Defiant Putin warns the west: your sanctions are akin to an act of war

coluka said:
I am debating honestly. Happy or willing (i think its a moot point anyway) it is a more than likely consequence Imho. The UK is more than likely a first target to hit than anywhere else. We are an Island away from USA and mainland Europe. If he wanted to send a single strike as a warning and if I was him I would choose the UK. I would be torn as to where perhaps RAF Fylingdales (think about it the consequences for Teesside and where I live. I doubt London would be used as a warning. He has shown that life to him has no value unless under his control.

Nato is a line in the sand due to the actual written agreed pact. It is a defensive pact not an aggressive one. Attacking a country in defence of a non Nato country risks breaking Nato apart were we to do so. All members would need to agree otherwise it becomes a free for all. He is a 69 year old man with alleged health issues, what has he personally got to lose?
Click to expand...
I genuinely think you're over stating the importance of the UK. For various reasons we always fading into weak insignificance. It would be foolish for Putin to procoke the US and other NATO countries on an attack that doesn't gain him anything.
 
coluka said:
Nato is a line in the sand due to the actual written agreed pact. It is a defensive pact not an aggressive one. Attacking a country in defence of a non Nato country risks breaking Nato apart were we to do so. All members would need to agree otherwise it becomes a free for all. He is a 69 year old man with alleged health issues, what has he personally got to lose?
Click to expand...

Which doesn't answer my question. Assuming putin attacks a nato country, any militay action would result in the same risk of nuclear war as defending the soveirignty of a non NATO country. I don't see the difference, pact aside. Surely you believe that pact or no, we should stand by and watch Poland get invaded, because that would cost less lives?

You believe because he is 69 and ill that he doesn't want to cling to whatever time has has left?

Furthermore, I don't know what mechanisms ae in place in Russia re a nuclear strike, but if it's anything like the rest of the world, him being nuts wouldn't matterr. It would require others to be equally insane.
 
Erimus74 said:
You would hope his daughters & grandchild for starters
Click to expand...
They have currently been moved to his Mountain town I read in one article, how true? I have no idea. The thing is do you believe he thinks or has a conscience like you and I? I don’t anyway.
 
coluka said:
They have currently been moved to his Mountain town I read in one article, how true? I have no idea. The thing is do you believe he thinks or has a conscience like you and I? I don’t anyway.
Click to expand...
You would hope so coluka, wouldnt you?

If hes moved them to a 'safe bunker', hes obviously worried about their safety
 
Laughing said:
Not really, I don't believe for a minute a nuclear weapon would be used. I think that is a very unlikely. As the conflict goes on, I more and more believe that we shouldn't be held to ransom and we should put boots on the ground. By we I mean NATO. Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.
Click to expand...

You might not believe for a minute he would use nuclear weapons but all of the experts I've heard or read, who know what they are talking about believe he absolutely would.
I also dont think it accurately creates a true picture of the potential situation to use the phrase "though the heavens may fall". I think "though it would start world war 3 and a nuclear catastrophe that would prematurely end the lives of billions of men, women and children, and humankind as a species " would cover it.
 
Laughing said:
Which doesn't answer my question. Assuming putin attacks a nato country, any militay action would result in the same risk of nuclear war as defending the soveirignty of a non NATO country. I don't see the difference, pact aside. Surely you believe that pact or no, we should stand by and watch Poland get invaded, because that would cost less lives?

You believe because he is 69 and ill that he doesn't want to cling to whatever time has has left?

Furthermore, I don't know what mechanisms ae in place in Russia re a nuclear strike, but if it's anything like the rest of the world, him being nuts wouldn't matterr. It would require others to be equally insane.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. If all Nato members can’t or wont agree on any intervention in Ukraine, yet some or one country decides to do so, then it will be made clear that the NATO pact would not apply, otherwise one country can unilaterally force all into war whether they agree or not. Such an instance would break Nato apart as it would be an offensive move not a defensive act.

If UK sent in troops or the RAF, that means war with Russia. If the rest of Nato said no, but we went in anyway, we would be in breach of Nato rules and be a sitting duck. It will not happen as we have to all be united as that is where the strength in Nato is.

It is awful witnessing what we see, how he is carrying on. Putin is Blofeld with nukes, James Bond however does not exist. We can not risk the safety of the free world, we can only protect our allies and hope they will protect us, but that comes with agreement not splitting Nato apart. How did you feel about Iraq, Libya, Syria? You did not answer about my question on Yemen, Myanmar, China btw.

As for his age I don’t know what is in his head, I doubt many can 2nd guess him. He does not like losing anymore than the kid playing monopoly and is losing so tips the whole board over. The danger is in assuming he will be rational, some folk just aren’t. As for the checks and balances, we assume they will be there, but we also know he lies and manipulates through fear, I hope someone would have sense but it would need more than one man to step in. You can’t assume anything with Putin or his henchmen imho, to do so is dangerous in the extreme.
 
Erimus74 said:
You would hope so coluka, wouldnt you?

If hes moved them to a 'safe bunker', hes obviously worried about their safety
Click to expand...
Their safety yes, he is demonstrating to the world he does not care about anyone else’s though and that is the point.
 
coluka said:
I don’t agree. If all Nato members can’t or wont agree on any intervention in Ukraine, yet some or one country decides to do so, then it will be made clear that the NATO pact would not apply, otherwise one country can unilaterally force all into war whether they agree or not. Such an instance would break Nato apart as it would be an offensive move not a defensive act.

If UK sent in troops or the RAF, that means war with Russia. If the rest of Nato said no, but we went in anyway, we would be in breach of Nato rules and be a sitting duck. It will not happen as we have to all be united as that is where the strength in Nato is.

It is awful witnessing what we see, how he is carrying on. Putin is Blofeld with nukes, James Bond however does not exist. We can not risk the safety of the free world, we can only protect our allies and hope they will protect us, but that comes with agreement not splitting Nato apart. How did you feel about Iraq, Libya, Syria? You did not answer about my question on Yemen, Myanmar, China btw.

As for his age I don’t know what is in his head, I doubt many can 2nd guess him. He does not like losing anymore than the kid playing monopoly and is losing so tips the whole board over. The danger is in assuming he will be rational, some folk just aren’t. As for the checks and balances, we assume they will be there, but we also know he lies and manipulates through fear, I hope someone would have sense but it would need more than one man to step in. You can’t assume anything with Putin or his henchmen imho, to do so is dangerous in the extreme.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said we, meaning nato. I don't think the uk should unilaterally get involved for the reasons you have given.

I do think nato should. All the arguments for why nato isn't getting involved now, would still hold true in the event a nato country is invaded.
 
Malta never backed down to Hitler, despite being bombed more than the The UK as a whole.

There are some very brave men women and children on this earth, my prayers go to the Eucranians.
 
Laughing said:
Which is why I said we, meaning nato. I don't think the uk should unilaterally get involved for the reasons you have given.

I do think nato should. All the arguments for why nato isn't getting involved now, would still hold true in the event a nato country is invaded.
Click to expand...
If all Nato agreed and intervened, Nato seem to believe Nuclear war would happen hence the sanctions. We are not prepared for Nuclear war Russia will be better prepared. Where are the nuclear bunkers for ordinary folk in the towns and cities? London has some provisions, wealthy people may have their own the majority do not. Animals and the wider food chain implications do not. Safe drinking water supply etc etc. It is awful to stand by on the sidelines i agree, the alternative is likely much worse though. You have still avoided Myanmar, Yemen, China and other genocides and war atrocities. I might be wrong but i thought you were against us going into Syria, Libya and Iraq? (Apologies if i am wrong). Why Ukraine but not Yemen, Myanmar? Should Nato sort out the Chinese genocide? NATO is a defensive pact, You appear to think Nato should change their rules of engagement. I think doing so will cause me and many other people across Europe and America to suffer certain death, disease and famine.
 
coluka said:
If all Nato agreed and intervened, Nato seem to believe Nuclear war would happen hence the sanctions. We are not prepared for Nuclear war Russia will be better prepared. Where are the nuclear bunkers for ordinary folk in the towns and cities? London has some provisions, wealthy people may have their own the majority do not. Animals and the wider food chain implications do not. Safe drinking water supply etc etc. It is awful to stand by on the sidelines i agree, the alternative is likely much worse though. You have still avoided Myanmar, Yemen, China and other genocides and war atrocities. I might be wrong but i thought you were against us going into Syria, Libya and Iraq? (Apologies if i am wrong). Why Ukraine but not Yemen, Myanmar? Should Nato sort out the Chinese genocide? NATO is a defensive pact, You appear to think Nato should change their rules of engagement. I think doing so will cause me and many other people across Europe and America to suffer certain death, disease and famine.
Click to expand...
On nuclear war, I don't think it is very likely, which is probably why we have different opinions on NATO's next steps.

On the subject of Iraq, I was against us going to war on the coat-tails of America because there was no end game, similarly with Afghanistan. I am not against reacting to attrocities, it just seems that the world powers can't seem to do joined up thinking.

I absoloutely think the world should say no, with an armed response, if neccessary, anywhere in the world where innocent people are dying, whether that is due to covid, malaria, war or genocide. I don't agree with "looking after your own" and that borders are idiotic and are man made barriers to keep what we have at the expense of the rest of the world.
 
Hp_Boro said:
Sunk cost fallacy applies to both sides heavily now.

It will be an incredible bit of negotiation if someone manages to pull something diplomatically out of the fire with this. Worthy of all the Nobel peace prizes for ever more.

Notwithstanding his own military's actions, I found it interesting that Putin was more ready to call sanctions an act of war, than even acknowledge the likely billions of military equipment Ukraine has been given being more of red rag. Given that without them Russia would have steamrolled Ukraine in 3 days.
Click to expand...
tells me that he hasn't got military backing for a full NATO war, and has no appetite for it, otherwise, yes he would have called it out and threatened more about the hardware supplies
 
Hp_Boro said:
For all this talk of his health issues, it didnt seem like it at the Aeroflot thing, and I'm mnuch more worried about Biden's health than Putins.
Click to expand...
Kamala Harris would take over, it's no biggie.

As for Putin health, it's known he had cancer and an operation a couple of years ago. It's not really disputed. The disputes are really around his current health. What we do know is that he has zero trust of his generals and government and fears they may try and kill him, otherwise he wouldn't have these ridiculous buffer zones between him and them
 
Ipad1977 said:
Nah, he's a merely a desperate man as the sanctions are biting hard and he knows now that it will be a long drawn out battle with Ukraine as they clearly didn't $hit themselves and roll over, neither did the Pro Russians and those without the stomach overthrow their leaders.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing after weak responses to crimea, he didn't expect a global response like this.
 
coluka said:
The same was said about Cyprus. It wouldn’t be fair, it wouldn’t be moral, but it might save countless lives worldwide. Some of the land in question has a majority of people that are Russian speakers and are said to align more with Russia, such as the Donbas region. Putin can spread his propaganda and save face saying he has liberated an area for Russians. Ukraine survives total destruction and absorption into Russia’s system. It may have to give up hope of ever joining NATO too and be a buffer zone for now.

However, Putin may be insane and the idea be irrelevant. I see a few possible outcomes, there may be others or variations of them.

1. Putin wins and Ukraine has a puppet government installed, The more that flea Ukraine the more likely he can govern it.
2. Putin is taken out inside Moscow and Russian troops withdraw and a new Russian leader tries to agree a new world order and treaties signed Russia is eventually de sanctioned.
3. Ukraine is annexed as stated, the Cyprus model or some other diplomatic solution
4. A long occupation but unwinnable war taking the land but with regular insurgency from within like Afghanistan eventually with a land occupied but with constant conflict
5. World War 3 and Nuclear mayhem (hopefully least likely, but still possible).
6. Putin runs out of money and withdraws entirely and goes back into his hole (least likely of all)

I hope 2 or 3 are achieved but am not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
4 is the most likely followed by 2
 
BoroMart said:
There are no experts on this other than Putin
Click to expand...

Surely people who have studied Russian politics for decades, often having lived in Russia whilst doing so, and people who have had first hand experience with Putin and his inner circle, are better qualified than us to give an educated opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top