Middle East and downed Russian pilots as a result, and we didn't have a nuclear war.

In some ways, crashing Russia's economy in the hope a new government is put in place that will withdraw from Ukraine and become a responsible world partner is perhaps a bigger risk. The average Russian thinks their soldiers are on a humanitarian mission. What will they think of the West for destroying their economy? They will see it as an unprovoked attack because they don't know what their army is doing. Think Weimar Republic, for goodness sakes.

The West should focus on the war in Ukraine. Get the no fly zone in place fast. Get them the materiel and humanitarian aid they desperately need fast. Let contractors fly the freaking planes if need be to take out that column in the north and break the supply chains in the south. Bombard the Russian troops with leaflets, loudspeakers telling them they'll be unharmed if they just go home. In World War I the Russian Army just dropped their rifles and walked home. It could happen again if the Ukrainians show restraint.

Putin is not going to negotiate in good faith ever. He has wanted this since the end of the Soviet Union, playing the long game while crying victim, and he won't stop until he gets it. He has to lose militarily now, or we'll have to face him militarily later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

He's a troll.:thinking:

---

Indeed. Don't feed him.

The law of unintended consequences: Finnish public opinion swings toward seeking admission to NATO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

Having a wake up call isn't defending democracy.
You still allow Putin to profile himself as the victor.
Maintaining a no-fly zone above Ukraine to cripple Putin's invasion would be.
And if you don't have the reach to do it for the whole of Ukraine, do it west of the Dnjepr.

---

I hope it's a wake up call for people to be aware that democracy is never a given fact....may be some have forgotten that bicicleur.

And I'm against direct intervention because that would mean ww3.

Putin can only reach a Pyrrhus victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

Just a small comment for that: Be careful as to where you look at. The threat for democracy might come from different directions and some might even disguise themselves as "upright democrats" which do everything they do, every move towards escalation, brainwashing and censorship only to "save Democracy". They are in charge, they got the control, they impose rules and pressure on the people, but talk as if they are helpless victims of a vicious attack on "Democracy", even if its just about their own personal agenda.
And this time with Russia, its just another step in the same direction. The Ukraine conflict being already instrumentalised and this tendency will increase over time.

---

I look very clear to the extreme right and left. That is the main direction. I don't share the suspicious side about censorship and brainwash you have. The best guarantee is still free press, checks and balances. And nothing is for granted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I honestly think declaring a no-fly zone over ALL of Ukraine is worth the risk. We did it in the Middle East and downed Russian pilots as a result, and we didn't have a nuclear war.

In some ways, crashing Russia's economy in the hope a new government is put in place that will withdraw from Ukraine and become a responsible world partner is perhaps a bigger risk. The average Russian thinks their soldiers are on a humanitarian mission. What will they think of the West for destroying their economy? They will see it as an unprovoked attack because they don't know what their army is doing. Think Weimar Republic, for goodness sakes.

The West should focus on the war in Ukraine. Get the no fly zone in place fast. Get them the materiel and humanitarian aid they desperately need fast. Let contractors fly the freaking planes if need be to take out that column in the north and break the supply chains in the south. Bombard the Russian troops with leaflets, loudspeakers telling them they'll be unharmed if they just go home. In World War I the Russian Army just dropped their rifles and walked home. It could happen again if the Ukrainians show restraint.

Putin is not going to negotiate in good faith ever. He has wanted this since the end of the Soviet Union, playing the long game while crying victim, and he won't stop until he gets it. He has to lose militarily now, or we'll have to face him militarily later.

---

What I have seen, and heard is that the (ordinary) Russian soldiers had mainly the idea that they went for an exercise, and they are far from motivated. The Russians ultimately rely on heavy artillery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicicleur 2

Having a wake up call isn't defending democracy.
You still allow Putin to profile himself as the victor.
Maintaining a no-fly zone above Ukraine to cripple Putin's invasion would be.
And if you don't have the reach to do it for the whole of Ukraine, do it west of the Dnjepr.

---

Besides that Putin can only reach a Pyrrhic victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Besides that Putin can only reach a Pyrrhic victory.

---

In Russia it will be a victory and he'll stay in power for more decades to come, the regime will continue to be a threat.
I believe maintaining a no-fly zone may tilt the war and prevent Putin from installing a puppet regime in Ukraine.

Never since the fall of the Berlin wall there has been such a big occasion to help a country on it's path to democracy and at the same time give a blow to a totalitarian regime threatening democracy and the west.
The last 9 days Ukraine already gave a serious blow to Putin's self-confidence and now is the moment to strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

It became obvious to me, they don't just push all Ukrainian males from 18-60 into military service, they also keep them as hostages. And the Western media just report about the men "staying back to fight". Really? As if 100 % of the Ukrainian men would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the Selenski regime and dying as cannon fodder! Nobody seems to care about all those people being pressed into service, many against their will. There were already chaotic scenes on the borders and the women won't tellt he truth, because they are afraid about what might happen to their husbands and sons. The Western "free press" doesn't report those incidents and situation properly at all, they only portray Ukrainian men as willing to fight and die for that regime. This kind of propaganda, by the leftist media in the West, how everything being phased within hours and no dissenting voices allowed any more, is quite telling about the state of our media and democracy.

Similarly, the Ukrainian regime deliberately delays the evacuation of civilians, so they can use them as human shields and delay the Russian attack. They play on time, to re-enforce their positions, regroup their military units and wait for weapons and an escalation which might bring Western powers into the war. This kind of dirty war is obviously the only military strategy they can apply to win, if they are unwilling to accept any political compromise with Russia, which seems to be the case. But it just shows how both sides don't care for the civilian lifes and structures, the Ukrainians even less, because the Russians wanted to keep it "as clean as possible", but the Ukrainian has the opposite strategy - again, its understandable from their strategic position, but it shows the same time how they just instrumentalise human suffering for the political-military goals.

---

"That kind of dirty war" that you mention reminds me of the resistance of the Polish army in 1939, when they retreated to the east trying to resist and wait for help from the West... until the Soviet Union stabbed them in the back... .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by italouruguayan

"That kind of dirty war" that you mention reminds me of the resistance of the Polish army in 1939, when they retreated to the east trying to resist and wait for help from the West... until the Soviet Union stabbed them in the back... .

---

The Ukrainian army uses civilians as human shields and tries to use all the cities as their main strongholds, so that they can hide better and the Russians have to do maximal damage to the people and infrastructure. I can understand why they do it, but Selenski is obviously a gambler who doesn't care as long as he sees a chance to ruin Russia and make himself a hero. A lot of cities did surrender during WWII simply to save them from utter destruction.

If regular and irregular forces, which are not recognisable as combatants, hide in the urban structures, of course, any reasonable army leader would bomb the whole city to the ground before letting his boys go in. The Ukrainian leadership wants to maximise the damage and "crimes" of the Russians, so that they can provoke incidents or an intervention from the West.
That's more like dirty partisan wars, which deliberately calculated for retaliation on civilians, to get the public support against the occupants. We're already heading towards this, because there being mobs rounding up pro-Russian Ukrainians, mistreating Russians and even publishing the material, everything to stir up more brutality. Like I said, its a kind of dirty war only comparable to what the partisans especially in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union did, if using WWII. It has little to nothing to do with e.g. the Polish strategy before their capitulation.

If snipers shoot from windows of an appartment block and civilians throw Molotov cocktails from their cars and Russian soldiers get mistreated and tortured, the obvious consequence will be just hate and retaliation. Since the Ukrainian leadership promoted such behaviour and actions from the first day, they planned to fight the Russians with that kind of dirty tactics from the start. Its the strategy the Selenski regime adopted. If you put civilians deliberately in the line of fire, they have to get hit, even if the other side tries to prevent it. And from a certain point on, they won't care any more, because there will be a vicious cycle of hate from both sides. Again, its the tactic the Selenski regime has chosen to get maximal popular support both from the Ukrainians and the outside world. But its a dirty war and strategy, no doubt about that. And they do it because they gamble for getting Russia to its knees, which is obviously what especially the USA and UK want too.
That's also, to repeat it once more, why Germany, France and several other nations, which are not that trigger-happy, tried to keep things down and not supporting that obvious war course of the Ukrainian leadership.

Again, Russia made the big wrong step to attack all of Ukraine, but the sanctions would have been imposed even if they would have just defended the East anyway, so they went all-in. I don't know in detail how the negotiations were in the past, so I can't say for sure who is to blame primarily for all these peace talks to fail, but its quite obvious that both sides didn't do enough for peace in the last 8 years. And in the last months the Selenski regime was having a straight war course.
Why should the world risk a nuclear war for such a gambler who obviously doesn't care for the risks his people or the world are taking?
That would be really, really regrettable, if the defense of such a regime would cause World War 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

The Ukrainian army uses civilians as human shields and tries to use all the cities as their main strongholds, so that they can hide better and the Russians have to do maximal damage to the people and infrastructure. I can understand why they do it, but Selenski is obviously a gambler who doesn't care as long as he sees a chance to ruin Russia and make himself a hero. A lot of cities did surrender during WWII simply to save them from utter destruction.

If regular and irregular forces, which are not recognisable as combatants, hide in the urban structures, of course, any reasonable army leader would bomb the whole city to the ground before letting his boys go in. The Ukrainian leadership wants to maximise the damage and "crimes" of the Russians, so that they can provoke incidents or an intervention from the West.
That's more like dirty partisan wars, which deliberately calculated for retaliation on civilians, to get the public support against the occupants. We're already heading towards this, because there being mobs rounding up pro-Russian Ukrainians, mistreating Russians and even publishing the material, everything to stir up more brutality. Like I said, its a kind of dirty war only comparable to what the partisans especially in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union did, if using WWII. It has little to nothing to do with e.g. the Polish strategy before their capitulation.

If snipers shoot from windows of an appartment block and civilians throw Molotov cocktails from their cars and Russian soldiers get mistreated and tortured, the obvious consequence will be just hate and retaliation. Since the Ukrainian leadership promoted such behaviour and actions from the first day, they planned to fight the Russians with that kind of dirty tactics from the start. Its the strategy the Selenski regime adopted. If you put civilians deliberately in the line of fire, they have to get hit, even if the other side tries to prevent it. And from a certain point on, they won't care any more, because there will be a vicious cycle of hate from both sides. Again, its the tactic the Selenski regime has chosen to get maximal popular support both from the Ukrainians and the outside world. But its a dirty war and strategy, no doubt about that. And they do it because they gamble for getting Russia to its knees, which is obviously what especially the USA and UK want too.
That's also, to repeat it once more, why Germany, France and several other nations, which are not that trigger-happy, tried to keep things down and not supporting that obvious war course of the Ukrainian leadership.

Again, Russia made the big wrong step to attack all of Ukraine, but the sanctions would have been imposed even if they would have just defended the East anyway, so they went all-in. I don't know in detail how the negotiations were in the past, so I can't say for sure who is to blame primarily for all these peace talks to fail, but its quite obvious that both sides didn't do enough for peace in the last 8 years. And in the last months the Selenski regime was having a straight war course.
Why should the world risk a nuclear war for such a gambler who obviously doesn't care for the risks his people or the world are taking?
That would be really, really regrettable, if the defense of such a regime would cause World War 3.

---

Keep this biased nonsense for that zoo at Apricity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

Keep this biased nonsense for that zoo at Apricity.

---

So, that's his home base? Why am I not surprised?

If not an ethnic Russian than a stooge; all of his posts could have come right from state news services in Russia.

He must be doing it merely to annoy. Clearly, he is convincing no one here because it is obvious that he's not reasoning logically or honestly. Having different opinions is one thing; these are serious matters with no easy answers. What we don't need is obvious propaganda.

I cannot fathom why people are engaging him.

Never feed the t-rolls!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

So, that's his home base? Why am I not surprised?

If not an ethnic Russian than a stooge; all of his posts could have come right from state news services in Russia.

He must be doing it merely to annoy. Clearly, he is convincing no one here because it is obvious that he's not reasoning logically or honestly. Having different opinions is one thing; these are serious matters with no easy answers. What we don't need is obvious propaganda.

I cannot fathom why people are engaging him.

Never feed the t-rolls!

---

Most of those idiots who engage in pro-Russian (often anti-semitic) conspiracy theories are usually migrants from Eastern Europe who live in the "evil" West. I have yet to see a single German (or an Italian, Iberian etc.) that was vehemently pro-Russia. Even the neo-Nazi ethnic Germans (or the original ones) don't support them.

Why did they migrate to the so called "ZOG" West in the first place? Why don't they go live in Russia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

Keep this biased nonsense for that zoo at Apricity.

---

What exactly is nonsense of what I wrote?
So everybody which disagrees is a troll and what not, but people which demand a "No-fly zone" and want NATO to start shooting down Russian jets are reasonable?
To risk a nuclear war for a regime which doesn�t take negotiations seriously and wants to escalate a war on the back of its own people is the unbiased truth?
I just hope that this kind of warmongering never makes it among the NATO decision makers, it would be utterly disastrous. They promised they won't, I just hope they keep at least that promise, because regardless of what many of you say now, you might regret it if they don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

What exactly is nonsense of what I wrote?
So everybody which disagrees is a troll and what not, but people which demand a "No-fly zone" and want NATO to start shooting down Russian jets are reasonable?
To risk a nuclear war for a regime which doesn�t take negotiations seriously and wants to escalate a war on the back of its own people is the unbiased truth?
I just hope that this kind of warmongering never makes it among the NATO decision makers, it would be utterly disastrous. They promised they won't, I just hope they keep at least that promise, because regardless of what many of you say now, you might regret it if they don't.

---

One piece of nonsense was saying that the Ukrainians are using human shields when actually over a million women and children have been sent to safe countries and the men are determined to resist the illegal onslaught.

A partisan war is never dirty but an invasion is.:thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ihype02

Most of those idiots who engage in pro-Russian (often anti-semitic) conspiracy theories are usually migrants from Eastern Europe who live in the "evil" West. I have yet to see a single German (or an Italian, Iberian etc.) that was vehemently pro-Russia. Even the neo-Nazi ethnic Germans (or the original ones) don't support them.

Why did they migrate to the so called "ZOG" West in the first place? Why don't they go live in Russia?

---

Bkz it's a third world country. Where do all the Russian billionaires who bled their country dry go to live?

Even those just high in the food chain prefer the west. I recently saw a video of a "famous" Russian television host all upset because Italy seized his villa in Lake Como. I hope they never give it back no matter what happens.

If you're getting paid to spread disinformation like all those twitter accounts during the last U.S. Presidential election, I'm sure you're praying you're not called back to Russia.

Russia can't give the average Russian a decent standard of living, it can't make a decent car, it can't even make, as we've seen, a decent tank or figure out how to supply them and their men, and that if there are rivers in the way of the advance of your tanks you better have engineers with you to rebuild the bridges. Their planes as well as their atomic bombs also aren't what they were said to be, as we learned about the latter during the disarmament inspections.

They can, of course, carpet bomb cities full of civilians, civilians they claim are their countrymen, and freeze and starve them to death. They also can just throw their soldiers into the line of fire, wave after wave of them, as they did in WWI and WWII instead of having decent war materiel and intelligent strategy.

It's a Potemkin country. Who the hell would want to live there? It's not like the U.S., which they so hate, but where people are willing to take their children and cross a desert on foot to reach it even if they risk death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

One piece of nonsense was saying that the Ukrainians are using human shields when actually over a million women and children have been sent to safe countries and the men are determined to resist the illegal onslaught.

A partisan war is never dirty but an invasion is.:thinking:

---

The civilians largely fled on their own and the Ukrainian government does not enough to evacuate its civilians for tactical reasons. But ok, you might have a different impression.

Men being forced to stay, whether they want or not. I'm sure, a large portion of the Ukrainian men being volunteers and willing to fight, but to portray them all this way is propaganda. Many surely don't want to die for the Selenski regime.

A partisan war is never dirty? Seriously?
Probably you don't know enough about it. Most partisan war targeted the own population as well, did attacks out of civilian structures and without a clearly recognisable signal for combatants.
They included civilian death and suffering, as well as retaliation by the occupants, to instigate hate, into their calculation.
A partisan warfare is per se not good or bad, but its usually an even more dirty and brutal warfare with way more transgressions on both sides.
Simply because it completely blurrs the lines between combatants and civilians. Deliberate cruelty and blurred lines for combatants is a dirty war and strategy, what else is?

To plan a war from the start to escalate to that level includes the willingness to cause maximal destruction and suffering of the population for the own political goals.

The Russians didn't come to exterminate the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians made their point by fighting with their regular forces. That way they proved to the world their will to resist and stay independent.

There is absolutely no reason for a responsible leader to escalate the situation to this point and either ruining the Ukrainian people and country or escalating to a potential nuclear war.

The conclusion is this Selenski regime is irresponsible and doesn't care for the potential consequences.
You could also say its Putins Russia's fault, because they made the first step to the current escalation, and I would agree on that as well.

But what does it help if they both act irresponsible and being unwilling to accept a compromise? How far is this supposed to go, just because they don't get back to the negotiations table!

I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.
This is pure madness and its the fault of both regimes that it went that far already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

The civilians largely fled on their own and the Ukrainian government does not enough to evacuate its civilians for tactical reasons. But ok, you might have a different impression.
Men being forced to stay, whether they want or not. I'm sure, a large portion of the Ukrainian men being volunteers and willing to fight, but to portray them all this way is propaganda. Many surely don't want to die for the Selenski regime.
A partisan war is never dirty? Seriously?
Probably you don't know enough about it. Most partisan war targeted the own population as well, did attacks out of civilian structures and without a clearly recognisable signal for combatants.
They included civilian death and suffering, as well as retaliation by the occupants, to instigate hate, into their calculation.
A partisan warfare is per se not good or bad, but its usually an even more dirty and brutal warfare with way more transgressions on both sides.
Simply because it completely blurrs the lines between combatants and civilians. Deliberate cruelty and blurred lines for combatants is a dirty war and strategy, what else is?
To plan a war from the start to escalate to that level includes the willingness to cause maximal destruction and suffering of the population for the own political goals.
The Russians didn't come to exterminate the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians made their point by fighting with their regular forces. That way they proved to the world their will to resist and stay independent.
There is absolutely no reason for a responsible leader to escalate the situation to this point and either ruining the Ukrainian people and country or escalating to a potential nuclear war.
The conclusion is this Selenski regime is irresponsible and doesn't care for the potential consequences.
You could also say its Putins Russia's fault, because they made the first step to the current escalation, and I would agree on that as well.
But what does it help if they both act irresponsible and being unwilling to accept a compromise? How far is this supposed to go, just because they don't get back to the negotiations table!
I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.
This is pure madness and its the fault of both regimes that it went that far already.

---

It's clear to me you believe might is right.

As the author Harari said in a recent TV interview... Russia is just a gas station with nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

I refuse to accept that no matter on which side you are more inclined to, that fighting this out to the botter end with all means is the best or even only solution.

---

I agree with that. Bennett of Israel is already putting an effort.

Nevertheless the question stays how to prevent that Putin enrolls his revanchist agenda even further....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vallicanus

It's clear to me you believe might is right.

---

Absolutely not. This is about much more than that, from legitimate claims Russia had to the risk of an escalation which would be dangerous far beyond that regional conflict.
This should have been solved diplomatically 8 years ago, but being boiled up to this escalation by various actors. But even now its better to find a peaceful diplomatic solution as soon as possible than to fight it out with all potential consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

I agree with that. Bennett of Israel is already putting an effort.

Nevertheless the question stays how to prevent that Putin enrolls his revanchist agenda even further....

---

I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.

If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.

NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.

According to CNN, this is what Chinese officials said:

Quote:

---

"China supports all efforts conducive to de-escalation and political settlement of the situation, while opposing any moves which are adverse to promoting a diplomatic solution and add fuel to the flames," Wang said

---

I know what many might say about the Chinese position, but this is, if taken seriously, the only reasonable approach to the current situation.
Just don't add fuel to the fire!
It will cost only more lifes and risks further escalation to a level nobody should want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riverman

I don't think Putin would have escalated that far with a reasonable compromise being offered in the last 8 years.
And I see no proof for serious ambitions beyond the current or former GUS states.
Both NATO and Russia have Red lines, and it was so far never Russia which crossed those of NATO, but always the other way around.
If the same rhetoric some use these days would have been applied in the Cold War, we would have had a nuclear catastrophy decades ago, because it creates a vicious cycle.
NATO already pushed things to the limits in Ukraine, now they need to create a way out for Russia which allows an acceptable peace for all sides. The maximal demands from the Selenski regime are simply not helpful, they never were.
There needs to be an open discussion about serious peace talks.
A NATO membership of the Ukraine in its current official borders without any agreement with Russia Was just never a serious peaceful option, everybody knew it.
Russia just stepped up once it became clear that there won't be an acceptable compromise coming from the Ukraine anyway.
And the Ukrainian regime never stepped down from their maximal demands and both together brought us to that point.
Russia and Ukraine acted irresponsible in this conflict and while I simply want peace in Ukraine I'm absolutely against risking a nuclear war.

---

I guess that marks were we sharply disagree. This is turn back the time into the SU time and before. With sphere of influences, and agreements between 'leaders' etc, take this from Churchill and Stalin:
https://i.postimg.cc/bY2LZ0mN/Scherm...m-09-22-55.png

When people like the Ests, or the Poles and recently the Ukrainians choose to get part of (a form of) liberal democracy, not laid up on, but self-chosen is it up to Putin's Russia to cross that and get them back in his sphere of influence? Driven by revanche agenda to draw the clock before 1989 and even unto the 10th century (Kyiv as cradle of Rus)?

Obviously Putin needs force to 'get them back', is that force the norm Riverman? Are you longing for the world of Von Metternich?

I don't and that's the core. I am pro liberal parlementair democracy, pro sovereignty of people and against a brutal attempt to turn back the clock' a millennium ago...'. No leading revanchist agenda for Europe....