Mega nuts because no one wins in a nuclear war. NATO is a defensive organisation for its members - it doesn’t do preemptive strikes. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

Nato is basically the US's puppy....and the US are the only nation to use nukes...and that was to save losing troops invading the Japanese mainland.

I would agree that the kind of politicians we had while the Soviets were a threat were genuinely defensive with Nato....I think the Nato of the modern era became far more robust once the Berlin wall came down.....but all that was discussed early in the thread.

The launches Nato gave to Poland are dual usage I believe, and can be nuclear....which was a major issue for Putin as it puts Russia literally with minutes to respond.

When you read the bellicose commentary that gets used today I'm not as confident as you are as to common sense in modern day leaders....To me it's very plain that no one is willing to take the L....and like all wars it then comes down to blood and economic exhaustion. Unless realistic talks are going on behind closed doors I don't see any other result.

Biden yesterday, 'First time since the Cuban missile crisis, we have the threat of a nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going. We are trying to figure out, What is Putin’s off ramp? Where does he find a way out?
He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is you might say, significantly underperforming'

That doesn't sound good to me.

For many people, this is a hill they are willing to die on.....I'll die on a hill over some things but this just isn't it for me.....This was avoidable.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Oct 2022 3.36am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Sausage seller turned traitor.

COYP

The US had every reason to believe that hundreds of thousands of their men would die securing Japan based on the conduct of Japanese forces to that point.

Ironically, countless more Japanese - both combatants and non-combatants - would have certainly also died. Far more than died in the 2 bombings.

The other important point is that the use provided clear and terrifying evidence to a (then) non-nuclear USSR not to step out of line. Remember, Stalin met with his chiefs in the autumn of 1944 with a plan to keep rolling their T-34s tanks all the way to the Azores thereby securing complete European dominance. Why not, Stalin said, we have 400 battle hardened divisions in the field. It was allegedly fear of the bomb that checked their progress at the Iron Curtain.

I still believe there will be a climb down on WOMD as that fear remains, but Putin will simply allow his various nutters to volubly advocate them in order to try and influence western thinking.

Ok, there's a lot of points to discuss to with different posters. Things are busy at the moment, but I should be on later tonight.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

In my opinion some horrible and tragic war crimes have been perpetrated by the security services of both sides depending upon who controlled what ground.

There is a difference between supporting a side and being at war. I fear that this has meant little in this war....and I feel that as un-European, certainly against our tradition anyway.

I don't agree with the idea that Russian motivations are 'fabricated'...outside of all the 'Nazi' talk (a 'for the public' sideshow)

The deeper reasonings of keeping Nato away from the Ukraine certainly make a lot of sense to me. There are a lot of ethnic Russians in the East and South and they are prepared to fight.

Personally I think that both the US/West (because in truth this is a proxy war) and Russian motivations are quite clear. I certainly don't think this war started with the Russian invasion in February, because in reality it started after the coup in 2014.

However, I think we agree that there are certainly no angels here and that the 'goodies v baddies' narratives is strictly the mentality of the playground in a world that is far from it.

I think there is truth in this....I know what we have interests in Ukrainian farmland.

Do I think it represents the larger motivations, not really...I see it as a benefit to the West (otherwise they/we will never get paid back) or Russia (a significant material gain) rather than central (it is of course existential to Ukraine in its present state).

I'll say why I see it like that. Back in March/April Putin was willing to negotiate to end the war. From what I'm told that negotiation was that Russia would keep its pre-war Donbas territories including Crimea and withdraw its troops to Russia for a commitment from the Ukraine that they would stay out of Nato and the EU and cease attacks on pro Russian areas.

That would have meant that the Ukraine got to keep a fair chuck of the Donbas with its mines and rich resources. This isn't compatible with Russia only being interested in the Donbas's resources. I don't think that offer would have existed in that case.

In my view, in short Biden and Johnson wanted their war and insisted that Zelensky not negotiate.....because in my view the vision is regime change in Russia enabled by creating an existential economic war, which gradually wears them down.....I believe Biden has slipped up by actually saying that regime change was what he wanted and recent commentary in Nato has been pretty clear in my opinion.

I regard this as nightmarish and comes with huge risks that personally I regard as intolerable.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Oct 2022 7.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)