Russia v Ukraine

[Red Phoenix]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

But Biden isn't saying let's not arm Ukraine because this will only escalate the situation, let's negotiate now to reach some kind of settlement, but I don't know what that would be.

 

My issue is sending in increasingly heavier and more advanced weapons, carrying on sanctions and not focusing at the same time on trying to negotiate. Even if they don't think it's realistic that a solution will be found they could at least negotiate until they maybe get to some solution, even if they're at the same time arming Ukrainians (preferably not with weapons that carry on escalating things.)

 

Ukraine and Russia have already been negotiating as you should remember even if you weren't happy about that, so it should at least be possible at some stage to do so again. They were negotiating when it looked like there was no chance of Putin stopping so maybe that can be done again soon, and then maybe it'll look like he might stop at some point, then maybe he'll actually stop. Partly though negotiations, partly through being sick of the war and the losses and the sanctions or mostly one of those.

 

Weapons can be a factor, sanctions can be a factor, the losses from the war can be a factor, common ground in negotiations might also be a factor eventually. I don't know exactly what those negotiations will include or how they'll work out, neither does Biden and he admitted that, maybe nobody does and that's for both sides to work out if they take place.

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

My issue is sending in increasingly heavier and more advanced weapons, carrying on sanctions and not focusing at the same time on trying to negotiate. Even if they don't think it's realistic that a solution will be found they could at least negotiate until they maybe get to some solution, even if they're at the same time arming Ukrainians (preferably not with weapons that carry on escalating things.)

 

Ukraine and Russia have already been negotiating as you should remember even if you weren't happy about that, so it should at least be possible at some stage to do so again. They were negotiating when it looked like there was no chance of Putin stopping so maybe that can be done again soon, and then maybe it'll look like he might stop at some point, then maybe he'll actually stop. Partly though negotiations, partly through being sick of the war and the losses and the sanctions or mostly one of those.

 

Weapons can be a factor, sanctions can be a factor, the losses from the war can be a factor, common ground in negotiations might also be a factor eventually. I don't know exactly what those negotiations will include or how they'll work out, neither does Biden and he admitted that, maybe nobody does and that's for both sides to work out if they take place.

Wait, what? What weapons would you give them that are not escalating things? What weapons are escalating things?

 

They are negotiating all the time, it would be naive to think lines of communication are not

open. What they are not doing is going through the charade Russians like, because it makes them, the invader, look as if they are trying to find a solution. If they offered anything Ukraine is able to live with, they would be back at the table.

 

The fact they are not negotiating officially means they are probably too far apart. Or they don't trust them any more, since I would say Ukrainians have most likely been majorly fucked over Azovstal surrender, where they got nothing and nothing has been moving for well over a month now. And why should it, Russians don't seem to care about their people and they know that the return of POWs would be celebrated in Ukraine and they would be right back fighting them again soon.

[TheHowieLama]

Remember when Macron led the charge to the negotiating table? That worked out well.

[Red Phoenix]

33 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Wait, what? What weapons would you give them that are not escalating things? What weapons are escalating things?

 

They are negotiating all the time, it would be naive to think lines of communication are not

open. What they are not doing is going through the charade Russians like, because it makes them, the invader, look as if they are trying to find a solution. If they offered anything Ukraine is able to live with, they would be back at the table.

 

You've been following this war regularly, you must know that HIMARS for a start escalated the situation. And no they haven't been negotiating all the time, both sides have said not long back that they weren't negotiating. Not at the level they used to be anyway.

 

I'm sorry if I can't give you a full list of every weapon that I think should be acceptable without escalating. I think the military people should have a good idea though. I also accept that it's almost impossible to give you an answer at this stage that you're ok with. There's almost always another issue. It's partly why two tweets about fertilizer extends into several pages of this.

 

25 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Remember when Macron led the charge to the negotiating table? That worked out well.

 

Just because something doesn't work well at the start it doesn't mean it can't at some point work. Again, Zelensky and Biden have both said that this should end with negotiations. You could say "that worked well" for all of the weapons that have been sent so far seeing as they're still losing territory in Donbas, but again, the hope is that it will eventually lead to something changing right?

 

Yes we can see that the weapons have had some effect, but maybe all of these attempts so far at negotiations have led to some type of framework, foundation, whatever you want to call it, that can be used to start from again if they get back to it in future instead of simply nothing having worked.

 

The biggest problem I've had is the weapons and sanctions approach whilst not also focusing on negotiations. I just don't think it's a balanced way to end this. It's not even an extreme view.

 

I don't ever recall saying that no weapons should be sent to Ukraine either. Maybe some of you are getting me mixed up when I regularly talk about being sick of leaders "shoving weapons in there", the problem for me is that it often seems to have been done as a main focus and not part of a solution.

 

Time to leave this again for the day I think.

[SasaS]

55 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

You've been following this war regularly, you must know that HIMARS for a start escalated the situation. And no they haven't been negotiating all the time, both sides have said not long back that they weren't negotiating. Not at the level they used to be anyway.

 

I'm sorry if I can't give you a full list of every weapon that I think should be acceptable without escalating. I think the military people should have a good idea though. I also accept that it's almost impossible to give you an answer at this stage that you're ok with. There's almost always another issue. It's partly why two tweets about fertilizer extends into several pages of this.

 

 

Just because something doesn't work well at the start it doesn't mean it can't at some point work. Again, Zelensky and Biden have both said that this should end with negotiations. You could say "that worked well" for all of the weapons that have been sent so far seeing as they're still losing territory in Donbas, but again, the hope is that it will eventually lead to something changing right?

 

Yes we can see that the weapons have had some effect, but maybe all of these attempts so far at negotiations have led to some type of framework, foundation, whatever you want to call it, that can be used to start from again if they get back to it in future instead of simply nothing having worked.

 

The biggest problem I've had is the weapons and sanctions approach whilst not also focusing on negotiations. I just don't think it's a balanced way to end this. It's not even an extreme view.

 

I don't ever recall saying that no weapons should be sent to Ukraine either. Maybe some of you are getting me mixed up when I regularly talk about being sick of leaders "shoving weapons in there", the problem for me is that it often seems to have been done as a main focus and not part of a solution.

 

Time to leave this again for the day I think.

 

Ah, I see. Weapons that give Ukraine some limited or temporary edge are escalating weapons. They should only get those Russia can already easily counter.

 

And I am pretty sure they are all talking all the time.  There is nothing that gets lost due to lack of communication, only due to intransigence.

 

 

[Section_31]

They've pulled poor General Pavel out of retirement at 67 to take command as Putin is running low on senior commanders by all accounts.

 

Rumours he has eaten Kiev have been firmly rejected.

 

 

[Ne Moe Imya]

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

You've been following this war regularly, you must know that HIMARS for a start escalated the situation.

Could you explain what you mean by this?
 

I don't understand how it is possible to escalate full-scale warfare, unless you mean to take it nuclear. Russia is already throwing every conventional force they have into this war - I'm not sure what they are meant to do to respond to the US giving a few HIMARS systems that can shoot missiles a bit further than the ones Ukraine already has?

[Red Phoenix]

4 hours ago, SasaS said:

Ah, I see. Weapons that give Ukraine some limited or temporary edge are escalating weapons. They should only get those Russia can already easily counter.

 

1 hour ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

Could you explain what you mean by this?

 

Some bits to try and help :

 

Quote

The Himars that Washington is providing to Ukraine will have a range of about 50 miles (80km), a US official told reporters.

Himars units carry one preloaded pod of six 227mm guided missiles (the M270 carries two pods), or one large pod loaded with an Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) tactical missile. The US will not supply Ukraine with the ATACMS, which has a range of 300km.

 

Himars: what are the advanced rockets US is sending Ukraine?
 

And here's some quotes relating to the issue :

 

Quote

Trying to avoid an escalation in the war, the White House obtained a formal commitment from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to use the system only for defensive purposes and avoid firing missiles into Russian territory

 

US will send HIMARS precision rockets to Ukraine
 

Quote

The West has been increasingly willing to give Ukraine longer-range weaponry, including M777 howitzers, as its force battle Russians with more success than intelligence officials had predicted.

But U.S. intelligence has also warned about growing risks, particularly given a mismatch between Russian President Vladimir Putin's apparent ambitions and the performance of his military.

 

Biden agrees to provide Ukraine with longer range missiles

 

Quote

Washington has said it has received assurances from Kyiv that those longer-range weapons would not be used to attack Russian territory, fearing an escalation of the conflict.

 

U.S. long-range rocket systems arrive in Ukraine - minister

 

That's from the US. The most powerful country that's from the start been as supportive of sending weapons in as anyone else and has continually sent them in. If they're concerned about escalation and you're not then I don't know what else to say.

[M_B]

So Russia can use cruise missiles and long range arty at will but Ukraine can't?

 

The escalation is by Russia no? 

[Red Phoenix]

14 minutes ago, M_B said:

So Russia can use cruise missiles and long range arty at will but Ukraine can't?

 

The escalation is by Russia no? 

 

I think the point is that handing Ukraine longer range weapons is NATO countries escalating the conflict. It's weapons that Ukraine didn't normally have so the US fear escalation for that reason. If Ukraine had all of this stuff from the off and it was their own weapons then Russia would just have to deal with it, they picked the fight.

 

It's seen as escalating because longer range weapons opens the possibility of Ukrainians striking further inside Russian territory with weapons provided by NATO countries. So this isn't just my issue here and I'm not saying the situation is perfect, it's still a fucked up war. You could just as easily send an e-mail to whoever you can find in the US gov though and ask the same thing. And maybe get a similar response.

[SasaS]

Hopefully they have realized by now Russia is not going to retaliate outside of Ukraine and they  "escalate" the hell out of Russian army sooner rather than later. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Escalation from what to what? From attacked country to attacked country that can send rockets further in order to repel attacks better. 
 

I think I’m at the point where I just give up with RP, I already said I think his conclusions here are pretty grim. Yes, you want to talk, yes you want it to be over as soon as possible, we all do. But from there it’s all about not helping them defend against and invasion, about not punishing Russia, about giving away other people’s country to a foreign invader. We can just disagree at this point. 

[SasaS]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Escalation from what to what? From attacked country to attacked country that can send rockets further in order to repel attacks better. 
 

I think I’m at the point where I just give up with RP, I already said I think his conclusions here are pretty grim. Yes, you want to talk, yes you want it to be over as soon as possible, we all do. But from there it’s all about not helping them defend against and invasion, about not punishing Russia, about giving away other people’s country to a foreign invader. We can just disagree at this point. 

I think he means the US seeks to avoid what Russians see as escalation, which is probably everything by now. They are probably playing their own politics too (US), as in what they want Ukrainians to have, what is the cost, what they don't want to end up in Russian hands, what their own stocks are etc. 

 

That missile volley may be in retaliation for something good Ukrainians hit. I think Kiev should decide how much they can take  - what they think Russians can still do to them when asking for advanced weapons. I'd say not much more than they are already doing.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I say full scale air assault from NATO to repel the invaders. 

[Ne Moe Imya]

I feel like I'm going insane just reading those posts.

 

As NV says above, escalation to what? You can't "escalate" things when the level they're already at is "I will murder everyone who doesn't bow the knee to my power!" The only thing you can do with such a person is defeat them.

 

Again, the word "escalation" makes absolutely no sense, either by you or whatever journalist you're quoting. You think Russia is holding back? They are the ones who escalated this war to the maximum possible level! 

[Ne Moe Imya]

For context, this is what's going on in Russia at the moment, the level of propaganda they're spouting. They've run out of any reasonable threats so now it's just "give in now so we don't nuke Amsterdam." These people are literally insane, you can't reason with them!

 

 

[SasaS]

15 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I say full scale air assault from NATO to repel the invaders. 

Now that's a proper escalation worthy of the name. Throw in a couple of nukes for good measure too. Lets see if they can really hit London. 

[Guest]

I've noticed a few flags for Ukraine on cars. Every little helps, I suppose.

[SasaS]

16 minutes ago, Ne Moe Imya said:

I feel like I'm going insane just reading those posts.

 

As NV says above, escalation to what? You can't "escalate" things when the level they're already at is "I will murder everyone who doesn't bow the knee to my power!" The only thing you can do with such a person is defeat them.

 

Again, the word "escalation" makes absolutely no sense, either by you or whatever journalist you're quoting. You think Russia is holding back? They are the ones who escalated this war to the maximum possible level! 

That video that was doing the rounds yesterday, of a Russian soldier digging a hole in the field to take a dump only for the drone to drop the bomb on him when he pulled his pants down was a step too far I thought, even against the invader. Some things should be sacred. So, that would be an escalation too.

[Red Phoenix]

I quote Biden and Zelensky talking about negotiations, I'm still at fault. I'm quoting Reuters saying that US intelligence and Washington are concerned about escalation. Biden is concerned about escalation. It's still somehow directed back at me.

 

Let's just face it, I'm the resident poster that you can whine at and many of your ideas are completely fucking reckless that could get us all killed. So I don't give a fuck about what some of you are saying either.

[Red Phoenix]

Wanting Ukraine defended is fine as long as it doesn't escalate. It's already dangerous and has been for some time because Ukraine need weapons/equipment from NATO. NATO are keeping them in this war. Some of this shit is insane though and has been for a decent part of this thread, as if there's no risk at all from NATO getting increasingly involved. It's some of the most fucking lunatic stuff I've ever seen in my life.

 

Some of your ideas are a fucking danger to our entire species, it's completely over the top war-crazed madness.

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Wanting Ukraine defended is fine as long as it doesn't escalate. It's already dangerous and has been for some time because Ukraine need weapons/equipment from NATO. NATO are keeping them in this war. Some of this shit is insane though and has been for a decent part of this thread, as if there's no risk at all from NATO getting increasingly involved. It's some of the most fucking lunatic stuff I've ever seen in my life.

 

Some of your ideas are a fucking danger to our entire species, it's completely over the top war-crazed madness.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Red Phoenix]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Nothing, everything's perfectly fine.

 

I've learned my lesson : don't post tweets about fertilizer. It can escalate into pages of bullshit arguing.

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Nothing, everything's perfectly fine.

 

I've learned my lesson : don't post tweets about fertilizer. It can escalate into pages of bullshit arguing.

Exactly. It was you all along who is to blame for the escalation in the thread, not Nato. 

 

And bullshit is more environmentally friendly manure than nitrogen based fertilizer.

 

[Red Phoenix]

Let's just remember that if anyone's saying I'm being stupid for fearing escalation with long range weapons, that in turn must mean that US intelligence and Washington are also stupid :

 

Quote

U.S. intelligence has also warned about growing risks

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/biden-closing-new-weapons-package-ukraine-2022-05-31/

 

Quote

Washington has said it has received assurances from Kyiv that those longer-range weapons would not be used to attack Russian territory, fearing an escalation of the conflict.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-long-range-rocket-systems-arrive-ukraine-minister-2022-06-23/

 

You can add on all the other stuff you want about me but this can't be avoided : when it comes purely down to fear of escalation from these weapons, if you're saying I'm stupid then you're also saying the US gov is stupid.