Lighthouse

Nope. Try again.

Again with the weird, one way rules which apparently only affect the West negatively. The USA spends nearly $800bn on defence annually. Russia spends $62bn, only a couple more than we do. The difference is Lithuania and Poland want us in their country, whereas Ukraine certainly don't want Russia.

How often has that gone perfectly to plan? The French resistance, the Korean War, Vietnam, Russia in Afghanistan, USA in Afghanistan, USA in Iraq, the frequent flare ups with ISIS and their affiliates in Syria, Lybia, Iraq, the Israeli situation in Gaza and the West bank...

I know this wasn't aimed at me but personally I see: Eventual Russian occupation of Ukraine and a puppet government installed NATO troops and aircraft deployed to bases in the Baltic and Poland. Increased and protracted economic sanctions against Russia. Stalemate and a new cold war in Europe, which ends one of two ways; Putin dies (either naturally or is assassinated) or is overthrown by some sort of popular movement. At that point Ukraine and Belarus overthrow their hugely unpopular puppet governments and the world moves on.

A sh*tty economy which is tumbling down the world order, soon to be 13th, a plummeting birth rate, exports which are 75% hydrocarbons which the world is moving away from and a whole bunch of neighbours who want nothing more to do with Russia and everything to do with the EU. He clung on to his last friend in Europe, Lukashenko, by the skin of his teeth, in the face of mass protests and he's scared they will be the last two dominoes to fall. Now he faces a long and protracted occupation of a country which hates him, an increasing body count and massive economic sanctions.

So he isn't mad, he's canny and shrewd.... but he will quite willingly see his entire empire turned to radioactive ash, for the sake of some Lithuanian farmland and pine forest?

So... his tanks can keep going until they reach Bordeaux?

If Putin were to launch an offensive on a NATO country, we repelled them with conventional force, Putin threw his toys out the pram and ordered a nuclear first stike against the West, he would be stopped. In that moment he basically says to every person in Russia, "you and your families will be vapourised so I can be emperor of Vilnius!" Then it's every man for himself, you've literally nothing to lose by trying to kill or overthrow him.

Again with the assumption that the whole nuclear thing is one way traffic. You can't simply say that NATO wont risk nuclear war but Russia will just casually wander into NATO countries without a second thought. That is a huge step into the abyss for Putin too.

It's not just the West who've had a disaster in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground, who knows but if I had to wager their air force against F22s, F35s, Typhoons, F15s and FA18s I know what my money's on.

If nothing else, I think the USA would push to defend the Baltics to send a message to China/Taiwan. However, I think if it came to it, NATO would defend them and Russia wouldn't attack.

Okay, walking up to four blokes outside a pub holding a grenade, pulling the pin, then standing at the pearly gates claiming you won 4-1.

That makes zero sense. That’s like getting into a fight with four blokes outside a pub and thinking they’ve got more to lose because you can punch four of them.

No they don't, we both lose exactly the same - everything! People are talking as if the west would respond to all out nuclear Armageddon with some hashtags and T-shirts. That's not the case, there's a reason the cold war stayed cold and all the wars were fought by proxy; mutually assured destruction.

That works both ways. Putin is clearly desperate to lead his own Russian empire and that wont include getting annihilated by Britain and USAs nuclear deterrent. You can flip your argument around both ways; would Putin risk his own Empire, betting against nuclear war with USA, just for a small, economically insignificant piece of land like Lithuania?

It is now, it's been cleansed. Or even the cash. It's not like Putin's going into places with massive amounts of financial reserve or natural resources he can commandeer. A prolonged occupation of Ukraine, combined with the sanctions which will follow, isn't going to come cheap. This kind of invasion and occupation has gone tits up for countries with much stronger economies, invading much smaller places.

Let's at least keep this thread civil and on topic, please.

What? During the cold war the USSR was the second largest economy in the world. Now it's 11th and, with the exception of China, everyone above them is a democracy. They'll almost certainly slip to 13th behind Brazil and Australia with the sanctions they're likely to receive. China will take them to the cleaners on any deal for oil or gas, knowing the West doesn't want to buy from them and good luck selling oil TO the Middle East. The cold war ultimately bankrupt the Soviet Union and Putin seems very keen on replicating that.

In three months Leeds have conceded 7, 6, 4 twice, 3 three times, 2 three times and 1 twice. Zero clean sheets.

Sending NATO forces into the area, whilst undoubtedly a big escalation, isn't going to lead to either a world or nuclear war. Neither side is going to risk total nuclear obliteration over some farmland and a couple of coal mines in East Ukraine.

Be interesting to see how that washes with his supporters, I.e. right wing, halfwit xenophobes who know little about the situation other than Putin = Russia = communism = Satan… and Trump’s just w*nked him off live on air.

The danger of that is you scare everyone off and they look for ways to permanently wean themselves off Russian gas. This is embarrassing and expensive for Germany, being bent over a barrel by a county who's economy is about 1/3 the size of their own. A good time to buy shares in wind turbines and solar panels, I'd imagine.

That's a bit of a Mexican standoff, Europe can't afford to completely shut off the gas and Russia can't afford not to sell any.

For further contrast, and casually assuming Wikipedia is in the right ballpark, the invasion and seven year occupation of Iraq cost the USA alone $1.1tn

I've no idea what that translates to in real terms, you'd have to ask an economist, but $630bn is less than the GDP of Switzerland or Argentina. Doesn't SEEM like a lot to be hanging your hat on when your assets are being seized across the free world.