• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.

Catphish

Gold Member
UiOtrfu.jpg
We need a sad or crying emoji :(

Although in this case, maybe two glasses clinking as we toast a burning Russian ship.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
Do you think that European NATO members are simply less brave than the US, or that they value their lives and freedom less cheaply than people in the US? Why would it be different?
I'm asking because fucking up ukraine is not enough to act, so i wanted to know from you guys that are more informed than me, what is the limit that the crazy man absolutely can't pass.

I heard some people here saying that a small tactical nuke wouldn't probably be enough to actually go balls deep in war against putin so i was asking what is actually enough?
 

Catphish

Gold Member
I'm asking because fucking up ukraine is not enough to act, so i wanted to know from you guys that are more informed than me, what is the limit that the crazy man absolutely can't pass.

I heard some people here saying that a small tactical nuke wouldn't probably be enough to actually go balls deep in war against putin so i was asking what is actually enough?
Because of Russia's nuclear arsenal, I suspect that the only way NATO gets involved full-force is if Article 5 is triggered. I think anything less would be viewed as an acceptable loss when compared to nuclear-exchange.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Anyone else fear this war will lead to nuclear armament of as many countries that can do it? It gives a lot of creditability to the fact if you have nukes you are untouchable. We see North Korea having already ran with that philosophy. If Russia didn't have nukes, I feel like this war would be completely different in terms of how the international community support has materialized.
 
Last edited:

Tams

Gold Member
Yeah, all the talk of Russia being "isolated" reminds me of this:

the-international-community-for-dummies.jpg


Too many people don't realise that we're not in the 20th century anymore and that all those other countries outside of NA and western Europe matter now. It's us who are in danger of being isolated from the rest of the world.
The difference being that all those countries do and try very hard to get along. And are also the most advanced.

The rest is largely authoritarian of various shades. And ultimately they come into conflict amongst themselves eventually.

Not a reason to complacent, as those authoritarian regimes can work together temporarily to cause hell.
 

Wildebeest

Member
I'm asking because fucking up ukraine is not enough to act, so i wanted to know from you guys that are more informed than me, what is the limit that the crazy man absolutely can't pass.

I heard some people here saying that a small tactical nuke wouldn't probably be enough to actually go balls deep in war against putin so i was asking what is actually enough?
There is no such thing as a limit a crazy man cannot try to pass. What you might be asking is (1) when will NATO decide that they have to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis. Or (2) how strongly they will react when the use of certain weapons of mass destruction creep too close to their borders.

1. The siege of Sarajevo lasted for years before shocking events in the news caused the UN to request NATO to intervene. Honestly, the evidence of what Russia has done in Ukraine already is shocking enough to justify the same response, but NATO has made it clear that intervention by air means attacking anti-air positions inside of Russia which could be used as justification for Russia to do much worse. Syria was further away from Europe in a political way, if not geographically, but there the west shows that almost any depravity is allowed by NATO if it is Russia doing it. Good news for genocidal Russians and their bloodthirsty narcissist tyrant! Multipolar world unlocked!

2. I don't know. The position of NATO is that there will be a response, but, nobody really expects Russia to do that for sure so does not want to think about it.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
There is no such thing as a limit a crazy man cannot try to pass. What you might be asking is (1) when will NATO decide that they have to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis. Or (2) how strongly they will react when the use of certain weapons of mass destruction creep too close to their borders.

1. The siege of Sarajevo lasted for years before shocking events in the news caused the UN to request NATO to intervene. Honestly, the evidence of what Russia has done in Ukraine already is shocking enough to justify the same response, but NATO has made it clear that intervention by air means attacking anti-air positions inside of Russia which could be used as justification for Russia to do much worse. Syria was further away from Europe in a political way, if not geographically, but there the west shows that almost any depravity is allowed by NATO if it is Russia doing it. Good news for genocidal Russians and their bloodthirsty narcissist tyrant! Multipolar world unlocked!

2. I don't know. The position of NATO is that there will be a response, but, nobody really expects Russia to do that for sure so does not want to think about it.
That was exactly what i was asking, maybe it wasn't clear...
 

Romulus

Member
Anyone else fear this war will lead to nuclear armament of as many countries that can do it? It gives a lot of creditability to the fact if you have nukes you are untouchable. We see North Korea having already ran with that philosophy. If Russia didn't have nukes, I feel like this war would be completely different in terms of how the international community support has materialized.


Yeah because in a conventional war, these Russians wouldn't last 4 days against the US alone without complete devastation and confusion. Against all of NATO? 2 days max before disarray and abandoned tanks everywhere.
But since they have nukes we have to sit back.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Yeah, all the talk of Russia being "isolated" reminds me of this:

the-international-community-for-dummies.jpg


Too many people don't realise that we're not in the 20th century anymore and that all those other countries outside of NA and western Europe matter now. It's us who are in danger of being isolated from the rest of the world.

So much wrong with this post...
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Anyone else fear this war will lead to nuclear armament of as many countries that can do it? It gives a lot of creditability to the fact if you have nukes you are untouchable. We see North Korea having already ran with that philosophy. If Russia didn't have nukes, I feel like this war would be completely different in terms of how the international community support has materialized.
You cannot just decide one day to get nukes. It requires years, even decades of research + launch capacity. Plus each country that tries gets sanctioned to hell, see Iran.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member


I hope Putin has more success in the culture wars than the one he’s currently engaged in

The country has continuous authoritarian censorship practices going back hundreds of years. Dostoevsky was sent to the gulags. Solzhenitsyn was sent to the gulags. Shalamov. Countless others.

No need to burn books when you imprison your authors at the first whiff of free thought and don't let foreign material through the border.
Why is PoS Putin acting like someone who spent too much time on Twitter the past couple of years?

Trying to spark another round of culture war infighting in the west.
 

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
I don't know about Saudi anymore, apparently they're not returning Biden's calls:

Israel seems to be taking a pretty neutral stance too:

I don't have any info about Jordan.
I have some knowledge of the Saudis and Jordanians as I have worked on programs selling them Military equipment. They are still buying from us so I would say given we haven't cut off access to foreign Military Sales to them, relationships are fine.
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
You cannot just decide one day to get nukes. It requires years, even decades of research + launch capacity. Plus each country that tries gets sanctioned to hell, see Iran.
What I'm saying is this will make several countries look at what happen here and say "maybe we need to spin up a nuclear weapons development program..." because what is worse, international sanctions or having no deterrent for losing your country to invasion?
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
or having no deterrent for losing your country to invasion?
If any country dared to use nuclear weapons they would be sanctioned to hell and invaded (at least I hope so). There Is a reason it was not used twice in the history of mankind.

I hope this will be a thing one day:
 
Last edited:

Pagusas

Elden Member
If any country dared to use nuclear weapons they would be sanctioned to hell and invaded (at least I hope so). There Is a reason it was not used twice in the history of mankind.

I hope this will be a thing one day:
100% agree, but we can also see that one of the reasons countries haven't been invaded/attacked (like Russia or NK) is because they have nukes. Everyone knows that using them is basically off limits as its a scorched earth policy, but countries without nukes? Well, judging by recent history, they are fair game.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
100% agree, but we can also see that one of the reasons countries haven't been invaded/attacked (like Russia or NK) is because they have nukes. Everyone knows that using them is basically off limits as its a scorched earth policy, but countries without nukes? Well, judging by recent history, they are fair game.
We also know that two countries that did give up their WMDs, Libya and Ukraine, eventually got invaded. Not a good message.
 

boo

Gold Member
Hmm. Take this information with a pinch of salt. I just read on another forum I am a part of that the by far major part of Russian soldiers being killed are not from the more european (read :white) if you will e.g. the Moscow area but rather from the more asian parts of Russia.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Take this information with a punch of salt. I just read on another forum I am a part of that the by far major part of Russian soldiers being killed are not from the more european (read :white) if you will e.g. the Moscow area but rather from the more asian parts of Russia.

 

QSD

Member
according to NOS (dutch BBC)

https://nos.nl/artikel/2422669-rusland-lijkt-doelen-bij-te-stellen-focus-nu-op-bevrijding-donbas

(translation by google translate)

Russia may have scaled down the goals it wants to achieve with the war against Ukraine. One of the top general staff officers, Sergei Rudskoy, says Russia will focus its forces and resources on "the main goal, the complete liberation of the Donbas" in eastern Ukraine.

At the start of the war, other goals were also mentioned: Ukraine should be given a neutral status and be demilitarized. In addition, the country should be 'denazified' and Crimea (annexed by Russia in 2014) should be recognized by Ukraine as Russian territory.

An unstated goal was the swift capture of the capital Kiev, the overthrow of the Zelensky government and the installation of a pro-Russian regime.

Military experts suspect that Russia has changed its target as Ukrainian opposition is much greater than expected. The Russian offensive has stalled after a month of war and heavy casualties. Russia does not seem to dare to face hand-to-hand combat in the cities.

Securing Conquests
A US defense official told Reuters news agency that Russia may be shifting its focus to secure its conquests in the Donbas with a view to peace negotiations. He also does not rule out the possibility that Russia is trying to isolate Ukrainian troops in the east from the rest of the country.

According to Rudskoy, the first phase of the war has largely been completed. He argues that the combat power of the Ukrainian army has been seriously affected. "That makes it possible to focus the main military efforts on the liberation of the Donbas."

The Donbas consists of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Parts of those regions have been in the hands of pro-Russian rebels who are supported and armed by Russia since 2014. Rudskoy says that now 93 percent of Lugansk and 54 percent of Donetsk are no longer controlled by Ukraine.

The Russian attacks on other targets in Ukraine, such as Kiev and Kharkov, aim to damage the country's military infrastructure and tie up Ukrainian troops there, he said. According to him, they should be prevented from being used in the Donbas.

could be good news if true, but it would seem such a loss of face that I'm scarcely readily to believe Putin would go along with it
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom