Ukraine Invasion Part 18

[Ijsbear]

Place for information, discussion, points of view, useful links and above all, a hope that this sovereign land can regain its freedom.

I agree bread

I'd give him 36 hours to get all the murderers, child killers and rapists out first. Deal with them later.

You have 3 days to leave as we are coming over the borders. You are a war criminal and this is European soil. Get out. Make safe.

Toast
That felt directed at me so I'll answer. No one is chomping at the bit for a shitty war., especially with the dirty Putin army

Showing strength to Putin is not dragging us into war. Appeasement will drag us on eventually whether we like it or not.

There's not a chance in hell Putins rusty bucket military will stand up against NATO troops once they know they're coming in.

Honestly, play the bastard at his own game.

@TiddyTidTwo

Toast That felt directed at me so I'll answer. No one is chomping at the bit for a shitty war., especially with the dirty Putin army

Showing strength to Putin is not dragging us into war. Appeasement will drag us on eventually whether we like it or not.

There's not a chance in hell Putins rusty bucket military will stand up against NATO troops once they know they're coming in.

Honestly, play the bastard at his own game.

It feels a bit like that's exactly what people are doing, though, because this will undoubtedly turn into a shitty war if NATO do what you propose.

Are there any winners in war? Really? Pretty pyrrhic victory. I've no doubt that NATO could defeat Putin's army in a fair fight, but nuclear weapons means there isn't a fair fight to be had. No one's a winner in war, it's a shame no one seems to have learned that in Afghanistan.

And I still think the 3 days for NATO to win prediction is pulled out of someone's arse. We didn't win in Afghanistan with far superior training, weapons and equipment. We might "win" in the end, but I don't know many people who think it'll be as easy as you're projecting.

Afghanistan was a shit show. All the British military did after the fighting for 20 years to try and turn that country around was undone in weeks. Appalling.

That doesn't mean the same now though.

We cannot hold back because of before. I honestly think if we threaten Putin back and put the thumbscrews on it wont end up in war. I think he will scrabble and take something to save face. He can't fight nato, he knows it hence he uses threats.

But as it is he's doing as he pleases and that's not on.

@Flapjacker48

We won't be "going in" at any point.

I agree that we won't and the very fact we are unprepared to do so is what gives Putin his upper hand.

I don't want war. I abhor it.

I do however have a good academic background in the history of warfare and my personal assessment is that we end this now or we spend the next 5 years in a stand off that makes the necessity to intervene even more urgent and at a point where Putin (or ideological successor) has regrouped in a nation that is now cut off from Europe and has nothing to lose - where right now they do.

toastfiend there is not much worse that Russia can do - ok, chemical and nukes. Nobody wants all out war but what about taking out more oil depots, airports and warships which support the Russian military campaign.

@blueshoes

toastfiend there is not much worse that Russia can do - ok, chemical and nukes. Nobody wants all out war but what about taking out more oil depots, airports and warships which support the Russian military campaign.

Chemical and nukes are pretty significant in terms of "not much worse" - no?

I disagree that nobody wants all out war, too. There are posters on this thread who have been very clear on multiple occasions that all out war is a palatable option for them.

I think he's going to use chemical weapons on Kyiv or a tactical nuke as he's losing the war.

I'd rather we step in before that.

Like we did with Iraq (cough) but this time we know it could happen

I definitely do not want all out war. Putins army is dirty. I honestly think we can push Putin back without resorting to that. But he's got to know that we will resort to that. Boots on the ground is the absolute last resort. We have many avenues before that.

@toastfiend

I find it interesting the hawkish sentiments often passed off as "it's because I'm ex-serving."

My DH is currently serving, number of tours under his belt (front line), spent time in Ukraine training their military prior to the war, plenty of time under a basha in minus conditions (for the very little that's worth in the context of this thread) - he's horrifed by what is happening, but not chomping at the bit for war the way some on here are, and neither are any of our currently serving friends, who've actually experienced war fighting, when the conversation has come up. There's a consensus that help must be provided, but that it has to be done tactfully to save an even greater waste of civilian life. It's not about sacrificing the Ukrainians to save our own skins, but a broader understanding that going in all guns blazing will destroy even more cities and even more lives. I think also a sense of realism - NATO getting involved doesn't mean we'll have this all done and dusted in 3 days and anyone who thinks it will is deluding themselves.

Thank you for your comments as I really appreciate the difference in perspectives on these threads.

I'm not ex-military and I'm scared witless at the prospect of escalation.

But I genuinely can't see another way forward that does not play into Putin's hands.

He does not abhor war. He sees it as a tool to further his ambitions.

I've tried to have a cool head but based on my historical understanding I cannot fathom how letting Putin succeed in any respect results in a peaceful long term resolution.

Toast

I think advocating to go in is just mad, Joe Cirincione is good on why. Spoiler: we can't be complacent about the nuclear threat. I agree it leads us into a frustrating position where hands are tied. And I wonder, going forward, about what - if anything - can be done to reduce this threat. After this, there will probably be a nuclear double down rather than any movement towards global disarmament. There are lots of great campaigns aimed at reducing and eventually eradicating nuclear weapons. What would it take for them to be successful? Seems nigh on impossible

We will have to go in. We have to. That murdering bastard absolutely cannot take Ukraine. How have we not learned from hitler I can't fathom. All those millions lost to hitler and here we are again...fannying around, walking the tightrope, trying to appease

We aren't appeasing Putin.
So we go in and Putin uses his considerable conventional arsenal to attack European capitols.... what then?

What do we do if he used chemical and/or tactical low yield nuclear weapons?
The boost to his popularity at home would be massive once "Mother Russia" attacked.

Very easy to start wars, not quite so easy to control or limit their spread..

There is loads more we can do militarily without attacking Russia directly... we should legitimately be bring our navies into the Black Sea and lifting Russia's blockade, banning gas imports by supporting countries (financially) without NS gas/oil and supplying Ukraine with far more sophisticated weapons.

Toast.

NATO won't do what mumsnetters ask them to do, so please don't worry on that account.

This is a chat forums where deeply moved and frustrated people are allowed to vent or should be.

As in any chat.

I'd like to think most posters do agree that we the collective West have however allowed atrocious atrocities again and with no plan for Putin...we all have Ukraine blood on our hands?

Brilliant BBC program on Putin by the way...

There are ways of going in though and getting an international forces in to protect Chernobyl should be a priority for Europe's Nuclear safety.
What happend to the other large nuclear plants.

Getting international forces in to clean up, help fast rebuild and give protection to people who lost their homes.

That's not attacked Putin that's nothing too do with Putin at all

That's humanitarian support going too aid traumatized humans.

@PaperTyger

Toast.

NATO won't do what mumsnetters ask them to do, so please don't worry on that account.

This is a chat forums where deeply moved and frustrated people are allowed to vent or should be.

As in any chat.

I'd like to think most posters do agree that we the collective West have however allowed atrocious atrocities again and with no plan for Putin...we all have Ukraine blood on our hands?

Brilliant BBC program on Putin by the way...

I'm aware of that.

I'm not denying anyone's right to express an opinion. As a person who is also frustrated by a lot of the posts I see on here, I am also allowed to make my point. I think sometimes bringing in military experience, current or previous, lends credibility to a poster, in the minds of some, on threads like this. If everyone thinks that 'the military' are champing at the bit to go to war then I can see more people starting to climb on board that train. I was just providing an alternative view - those I know with front line operational experience tend not be so hawkish, perhaps because they have a good idea of what is being advocated for. It's a tiny part of an overall picture, but I think balance is important.

I should add, I'm also not worried. Horrified, yes, I'm no less disgusted by what is happening in Ukraine than those advocating for war, but I'm not speaking from a place of anxiety.

I value your balanced contributions @toastfiend

@PaperTyger

There are ways of going in though and getting an international forces in to protect Chernobyl should be a priority for Europe's Nuclear safety. What happend to the other large nuclear plants.

Getting international forces in to clean up, help fast rebuild and give protection to people who lost their homes.

That's not attacked Putin that's nothing too do with Putin at all

That's humanitarian support going too aid traumatized humans.

Chernobyl is at the far end of Ukraine, as is most of the fighting.

Any international force would primarily comprise of NATO countries and would need massive logistical support, be extremely large, be very well armed & need a shit load of air cover - so basically a USA army.... what happens when Russia attacks such a force with long range Cruise missiles, launched from inside Russia?

Posters specifically named Merkel and other ex EU leaders as being complicit, not the "West collectively, so i agree on your view we are all guilty.

Afp news agency @afp
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky will address the UN Security Council on Tuesday, where he is expected to demand tough new sanctions on Russia over killings in the town of Bucha he has called "war crimes" and "genocide"

I'd like to think most posters do agree that we the collective West have however allowed atrocious atrocities again and with no plan for Putin...we all have Ukraine blood on our hands?

Putin and his army are responsible for the atrocities. If by not "going in" to Ukraine means the West has blood on its hands, then we are awash with blood by not "going in" to all the other wars where atrocities are happening daily.

Escalation will solve nothing. As some expert said a few weeks ago, wars are unpredictable and have a habit of going in unexpected directions.

If we go in, it will mean even more death and destruction.

Btw the French Presidental election is giving me really really bad vibes...

Like seriously bad....

I really feel for Zelenskyy. How he can keep doing all he is doing, keep talking, keep asking…keep getting his requests for meaningful weapons turned down. All the while he is seeing the absolute atrocities the Russians have committed against his people (3 year olds being raped and killed ffs) is just heartbreaking. I don’t know how he can keep going, and yet he has to.