Comments
-SPOF t1_itj7tql wrote
Yeah, but the only way to stop it - give more weapons to Ukraine and help to finish the rest of the russian troops there.
sexyloser1128 t1_itjl9ql wrote
If the west sent more advanced air defenses earlier like people wanted, then the recent damage might not have even happened. And it was only the recent barrage that forced Germany to send the Iris-T, it seems like the leaders of the west are so scared they only send weapons in reaction of an attack rather than sending weapons immediately and crushing the attack. It reminds of me the west's piecemeal response to Putin taking Crimea and part of Georgia. If the west came down hard at first, it might have detered the current invasion.
div414 t1_itjq1oc wrote
It isn’t about being scared, it’s about having political cover to do it.
NATO cannot be perceived to be on the offensive.
Keyword here is perceived.
sexyloser1128 t1_itjr456 wrote
> NATO cannot be perceived to be on the offensive.
That's a double standard that NATO applies to itself only. Russia has no problem attacking. NATO should have no problem defending. No significant portion of the world population is going to admonish NATO for providing tanks or aircraft to hit targets that are in Ukraine. I understand their excuses about perception but it's a poor excuse. It's like saying giving a gun to woman being raped and murdered is equally bad as the attacker. No rational western leader should think like this. I frankly Western/NATO's concern about this probably lead Putin to think they would be too scared to provide weapons to help Ukraine.
div414 t1_itkjmvz wrote
That isn’t it.
If NATO is perceived to attack Russia, which Putin has been baiting for months now - it changes the entire narrative.
Nukes, China, India, Iran - everything gets realigned as Putin screams existential threat and applies Russian nuclear doctrine, and total mobilization.
Gullygod111 t1_itkz5h9 wrote
It’s an effort to not re-ignite the Cold War.
Those who lived through it understand.
K_Marcad t1_itmjei8 wrote
I think cold war is re-ignited already. I think the goal now is to keep it cold instead of starting WWIII.
sexyloser1128 t1_itmk38g wrote
> It’s an effort to not re-ignite the Cold War. > > > > Those who lived through it understand.
I would say Russian actions already re-started the Cold War and letting Russia take Ukraine which has immense natural resources and huge geographic strategic value would be a huge mistake to the rest of the world who opposes tyranny.
Gullygod111 t1_itslwm5 wrote
Okay, join the foreign legion and fight for Ukraine.
Emblemator t1_itk0njs wrote
Yeah the problem is Russia already says they're fighting actual Nato, not Ukraine, in their internal propaganda. They've been saying that for months now. It causes an interesting side-effect in that if Nato actually did go in now, it wouldn't really escalate anymore now would it? Send in the planes and even boots on ground, and push Russia out then, since from their end they already played this card. It shouldn't give them a moral high-ground to escalate for some action we did that they already claimed we were doing to begin with.
div414 t1_itkjsr9 wrote
It absolutely would escalate.
Russia has nukes.
Russia claims annexed territories are Russian land.
Read up on their nuclear doctrine.
NATO is a defensive pact Ukraine isn’t a part of it.
They simply cannot, and will never take the initiative unless Putin does something stupid.
Blowing up appartements unfortunately isn’t it.
dweeelll t1_itknbp8 wrote
Finally someone with a brain. Feels like most people here don’t know how badly this would escalate if NATO hopped in. This is only a good idea if you’re ready for WW3 and nuclear weapons being used.
div414 t1_itknicj wrote
Geopolitics are complex and nuclear doctrines are dusty things for most.
Hopefully this War gets people interested about the gears that make the world turn, and burn.
Gullygod111 t1_itkytfu wrote
Sounds like a good idea if redditors on here demanding we intervene directly are okay with flashes of blinding light engulfing their bedroom/basement windows.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itko585 wrote
I don't agree that it would escalate. Russia would just fold and back away. Putin would cry and bitch about it, but there would be no nuclear war or WW3. He wants everyone to think there would be though, but IMO that's just a bluff.
div414 t1_itko8dr wrote
I understand that you feel this way. I’m just telling you it’s wrong.
The doctrines are very clear, and we’re dealing with a dangerous man stuck in a corner with no way out.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkozmk wrote
Hey, and I understand why you are feeling the way you do and I'm telling you it's wrong.
We are dealing with a moron doing typical Soviet-style negotiations (aka ask for 200% of what you want and compromise at 150%) combined with China's Final Warning. That's it.
div414 t1_itkp2qd wrote
Dont be coy, that isn’t it.
Historically, you’re also wrong.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkppcn wrote
That's really it. Putin just plays a cornered rat to push Ukraine's allies back into the status quo so they wouldn't send weapons or assist Ukraine in fear "to escalate". That's exactly the reason for the "political cover" you mentioned in your first comment. The West needs it so that Putin's escalations in Ukraine cannot be blamed on the West. Although he still blames the West, lol.
Also, a tip to you, don't use "historically" if you are not going to elaborate.
div414 t1_itkqar8 wrote
There are numerous instances of near-nuclear engagements in history, specifically with Russia.
Here’s a list.
My bad for assuming you had a perspective of history on nuclear engagements and their doctrines.
You’ve just explained why NATO is acting this way.
Why are we arguing this anymore?
Good on you for realizing your initial argument is unfounded.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itktazp wrote
Have you really shifted the responsibility to prove YOUR point to me? LOL, you just raised a major "I am arguing in bad faith" flag. Point me to a specific precedent when Russia followed up on its nuclear threats for the Russian-occupied territory of the country with internationally recognized borders. If you won't I will consider that you had no actual idea what you were talking about when you wrote:
>Historically, you’re also wrong.
That has nothing to do with the consequences of the NATO military intervention though. It's unknown if Russia will actually escalate if NATO intervenes, you just choose to believe that they will double down citing "omg I spent an hour reading about military doctrines, trust me bro" while I choose to believe that they will retreat because it just isn't rational to start a conventional or nuclear war against NATO. Perhaps it will be some combination of both so Putin can "save face", but all-out nuclear war or WW3? Definitely nope.
div414 t1_itkto47 wrote
May I suggest investing in the stock market or lottery ticket with such a unique crystal ball? :)
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkttwn wrote
I can suggest the same to you, buddy. ;)
dweeelll t1_itkom8k wrote
If you think that Russia would just kindly fold and back away after NATO started attacking “their land” (in their mind the annexed areas are part of russia) you’re out of touch.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkpa01 wrote
Nope, I just don't believe Russian bluff unlike you.
Gullygod111 t1_itkz16f wrote
People like you really want to see the world burn.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itkzr47 wrote
Why is it so hard to understand that bluffing is in Russia's interest while dying in nuclear apocalypse isn't? People like you just get off from fearmongering.
Gullygod111 t1_itsm2g7 wrote
Okay, join the foreign legion.
Jopelin_Wyde t1_itssxxp wrote
How is joining a foreign legion relates to my opinion on Russian politics? Are you saying that to anyone who has a different opinion than you? LOL.
[deleted] t1_itkdl3v wrote
[removed]
Prestigious_Plum_451 t1_itk506p wrote
> If the west sent more advanced air defenses earlier like people wanted, then the recent damage might not have even happened.
Honestly, it takes time to train people to use advanced systems properly... you can throw gear in to the field all day long, but it wont mean a damn thing if the people needing them are not trained on using them right. Such an act would not only be wasteful, but strategically unwise.(see Russia for examples on consequences of sending improperly trained, and at times poorly equipped/supplied soldiers in to theater.)
Being said, depending on the scope, and complexity of training it can take weeks to months, and what you perceive as dillydallying may very well be more about the delay caused by such than a lack of willingness to send stuff in outright.
dbratell t1_itkqfqu wrote
> And it was only the recent barrage that forced Germany to send the Iris-T,
That is factually false. The reason they could be sent as quickly was that the transfer had been planned for months and after training and preparations is was about time to deliver the first system.
One theory is that Russia started the terror campaign to get ahead of the upgrading of Ukraine's air defences that was in progress.
Gullygod111 t1_itkzlwk wrote
Agreed, people making baseless assertions when the facts are easily obtainable.
We get it that Ukraine needs more AA systems but the S-300 platform they deploy is sufficient enough.
They simply need more of said platform to increase the efficacy rate of their interceptions. They also are familiar with the S-300 platform meaning no training is required.
[deleted] t1_itkdj84 wrote
[removed]
Gullygod111 t1_itje3yr wrote
There is a supply chain shortage on many parts for a number of industries. This is a perfect storm in which Russia is taking full advantage of.
Covid measures contributed to this.
beansandbeams t1_itj8cxl wrote
Realistically that’s not the solution. Putin will destroy the infrastructure before Ukraine beats Russia into defeat.
I get the sense that Putin would be okay destroying Ukraine even if that meant that Putin was the last Russian alive
notreal088 t1_itjf9s1 wrote
Poor thinking. Russia doesn’t have the money or resources to go on forever. Sanctions are taking their toll on the ability to create said weapons. Lastly the only ally he has shipping weapons is currently In enough internal turmoil to make the prospect of continued help difficult. If the US and euro tighten the screws on Iran for both the Human rights and the help it’s giving to russia, then they too will be unable to provide any assistance. They are in a no win situation fast and I don’t think dumb bomb carpeting is still a viable military option.
SnooShortcuts700 t1_itjlnj3 wrote
What is the alternative? I hope you don't suggest Ukraine just gave up?
_Esops t1_itk11j4 wrote
In case of Russian win insurgency will continue for generations and in loss there is no guarantee Russia will not attack again.
Ukraine will end up like Afghanistan unless US decides to cover the trillions in rebuilding cost as nobody else will invest with constant fear of invasion.
Using Russian sovereign fund in US banks to fund it could result in China dumping dollar assets citing current sino-us tension.
arcedup t1_itkenq9 wrote
Fingrid sounds like a character from the Silmarillion
Kekkonen_Kakkonen t1_itkezy2 wrote
Tolkien did get a lot of influence from Finnish when he wrote the elvish languages.
thevisa t1_itlpi0g wrote
Fingrid isn't exactly Finnish language 😄
Kekkonen_Kakkonen t1_itlv10r wrote
It's Finglish 😉
arcedup t1_itkf535 wrote
Thanks for reminding me!
[deleted] t1_itl2a8j wrote
[removed]
autotldr t1_itj2mnu wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 52%. (I'm a bot)
> Ukraine has called on several European countries, including Finland, to help rebuild damaged energy infrastructure.
> Finland's grid operator, Fingrid said it lacked the replacement parts Ukraine needs.
> "The Ukrainians have asked European grid operators for spares, and we have also received a request. We naturally strive to help if we have the parts, but it's my understanding that Ukraine's system isn't an exact match with ours," Timo Kaukonen, who manages operational planning at Fingrid, told Finnish news agency STT. Kaukonen said Ukraine could expect a difficult winter if Russia continued to target the country's energy infrastructure.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 infrastructure^#3 electricity^#4 Kaukonen^#5
laukaus t1_itkf50c wrote
Fingrid has great track record for repairing power infra, Finlands low population density leads to long HV lines that, harsh arctic conditions in the north and big storms on the coast wreck the lines and transformers constantly. Not to mention every year the land freezes and thaws and it also warps the landscape etc.
But we get it up rather quickly and build robust grids, good choice.
passengerpigeon20 t1_itj4y3r wrote
This might be a silly question, and I know Russia's treachery makes it irrelevant anyway, but are any foreign workers who enter Ukraine to restore critical power infrastructure considered lawful combatants under international law?
[deleted] t1_itjpg5a wrote
[deleted]
Webster_Check t1_itj8csu wrote
No they wouldn't be considered lawful combatants even if they were Ukranian's repairing it. Unless of course it was some kind of military engineer corps. I'm not gonna act like I understand the intricacies of international law so I'll post the definition and source from an article.
According to the Third Geneva Convention, combatants are: members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces (GCIII Art. 4.a.1); or members of regular armed forces, even those that profess allegiance to a government or authority not recognized by the adverse power (GCIII Art. 4.a.3); or members of other militias and members of volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (GCIII Art. 4.a.2); inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (GCIII Art. 4.a.6).
EnteringSectorReddit t1_itk5ngq wrote
> critical power infrastructure
Is not a military target. Strikes on it already illegal.
RandomedXY t1_itm3n1a wrote
They are literary killing children and pregnant women... I don't think they care about law or morality.
Fartweaver t1_itkhbp2 wrote
The headline triggered me good:
​
My mothers name is Ingrid and my friends used to tease me by referring to her as Fingrid when we were teenagers :\
sillypicture t1_itm41jb wrote
> Fingrid
is that somehow a slur ?
Fartweaver t1_itmio55 wrote
"Fingered"
Stock_Regular8696 t1_itl4l4f wrote
Russia is rubbing them the wrong way, so they're asking to get Fingrid by Finland instead, huh.
Gullygod111 t1_itj2v41 wrote
Ugh, this war has to stop.