Ukraine Invasion Part 14

[MagicFox]

New thread

@PaperTyger

Who started the Putin and erotic in the same sentence?

I think who ever it is is THE MOLE...trying to turn us to Putin through means of devious subliminal messaging

Oh shit...busted 😆

@AgnesWestern

I can’t find who said about the brainwashing and the nuclear threats, but I’m starting to think that way too. It’s almost like it’s become the new ‘fear’ to keep us engaged and to be fair it is working.

I do agree with one thing Russia said though…nobody has used a nuclear bomb, except the US. That did make me think I must admit.

It was me. Shoot me down, but I think unflattering western news has been reported in Russia over the years, that we’ve not been privy to. Perhaps this is why Russians fear us. Absolutely about the US. Don’t forget Iraq/USA war. Saddam Hussein was hung on live TV. How was this presented to Russians, was it shown to them

@PaperTyger

Shuuu

But the west has let putin run absolute riot for decades because we are scared of a nuclear threat - but he keeps provoking and pushing us - poking us - doesnt he fear nuclear threat?

I think this may have something to do with being able to have reasonable certainty that a response from western liberal democracies would be proportionate (although some may disagree given the US first use against Japan). He can also assume that they're rational actors. As we've been reminded in recent weeks, the actions of countries led by dictators are a product of their own personalised rule. They can't be assumed to be rational actors and they may conflate survival of their regime with survival of the nation.

Putin has the advantage that it's easier to predict where our thresholds for specific responses and red lines are. Richard Nixon apparently had a "Madman Theory", where he actually sought to convince the USSR that he was irrational and volatile and therefore capable of ordering a nuclear attack.

Right - so you are Busted are you? Lets take this circus down. Kalxon - MN HQ she/he has been outed.

really Yeah that? Maybe that was Trumps therory also?

@PaperTyger

really Yeah that? Maybe that was Trumps therory also?

Do you think it’s safe to say when USA was in Iraq Russian news was reporting the same headlines we are seeing “USA getting ready to use nuclear weapons on Iraq” but this would be worse for the Russians as history proves they’ll use them if necessary, of course it was retaliation to Japans nuclear bomb on pearl harbour but we’ve no idea what the Russian people think.

@PaperTyger

He also used Putin's tactic of increasing their readiness state.

About Trump - if we take him at his word (or as he was caught on the phone call saying) then he actually threatened Putin with bombing Moscow in response to any invasion of Ukraine.

@PaperTyger

really Yeah that? Maybe that was Trumps therory also?

I think it may well have been Trump's strategy. Nixon actually had planes armed with nuclear warheads fly near the borders of the Soviet Union and then turn back, I think he did it three days on the trot. I actually find this fact quite helpful for putting the sabre rattling into context, that leaders can rattle their sabres with great vigour and still not actually do the deed. Not that we shouldn't take it seriously, but just to remember that scary rhetoric doesn't mean that they've got their finger hovering over the button, so to speak.

Shredded wow!!

My goodness!.
I didn't know that!
That takes sabre rattling to a new level!.
What we have now seems very limp

If little old I was dealing with Putin I certainly wouldn't be straight forward and I would be making him doubt me etc

@PaperTyger

Shredded wow!!

My goodness!.
I didn't know that!
That takes sabre rattling to a new level!.
What we have now seems very limp

Tony Blair recently published an essay making an argument to that effect:

"He is using our correct desire not to provoke escalation alongside his willingness to escalate as a bargaining chip.

When Putin is threatening Nato and stoking fear of nuclear conflict, there is something incongruous about our repeated assurance to him that we will not react with force.

Suppose he uses chemical weapons or a tactical nuclear weapon, or tries to destroy Kyiv as he did Aleppo, in Syria, without any regard to the loss of civilian life.

Is it sensible to tell him in advance that whatever he does, we will rule out any form of military response?"

@PaperTyger

To be clear, I'm glad that our leaders are taking care to walk what is a very delicate line in dealing with the regime of a psychotic dictator.

And Blair doesn't have a good track record in making decisions on whether or not to rule out military intervention.

But we may have put ourselves in a weak bargaining position from the beginning.

@Shuuu, I think you're probably right. I don't think Putin seriously believes that NATO would strike first, the messaging has been pretty clear on that. Whether the Russian public know that is a different matter. As well as the fact that America has used nuclear weapons, the other factor I suppose is the genuine fear during the Cold War that America might be preparing to strike first. A lot of Russians will remember that. I read an interesting piece of research that found that fear of nuclear war was the second most common fear amongst American children during the Cold War, and it was the most common fear in Russian children. So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Putin capitalised on that fear.

[quote Yeahthat]@PaperTyger

To be clear, I'm glad that our leaders are taking care to walk what is a very delicate line in dealing with the regime of a psychotic dictator.

And Blair doesn't have a good track record in making decisions on whether or not to rule out military intervention.

But we may have put ourselves in a weak bargaining position from the beginning.[/quote]
It makes some sense. Perhaps there is something in the argument that we shouldn't have shown our hand about our willingness for military intervention. Although, that would also mean not being upfront with Ukraine about how far we were prepared to go, which would be unacceptable.

I'm glad though that NATO has been clear about its clear line around nuclear sabre rattling because of the potential for misinterpretation, like when the Soviet Union thought the Able Archer exercise might be a front for a genuine strike. Incidentally, I found this article about the 'war scare' in the Soviet Union quite interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-1983-war-scare-soviet-leadership-feared-nuclear-surprise-attack-by-us/2015/10/24/15a289b4-7904-11e5-a958-d889faf561dcstory.html?utmm_term=.500c183898b5

I think Jens Stoltenberg stated that chemical weapons wouldn’t mean NATO military intervention.

Journalists reporting that Russia was unable to re-supply from Belarus to Ukraine today as Belarusian railway workers have sabotaged the lines. That's more like it.

As far as I know, the Japanese did not use a nuclear bomb on pearl harbour.

I'm also finding it difficult to hear people use words like psychotic and schizophrenia to describe Putin, perhaps he is/has it but I worry these words are used carelessly at times when they have very real and significant meaning to sufferers and their families. He's clearly a very despicable human being but they aren't the same thing.

[quote shreddednips]@Shuuu, I think you're probably right. I don't think Putin seriously believes that NATO would strike first, the messaging has been pretty clear on that. Whether the Russian public know that is a different matter. As well as the fact that America has used nuclear weapons, the other factor I suppose is the genuine fear during the Cold War that America might be preparing to strike first. A lot of Russians will remember that. I read an interesting piece of research that found that fear of nuclear war was the second most common fear amongst American children during the Cold War, and it was the most common fear in Russian children. So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Putin capitalised on that fear.[/quote]
Absolutely! That also provides him with the power of his people, they are thinking he is making Russia great & protecting his people at all costs. I would imagine similar conversations are being held amongst the Russian ppl but with the west being the aggressor. This also plays into Putins hands in many ways, perhaps Russian ppl want Putin to remain as they find comfort in knowing he will protect them. They more than likely think of Putin goes are we all at risk by now having a strong leader. We simply do not know what Russian ppl are thinking right now. Sky news reported that a Russian/Ukrainian family who’s Russian mother refused to believe her Ukrainian DIL when being told they were bombing civilians. The Ukrainian mayor who’s son was captured after a jet was shot down - fighting for the Russians. 2016 Russian brought a resolution to the table regarding combatting natzism, Neo-Natzism etc, only two countries opposed this, USA & Ukraine. This supports what Putin is saying & gives him the opportunity to paint the ideal picture

@EsmaCannonball

Journalists reporting that Russia was unable to re-supply from Belarus to Ukraine today as Belarusian railway workers have sabotaged the lines. That's more like it.

Excellent!

I'm surprised how many times recently its been suggested that leaders are mentally ill or have degenerative diseases.

No. They have to be born into elites anyway nowadays and willing to screw over everybody to get to the top. Some people really just don't care about others. In some cultures or ways of thinking, male social status rests on screwing others over, or on killing them. It's as simple as that.

Realistically it’s men who are the problem…many men mentioned but very few women (apart from puppet mayor installed by Russia)

@KevinTurvysGravy

Realistically it’s men who are the problem…many men mentioned but very few women (apart from puppet mayor installed by Russia)

It's people who believe war is the answer to an issue that are the problem - there are many on this thread.

@Shuuu

I would imagine similar conversations are being held amongst the Russian ppl but with the west being the aggressor.

I read an article in (I think) The Guardian a few days ago where they'd interviewed young Muscovites. While lamenting what they understood to be going on, one stated that Russia had had no choice as Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons.

[quote Yeahthat]@Shuuu

I would imagine similar conversations are being held amongst the Russian ppl but with the west being the aggressor.

I read an article in (I think) The Guardian a few days ago where they'd interviewed young Muscovites. While lamenting what they understood to be going on, one stated that Russia had had no choice as Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons.[/quote]
If you remember that’s the same excuse USA used with iraq

I think it's easy to label Putin as any number of things because it helps us in the West to quantify his behaviour - we simply cannot understand why someone would be willing to authorise such atrocities without them being affected by some kind of mental disorder.

Ultimately, he's a product of his background and environment. He was a KGB agent, he would have been trained and hardened and formed very specifically into the kind of man we see now. It doesn't mean he's mad.