EU's senior official Stefano Sannino Russia now see the war as being against the West

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: putnam6

Why are both sides dancing around declaring all-out war?

Because open declaration of war between Russia and NATO would be a war that nobody walks away from , Russia is playing the long game and hoping war fatigue sets in around Europe and the States and that they can salvage some kind of pyrrhic victory from the jaws of defeat.

What Putin could do is declare war against Ukraine which would give him access to more conscripts and more firepower , he hasn't done that yet because it's politically dangerous as more young Russian men will be sent home in body bags.

With the news that tanks will be supplied , around March I believe , the chances of that declaration against Ukraine draws closer.

China says hello


Respectfully first of all do you believe Ukraine can win back the lost territories, and with a complete Ukrainian win there can be peace with Russia with Putin still in charge?

It's BS that either Russia is a threat to NATO and the EU or it isn't, right now it isn't a conventional threat but remains a nuclear threat. Like always that's why it's called MAD, so therefore why are we arming Ukraine when Russia will have no option but to intensify? BTW first they will likely use tactical nukes bad enough, then the gloves will be off and anything is game after that.



However, we have plenty that believes we must stop him in Ukraine because he will invade Poland next then Germany and the rest of Europe, well except the French they already surrendered.

a reply to: putnam6

It's not 'has moved to...' it was public knowledge from at least Feb. 24 in 2022. From the horse's mouth:

Don't worry you don't have to watch the whole thing the 'Empire of Lies' bit is at the beginning. Putin made it very clear the war is not against Ukraine but the Western influence. That's not 'moving to' anything it is what it is since Day 1.
And even for me who's a pro-West cheerleader it's just not something you can discuss away: US/West/NATO geopolitics has been really bad for a couple of decades.
That's the most aweful thing, right? When your 'enemy' speaks the truth about you.
Sure his statements are not impartial, how could they be?
But they sure make one feel slightly uncomfortable, because we know our dear leaders are crooked af.

despite all that, war is still the wrong, no matter what justification you have

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: putnam6
Let’s just hope that the declaration of war doesn’t come as a flash out of the corner of someone’s eye, just before the window glass comes in a thousand shards through their head.
Nuclear powers playing games like this isn’t cool. It only takes one misunderstood reading of a radar display or some actual ‘oops I just caused an inadvertent launch’ to take us to a full-blown nuclear conflict.

Sounds like you and I grew up under the same nuclear threat paranoia, but it is really a likelihood or has TPTB and the MIC just conditioned the public to fear that possibility?

a reply to: putnam6

Respectfully first of all do you believe Ukraine can win back the lost territories, and with a complete Ukrainian win there can be peace with Russia with Putin still in charge?

As far as I'm aware the only territory they have lost is Crimea , the other regions that Putin claims to have annexed are still being fought over but I doubt Ukraine can force Russia out so I guess not.

How long Putin remains in charge is probably a bigger question , I guess the expected Russian March offensive will be make or break.

Both sides are at fault , Russia mainly for what they are doing but NATO also for not taking the threat seriously and not offering security concessions , although this is a continuation of 2014.

a reply to: putnam6

Sounds like you and I grew up under the same nuclear threat paranoia

Not paranoia but a looming reality ... like now , although we all nearly bought it in 1983 but for the bravery of one man.

In the early hours of the morning, the Soviet Union's early-warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States. Computer readouts suggested several missiles had been launched. The protocol for the Soviet military would have been to retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own.

But duty officer Stanislav Petrov - whose job it was to register apparent enemy missile launches - decided not to report them to his superiors, and instead dismissed them as a false alarm.

This was a breach of his instructions, a dereliction of duty. The safe thing to do would have been to pass the responsibility on, to refer up.

But his decision may have saved the world.

"I had all the data [to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack]. If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it," he told the BBC's Russian Service 30 years after that overnight shift.

Mr Petrov - who retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel and now lives in a small town near Moscow - was part of a well-trained team which served at one of the Soviet Union's early warning bases, not far from Moscow. His training was rigorous, his instructions very clear.
www.bbc.co.uk...

RiP Stanislav Petrov , the man who saved the World.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: putnam6

It's not 'has moved to...' it was public knowledge from at least Feb. 24 in 2022. From the horse's mouth:

Don't worry you don't have to watch the whole thing the 'Empire of Lies' bit is at the beginning. Putin made it very clear the war is not against Ukraine but the Western influence. That's not 'moving to' anything it is what it is since Day 1.
And even for me who's a pro-West cheerleader it's just not something you can discuss away: US/West/NATO geopolitics has been really bad for a couple of decades.
That's the most aweful thing, right? When your 'enemy' speaks the truth about you.
Sure his statements are not impartial, how could they be?
But they sure make one feel slightly uncomfortable, because we know our dear leaders are crooked af.

despite all that, war is still the wrong, no matter what justification you have

Thanks for the comment Peeple always enjoy your thoughts, funny how you whispered this part and I agree, however just because I agree doesn't mean we have to pay the bill for Ukraine's military expansion

despite all that, war is still wrong, no matter what justification you have

but I was referring to a formal declaration and after reading this I'm not sure it will ever happen and this is why they are dancing around a formal declaration. Well if they value the completely useless UN which FWIW pretty sure the US and Russia dance around all the time when it suits their needs.
and yes I know it's Wikipedia but I don't think this is a wrong representation at all, thus we wont see a formal declaration at all unless there is an overt act by either side.

en.wikipedia.org...

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another. The declaration is a performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government, in order to create a state of war between two or more states.

The legality of who is competent to declare war varies between nations and forms of government. In many nations, that power is given to the head of state or sovereign. In other cases, something short of a full declaration of war, such as a letter of marque or a covert operation, may authorise war-like acts by privateers or mercenaries. The official international protocol for declaring war was defined in the Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities.

Since 1945, developments in international law such as the United Nations Charter, which prohibits both the threat and the use of force in international conflicts, have made declarations of war largely obsolete in international relations,[1] though such declarations may have relevance within the domestic law of the belligerents or of neutral nations. The UN Security Council, under powers granted in articles 24 and 25, and Chapter VII of the Charter, may authorize collective action to maintain or enforce international peace and security. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter also states that: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a state."[2]
Few nations have formally declared war upon another since then.[3][4] In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organizations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.[5] These declarations may have no legal standing in themselves, but they may still act as a call to arms for supporters of these organizations.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: putnam6

Respectfully first of all do you believe Ukraine can win back the lost territories, and with a complete Ukrainian win there can be peace with Russia with Putin still in charge?

As far as I'm aware the only territory they have lost is Crimea , the other regions that Putin claims to have annexed are still being fought over but I doubt Ukraine can force Russia out so I guess not.

How long Putin remains in charge is probably a bigger question , I guess the expected Russian March offensive will be make or break.

Both sides are at fault , Russia mainly for what they are doing but NATO also for not taking the threat seriously and not offering security concessions , although this is a continuation of 2014.

Thanks, Gortex I just enjoy discussing this, as an American, I'm fully aware a Brit or European may have a different perspective. Honestly, it sounds like the old American adage gonna just "slip the tip in" and the next thing you know Ukraine is pregnant and America is the baby's Daddy. Which is about right I can see atleast 18 years of being committed to this Special Military Operation with an emphasis on Special. As it is definitely gonna be a special needs baby.

I suspect it’s because none of them want to declare war and have nobody turn up.

There maybe political will for war but I don’t think the mob is really that into the idea.

If they talk of removing governments from power, perhaps the people would prefer their own removed first before killing foreigners to remove theirs by force.

a reply to: putnam6

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: putnam6

Sounds like you and I grew up under the same nuclear threat paranoia

Not paranoia but a looming reality ... like now , although we all nearly bought it in 1983 but for the bravery of one man.

In the early hours of the morning, the Soviet Union's early-warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States. Computer readouts suggested several missiles had been launched. The protocol for the Soviet military would have been to retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own.

But duty officer Stanislav Petrov - whose job it was to register apparent enemy missile launches - decided not to report them to his superiors, and instead dismissed them as a false alarm.

This was a breach of his instructions, a dereliction of duty. The safe thing to do would have been to pass the responsibility on, to refer up.

But his decision may have saved the world.

"I had all the data [to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack]. If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it," he told the BBC's Russian Service 30 years after that overnight shift.

Mr Petrov - who retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel and now lives in a small town near Moscow - was part of a well-trained team which served at one of the Soviet Union's early warning bases, not far from Moscow. His training was rigorous, his instructions very clear.
www.bbc.co.uk...

RiP Stanislav Petrov , the man who saved the World.

I'm not suggesting it wasn't a possibility but when you go 75 years since the last use, they may have overblown the likely hood just a smidgen

I can remember in 8th grade we had an officer in the Marines speak at an assembly of the whole school, his message we were in the last 3000 days before nuclear war. That was 1978 and 3000 days is 8.2 years, researching back to the 80's he wasn't alone in that thought.

I believe the military and MIC play up the threat significantly, I also believe all the superpowers will likely have problems with some of the launches, not enough for them not to have enough for widespread destruction but enough that they won't know which ones work till they are launched and the warheads have hit thier targets.

Besides, I also believe the first attack will be isolated to one missile incoming and retaliation then we will get a pause and they stand down or we go full bore. If we have people in power that are even thinking going full scale nuclear war over Ukraine we are in it deep already


Ive heard briefly about Stanislav Petrov RiP, the man who saved the World. Here's hoping all sides have another Stan or 2 to keep it form getting out of control.

a reply to: putnam6

I'm not suggesting it wasn't a possibility but when you go 75 years since the last use, they may have overblown the likely hood just a smidgen

The first use showed us the power of the weapon back then but by the 80s in the height of the cold war the power of the weapon had increased significantly , I was a teen in the 80s , the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction was ever present.

Gillan - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Live At Oxford 1981


Never thought I'd have that same feeling again.

a reply to: putnam6

...we have to pay the bill for Ukraine's military expansion

Well Ukraine wouldn't be in this position if the web wouldn't have been spun the way it has been. Aside from all the 'for the public' rethoric of bringing democracy and freedom, the expansion is and always was US-capitalistic in nature. Meaning commercial connections are what's creating 'interest bonds', politics is more often than not just ceremonial emphasizing what is already 'fact by economy'.

That's what the Burista(? Hunter's gig in Ukraine energy?) scandal was really about: making the public aware of how deep the connections between Ukraine & US de facto are.
Aside from any moral-or-not opinion it's way too late to decide it's not our 'bill to pay'.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: putnam6

I'm not suggesting it wasn't a possibility but when you go 75 years since the last use, they may have overblown the likely hood just a smidgen

The first use showed us the power of the weapon back then but by the 80s in the height of the cold war the power of the weapon had increased significantly , I was a teen in the 80s , the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction was ever present.

Gillan - Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Live At Oxford 1981

Never thought I'd have that same feeling again.

In the 80's here in southeastern America with Reagan, Gorbachov's "tear down that wall", Glasnost, and the fall of the Berlin wall, it seemed to be less of a threat, not more. Wasn't the talk of normalizing relations with the Russians?

I can't remember all the 80s were my sex drugs and rock and roll years LOL, perhaps it was perceived as we were indeed hyped on the Iran hostages.

Funny how everything old is new again,

N

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: putnam6

...we have to pay the bill for Ukraine's military expansion

Well Ukraine wouldn't be in this position if the web wouldn't have been spun the way it has been. Aside from all the 'for the public' rethoric of bringing democracy and freedom, the expansion is and always was US-capitalistic in nature. Meaning commercial connections are what's creating 'interest bonds', politics is more often than not just ceremonial emphasizing what is already 'fact by economy'.

That's what the Burista(? Hunter's gig in Ukraine energy?) scandal was really about: making the public aware of how deep the connections between Ukraine & US de facto are.
Aside from any moral-or-not opinion it's way too late to decide it's not our 'bill to pay'.

thus the sheep in your avatar wearing a soldier's helmet.

I call BS, just because America messed around and got intimate with Ukraine in 2014, it doesn't mean we had to cozy up to them and blow in thier ear and whisper I'll be there for you in 2022. Besides, we are talking billions here, and whether people agree or not we are running low on some munitions already.

a reply to: putnam6

In the 80's here in southeastern America with Reagan, Gorbachov's "tear down that wall", Glasnost, and the fall of the Berlin wall, it seemed to be less of a threat, not more.

That was toward the end of the 80s , the fall of the Berlin wall was 1989 , in the early to mid 80s there was a strong possibility that the US and Russia would face off , the late 80s early 90s were the time of Perestroika and Glasnost , we were all friends and Rock stars went to Moscow to give the Russian kids what they'd been starved of , sadly the hope and friendship was short lived.

originally posted by: gortex
Both sides are at fault , Russia mainly for what they are doing but NATO also for not taking the threat seriously and not offering security concessions , although this is a continuation of 2014.

Security concessions for what?

Do you mean Russia want security concessions so that no one intervene when they invade other countries and murder civilians?

Russia has thousands upon thousands of nukes. Even if literally THE ENTIRE WORLD was in NATO, no one would attack Russia without Russia invading. Because there would be no point. Unless Russia would just raise their arms and surrender, it'd go nuclear.

a reply to: putnam6

1996 if I remember that right when trade agreements were made, not 2014, that was already reaction not 'the action'.
And it's an incredible naive position that simply not engaging is an option. The ties exist.
You think the US is so rich and powerful because of its big beautiful country and the productive population and its rich soil... that hasn't been true for 80 years now.
It's all about connections and influence.
Power means others are depending on you.
The US' reputation is already seriously damaged. Simply dropping support for the Ukraine would just create more alienation. Countries aware they can't survive on their own will turn away and that bubble of influence that protects the US homeland would simply burst.
Meaning nations you thought were your friends will turn against you if it becomes obvious the protection you once offered turns into the opposite.
That is already happening.

I mean

just because America messed around

in a game of power messing around ends usually deadly. A sign of weakness and game over.
That's just reality.

a reply to: merka

Security concessions for what?

Do you mean Russia want security concessions so that no one intervene when they invade other countries and murder civilians?

No , Russia didn't want Ukraine joining NATO and basing NATO troops and equipment on their border , it's an understandable concern. NATO should have assured Russia that Ukraine wouldn't be joining (they'd be vetoed anyway) but they would enjoy NATO benefits (what they're getting now) if attacked.

a reply to: merka

Then why are we p###### away 3/5's of a TRILLION dollars per year on useless defense spending?

We have nukes. Unless the goal is to inflict your will on others, we don't need a standing army right? No one will invade the US, because if they do we will go nuclear.

Imagine all that could be accomplished if we weren't buying $600 toilet seats and funding the same dirtbags who rob, rape, lie and pillage our lands.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: putnam6

1996 if I remember that right when trade agreements were made, not 2014, that was already reaction not 'the action'.
And it's an incredible naive position that simply not engaging is an option. The ties exist.
You think the US is so rich and powerful because of its big beautiful country and the productive population and its rich soil... that hasn't been true for 80 years now.
It's all about connections and influence.
Power means others are depending on you.
The US' reputation is already seriously damaged. Simply dropping support for the Ukraine would just create more alienation. Countries aware they can't survive on their own will turn away and that bubble of influence that protects the US homeland would simply burst.
Meaning nations you thought were your friends will turn against you if it becomes obvious the protection you once offered turns into the opposite.
That is already happening.

I mean

just because America messed around

in a game of power messing around ends usually deadly. A sign of weakness and game over.
That's just reality.

Pointing out semi-obscure trade agreements from 26 years ago works better with a link, LOL I'm not a Poindexter with a Henry Kissinger t-shirt.

I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree, worried about America losing stature? that's the worst reason to use over going to war.


Why does everybody think aid and support are all or nothing? There are degrees of support. Remember when the mantra was yea but we aren't sending tanks it's okay, and now we are sending tanks.

What's this game of power STUFF, Peeple, America militarily is easily the top dog which country is gonna switch sides because the US sent 75 billion instead of 100 billion? Besides who gives a flip, sorry but that is most Americans' default mode.

Throw in NATO AND Russia is under more of a threat than Ukraine, even more so after seeing Russia's performance. Such a crappy performance that Putin could be desperate and skip the conventional warfare and go right to the unconventional.

Then all bets are off...

I don't see that happening, Putin isn't that stupid. Even a small tactical nuke, would bring scorn on his country from even nations like India that are supporting him now. Plus it is completely unwinnable for both sides if it goes ballistic but Russia would definitely get everything the US and UK have pointed at them immediately and with a higher success rate.

I do like how you pulled one quote out of the whole post, an effective debate tactic.

Just discussing this because it's an interesting subject, I'm open to other theories but have been discussing this here since it started and it's the first time Ive heard of a 1996 trade agreement that makes the US the defacto protector of Ukraine.

LOL ya even got me curious enough to search here, hoping you could be a little more specific cause Im finding bupkis

www.state.gov...

a reply to: putnam6

... I'm not a Poindexter with a Henry Kissinger t-shirt

also: sorry didn't want to send you off chasing a goose, it was just to illustrate that Western influence in Ukraine didn't start 2014

Anyhoo I wasn't using it as reason for going to war, but as explanation why we're (the whole West) party in the war since long before Russia attacked 2014 or 2022.

Throw in NATO AND Russia is under more of a threat than Ukraine

I wish that was true. Alas Ukraine doesn't stand a chance if we're being honest, simply because they're running out of people. And that's for sure going to be blamed on America.
Germany and France are already starting to waver.
I can easily see this situation being more dangerous for other reasons than 'just' nukes.




And since the reply to your post has your post highlighted and linked my response is mostly still to all of what you said if I quote I do so to highlight that it's a 'sidenote' if you will