Don't mention the war?

[FritsSikkink]

On 4/14/2022 at 1:19 PM, billd766 said:

try to get your facts a little straighter please. NATO doesn't put ANY arms in ANY countries. They only lay down rules asking that various NATO countries spend 2% of a countries GDP.

The USA does

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I very much doubt you live in Ukraine.

He lives in New Zealand, enough said.

[Lacessit]

How Russia fakes it..........

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/

 

 

[billd766]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The USA does

But the USA is NOT NATO. Only a part of the US military forces are allocated to NATO, the remainder are under US government control.

[KhaoYai]

5 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The USA does

The UK has sent a lot of arms to UK through NATO.

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

The UK has sent a lot of arms to UK through NATO.

I retract that, I have no evidence that shows whether the UK has sent anything through NATO or unilaterally - I simply think they have.

[KhaoYai]

I don't know how Russia has the nerve to threaten the US and others that they must stop supplying arms to Ukraine or face 'unpredictable' consequences.  They say its helping prolong the conflict - more like putting them on the backfoot at the moment.

 

Prolonging a conflict that they started without any justification - they should take note that very few people outside Russia believe the rubbish they put out about why they started the war.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I retract that, I have no evidence that shows whether the UK has sent anything through NATO or unilaterally - I simply think they have.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/ukraine-is-getting-a-massive-shipment-of-uk-weapons-to-fight-russia/

 

RED LINE

Britain and NATO could send troops into Ukraine if it’s proved Russia has used chemical weapons, minister warns Putin

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18238576/britain-nato-troops-ukraine-russia-chemical-weapons/

[KhaoYai]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/ukraine-is-getting-a-massive-shipment-of-uk-weapons-to-fight-russia/

 

RED LINE

Britain and NATO could send troops into Ukraine if it’s proved Russia has used chemical weapons, minister warns Putin

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18238576/britain-nato-troops-ukraine-russia-chemical-weapons/

Yes, I'm aware of both those items.  However, as I said, its not clear if the UK has sent weapons unilaterally or through NATO.

[ozimoron]

A diplomatic note revealed by US media warned Western powers of "unpredictable consequences" if they supplied Ukraine with advanced weaponry.

 

CNN also reported that one source familiar with the document said the complaint could mean Moscow is getting ready to adopt a more aggressive stance against the US and NATO as the invasion of Ukraine continues. 

 

"This new package of assistance will contain many of the highly effective weapons systems we have already provided and new capabilities tailored to the wider assault we expect Russia to launch in eastern Ukraine."

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-16/ukraine-latest-russia-armoured-vehicle-plant-kyiv-warns-us-nato/100995630

[Lacessit]

17 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I don't know how Russia has the nerve to threaten the US and others that they must stop supplying arms to Ukraine or face 'unpredictable' consequences.  They say its helping prolong the conflict - more like putting them on the backfoot at the moment.

 

 

Russia and Putin have their own reality, they are assuming the role of victims.

Yes, it will prolong the conflict, and Putin knows the longer it goes on, the more tenuous his position becomes.

I can't recall any instance where acceding to the demands of a dictator resulted in a better outcome for anyone except said dictator.

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

CNN also reported that one source familiar with the document said the complaint could mean Moscow is getting ready to adopt a more aggressive stance against the US and NATO as the invasion of Ukraine continues. 

Trying to look at it from Putin's point of view (if that's possible) - he's in a diffcult position.  He's lost in the North but will not mention that or say it was part of his strategy in some way.  He must now be worrying that he may not win in Eastern Ukraine if Ukraine continues to receive arms from the West.

 

He therefore reverts to making threats again but what are his options:

 

Nuclear?  His losses would be greater and having seen how his conventional weapons perfom, there must now be doubts regarding Russia's nuclear capability. I believe that any nuclear attack on Ukraine would surely bring NATO into the conflict immediately.

 

Chemical? Again, I believe that would trigger a NATO response.

 

Attack the incoming arms deliveries? Probably more likely but again he risks NATO becoming involved.

 

However, the man is unhinged and therefore unpredictable. He is also, finished politically if he doesn't gain anything from this war so he may getting more and more desparate.

[ozimoron]

Putin can't take much more of this: What lies ahead, defeat or apocalypse?

With the sinking of the Moskva, Putin's war has become an almost unthinkable disaster. That increases the danger

 

https://www.salon.com/2022/04/16/putin-cant-take-much-more-of-this-what-lies-ahead-defeat-or-apocalypse/

[KhaoYai]

I despair - sometimes I switch from watching news organistations based in Europe, mainy the BBC and watch stations such as Al Jazeera.  All Jazeera is not exactly known for its support of the West so I believe listening to their perspective might just add a little balance to the current conflict in Ukraine.

 

Today they have been running a special report regarding the situation in the the Balkans. I don't want to go off topic but what I heard today helps to explain who are and who are not, the trouble causers in eastern Europe. It also makes a nonsense of Putin's claim that the war in Ukraine has been caused by the threat of a NATO member on his border.

 

Apparenlty the situation in the Balkans is on a knife edge once again - stirred up by Milorad Dodik a known Putin sympathiser and who, its said, is receiving backing from him.

 

I had missed this but in March 2021 the Russians threatened they will be forced to take action if Bosnia & Herzegovina continues steps to join NATO after the organisation 'officially recognises three states which have formally expressed their membership aspirations: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine.' Bosnia Herzegovina is clearly not on Russia's border.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

 

It seems to me that unless Putin and his cronies in other countries can somehow be removed, at some point in the not too far distant future a major war in Europe - even WW3 is inevitable.

 

Why the hell can't people just learn to live together? We have a much bigger crisis to deal with if we are to survive - climate change. That has no political, religious or economic allegiances. Climate change will affect us all - even the greedy and selfish. Those who don't care about anything unless its on their doorstep (for example Thailand) will have to realise that actions taken thousands of miles away affects them.  Its no longer sensible to not care about things unless they directly affect you - the world and the actions of its inhabitants are all inextricably interlinked.

 

I'm pessemistic that we will ever either have a largely peaceful world or tackle climate change. The most intelligent species???

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

Your posts come across as an anti Ukraine, NATO and the west. They have little to say of substance to justify the invasion, the actions taken by the invaders, and what a better response by the west should be. I said as much directly to Mac Mickmanus a few pages back but no response.

Mac Mickmanus is dismissive of those showing significant concern about a leader who is in control of nuclear weapons, is threating to use them, and who is personally responsible for the devastation and deaths in Ukraine.

ThaiBeachLovers says there needs to be balance about Putin being good or bad and suggesting crimes happen in any war. 

You both appear to tell us above what Putin is not in your eyes. It would be good to hear what he is, and a justification for the actions of Putin and or Russia, if you think it is appropriate. 

Please stop making things up that I didn't say. I said I was trying to bring balance to the debate, not about Putin being good or bad.

Crimes happen in every war- it goes with putting thousands of angry guys into a situation where they fear for their lives all the time. Vietnam war had plenty of war crimes by both sides, and the Iraq war also ( but perhaps not as many on Allied side due to presence of media ), so not just something happens in Ukraine.

 

Far as I'm concerned Putin is just another dictator in a long line of dictators in many countries. So far he hasn't equaled the death toll of some like Stalin or Mao.

Given I haven't "justified" Putin's actions in Ukraine, I don't have to give any reasons, but it behooves us to look at both sides of any conflict if we want to understand what is going on.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I despair - sometimes I switch from watching news organistations based in Europe, mainy the BBC and watch stations such as Al Jazeera.  All Jazeera is not exactly known for its support of the West so I believe listening to their perspective might just add a little balance to the current conflict in Ukraine.

 

 

I gave up watching the BBC long ago given it's IMO pathetic reporting. They seem to spend more time telling us how great they are than reporting news from around the world, unless we consider Africa to be the most important part of the planet, and they spent far too much time on football.

Al Jazeera is IMO the best tv news source out there, but it is IMO blatantly biased on certain subjects.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Why the hell can't people just learn to live together? We have a much bigger crisis to deal with if we are to survive - climate change. That has no political, religious or economic allegiances. Climate change will affect us all - even the greedy and selfish. Those who don't care about anything unless its on their doorstep (for example Thailand) will have to realise that actions taken thousands of miles away affects them.  Its no longer sensible to not care about things unless they directly affect you - the world and the actions of its inhabitants are all inextricably interlinked.

 

I'm pessemistic that we will ever either have a largely peaceful world or tackle climate change. The most intelligent species???

Genetics. We are programmed to fear the "other" as a survival mechanism. Humans stood little chance against a large predator like a sabre toothed tiger.

The sabre toothed tigers are long gone, but the genetic imperative remains. Hence we are a tribal species that fear other tribes.

 

You are correct to be pessimistic.

IMO we will never have a peaceful planet because of genetics and greed. What sane species would destroy the great forests so they could grow palm oil trees or raise cattle to make hamburgers?

 

None of the above threatened the survival of the human race till WE invented the means of our own destruction- the atomic bomb. The ability of a small group of people to annihilate us and most species on the planet in nuclear winter means IMO that eventually we really are doomed.

 

Of course Gaia may decide that we are just a bad species and eliminate us, perhaps with a highly transmissible virus or a massive solar flare that destroys all our computers or something like that.

 

Climate change is for a different thread.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/ukraine-is-getting-a-massive-shipment-of-uk-weapons-to-fight-russia/

 

RED LINE

Britain and NATO could send troops into Ukraine if it’s proved Russia has used chemical weapons, minister warns Putin

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18238576/britain-nato-troops-ukraine-russia-chemical-weapons/

That would IMO be the start of WW3 and I can't believe that any sane person wants that. I hope the minister wasn't repeating official government policy.

 

I very much doubt Britain could invade on it's own given the destruction reduction of it's once great military by British politicians. Back in the glory days of BAOR perhaps, but not now.

[Mac Mickmanus]

16 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

Your posts come across as an anti Ukraine, NATO and the west. They have little to say of substance to justify the invasion, the actions taken by the invaders, and what a better response by the west should be. I said as much directly to Mac Mickmanus a few pages back but no response.

Mac Mickmanus is dismissive of those showing significant concern about a leader who is in control of nuclear weapons, is threating to use them, and who is personally responsible for the devastation and deaths in Ukraine.

 

All Countries that have Nuclear weapons would use them if they felt that it was necessary and no Country would say "No, we would never use our Nuclear Weapons under any circumstances".

   That is how fear mongering works , get a Journalist to ask Putin if he would use Nukes and when he states he would (hes hardly going to say anything different ) , head line is "Putin threatens to use Nuclear Bombs .

   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

   

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Genetics. We are programmed to fear the "other" as a survival mechanism. Humans stood little chance against a large predator like a sabre toothed tiger.

The sabre toothed tigers are long gone, but the genetic imperative remains. Hence we are a tribal species that fear other tribes.

 

You are correct to be pessimistic.

IMO we will never have a peaceful planet because of genetics and greed. What sane species would destroy the great forests so they could grow palm oil trees or raise cattle to make hamburgers?

 

None of the above threatened the survival of the human race till WE invented the means of our own destruction- the atomic bomb. The ability of a small group of people to annihilate us and most species on the planet in nuclear winter means IMO that eventually we really are doomed.

 

Of course Gaia may decide that we are just a bad species and eliminate us, perhaps with a highly transmissible virus or a massive solar flare that destroys all our computers or something like that.

 

Climate change is for a different thread.

I'm shocked that we almost agree on most of that.  Where I disagree is that although you don't use the term 'all of us', its implicit throughout your post and I can't agree - we are not all programmed that way.

 

Greed does not exist in all of us but where it does, it's the root of all evil.  Greed for money, greed for power, greed for whatever, selfishness - it exists and those of us that are not programmed that way simply can't understand it.  I for example, could easily have made a lot more money than I have in my life but that would not occurred without cheating in some way.

 

I know 2 or 3 people that have made it big and not one of them did it without either criminal activity, under-paying their staff, lying on their tax return, handing over brown envelopes or some other form of nefarious activity.  Its a myth that hard work alone leads to riches.  I've raised myself from what I was born into but that's as far as it goes, I've never had the slightest craving to be rich - just to have enough. Nor could I possibly cheat anyone, use them  as a  'step up' or commit any other similar form of activity, I just wasn't born that way. That does not mean I'm an angel, far from it but I've tried to help people all my life and yes, I've been sh&£ on as a result but I can't and won't change who I am. People do things to others that are just not in my DNA.

 

As I say, we are not all programmed the way you say but perhaps by knowing that you are as pessemistic as I am about the survival of our species, I can understand but not agree with, your apparently 'couldn't give a damn about things that don't concern me' attitude.

 

Yes, I'm pessemistic but I'm not hopeless, I have 5 grandchildren and I must hope that for their sake, this world sorts itself out somehow.

 

One other slight disagreement - I think climate change is entirely relevant in both a negative and postitive way.  Negative in that those involved are totally distracted at a time where we are reliably told that if we don't act now, we will 'miss the bus'. Positive in that as a result of the desire to remove reliance on Russian fossil fuels, several countries are speeding up their renewables programmes.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I gave up watching the BBC long ago given it's IMO pathetic reporting. They seem to spend more time telling us how great they are than reporting news from around the world, unless we consider Africa to be the most important part of the planet, and they spent far too much time on football.

Al Jazeera is IMO the best tv news source out there, but it is IMO blatantly biased on certain subjects.

Now on that, I don't agree apart from on the football bit. I watch the BBC news channel quite a lot and they've rarely mentioned Africa recently - they have at least 5 journalists in Ukraine at the moment and their coverage has been excellent.  They rarely report on anything until its been verified and when they do, they say so.

 

For some strange reason their has been very little 'military coverage' in this war - very few satellite images or drone videos. For example, I am absolutely certain that the Americans will know exactly what happened to Russian ship, Moskva - they have intelligence satellites over the region most if not all the time yet nothing's been shown.  I thought that was just a BBC policy for a while but the other channels are just the same.  It may well be considered secret but its been available in other recent conflicts.

 

Al Jazeera - well they are an islamist channel.  However they are singing the same song as most on the war in the Ukraine - who isn't?  Well RT for one and I don't blame the UK and other countries for taking them off air.  There should always be room for an alternative view but not total lies and propaganda.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

All Countries that have Nuclear weapons would use them if they felt that it was necessary and no Country would say "No, we would never use our Nuclear Weapons under any circumstances".

   That is how fear mongering works , get a Journalist to ask Putin if he would use Nukes and when he states he would (hes hardly going to say anything different ) , head line is "Putin threatens to use Nuclear Bombs .

   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

   

1992:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Moldova. 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Moldova and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2008:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Georgia . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Georgia and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2014:  I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Crimea . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2022:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

[KhaoYai]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

I seem to remember reading that many people said the similar things about Germany in 1938/9.

 

Its far more than that - try reading other news from around the region as I did today.  Putin has far bigger aspirations - he's still testing the West to see how far we'll go.

 

He's spent years covertly de-stabilising the region, making allies and backing separatists.  Why do you think he's been doing that?

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

All Countries that have Nuclear weapons would use them if they felt that it was necessary and no Country would say "No, we would never use our Nuclear Weapons under any circumstances".

   That is how fear mongering works , get a Journalist to ask Putin if he would use Nukes and when he states he would (hes hardly going to say anything different ) , head line is "Putin threatens to use Nuclear Bombs .

   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine

   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

   

Just a squabble? That's just RIDICULOUS.

 

I suppose that's the line of denialist isolationists but it just isn't true. 

There are always those elements, like the Hitler admiring "America First" Lindbergh faction in the U.S. during World War 2.  Tucker Carlson / many trumpists today. 

 

This is a war with very significant global implications and yes it matters very much who wins.

 

Putin’s Ukraine War Is the West’s Biggest Test Since World War II (foreignpolicy.com)

Quote

 

Why Putin’s War Is the West’s Biggest Test Since World War II

There is every indication the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been plotted for maximum global impact.

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

1992:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Moldova. 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Moldova and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2008:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Georgia . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Georgia and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2014:  I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Crimea . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

 

2022:   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

They are all Countries in the former USSR and have affiliations with Moscow .

It only needs to our concern if Moscow decides to war with Countries who were not part on the USSR . 

   Until then, its nothing to do with NATO Countries 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I seem to remember reading that many people said the similar things about Germany in 1938/9.

 

Its far more than that - try reading other news from around the region as I did today.  Putin has far bigger aspirations - he's still testing the West to see how far we'll go.

 

He's spent years covertly de-stabilising the region, making allies and backing separatists.  Why do you think he's been doing that?

Imagine how differently history would have played out if, instead of giving Hitler the go-ahead to annex the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia with its formidable border defenses, Chamberlain and other western leaders had made it clear that they would give Czechoslovakia whatever support it needed to defend itself against a German invasion.

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I seem to remember reading that many people said the similar things about Germany in 1938/9.

 

Its far more than that - try reading other news from around the region as I did today.  Putin has far bigger aspirations - he's still testing the West to see how far we'll go.

 

He's spent years covertly de-stabilising the region, making allies and backing separatists.  Why do you think he's been doing that?

Absolutely. The American First movement in the U.S. Not the Trump one. The Lindbergh one. Not an accident that is was copied. White nationalist Lindbergh viewed the WW2 European conflict as a fraternal squabble of no concern to the rest of the world.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They are all Countries in the former USSR and have affiliations with Moscow .

It only needs to our concern if Moscow decides to war with Countries who were not part on the USSR . 

   Until then, its nothing to do with NATO Countries 

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are all former members of the USSR and NATO members. 

 

They became NATO members because they don't want to be dominated by or annexed by Russia.

 

It's easy to see why they don't want to be part of Russia; they are all doing much better on a per capita GDP basis than Russia.  They are also much freer.

[KhaoYai]

18 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 Until then, its nothing to do with NATO Countries 

The fact that NATO countries have sent billions of dollars worth of arms to the Ukraine suggests otherwise - as does the fact that NATO has stated it has 'red lines'.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

All Countries that have Nuclear weapons would use them if they felt that it was necessary and no Country would say "No, we would never use our Nuclear Weapons under any circumstances".

   That is how fear mongering works , get a Journalist to ask Putin if he would use Nukes and when he states he would (hes hardly going to say anything different ) , head line is "Putin threatens to use Nuclear Bombs .

   I will get concerned if Russia goes on to invade Countries outside of Ukraine . 

Its currently just a squabble between Russia and Ukraine and theres no need for anyone else to get involved 

   

Time for you to get concerned. Russia has already invaded other countries.

Russian military presence in Transnistria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_presence_in_Transnistria

 

Occupied territories of Georgia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territories_of_Georgia#:~:text=Russian troops were placed in,the demarcation lines with Georgia.