[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

SouthSaxon said:

Well now, this is interesting. Not so subtle dig at the end (possibly subtle enough to evade Trump).

View attachment 197275

Click to expand...

Bodian said:

I still don't actually understand how he is going to bring about peace and stop the fighting. He never actually says. All he talks about is the deal with Ukraine. He was asked about Russia paying, Russia handing back some land - and he just rambled about it being close and on the table. And it's going to stop in a few weeks. And when there is a ceasefire - that will be the end of it, because once they have stopped they won't go back to fighting......

Click to expand...

astralavi said:

Tulsi Gabbard, is Trump's director of national intelligence she has publicly agreed with Russia’s positions on its invasion of Ukraine, claiming Moscow had legitimate security concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, and she suggested the war could have been avoided if NATO had acknowledged those concerns. She repeated debunked claims about U.S.-funded biological labs in Ukraine, drawing criticism for spreading misinformation. Russian state media has praised her views. She denies that Assad committed any crimes in Syria Why would Trump appoint this person. Elon fired most of the senior staff in the CIA who are responsible for national security threat detection - presumably they would disagree with Trump and have been fired.

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

If you compare the war in Vietnam with WW1, yes, they're light years apart. The current war doesn't have two armies up against each other with machine guns, it's more guerrilla warfare. The Russians are losing many more troops as they march people (including wounded soldiers on crutches) across open fields, but Ukraine don't do that, and we obviously wouldn't either.



It isn't.



5 & 25 would be based on the UK being on the front line, rather than acting in a supporting role. The notion of British troops in the war is complete guesswork at this point. As explained, it's wrong to double it, and now you're throwing in a lost ship with 100+ casualties. Who says we'd have ships there, and why would we lose 100+? We lost 4 ships in the Falklands war, and didn't have 100 casualties between them. You keep trying to exaggerate our possible losses.




When was the last was you think we had to fight? We didn't have to fight in WW1 or WW2, but we did. We've had many conflicts since then too, and we've done what we've had to do.




Are you talking about this war ending and us sending peacekeepers to Ukraine, to put Russia off starting another war, or are you talking about Russia trying to take the rest of Europe?




If you're talking about troops being sent to Ukraine, then it would be military personnel, not Joe public. But if you're talking about Russia trying to take over the whole of Europe, and us having to conscript the public, that's a different thing altogether and I assume you'd agree that is then a war we do have to fight. If we had to defend against an expanding Russia, we would. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

SouthSaxon said:

I don’t think any country should be racing to the battlefield, but I think it would be monumentally stupid to assume the battlefield won’t come to us, in a metaphorical sense.

Reputable figures were saying we have moved from a post-war to a pre-war world long before Trump got back in.

Now we face the possibility of Trump actively supporting Russia. This is a scary prospect.

If the worst happens, with the greatest respect to the members of Gen-Z, their feelings won’t matter very much in the grand scheme of things.

I have a question for you: if you were president of Europe, what would you do in the current circumstances?

Click to expand...

Cotton Socks said:

I got to 8.30 & had to stop watching!
Who the f**k does he think he is!!!

Click to expand...

raymondo said:

. I can't even start watching... I've seen too much of these scum already, I know I should watch, but...
Well done Macron for pulling him up (the only clip I watched).

Click to expand...

Deportivo Seagull said:

Neither does it show a Russian victory and as the aggressor they are losing.
Why would Ukraine want to go to Moscow? At the moment out the occupied territory in Ukraine has the highest concentration of man and kit in the world. Ukraine Western support has only been in the last 12 months or so and we can see that taking large areas of kursk is a result of this, and yes you are a military dunce.

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

You used Vietnam as a comparison not me, the only real comparative metric for potential casualties is what is happening there now, and it’s involved tens of thousands on both sides. Yes, we agree Russia has taken many more.

In the Falkland’s it’s 255 dead and 775 injured, so over 1000 casualties, predominantly naval personnel. If you want to ignore the injured numbers that’s fine, however an injury may well as be a death in terms of fighting capacity.

From what I can see Ukraine has suffered circa 70k dead and 250k injured, so circa 300k in total and if the army is 1.2m strong (for sake of argument that 25%) over the 3 year period or 100k a year.

If, as is asserted on here this is the cost of “winning” I would suggest western armies should expect a similar rate if they got entangled with Russia. That kind of rate would not be absorbed by either the British public or western peers imo, potentially they would if on home soil.

The state of this country’s armed forces is dire, whatever help we can provide at this moment directly or indirectly is limited, it’s only the US that can do anything meaningful. You can disagree with that but that’s my view as a non military strategist.

Further the ability of the west to wage war against Russia without the US is also limited, and the concept of conscription in modern Britain is also going to produce limited results, as is the concept of re industrialising to produce tanks etc. We don’t have a meaningful steel industry anymore.

Pretending differently and harking back to what this country did in 1914 and 1939 is completely irrelevant. I know you see it differently.

The opinions that are posted on this message board are irrelevant too, just 2 strangers with opposing views.

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

If Ukraine is, as you argue, in such a strong position and Russia in contrast such a weak one I’m surprised there’s so much anxiety about the US pulling the plug on aid/support in the first place.

Maybe the Don feels the same way……..there is no Russian threat?

Click to expand...

Binney on acid said:

Have a look at the Facebook page 'Occupy democrats'. It showcases how non lobotomised yanks view the orange one, and how ashamed they are of his desire to climb into bed with Mr Genocide

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

Now you’re be facetious, there no such role………

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

or the narrative of abandoning Nato, aligning with Russia, has been largely made up?

Click to expand...

Silverhatch said:

The US Armed Forces know who the enemy is despite the bungle****’s ramblings

Click to expand...

Eric the meek said:

Fair enough. I've not read any of it. I just remember before I put him on ignore, that he was linking a gen z report that only 11% of them would fight for Britain. He linked this to Southport and diversity etc.

Click to expand...

What does Gen Z think about Britain? | YouGov

Just 41% of Gen Z Britons say they are proud to be British, half the level among young people 20 years ago

search.app