Russian invasion of Ukraine

[BlueAnorak]

How are the Ukrainians holding out so long, they aren’t getting resupplied by the look of it, so they can’t have stockpiles ammunition for that long surely?

They take ration packs and amunition from dead Russian soldiers.

 

[BlueAnorak]

New generals n charge on the battle field and back in Moscow. Here they ate sharing the new plan...

(Click to see Putin's face.)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Smash em.

 

[west didsblue]

Can’t string a fucking sentence together, it’s embarrassing.

I wouldn’t give him credit for that, the west has zero choice

Rubbish.
If the US was an active participant then you might have a point about the benefits of having an inspirational leader. That requirement to be inspirational is what’s needed from Zelenskyy and he’s delivering in spades.

As it is, what’s needed from the US is a leader that has a deep understanding of what’s going on, the importance of a unified approach from the west and the ability to keep allies on board irrespective of petty differences. He’s doing a pretty good job at that whilst leading the effort to provide as much military supplies as the Ukrainians need.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

Also he isn’t Putin’s poodle like the previous president

 

[domalino]

Rubbish.
If the US was an active participant then you might have a point about the benefits of having an inspirational leader. That requirement to be inspirational is what’s needed from Zelenskyy and he’s delivering in spades.

As it is, what’s needed from the US is a leader that has a deep understanding of what’s going on, the importance of a unified approach from the west and the ability to keep allies on board irrespective of petty differences. He’s doing a pretty good job at that whilst leading the effort to provide as much military supplies as the Ukrainians need.

Biden really has been pretty brilliant throughout this, which has annoyed his detractors no end.

He's not just secured the money and weapons and acted quickly, he's towed the line in the war or words absolutely perfectly, going hard when it's needed but not being drawn into unnecessary escalation.

Not really surprising given how long he's been around these things, but his staff, the white house, the military...whoever is plotting the course he's taking has done it well.

 

[meltonblue]

Biden really has been pretty brilliant throughout this, which has annoyed his detractors no end.

He's not just secured the money and weapons and acted quickly, he's towed the line in the war or words absolutely perfectly, going hard when it's needed but not being drawn into unnecessary escalation.

Not really surprising given how long he's been around these things, but his staff, the white house, the military...whoever is plotting the course he's taking has done it well.

Yep. He’s actually the ideal president for the Ukraine situation.

 

[ultimateharold]

 

[roubaixtuesday]

it is historic (and ethical) nonsense to say no-one ever capitulates

Indeed. And I didn't say that.

This little argument is over the idea that Ukraine giving in would be worse than that.

No, it's over the idea that Ukraine giving in makes it more rather than less likely.

Putin has been capitulated to in Chechenya, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Salisbury, and Syria.

Every single time he's gone on to do more and worse. It's logical to expect capitulation in Ukraine would bring more, not less destruction from Putin.

 

[Vic]

Indeed. And I didn't say that.



No, it's over the idea that Ukraine giving in makes it more rather than less likely.

Putin has been capitulated to in Chechenya, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Salisbury, and Syria.

Every single time he's gone on to do more and worse. It's logical to expect capitulation in Ukraine would bring more, not less destruction from Putin.

Well, it always helps if we know what the argument is about.

If you check back, it was about someone commenting on an article about possible nuclear conflict, but saying that "Giving in to Putin's illegal and cowardly demands would be the worst thing to do", to which I responded:

There was I, thinking nuclear winter to last a thousand years might be worse.

Putin's attitude to Donbas seems to be "In order to liberate the town, we had to destroy it".

"In order to defeat Putin, we had to blow up the world" doesn't sound too bright either. But with Liz Truss talking about forcing Russia to relinquish control of Crimea, I hope there are some cool heads in western governments.

As for what's logical, capitulation would hardly be likely to result in more destruction than there has been, but I take it you mean he'd move on to other places, including NATO countries. Supporting Ukrainians in resisting Russian aggression (and discouraging further expansion) is one thing - it's quite another to say that the alternative ("giving in", a puppet government and oppression) would be worse than cities destroyed, thousands dead, millions displaced, and still after all that a real risk of defeat and occupation and oppression (or indeed a wider conflict, or wider nuclear conflict).

And while I've not heard anyone here actually say it, it's not our choice to tell Ukraine to defend their country to the last Ukrainian.