Forum Topic

Is It Time NATO Got Involved?

This latest attack is beyond horrific! Putin is totally out of control and only the combined forces of NATO can stop him.Putin sinks to new low: Maternity hospital is bombed, with children buried under rubble in Mariupol, where '3,000 babies are without food or medicine while Russian troops round up 400 Ukrainian 'hostages' in Kherson https://mol.im/a/10593177

Sue Hammond ● 1194d48 Comments

Yeah, saw that. Still trying to work out if he'd lost the plot completely or whether he was deliberately ignoring the question because he didn't want to publically comment on Putin's war.

Michael Ixer ● 1190d

Yeah, Trump 2024Trump when asked about Ukraine yesterdayForgeard: "What do you see happening next then? 'Cause it seems like the tensions are high. How does this all end? Is this going to be like a long-term thing? How do you see it unfolding?Trump: "Well, and I said this a long time ago, if this happens, we are playing right into their hands. Green energy. The windmills. They don't work. They're too expensive. They kill all the birds. They ruin your landscapes. And yet the environmentalists love the windmills. And I've been preaching this for years. The windmills. And I had them way down. But the windmills are the most expensive energy you can have. And they don't work. And by the way, they last a period of 10 years and by the time they start rusting and rotting all over the place, nobody ever takes them down. They just go on to the next piece of prairie or land and destroy that."

Matt Palmer ● 1190d

🇷🇺💪👏

John James ● 1191d

@MW Who/what are you talking about?

Sue Hammond ● 1191d

Too busy aiding and abetting the gassing and barrel-bombing of civilians in Syria.

Michael Winstanley ● 1191d

You do not seem to think that Russia was involved in Ukraine while Trump was in power.and"Perhaps most damning was Trump’s decision in 2019 to temporarily withhold nearly $400 million of military aide to Ukraine. His pronouncement was a politically motivated attempt at extortion to advance personal interests as he sought to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. The U.S. Government Accountability Office declared Trump’s scheme violated federal law and was subsequently impeached by Congress." (TheHill.com)You are assuming that there will be a 2024. Bit early.

David Ainsworth ● 1192d

@Michael 9.36Regardless of how many anti-Trump articles you can dredge up the fact is Putin did not attempt to invade any country whilst The Donald was in power.  Trump also had Kim Yong-un under his thrall and his threat to destroy North Korea if 'rocket man' didn't curtail his nuclear program seemed to have worked.  Unfortunately now that weak and wobbly Biden is in power it has restarted with a vengeance. Perverse as it may be...bullies only respect other bullies. Below is a long but I think very interesting article:What Trump got right — and wrong — with North Korea, explained by a former intel officialhttps://www.vox.com/21515145/north-korea-trump-usa-nuclear-war-interviewTrump for President in 2024

Sue Hammond ● 1192d

Would the saying:"Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are" be relevant here?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1192d

A couple of interesting articles about Trump, one recent and one a few months before he was elected. No wonder Trump wanted to win the second election - even supporting an assault on the Capitol and possibly the murder of Pence and others? It must have been a disappointment to Putin that Trump didn't succeed? How to destroy American democracy without a war? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-murder#aoh=16469904882117&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fnews%2F2022%2F03%2Fdonald-trump-vladimir-putin-murder
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-s-history-praising-dictators-n604801#aoh=16469904882117&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2016-election%2Fdonald-trump-s-history-praising-dictators-n604801

Michael Ixer ● 1192d

In a warped way Mr Brown might be right. If Trump was in power he might have supported giving Ukraine to Russia:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gop-ukraine-impeachment-trump_n_622a774be4b0fe0944d330a8Only days before the invasion began he was saying how smart Putin was. He probably still supports Putin, just can't say that at the moment? Putin's agent in the US?

Michael Ixer ● 1192d

I totally agree David.Apologies for not making it clear, but I was replying to Michael Brown's earlier post...

Ivonne Holliday ● 1192d

"was Putin not on a peace-keeping mission initially?"Well, there you go. Mission creep, they call it.-------------------------------"the latest in a countless string of reminders that whenever it seems like Trump has bottomed out, he always finds a new depth of depravity to plumb, a new angle of evil to embrace."(Rolling Stone)

David Ainsworth ● 1192d

Excuse me, was Putin not on a peace-keeping mission initially?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

"This wouldn't have happened if the US election hadn't been rigged. Donald, come back.. ""John Bolton, who served as Mr Trump’s national security advisor from 2018 to 2019, said ... that he also doubted Mr Trump’s enthusiasm for standing in Mr Putin’s way, with the Republican forced to roll back on comments that described the Russian leader as “savvy” and a “genius” for launching an invasion of Ukraine, its neighbour, on a false pretext.“You never know with Trump,” Mr Bolton said. “It depends on what time of day it is, it depends on what he thought his political benefit would be at any given moment. I don’t think ultimately he would have stood in Putin’s way”."(Independent today)

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

Good questions,, David; I don't claim to have the answers, in the same way I posed it as a question about Putin as I don't know the answer to that. I think at the time many disagreed with Blair but he did get the vote he wanted in Parliament.

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

"no one brave enough to tell him the truth?"So did Blair lie about Iraq in 2003 or did the UK intelligence community lie to him? Did nobody dare tell him? Or was it all just a genuine error in a democracy? I mean, we are a democracy so we don't do bad things on purpose. How could we? Blair was democratically elected. And he was re-elected after this victorious war which was based on these inadvertent(?) inaccuracies. But the UK population cannot be blamed for voting for Blair in 2005, can it? We did not know what was going on. (Un)like the Russian people in Putin's non-democracy.

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

Yes. David, my point was the US and its allies have often had alliances with dubious regimes for their own benefit or to drive regime change, but Sadam was and the Taliban leaders are unsavoury characters in a position of power that was gained by undemocratic means (my opinion). Ukraine has a democratically elected leader and government, and from what I can see was no real threat to anyone, including Russia. Not quite comparable situations?Sadly, it's always the innocent that suffer the most in war, and that probably includes Russian conscripts who would perhaps rather be at home watching Netflix or drinking coffee in Starbucks? Of course Putin lied about the use of conscripts but the Russian defence authorities have now admitted they were sent to Ukraine. It makes me wonder if Putin's actions seem so unpredictable because he's being mislead by his own military leaders? Did they tell him the Russian army was better prepared than it really is and using only professional troops, and now the reality is dawning on him that's why he's acting so violently? Perhaps a result of no one brave enough to tell him the truth?

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

"Still Saddam did invade Kuwait and gas some of his own people""Still Saddam did invade Kuwait"The earlier war ejected him a decade before 2003."Still Saddam did ... gas some of his own people". In 1988 when he was an ally of the USA, who supplied him with material and intelligence. And who carried on doing so after Halabja.

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

David. I'll let you decide what mixture of ands and ors you want to parse that sentence with - I can't really make out what's driving Putin. I'd agree the UK, US, etc haven't always covered themselves with glory which is probably why there are a significant number of countries who aren't condemning Putin? Still Sadam did invade Kuwait and gas some of his own people and there did appear to be Taliban support for those carrying out 9/11 but reactions did appear disproportionate in many respects and abandoning Afghanistan for the Taliban to return seemed to negate many of the reasons for going there in the first place?

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

David. I'll let you decide what mixture of ands and ors you want to parse that sentence with - I can't really make out what's driving Putin. I'd agree the UK, US, etc haven't always covered themselves with glory which is probably why there are a significant number of countries who aren't condemning Putin? Still Sadam did invade Kuwait and gas some of his own people and there did appear to be Taliban support for those carrying out 9/11 but reactions did appear disproportionate in many respects and abandoning Afghanistan for the Taliban to return seemed to negate many of the reasons for going there in the first place?

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

"if you're a spiteful, vindictive, murderous, crazy, self obsessed, ignorant, psychopathic old man nostalgic for a fictional past?"Overkill somewhat? Yet you fail to mention lying. He is up against Biden, of course:-"Biden was a strong supporter of the War in Afghanistan, saying, "Whatever it takes, we should do it." As head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said in 2002 that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security and there was no other option than to "eliminate" that threat. In October 2002, he voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, approving the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As chair of the committee, he assembled a series of witnesses to testify in favor of the authorization. They gave testimony grossly misrepresenting the intent, history, and status of Saddam and his secular government, which was an avowed enemy of al-Qaida, and touted Iraq's fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction." (Wikipedia)

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

Adam. Just to add, I'll accept the analysis of this as I only have a high level understanding of the science - the real issues around nuclear fission and fusion - both for civil and military use -  are engineering and material science problems - definitely not my area of expertise!

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

Adam. Thanks for that. I'm my view that's still a sizeable bang. Although I'll take the research that's been done at face value I wonder if in a real world scenario there are factors (such a wind turbulence?) that might be unpredictable and affect the outcome, particularly in a war zone where some unexpected intervention could affect the outcome - such as the explosion occurring at the wrong altitude? Or perhaps, for a "small" bomb, a complete failure to start the chain reaction? Seems a pretty risky "demonstration" but perhaps not if you're a spiteful, vindictive, murderous, crazy, self obsessed, ignorant, psychopathic old man nostalgic for a fictional past?

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

Thank you for your research.We are fortunate that civilians are so well protected. I am sure that is why the UK has foresworn any use of nuclear weapons and destroyed all our stocks of them.------------------------------Iraq War civilian deaths (2003-2011):- At least 100,000.Of 28,410 houses in central Dresden (1945), 24,866 were destroyed.  15 sq km totally demolished—of which there were: 14k homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 19 churches, 5 theatres, 50 banks, 31 department stores, 31 hotels, 62 administrative buildings.

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

Hi Ivonne, in an ideal world civilians would be protected in a war zone but I suspect that's extremely hard to do in a city under siege. To defend a town or city from the Russians, the Ukrainians would use elevation to their advantage for observation, snipers, machine gun posts and anti aircraft positions. As distasteful as it is, if a sniper uses an upper floor of a residential block to attack the Russians, in my opinion that apartment becomes a legitimate target. We have numerous layers to this war, soldier vs soldier, economic, cyber? and not least of all propaganda, so when our media shows a large hole in a residential block, it may not be the full picture.

Adam Tripp ● 1193d

Good morning, David.As far as I am aware, civilians should not be the target in a war, but yes the armies.But, to provide you with a more accurate answer, I googled the question:  "Are civilians protected by the Geneva Convention?" The following information is from the Red Cross (https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians/overview-civilians-protected.htm):Civilians in areas of armed conflict and occupied territories are protected by the 159 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Civilians are to be protected from murder, torture or brutality, and from discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion.Another source of information is: https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdfPlease check page 5 under "The Protocols Additional tothe Geneva Conventions of 1949", in particular Articles 51,54 as well as Articles 56, 53.Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

Michael, here's an interesting article which explains how tactical nukes are feasible battlefield weapons.https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/02/america-isnt-ready-for-russias-battlefield-nuclear-weapons/there's lot of information out there and this article is not in full agreement with some other articles I have read but it gives one a flavour of what's possible/likely. If articles like this are accurate, they explain why Nato is desperate to avoid a war (which could/would quickly engulf the whole of Europe).PS did not mean a dirty bomb

Adam Tripp ● 1193d

Did we learn nothing from the U.S. bombings of China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Dominican Republic, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and Syria?

Michael Brown ● 1193d

"bombing civilians is unspeakable"At what age do you explain to children that eye and skin colour are factors in how war is perceived in the UK?War means unimaginable carnage. Parents picking up bits of their children scattered by bombs so they have something to bury. Limbs blown off and innocent people slaughtered. This is and always will be the reality of war.What do people think happens in war?Strangely it is hypocrisy that gets me.The UK has been at war constantly since the end of WII - what do you think we have been doing during those wars?The Ukrainians do not deserve this and nor does any other population!

Ed Robinson ● 1193d

"I think there is something along those lines in the Geneva Convention(s) to which many countries, including Russia, are signatories."Please could you show me.

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

I so wish these news were not published!It is giving prominence to the small stature of Putin!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

I think there is something along those lines in the Geneva Convention(s) to which many countries, including Russia, are signatories.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

Michael B,Are you feeling OK?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

I hope this is fake news!Vladimir Putin ‘plotting chemical weapons attack in Ukraine’https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/09/vladimir-putin-plotting-chemical-weapons-attack-ukraine/

Sue Hammond ● 1193d

"bombing civilians is unspeakable"Really? When did that become so?

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

It's because of NATO, UN, EU, US & Allies and all the other so-called peacekeepers why the Ukraine and the rest of the world is in this mess. This wouldn't have happened if the US election hadn't been rigged. Donald, come back..

Michael Brown ● 1193d

Hello Sue,I have had your thoughts for some time, bombing civilians is unspeakable, and today's bombing a children's hospital is beyond unspeakable! It is unforgivable and we shall not forget!!Was it Barbara who said something to the effect:  "Oh, Your Majesty, please send 007 in!"  I agree with this sentiment too, albeit slightly unrealistic?However, Putin and his horrific cohort are doing all this as a bait for NATO countries to react.  Why? Who knows, his desperate attempt to expand his empire, along the lines of Jean-Bédel Bokassa?Somehow, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.  The worst thing you can do to Putin and his ilk is not follow their lead....  We do not want a war!How can we help and save Ukraine?  I wish I had the magic wand and/or a crystal ball!  I somehow see a stretch of Ukraine where stronger defence can still be built up massively, albeit in a resistance style of movement.I am no good at strategy and wholeheartedly hope we can find intelligent and cunning characters that do!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1193d

Wasn't thinking when I wrote that. Fusion weapons are triggered by a fission device so will still produce a high amount of radioactivity. However, it doesn't affect my previous comment as to produce a "small" nuclear weapon one would use a fission device. I'd query how small one would be as it must be the critical mass of the fissile material to produce uncontrolled fusion. Unless you meant a "dirty" bomb just to contaminate?

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

Adam. I was referring to strategic nuclear weapons but you're right I should have considered tactical ones as well because western analysts seem to think that Russia has included tactical nukes I their war game models. (I don't know if NATO has.) Unfortunately, small tactical nuclear weapons are most likely to use fission rather than fusion so will likely produce a high amount of radioactive fallout with long half lives. This is likely to (a) render the land where they've been triggered unusable for a long time (consider the no go zone around Chernobyl) and (b) produce a clouds containing radioactive waste that could drift over areas of high population that would kill many prematurely from radioactive pounding. (And Ukraine is a neighbour of Russia, so probably an unwise move?) So I still maintain no sane person would consider using nuclear weapons.

Michael Ixer ● 1193d

"In my opinion Nato would not do that."Wikipedia on No First Use policies:-"In April 2017 Defence Secretary Michael Fallon confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive initial strike" in "the most extreme circumstances". Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes. The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict."The USA has far fewer tactical nuclear weapons than Russia has, and the UK has none. Strategic nuclear weapons might be used. So the response to a Russian devastation of several wheatfields might well be a hundred times bigger.

David Ainsworth ● 1193d

it's not as simple as that Michael. Apparently Russia (note I say Russia and not specifically Putin) considers tactical nukes to be part of their conventional arsenal. Some of these weapons can be delivered by artillery guns and have a very small radius of destruction compared to "proper" nukes (obviously fallout is a different matter). It's possible that Russia could use a battlefield nuke to scare the hell out of Ukraine and/or Nato without starting a nuclear exchange. For example, if Russia detonated a tactical nuke in remote wheatfields of Ukraine where few lives would be lost, would it be reasonable for Nato to nuke Moscow or a major military base? In my opinion Nato would not do that.

Adam Tripp ● 1193d

The fact is if any side initiates an exchange of strategic nuclear weapons it's the end of civilisation it's not tagged MAD for nothing. I can't see an sane individual initiating such an exchange; I did hear one theory that Putin might be terminally ill and didn't care what happened  - I don't think there's any basis for that so let's hope it's fake news! The cockroaches missed out on their chance to take over the world in 1962 when Kruschev and Kennedy came to their senses, they're getting very excited again :-(

Michael Ixer ● 1194d

He thought he could send his troops in and Ukraine would rollover but they haven't and their resolve to remain an independent country is getting stronger,  and Putin is getting desperate.

Sue Hammond ● 1194d

If Putin wanted a nuclear war, why would he have waited until now? He has less of the benefit of surprise, as everybody is more alert. Oh Lord, I am trying to be rational again! I never learn!

David Ainsworth ● 1194d

"lobbing nuclear missiles around will be decidedly unhelpful."And it would not save any babies nor children. Including the not-yet-born.

David Ainsworth ● 1194d

Yes I can see that but I am fearful that Putin will start a full on nuclear war anyway if he is not stopped soon.

Sue Hammond ● 1194d

Sue, hitting the button would probably wipe out about half a billion people. As much as Putin needs to stop his campaign, lobbing nuclear missiles around will be decidedly unhelpful.

Karl Henry ● 1194d

I realise the tremendous risk but perhaps we (NATO) should push it first?  I just cannot see a peaceful outcome with Putin alive.

Sue Hammond ● 1194d

No.As disgraceful as the attack was we (NATO)cannot risk giving him an excuse to push that button and thousands more innocents being killed.

Andy Pike ● 1194d