News War with Russia

BloodOmen

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
17,305
So apparently, men of all ages have started getting mobilization orders from Russian military. I feel a lot of Russian civilians with no military training are about to die in the Ukraine.

Also, this picture sums up the Ukraine nicely

1652085802766.png
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
Not sure how much good untrained conscripts in WW2-era kit are going to do against an experienced Ukrainian army with reasonably modern weaponry.

I think Putin has lost it. Proper Hitler-style delusion.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
42,984
More meat for the grinder. Someone has to put him out of his madness pretty sharpish or Russia is finished.
 

BloodOmen

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
17,305
Not sure how much good untrained conscripts in WW2-era kit are going to do against an experienced Ukrainian army with reasonably modern weaponry.

I think Putin has lost it. Proper Hitler-style delusion.
If not even trained soldiers could take the Ukraine I have no idea what he expects Civilians to do, he's just sending them to their deaths.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
On the face of it - it looks like Ukraine is playing silly beggars with a big pipeline that's delivering gas from Russia to Europe in an effort to, perhaps, draw us in.

I find it highly unlikely that Russia want to threaten their billion dollars a day. Aside from anything else, it's helping fund their war effort.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
On the face of it - it looks like Ukraine is playing silly beggars with a big pipeline that's delivering gas from Russia to Europe in an effort to, perhaps, draw us in.

I find it highly unlikely that Russia want to threaten their billion dollars a day. Aside from anything else, it's helping fund their war effort.
Or in an effort, quite understandably, to deny Russia the income it needs to continue the war against it?

On the other hand though, if the gas goes through Ukraine, it is supposed to get transit fees from Russia. That's why Russia wanted Nordstream 2 to cut Ukraine out and make the invasion simpler.

Either way, I'm not having any sympathy for the poor Russian gas.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
I don't give a shit about "poor Russian gas" @Wij. I'm saying that Ukraine might be trying to force our hand on increased involvement - trying to drag us into their conflict to a greater level by denying us the gas Russia is happy to deliver to us. That is clear.

Do you want increased involvement? Maybe military involvement? Does not that big red button give you pause if we end up going down that road?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
Frankly that whole line of argument smells of bullshit to me.

Ukraine wants more Western involvement anyway and is saying so openly.

They are also pleading Western governments to get themselves off Russian gas. But somehow they are relying on our need of Russian gas too as a key plank in their 'forcing our hand' strategy. Talk about mixed messages.

Seems just like a talking point to me rather than serious analysis.

And we still can't give in to nuclear blackmail. That would give Putin control over everything we do. We need to keep calling his bluff because he doesn't want the world destroyed either. He's made nuclear threats about everything we've done so far but we went ahead anyway and did them because we knew it was bullshit and you can't just let Russia dictate to the rest of the world.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
Ukraine wants more Western involvement anyway and is saying so openly.

They are also pleading Western governments to get themselves off Russian gas. But somehow they are relying on our need of Russian gas too as a key plank in their 'forcing our hand' strategy. Talk about mixed messages.
It's not mixed messages at all. It's all about timing.

1) Short term - Ukraine wants our involvement. Today. So it looks like they're doing what Russia is refusing to do - shutting off our gas supply. We might have to get more involved if we can't compensate for the lack of gas.

2) Long term - Ukraine wants us off Russian gas - because if we weren't dependent on it in the first place then we'd have been able to bring lots more pressure to bear (like actual real sanctions with actual real teeth) against Russia.

It's not a mixed message at all. Ukraine has a need today and a "desire" long term. Whether they'll still be about in the same form in 12 or 18 months time might have a bearing on the second - but right now, they're cutting our gas supplies, because it's something they can do.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
Oh, and calling bluffs on nuclear over something like Ukraine is a stupidly risky game.

Putin could quite easily drop a few nukes and absolve himself off responsibility for "destroying the world" - because that outcome isn't solely dependent on him. (Although, willingness to use nukes will inevitably bring on that eventuality IMO).

You're the guys who keep calling him "insane" btw. And you want to play chicken with an insane man?
 
Last edited:

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,539
I place my faith in the armed forces of Russia, who I suspect would put a bullet in his head before we got anywhere near that point.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
Willing to risk the whole world on that bit of faith?

I mean, if they're going to do it, then every set of armed forces should do it before nukes start flying right? And is MAD predicated on any leader not being able to launch their nukes? That's very optimistic thinking there - especially considering the narrative in Russia is very very different from the narrative being presented here.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726

It was “insane”, US president John F Kennedy felt, that “two men, sitting on the opposite sides of the world, should be able to decide to bring an end to civilisation”.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
I don't know why you choose to believe the Russian version of events over the Ukrainian one in the first place to be honest:


We HAVE to call Putin's bluff on nuclear threats. Once you've set a precedent otherwise he can make any demand he likes. Occupy Ukraine. Then Moldova. Then Romania.

Ukrainians accepting Russian rule would be signing their own death warrants. We don't get to demand they do that.

Besides, providing arms to Ukraine is perfectly legal under international law. They have the right to defend themselves and get necessary arms to that end. What's illegal is attempting to annex your neighbour.

I'm aware that nuclear war would mean 99.9% of the world's population dying, mainly t through starvation in the following year. I grew up in the 80s. Nuclear holocaust is terrifying. The rational response to that though is not to accept that those with nukes must be given whatever they demand, however unreasonable. That would set a precedent that others would follow, making that holocaust pretty inevitable.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
I don't know why you choose to believe the Russian version of events
I haven't read the Russian version of events - I've read this, from your article:

Ukraine’s gas grid operator says it is cutting Russian gas flowing to Europe
And the reason why I'm thinking Ukraine is doing it is because Russia won't want to endanger their $1bn/day.



On the nuke thing - I'm not saying we should give in to demands. But if we go in with our military, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that he may use them. Ukraine would love us to go in with our military - they're desparate - but fuck them - Ukraine isn't worth that risk.

Question: By "call his bluff" - what, exactly, do you mean? How do you call his bluff?

Do you want us to go in with our military? Engage Russia in a ground war?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
I haven't read the Russian version of events - I've read this, from your article:



And the reason why I'm thinking Ukraine is doing it is because Russia won't want to endanger their $1bn/day.



On the nuke thing - I'm not saying we should give in to demands. But if we go in with our military, then it's perfectly reasonable to expect that he may use them. Ukraine would love us to go in with our military - they're desparate - but fuck them - Ukraine isn't worth that risk.

Question: By "call his bluff" - what, exactly, do you mean? How do you call his bluff?

Do you want us to go in with our military? Engage Russia in a ground war?
Read a bit further:

The Ukrainian operator said it would temporarily shift capacity to another entry point to ensure continued gas flows to Europe.
I never said we should go in with our military. At all. I even said specifically a while ago that a no-fly-zone wasn't wise, and we aren't doing it.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
On whatever the Ukrainian gas operator is saying then meh. If the gas is flowing, we ain't doing owt. Could all be a smokescreen to make us go "oooh, gas is under threat" - until it stops it's a non-story tbh.

But sorry - @Wij - to press you:
Question: By "call his bluff" - what, exactly, do you mean? How do you call his bluff?

Do you want us to go in with our military? Engage Russia in a ground war?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
We continue to supply the arms Ukraine needs to defend itself and allow other states to join NATO if they wish.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
He's not threatening Nuclear Action over our current arms supply or indeed Finland joining NATO.

Absolutely I'd expect Russia to respond if Finland joined NATO and NATO had a much bigger border directly with Russia. Why wouldn't he? But that's not a nuclear response. Unless - like people here keep saying - that he's properly bonkers.

Either way - none of this is "calling his bluff" over Nuclear.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
He's not threatening Nuclear Action over our current arms supply or indeed Finland joining NATO.

Absolutely I'd expect Russia to respond if Finland joined NATO and NATO had a much bigger border directly with Russia. Why wouldn't he? But that's not a nuclear response. Unless - like people here keep saying - that he's properly bonkers.

Either way - none of this is "calling his bluff" over Nuclear.
He has warned of 'consequences' for any of this and the threat of nuclear is always implied.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
32,726
I think the threat of nuclear is if we get militarily involved. And I fully expect him to press the button if we do (dependent on threat).

He's not going to nuke anyone over Finland joining NATO. Or, indeed, if all the fence-sitters do.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,650
I think the threat of nuclear is if we get militarily involved. And I fully expect him to press the button if we do (dependent on threat).

He's not going to nuke anyone over Finland joining NATO. Or, indeed, if all the fence-sitters do.
But he is rattling the nuclear sabre over all of this. Hence we need to call his bluff on them.
 

Yoni

Cockb@dger / Klotehommel www.lhw.photography
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
4,888
The UK signed a security deal with Sweden yesterday and I believe we will know more in the next few days about Nato (which I believe we will join).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom