Arming the Ukrainians

[ad_orientem]

But Putin has been threatening to use them. Is it your contention that Putin's threats are empty? I certainly hope they are.

It's all a bluff. This is Russia's modus operandi. Raise the stakes in the hope that the West will fold. To be fair, we always bloody have. No more! Time to call his bluff.

[Spud]

Where does that understanding come from?

Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
Putin's address
At the end he says,  "(western leaders) have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons — against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff."
He seems to a be saying that Western leaders have openly stated they would use nuclear weapons, after which he says that he will use any means to defend Russian territory, including weapons similar to NATO's. He's not saying that he would meet continued attacks on the Donbas with conventional weapons with a nuclear response.

[Spud]

It's all a bluff. This is Russia's modus operandi. Raise the stakes in the hope that the West will fold. To be fair, we always bloody have. No more! Time to call his bluff.

Allowing Ukraine to join NATO minus the territory it has lost, would seem like a good response to Russia annexing Donbas etc.

[ad_orientem]

Allowing Ukraine to join NATO minus the territory it has lost, would seem like a good response to Russia annexing Donbas etc.

Bollocks! Luhansk is Ukraine! Donetsk is Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine. Kherson us Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. We give Ukraine everything it needs to get them back. And let's bomb Moscow into the fucking stoneage.

[Spud]

Bollocks! Luhansk is Ukraine! Donetsk is Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia is Ukraine. Kherson us Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine. We give Ukraine everything it needs to get them back. And let's bomb Moscow into the fucking stoneage.

The idea is to play Russia at its own game, ie 'annex' the remaining territory of Ukraine (fast track it into NATO) and ensure Russia cannot take any more territory. In your scenario, Ukraine could not join NATO because they would have a continuing border dispute: it would be an escalation by NATO

[Udayana]

Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
Putin's address
At the end he says,  "(western leaders) have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons — against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff."
He seems to a be saying that Western leaders have openly stated they would use nuclear weapons, after which he says that he will use any means to defend Russian territory, including weapons similar to NATO's. He's not saying that he would meet continued attacks on the Donbas with conventional weapons with a nuclear response.

I don't think you are reading Putin's speech right. He is saying he would use "all the weapons
systems available" to Russia if Russian territory, that now includes the "annexed" areas, is attacked.

In any case, even if you were right, what confidence can you put in the wording of any threat or promise in a speech that is clearly filled with lies?
 

[jeremyp]

Not all Russians are the same.

Here's a video in which a recently captured "orc"* relates his experience in the Russian army and following his surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2FgTr4fUw

tl;dr he volunteered to drive medical transports, was assigned as a tank driver, given really bad equipment and then used as bait to make Ukrainians give away their positions. His war lasted approximately five minutes and he was only member of his crew to survive. The second half of the video is, IMO, surprising.

*I'm using the term ironically

[Spud]

Not all Russians are the same.

Here's a video in which a recently captured "orc"* relates his experience in the Russian army and following his surrender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2FgTr4fUw

tl;dr he volunteered to drive medical transports, was assigned as a tank driver, given really bad equipment and then used as bait to make Ukrainians give away their positions. His war lasted approximately five minutes and he was only member of his crew to survive. The second half of the video is, IMO, surprising.

*I'm using the term ironically

Thanks Jeremy.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor said on "Judging Freedom", a channel on Youtube, that initially Russia wasn't planning to annex any territory, rather just liberate it. The DPR and LPR asked for help to do this; however, when the Russians came in, they said that the plan was to leave once the Donbas was liberated. But the DPR and LPR said that if the Russians left, the Ukrainian secret police would come back in and kill the separatist militia, so Russia then decided to annex the territory in order to permanently defend it.
Do you think there is truth in this?

[Spud]

I don't think you are reading Putin's speech right. He is saying he would use "all the weapons
systems available" to Russia if Russian territory, that now includes the "annexed" areas, is attacked.

In any case, even if you were right, what confidence can you put in the wording of any threat or promise in a speech that is clearly filled with lies?
 

I interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia. Taken out of context, he does seem to imply that any attack on Russian territory (including annexed) could be met with any kind of weapons, agreed. But elsewhere on YouTube I have seen a Russian say that this would only be if NATO sets foot on Russian territory. He said their nukes are to protect them against NATO's nukes.

[Udayana]

I interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia. Taken out of context, he does seem to imply that any attack on Russian territory (including annexed) could be met with any kind of weapons, agreed. But elsewhere on YouTube I have seen a Russian say that this would only be if NATO sets foot on Russian territory. He said their nukes are to protect them against NATO's nukes.

I must have missed any Western leaders threatening to use nuclear weapons against Russia, at least over the current conflict - have they really done so?

I doubt that NATO have any intention to "set foot in Russian territory" - but even if they did, a nuclear response would be insanely disproportionate.
 

[jeremyp]

Thanks Jeremy.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor said on "Judging Freedom", a channel on Youtube, that initially Russia wasn't planning to annex any territory, rather just liberate it.

It didn't need liberating.

The DPR and LPR asked for help to do this; however, when the Russians came in, they said that the plan was to leave once the Donbas was liberated. But the DPR and LPR said that if the Russians left, the Ukrainian secret police would come back in and kill the separatist militia, so Russia then decided to annex the territory in order to permanently defend it.
Do you think there is truth in this?

No. I think the Ukrainian army is coming in to kill the separatist militia because they are currently occupying Ukrainian territory.

[Spud]

I must have missed any Western leaders threatening to use nuclear weapons against Russia, at least over the current conflict - have they really done so?

I doubt that NATO have any intention to "set foot in Russian territory" - but even if they did, a nuclear response would be insanely disproportionate.

I don't know what Putin was thinking of when he talked about Western leaders' comments about nuclear weapons. But his subsequent comment clarified that Russia's are a deterrent.

[Spud]

It didn't need liberating.

No. I think the Ukrainian army is coming in to kill the separatist militia because they are currently occupying Ukrainian territory.

Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did, as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine; he was not planning to attack other European countries.

[Udayana]

Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did, as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine; he was not planning to attack other European countries.

Surely, even if it had needed liberating, the way to do it is to persuade the UN and the world that there were injustices that needed correcting - not just send in his goons.

It is pretty clear that he is not "liberating" the areas he is trying to annex.   

[jeremyp]

Whether or not it needed liberating, Putin thought it did,

Yes, well everybody outside Russia knows it didn't.

as well as that he needed to remove Nato influence on Ukraine;

How's that working for him?

he was not planning to attack other European countries.

Not yet. I suspect, if Ukraine had been a success, those plans might have changed.

[Dicky Underpants]

I interpreted the bit you quoted in the context of the bit before, that Western leaders were threatening to use Nukes against Russia.

Putin has strongly implied that he will use nukes, whereas I have yet to see any western politician or commentator calling for this option in response. I have seen plenty who say the response would be to use every kind of smart bomb at the West's disposal to totally disable the Russian military.

[Maeght]

Here is Putin's address (not his home address, I'm afraid):
Putin's address
At the end he says,  "(western leaders) have even resorted to the nuclear blackmail. I am referring not only to the Western-encouraged shelling of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses a threat of a nuclear disaster, but also to the statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction — nuclear weapons — against Russia.

I would like to remind those who make such statements regarding Russia that our country has different types of weapons as well, and some of them are more modern than the weapons NATO countries have. In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff."
He seems to a be saying that Western leaders have openly stated they would use nuclear weapons, after which he says that he will use any means to defend Russian territory, including weapons similar to NATO's. He's not saying that he would meet continued attacks on the Donbas with conventional weapons with a nuclear response.

Where does he say that that is the only circumstances in which he would use nuclear weapons?

Why do you trust what Putin says anyway?

[Spud]

Yes, well everybody outside Russia knows it didn't.

Scott Ritter explains the initial problems here
(He gets a bit carried away towards the end, mind)
If the Minsk agreement had been implemented by Ukraine, Donbas wouldn't have needed liberating.

How's that working for him?

He planned on the basis that the West wouldn't pour weapons in. So, not well. I mean, I would welcome a retreat by the entire Russian army, but I think this will be less likely now they have mobilised.

Not yet. I suspect, if Ukraine had been a success, those plans might have changed.

Zelensky wants you to think that. But the other countries are protected by NATO and are not AFAIK in border disputes with Russia.
Plus, Putin wants guarantees that US nuclear weapons will not be based in Ukraine , like they were in Italy and Turkey before the Cuban missile crisis. That's why he wants to prevent Ukraine joining NATO. I'm not sure, but I suspect it's also because he thinks the West wants Russia broken up and weakened, as he said in his latest address.

[ad_orientem]

Gawd! Scott Ritter! A convicted nonce! But then Z = paedophile!

And yes! We do want Russia broken up. That's the only way to guarantee peace. There's hope for the ethnic regions if we can get them to rise up but your average Moskal has no hope. Better to reduce it to Muscovy and de-militarise it along with its nukes.

[Spud]

Gawd! Scott Ritter! A convicted nonce! But then Z = paedophile!

And yes! We do want Russia broken up. That's the only way to guarantee peace. There's hope for the ethnic regions if we can get them to rise up but your average Moskal has no hope. Better to reduce it to Muscovy and de-militarise it along with its nukes.

But (contrary to what I said in post 597) that's another circumstance in which Russia might use nukes: if there is an existential threat to Russia. I found this from July/August 2020: "Russia Releases Nuclear Deterrence Policy"

[jeremyp]

Scott Ritter explains the initial problems here
(He gets a bit carried away towards the end, mind)

He's a Russian shill.

If the Minsk agreement had been implemented by Ukraine, Donbas wouldn't have needed liberating.

Donbas didn't need liberating. It does now though: from Russia.

He planned on the basis that the West wouldn't pour weapons in. So, not well. I mean, I would welcome a retreat by the entire Russian army, but I think this will be less likely now they have mobilised.

The Russians are retreating, just not voluntarily.

Zelensky wants you to think that. But the other countries are protected by NATO and are not AFAIK in border disputes with Russia.

Putin must want me to think that too. Under his leadership, Russia has now invaded a number of foreign countries and the usual MO is to level their cities. This must stop and Ukraine is doing its best to lance the boil of Russian expansionism.

Plus, Putin wants guarantees that US nuclear weapons will not be based in Ukraine

Nobody cares what Putin wants anymore. He is a proven liar, a gangster and a tyrant. Putin could stop the bloodshed tomorrow simply by withdrawing his troops from Ukraine. He's not doing it because anything that looks like defeat will probably end up with him falling out of an open window on the fifth floor of the Kremlin.

I do not understand why you assign any credibility to Putin whatsoever.

[Spud]

He's a Russian shill.

Just out of interest, did you watch any of the video? Ritter exposed the truth about WMD in Iraq, which is why I think his opinion on the current war should at least be heard.

[ad_orientem]

Never forget, Russia is a terrorist state!

[Spud]

Never forget, Russia is a terrorist state!

I agree to an extent, but it would mean the US is also terrorist. If as Jeremy said Russia's modus operandi is flattening towns, this is what the US did to Japan, and therefore can we look at it as similar in purpose to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A way of Russia saying it has the power to annihilate if they don't surrender? Remembering that they claim they are defending mother Russia.

[jeremyp]

I agree to an extent, but it would mean the US is also terrorist. If as Jeremy said Russia's modus operandi is flattening towns, this is what the US did to Japan, and therefore can we look at it as similar in purpose to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A way of Russia saying it has the power to annihilate if they don't surrender? Remembering that they claim they are defending mother Russia.

Why are you using the present tense with respect to the USA? The USA was levelling Japan 78 years ago (as we were levelling Germany). I don't see how our ancestors actions in any way justify what Russia is doing to Ukraine.

And what they claim is irrelevant. What they are doing is killing Ukrainian civilians and sending their own men to the front to be slaughtered, all in the name of making Putin more popular.