WW 3 ..is this the reality?

Fleurpepper I am not ignoring the presence of nuclear warheads. I am just accepting that they are there but i thing far too much focus is placed on them. The war in Ukraine is tragically reaching its first anniversary and despite talking big Putin has not yet used nuclear warheads. I am not saying he will never use them, but the restraints of Mutually Assured Destruction that stopped them being used during the cold war are still effective. Putin knows that if he uses them, so will the Americans. No one can say 'never', but one can say, currently unlikely.

Yes, but the reality of this awful reality is causing 10s of 1000s to suffer from anxiety, not clinical anxiety, but real anxiety based on said reality. Because Putin won't be the last. This is the reality.

''Anyones son, brother, husband, cousin, godson as long as it’s not yours ?'' not yours, nor mine, nor anyone else's- this would be my wish. Not my ACs, nor my GCs, or nephews, or friends, all of whom are of course as British as yours.

But if the choice is '2 armies in a field' - or 100s of 1000s of civilians in their homes, in their beds, in hospital or in tents freezing in the street- then one choice is better than the other- in a dreadful, awful and cruel way.

Other mother's sons continue to die but in the meantime, Switzerland blocks vital help.

Ukrainian soldiers continue to fight and die to protect their homes — and the rest of Europe — from Russian aggression. Yet, Switzerland is blocking vital assistance.

Despite repeated pleas, Switzerland won’t allow Germany to give Ukraine much-needed Swiss-made air defense ammunition that can help protect Ukrainians from the Russian onslaught.

www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/01/17/world-leaders-should-press-switzerland-on-arms-deliveries-to-ukraine

Has this decision been reversed or will this mean this war will go on for longer and more people be killed on both sides?

Fleurpepper

If nuclear weapons are added to the mix- it does not bear thinking about.

Best not think about it if it is affecting you to that extent.

Whatever you think or do personally won't change things.

JaneJudge

I hope Bea65 is okay. I have stopped watching the news as it was making me anxious and reading this thread has made me feel anxious

I expect Bea has retreated if she has any sense.

Catastrophising is not helpful when Bea needed reassurances and suggestions of help, I think. Those of us who lived through The Cold War and had relatives in other conflicts may be better able to compartmentalise too, for the sake of our MH, our children and now grandchildren.

Reading Bea's OP properly, of course, her anxiety is partly because of the amount of money we might spend sending aid to Ukraine instead of spending that money on the NHS, but it doesn't work like that.

Excellent post, Elegran.

I think the courage of the Ukrainians is an example to us all. Has everyone forgotten the kindness shown to a Russian soldier.....allowing him to phone his mother, feeding him tea and a pasty. There are so many atrocities coming to light, we mustn't allow Putin to succeed. As already stated, if he is allowed to conquer Ukraine, he will then move on to the other ex-Soviet countries.

If nuclear weapons are added to the mix- it does not bear thinking about.

NO, this is not what I said, at all. It is about alternatives- war is just so dreadful, barbaric and cruel. But is the choice is between two armies fighting each other, or civilians being maimed and killed, babies, children, the elderly, sick and infirm- sleeping in their beds, then yes, I would rather have 2 armies fighting each other.

wrong brits- this is just sick to bring badly behaved tourists into this discussion

So, Fleurpepper Anyones son, brother, husband, cousin, godson as long as it’s not yours ?
Maybe one of those wrong brits that offend you so much in Lanzarote.

I hope Bea65 is okay. I have stopped watching the news as it was making me anxious and reading this thread has made me feel anxious

You don't win a modern war by sending in boatloads of men to slog it out face to face and be killed one at a time or en masse. You don't even win it by firing nuclear missiles at one another.

You win by influencing more people than your enemy does to believe that you are in the right, by persuading them to resist in subtler ways, by resisting yourself all the subtle ways that you are being undermined and infiltrated.

You win by not selling your land piece by piece to wealthy incomers from a land whose leaders have a stated policy of taking over your civilisation.

You win by not buying products from foreign exporters which you could make within your own shores, to local designs, suited to local conditions and using local skills.

You win by treating your producers, both of natural crops and manmade articles, as though they are valuable colleagues, and treating global chain factory-owners as a means to get money from, not as people to be paid money to employ locals to make goods fo the owners to sell and take the profits abroad with them.

You win by making absolutely sure that decision-making within your country is done by the population and its representatives, for the benefit of the whole population, without those decisions being influenced by a fifth column of foreigners with ulterior motives about the outcomes. You further make absolutely sure that the people chosen to represent the population, and the ministers chosen to lead those representatives, are doing so in the interests of the population as a whole and the individuals within in it, not in the interests of their own wealth and power.

If you can do all these things, and choose wise leaders who neither charge impetuously into aggression nor cave in when faced with pressure to conform to what a bully decrees, but can stand firm and out-think and out-talk a wily predator, you will achieve a nation strong enough to follow its own path and not be a victim of war.

It remains to be seen whether this is any longer possible. If it isn't, we are mince.

This is cheap and nasty. I'd hope none of our sons or grand-sons. No-one if forced to go into the Army these days either.

No, it's neither cheap nor nasty. I was shocked by your post, suggesting that you wish for this to be resolved by an old-fashioned war with other mother's sons and other husbands giving their lives.

No-one if forced to go into the Army these days

Young Russian boys and men are.

Ukrainian men are fighting now, on the ground for freedom.
And how long before conscription would be introduced, for girls and young women too?

Elegran

Fleurpepper

Of course MOnica, we all get this.

But your conclusion is a thing of the past, and old concept of previous wars- which is totally out-dated. This so much more so since smaller, precise and tactical nuclear weapons have been on the scene- and a madman or two.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this, for some reason I cannot understand. Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.

Whose sons would you send, if you could? Your own?

This is cheap and nasty. I'd hope none of our sons or grand-sons. No-one if forced to go into the Army these days either.

But if the choice we face- is soldiers, fighting soldiers, in a field far away, with their Chiefs at the Head, or massive number of innocent civilians, babies, children, mums the elderly, the sick and the infirm, mums giving birth- being 'collateral' damage- and worse even, civilisations as we know it being wiped out in a nuclear exchange- then I'd go for the first option.

Bea65

It’s coming up to the anniversary and feel concerned that Putin had awful plan🥲

He probably has, but I very much doubt that he has either the men, the goodwill of the Russians, the ammunition or the artillery to implement it.

If this is in effect WW3, we are so far getting off much more lightly than our parents and grandparents did in the two former wars.

Of course, if we stop sending help to Ukraine, then we may well have something serious to worry about.

Elegran

Fleurpepper

Of course MOnica, we all get this.

But your conclusion is a thing of the past, and old concept of previous wars- which is totally out-dated. This so much more so since smaller, precise and tactical nuclear weapons have been on the scene- and a madman or two.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this, for some reason I cannot understand. Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.

Whose sons would you send, if you could? Your own?

Oh no, someone else's of course.
A strange wish.

I wish, which will never come to pass so it is futile, I know, that the world did not throw up these murderous megalomaniac madmen one after another.

Elegran

Fleurpepper

Of course MOnica, we all get this.

But your conclusion is a thing of the past, and old concept of previous wars- which is totally out-dated. This so much more so since smaller, precise and tactical nuclear weapons have been on the scene- and a madman or two.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this, for some reason I cannot understand. Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.

Whose sons would you send, if you could? Your own?

Our son is in the forces, he knew what he was signing up for as did we, it doesn’t make it easier though.

Fleurpepper

Of course MOnica, we all get this.

But your conclusion is a thing of the past, and old concept of previous wars- which is totally out-dated. This so much more so since smaller, precise and tactical nuclear weapons have been on the scene- and a madman or two.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this, for some reason I cannot understand. Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.

Whose sons would you send, if you could? Your own?

maddyone

I’m astounded that there are people in the UK who actually hold the opinion that Putin will sit down like a perfectly rational person and negotiate. It would actually be funny if it didn’t show such alarming ignorance blind and unjustified faith.

Hear, hear

Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.
In 1914 there were military leaders on our side who thought we could do just that with hand to hand fighting and, God forbid, cavalry charges! They were still fighting Waterloo and the Crimea! They had a nasty wake up call and war was never the same again!

I’m astounded that there are people in the UK who actually hold the opinion that Putin will sit down like a perfectly rational person and negotiate. It would actually be funny if it didn’t show such alarming ignorance blind and unjustified faith.

“NATO believes it can win a conventional war against Russia using Ukrainian manpower. That’s a crass assumption. I don’t believe that NATO believes anything of the sort. The NATO countries realise that they have no choice but to support Ukraine with hardware and training just to hold the line”

If we believe that Russia is a threat to other countries in Eastern Europe then it is very much a case of defeating and driving them back, rather than holding the line.

If the policy is holding the line then save further destruction and countless lives, make peace now.

The choice is not a difficult one and you can’t have it both ways

Of course MOnica, we all get this.

But your conclusion is a thing of the past, and old concept of previous wars- which is totally out-dated. This so much more so since smaller, precise and tactical nuclear weapons have been on the scene- and a madman or two.

You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this, for some reason I cannot understand. Oh I wish, however dreadful it was, that we could send two armies and their Chief at the head of them, to fight in a field, far from ourselves and our families (their families too)- but that time has long gone.

Normandygirl

I cannot believe how many couch commandos there are advocating for more death and destruction in Ukraine.
There are only 3 possible outcomes now, the war will go on for years with millions more losing their lives or it will end with the death of all of us. The third option is for all western leaders to put political pride to one side, sit down and talk and bring about a peaceful solution that both sides can live with.

Ah, sweet!
As if Putin’s interested in that.

NATO believes it can win a conventional war against Russia using Ukrainian manpower. That’s a crass assumption. I don’t believe that NATO believes anything of the sort. The NATO countries realise that they have no choice but to support Ukraine with hardware and training just to hold the line. In the late seventies and early eighties, when Poland were part of the soviet bloc, the Russians were regularly putting feelers out and testing the water against NATO and NATO members were fewer then. Then, both we and the US had significant standing armies in Germany that were capable of staring them down. And stare them down we did a couple of times. Now we have all but pulled out of Germany and the US cut back its forces also, or rather it spread them more thinly among the former Warsaw Pact countries. The US has recently, in light of the Ukraine conflict, increased the size of its troop commitment to 100,000, and we have rapid reaction forces in Europe too, all of which would, one hopes, give Putin pause for thought. NATO is about deterrence - always has been.