Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Options
1198319841986198819893691

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Wes M.


    Yes, I probably did mean Western, your point is well made. I suppose I have the hope that India might have a change of policy on their dealings with Russia, affter expressing some grave doubts about the war at the recent summit, but perhaps not...



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Curious_Case


    The sham referenda and imminent annexation mean absolutely nothing - it's not like Putin needs laws to allow him to do anything anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,825 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    Nuclear war is all about the escalation. That's where the danger lies.

    The referendum is a step in that escalation as it gives them reason to 'protect' their new states.

    It makes a huge difference.

    Russia don't 'want' to use nuclear weapons, they 'want' Ukraine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,058 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Would you expect outright public condemnation from some states who's have a stake in keeping Russia sweet for the moment?

    When major events happen, they often change very quickly. What state wants to be caught up in the 'clusterf**k' that the Russians are making of international law?



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It makes no difference as if they are willing to use their nuclear weapons to defend what absolutely no one - not even themselves - legitimately believe is Russian territory then they are reckless enough to use them anyway.

    Ukrainian attacks on these territories won't suddenly "result" in nuclear weapons usage - if that is the road Russia is aiming to go down they will just find another avenue if they need to. It could, I suppose, be viewed as a signal of Russia's intentions but no one can realistically believe that any nuclear strike would be a consequence of attacks of these "Russian" territories.

    Russia doesn't need "reasons". It never has. They put out about 5 different reasons for attacking Ukraine in the first 2 weeks. Its all theatre.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭EOQRTL


    Nonsense, it makes a massive difference. Putin can now use it as an excuse to use nuclear or chemical weapons to defend what he see's as Russian territory. The problem with your thinking on this is it comes from a level headed reasonable perspective and that is something Putin is most certainly not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,058 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    That will depend entirely on what position other states take on the declared annexation/ land grab. Watch China & India in particular, also Iran and Turkey.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,058 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Well if you want to justify this as a legitimate tactic and ............ we better all get to the table and let Ukraine suck it up....... we see the pattern in the argument from various posters.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Absolutely no country on Earth (except maybe NK) is going to respond to a nuclear attack by Russia with "ah well that was a reasonable and proportionate response to an attack on Russian territory".

    It gives Russia no legitimate excuse, and they'll make up whatever nonsense illegitimate one they want. For months there have been comments about giving Russia reasons or excuses to escalate - Russia escalates things without any provocation and the only reason they have not escalated more is cause they are too **** to do so.

    Its geopolitically irrelevant, and will do nothing to change Russia's long-term strategic planning around whether or not to use nuclear weapons.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭zv2


    It doesn't make a difference to the west because it is all bogus anyway, but it makes a propagandist difference in Russia. They'll be told 'our' territory is under attack.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well, the only State the Kremlin can be certain of is Russia. QED.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    LOL, funny how the silly and insulting comments are reserved for leaders of democracies [Big Uncle Joe]. Small mercies I suppose, at least its not "Sleepy"! "President [Vladimir] Putin" probably trips nicely off the keyboard though...!

    Sorry, all I'm coming up with is dodgy Confucius say jokes.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling




  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    India is hugely reliant on cheap Russian fertiliser to enable it to grow enough food to feed it's vast population, so no chance, and that's just one of several hooks Russia has deeply imbeded in their flesh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 478 ✭✭Run Forest Run


    Pretty sure I called Putin "Mad Vlad" a few pages back, but you keep stirring that big pot of yours and see what you can brew up!



  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Wes M.


    If I was Russian, I would be absolutely trying to get out by any means necessary. The future is looking increasingly bleak...

    From the Guardian's rolling coverage:

    Since then further details have emerged of EU goods that will be banned from export to Russia. The Commission wants to stop the sale of European appliances, including dishwashers and washing machines, because officials believe the Russian army is raiding such products for their chips, because they have run out of semiconductors.

    The EU also wants to tighten import curbs on goods generating income for Russia, ranging from wood, pulp and paper, cigarettes and cosmetics. Bags and suitcases, telephones and cars, paper and newsprint, women’s clothes, make-up and shaving products feature on a long list of items subject to trade restrictions that also includes many industrial goods, tools and chemical substances.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,825 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    As I said, Russia does not want to use it's nuclear weapons. However, every state is 'willing' to use their nuclear weapons if the correct escalatory situation presents itself. It's the whole point of MAD and having an arsenal of nuclear weapons in the first place.

    This annexation is a step forward in that process. It's the first time they'll be able to claim that Russia itself is being attacked in this conflict.

    I don't believe it will result in nuclear weapons being used for now as I don't believe Russia (or any state) wants to use them and as you said, nobody, not even Russia itself, believes the results of these referenda.

    However, I do believe it's a step forward in the escalatory process towards using them, which is concerning.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭EOQRTL


    Exactly. Putin doesn't care a jot about how he's viewed by us here in the west all he want's is a reason to justify the actions he's going to take.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭EOQRTL


    I've answered your question before im not going over the same ground with you again and again.

    Asking again and again isn't going to provide you with some sort of "gotca" moment in your own mind.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,658 ✭✭✭storker


    I think the west should take a good look and full sanctions not just for Russia but for any country that recognises the latest landgrab as legitimate. See if their special relationship with Russia extends to being a pariah state alongside it.

    (Just make sure to woo the Chinese first. 😁)



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭EOQRTL


    It's much more likely Russia will reach for chemical weapons before nuclear in this scenario but then again we are dealing with a madman so who knows.

    Only those of a miniscule IQ would see this annexation as not relevant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Wes M.


    Apart from the usual suspects, you have to wonder how any self-respecting government, Western or otherwise can stand by and watch this land grab (think Portugal in terms of size) considering the Kremlin made no attempt whatsoever to make the "referendums" look any way genuine - people casting votes out of the boot of cars, armed soldiers hovering nearby and so on. I know political pragmatism will win out but Jesus, it will be embarassing to watch governments shrug this one off...



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    It's not entirely certain Russia view the MAD doctrine the same way as the West, especially with a so called "escalate to de-escalate' position.

    That said a simple attack on Russia is not enough to warrent the use of nuclear weapons unless the "very existence of the state is threatened" according to their current 2014 doctrine.

    But that's all based on two assumptions, that:-

    A. They haven't modified their doctrine without publication, and/or

    B. That they will actually follow their doctrine.

    The scary thing with Russian nuclear doctrine is the decision to use nuclear weapons is a decision solely for the President (same for the US mind you), it does not need any co-consent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,883 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    Ha, fair enough...I had not bothered to re-read your posts. Been some other Russia-supportive posters that preferred to give him the respectful "President" title while telling us what a great job he's doing/how it is all going according to some plan, and it has been remarked on previously (don't have time to search about or give example, tricky to do that on the site anyway).



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    As I said, Russia does not want to use it's nuclear weapons.

    Then we've nothing to worry about...

    I don't think we are particularly at odds here, but I would disagree that this is part of an escalatory framework. Considering that Crimea has already been attacked (and most likely Belgorod), and that no one actually believe these territories are part of Russia, there is no doctrinal reason for Russia to use their nuclear weapons. They will by no means have been "forced" into it - if they continue down the road of escalating to that point it is because they did in fact want to use them from the get go. Ukraine is never going to step onto actual Russian soil. The conditions under Russian nuclear doctrine for their use will never be met. Perhaps Russia is constructing a flimsy pretext for the use of nuclear weapons having already decided to use them - but then there is not much we can do about it.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It does not need co-consent, but it does need acquiescence from several parties. Some of whom may not want to live in an irradiated wasteland over an utterly stupid and pointless invasion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭Curious_Case


    I just think that giving it credence is playing into his hands, I don't think it makes any difference, it strikes me as cosmetic.

    It's like "I've given myself a shiny star, now I can shoot you".



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭zv2


    What effect on Russia would Putin using nuclear weapons have? Russian cities evacuating? Anarchy in the streets?

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” — Voltaire



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,824 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    India is now an agricultural behemoth.


    Problem is it's land is largely very poor. The monsoon rains wash nutrients out of the soil.


    It's Why Indian farmers apply fertilizer at rates yearly that would poison the ground here, all to get a lower yield.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement