Russia v Ukraine

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

What's everyone's 'red line' on this before the World\NATO\the West would get involved?

 

I think if Putin unleashes a chemical or biological weapon on Ukrainian civilians, then NATO et al may decide that's a red line crossed. I know the US forces backed away in Syria over this before but would they a 2nd time?

It’s a really tough one, because in all probability any decision to stop Russia doing this will result not only in World War 3 but also a quite possibly a nuclear Holocaust and the entire breakdown of civilisation. The truth is that Russia is nowhere near strong enough to fight NATO, so they’d have very little choice but to use a nuclear weapon if it comes down to war. It’s all they’ve really got that’ll do major damage. There could be skirmishes and maybe even fighting outside of Russia - a defence force inside Ukraine, for example - but anything that happened inside Russia? No chance. That’d be us all fucked. 

[Section_31]

Red line for me is any use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise, plus also invading any Nato country. 

 

There's a line in the sopranos.

 

"Life's too short"

"Yeah, it's also too short to live it as a fucking lackey".

 

If you let the Russians keep using the nuclear threat to get away with anything they want then there's no point having ours.

[Red Phoenix]

48 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Isn't Mariupol where the so called Nazi Azov battalions are? 

 

Yeah they're mainly based in Mariupol I think.

[TheHowieLama]

26 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 quite possibly a nuclear Holocaust 

How do you see this tbh?

 

He sprays some folks in the Ukraine with chems - Nato begins to move air support in and he then launches ICBM's at every country in the world?

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Possibility of strategic nuclear weapons or more likely chemical weapons?

Why would he nuke a place that is in his backyard and he wants to occupy?

[SasaS]

 

[Pureblood]

52 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

What's everyone's 'red line' on this before the World\NATO\the West would get involved?

Changing the name of the humble chicken Kiev. 

[Bruce Spanner]

38 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It’s a really tough one, because in all probability any decision to stop Russia doing this will result not only in World War 3 but also a quite possibly a nuclear Holocaust and the entire breakdown of civilisation.

 

Enough with the positives, where's the downsides?

[Pureblood]

I don't buy into the "Russian army crap" narrative and think they will achieve their aims and objective without resorting to biological warfare or using nukes.  

[dockers_strike]

The lovely Jen Psaki has just indicated that Russia using chemical weapons wouldnt be a red line for the US or something?

[Numero Veinticinco]

19 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

How do you see this tbh?

 

He sprays some folks in the Ukraine with chems - Nato begins to move air support in and he then launches ICBM's at every country in the world?

Not quite like that but not a million miles away. If NATO and Russia are at war in any way, and that war spreads into Russia, then I think it’s a case that he sees it as an existential threat. Maybe even without spreading into Russia. He has clearly stated that a world without Russia means no world at all. I just hope that any military person given that order says no. He clearly can’t fight against the modern powers in NATO, so I think he would see little choice. We really don’t want to roll the dice on this one. 

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

 I just hope that any military person given that order says no. 

That is what I am asking - what is the order that results in nuclear holocaust?

Fire everyone they have in all directions simultaneously?

 

Launching one at Ukraine is not nuclear holocaust. It would be horrific but I do not see an "escalation" to something approaching a nuclear holocaust because I do not see any reason any western/Nato alliance would ever go beyond the borders of the Ukraine. No one wants to go into Russia.

[Guest]

 

[Pureblood]

Bad news - loads of people might starve to death.  Good news - a few people will get rich.  Go sanctions go. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonconstable/2022/02/28/ukraine-crisis-fertilizer-shortage-to-boost-plant-food-stocks/?sh=592ecbeb7cf4

 

Ukraine Crisis: Fertilizer Shortage To Boost Plant Food Stocks

 

The war in Ukraine looks set to have global consequences particularly in the farm patch. There could also be profits to be made for investors.

Not only are Russia and Ukraine both key grain exporters, but the crisis will also likely exacerbate an existing problem: A dearth of fertilizer used to feed crops, a recent report warns.

 

“We don’t see the global fertilizer shortage situation abating anytime soon,” states a note from New York-based CFRA.

 

The good news in all this is that the companies that manufacture and sell plant food could prosper. Notably, CFRA highlights CF Industries (CF), The Mosaic MOS +7.7% Company (MOS) and Nutrien Ltd. (NTR).

 

https://www.myjoyonline.com/russia-ukraine-war-fertilizer-shortage-to-impact-on-crop-production-chamber-of-agribusiness/

 

Russia-Ukraine war: fertilizer shortage to impact on crop production – Chamber of Agribusiness

 

Fertiliser shortage due to the Russia-Ukraine war will impact negatively on crop production and soil improvement in Ghana, particularly, under the government flagship programme, ‘Planting for Food and Jobs’, which rely heavily on inorganic fertilisers, a report by the Chamber of Agribusiness, Ghana has revealed.

 

According to the report, fertiliser production and supply will worsen this year than in the COVID-19 era and will be further aggravated by economic sanctions imposed by the European Union NATO, the United States, among other nations on Russia.

[dockers_strike]

I dont think NATO would push into Russia if they were mobilised. Maybe push Russian forces back to Crimea and the supposed 'disputed' states.

[cochyn]

Is it just me, or has Vladolf been a bit quiet recently? You'd have thought he'd be all over it, crowing about the gains in Ukraine; pinning down the Azov brigade, advancing on Kiyiv. But nada, it seems.

 

Has he been told to pipe the fuck down and let the big boys run the narrative? Lest he put his size 7s in it again and mention nukes/chem warfare as a possibility, ergo egging on yet further measures by the rest of the world? 

 

But I could be wrong..

[cochyn]

11 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

I dont think NATO would push into Russia if they were mobilised. Maybe push Russian forces back to Crimea and the supposed 'disputed' states.

I think if NATO were to go in (unlikely) they would go the whole gun mate. Push Russia entirely out of Ukranie and - at Moldova's request - do the same in Transnistria.  

[SasaS]

There is absolutely no way NATO would be engaging Russian army directly anywhere outside the NATO member countries.

[Numero Veinticinco]

46 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

That is what I am asking - what is the order that results in nuclear holocaust?

Fire everyone they have in all directions simultaneously?

 

Launching one at Ukraine is not nuclear holocaust. It would be horrific but I do not see an "escalation" to something approaching a nuclear holocaust because I do not see any reason any western/Nato alliance would ever go beyond the borders of the Ukraine. No one wants to go into Russia.

On the second part, this is (one of the main reasons) why we can’t have a no fly zone (in the eyes of NATO). I don’t expect everyone to give a fuck about military operational technicalities, but no fly zones don’t just mean ‘can’t fly here’. It doesn’t even mean ‘can’t fly here or we will shoot you down’, it means that you must be willing to enforce the no fly zone and the security of the area of operations (for air defence) and airspace, which would certainly mean SEAD missions to take out enemy air defences (you can’t enforce a no fly zone without being able to safely fly in it yourself) across the border. That would 100% mean SEAD and CAP missions in/over Russian land. in practice that’s stealth aircraft taking out S300 and S400s. Maybe even special forces missions to take out air defence locations HALO insertion.  Good luck unfucking the fallout such actions would have. Seriously, it’s the slipperiest of slopes. 
 

On the first point, I’m talking about firing on a NATO country. The order of events as I see them would spiral something like this (keep in mind, the question was about red lines being crossed and my response was that it would spiral if NATO started to fight in order to stop Russia by force). Russia do something deemed to cross the red line. Now, I suspect the red line is any attack on a NATO country, but who really knows. Whatever it is, that red line is crossed and NATO set about stopping Russia. Western military doctrine is to gain air superiority ASAP, which puts us in the scenario similar to the one above, with flights into Russia or parts of Ukraine where Russia is storing Air defences or aircraft, at which point Russia try to work out who it is and retaliate with a some serious attack. Possibly nuclear. It might well see any attack from a NATO member as free reign on any NATO country. There might well be a period of fighting and air strikes/sub launched weapons, and general conventional warfare, but Russia would be spread incredibly thin and be beaten by NATO countries. That would escalate to nuclear war most likely. If Putin feels an existential threat, all bets are off. It’s scorched Earth. As soon as one is launched, and the retaliatory strike is made, then it won’t stop there. Knowing this, NATO would have to reply with such devastating force as to target every known location. 
 

It’s a slope so slippery that it’s really not worth contemplating too much. It sounds hyperbolic but actually there’s just one thing stopping it snowballing into that crazy apocalyptic situation, and that’s Putin not firing the first one. The whim of Putin isn’t a comfortable thing to bet on. Don’t corner the rat unless you are willing to do what’s needed. 
 

Edit: to reiterate, I think this is the case IF red lines are crossed and NATO get involved militarily. I’m not saying that’s going to or is likely to happen. I’m just replying to the hypothetical offered in the post by DS. I’m still hopeful of a negotiated settlement that keeps people alive. 

[sir roger]

2 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

What's everyone's 'red line' on this before the World\NATO\the West would get involved?

Anything landing within 5 miles of Formby

[Section_31]

[Red Phoenix]

 

[Ne Moe Imya]

This is straight-up terrifying:
 

 

He's 100% right, there's no reason at all for Russia to keep pushing that narrative unless they're planning to use bio-weapons. At which point the odds NATO gets pushed into getting involved raise sharply.

Reminds me of when prior to the last US election Trump was pushing the whole "the voting machines were hacked by Ukraine" thing and you're like "there's only one reason for him to be telling this lie, and that's because he's setting something up down the road."

[Red Shift]

More censorship from Nuland. I had that doco earmarked for ‘watch later’ on Youtube, but everything’s moving fast in the maidan coup cover up. Needless to say, I’ll be heading over to ‘Rumble’

 

 

[Red Shift]

The argument here, is that if the US had taken a different approach in Soviet relations, post WW2, Putin, and character’s like him, may not have thrived and risen politically.