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

[Eric the meek]

I'll put this in a separate post.

Play the Jake Broe video again, from 29:00 onwards. This highlights the incompetence and ineptitude of the Trump administration.

They sacked the people who oversee their nuclear weapons. By mistake. At a time of heightened risk to the national security of the USA.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

I found this interesting today, not only for the updates on Pokrovsk, but the extensive discussion of Trump's attempted extortion of Ukraine's mineral wealth.

 

[mothy]

If America withdrew support & Ukraine carries on. How long would they last with European support?

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

If America withdrew support & Ukraine carries on. How long would they last with European support?

IMHO, as long as it takes for the Russian economy to collapse rendering them unable to continue their occupation.

 

[raymondo]

Lavrov has an incredibly punchable face

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Have to admit, I hate it when I hear the word 'compromise' used to discuss a peace deal. Makes it sound like both sides have legitimate claims. Would it be a compromise if a bank robber gave half the money he'd stolen back to the bank?

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Here's my proposal for a sustainable peace deal:

Russia withdraws all it's forces from Ukrainian territory and promises not to invade again.
In return, Ukraine gives back Kursk and promises not to invade Russia again. They will also stop setting fire to Russian oil refineries.
Ukraine joins NATO for security guarantees.
Russia doesn't need security guarantees because it has nukes.
Sanctions are lifted on Russian economy only if they pay reparations. If not, Europe simply appropriates the Russian funds that are currently frozen and gives them to Ukraine for rebuilding their country.

Any thoughts?

 

[Swegulls]

Here's my proposal for a sustainable peace deal:

Russia withdraws all it's forces from Ukrainian territory and promises not to invade again.
In return, Ukraine gives back Kursk and promises not to invade Russia again. They will also stop setting fire to Russian oil refineries.
Ukraine joins NATO for security guarantees.
Russia doesn't need security guarantees because it has nukes.
Sanctions are lifted on Russian economy only if they pay reparations. If not, Europe simply appropriates the Russian funds that are currently frozen and gives them to Ukraine for rebuilding their country.

Any thoughts?

Done deal, thanks!

 

[The Clamp]

Here's my proposal for a sustainable peace deal:

Russia withdraws all it's forces from Ukrainian territory and promises not to invade again.
In return, Ukraine gives back Kursk and promises not to invade Russia again. They will also stop setting fire to Russian oil refineries.
Ukraine joins NATO for security guarantees.
Russia doesn't need security guarantees because it has nukes.
Sanctions are lifted on Russian economy only if they pay reparations. If not, Europe simply appropriates the Russian funds that are currently frozen and gives them to Ukraine for rebuilding their country.

Any thoughts?

If you could add that Putin faces a war crimes trial, you have yourself a deal.

 

[GoldstoneVintage]

Lavrov has an incredibly punchable face

F*** me, don't they whine on like they're the victims!!!

 

[portlock seagull]

Do we need a stronger military?

Every article you care to read currently would suggest we do. But it obviously all comes at a price. Question is therefore, is it worth paying? Nobody wants tax increases, so do we just let enemies win (whatever that's defined as)? Are these enemies even our enemies e.g. millions in this country already positively hate likes of Israel, America and European neighbours. Then there are millions originally from elsewhere whose ethnic sympathies lie elsewhere, possibly with one of these enemies, but certainly not with the UK - why should they pay more taxes to potentially bomb their 'friends and families?'

To put some context into the scope of increase some say is needed, we'd have to double the pain we're going through with cuts just to get us nearer to 5-6% GDP expenditure on the Armed Forces. That may still not be enough, and is before you factor in whether enough people could be recruited and trained, which is questionable nor an overnight process either i.e. takes years. In this respect, is it more realistic to admit we can never have a comparably stronger military nor is there any point in having one because it's always a token of what our enemies spend on theirs. Instead, like many wars before, do we therefore put our faith in others and hope to recover from whatever initial blow there is, to fight another day or make peace on our enemies terms?

 

[Triggaaar]

If America withdrew support & Ukraine carries on. How long would they last with European support?

Longer than Russia. As long as the sanctions remain.

 

[Sea Cider]

Here's my proposal for a sustainable peace deal:

Russia withdraws all it's forces from Ukrainian territory and promises not to invade again.
In return, Ukraine gives back Kursk and promises not to invade Russia again. They will also stop setting fire to Russian oil refineries.
Ukraine joins NATO for security guarantees.
Russia doesn't need security guarantees because it has nukes.
Sanctions are lifted on Russian economy only if they pay reparations. If not, Europe simply appropriates the Russian funds that are currently frozen and gives them to Ukraine for rebuilding their country.

Any thoughts?

This sounds spot on!

 

[Sea Cider]

Lavrov has an incredibly punchable face

The absolute state of those two. No wonder they support war crimes

 

[raymondo]

Do we need a stronger military?

Every article you care to read currently would suggest we do. But it obviously all comes at a price. Question is therefore, is it worth paying? Nobody wants tax increases, so do we just let enemies win (whatever that's defined as)? Are these enemies even our enemies e.g. millions in this country already positively hate likes of Israel, America and European neighbours. Then there are millions originally from elsewhere whose ethnic sympathies lie elsewhere, possibly with one of these enemies, but certainly not with the UK - why should they pay more taxes to potentially bomb their 'friends and families?'

To put some context into the scope of increase some say is needed, we'd have to double the pain we're going through with cuts just to get us nearer to 5-6% GDP expenditure on the Armed Forces. That may still not be enough, and is before you factor in whether enough people could be recruited and trained, which is questionable nor an overnight process either i.e. takes years. In this respect, is it more realistic to admit we can never have a comparably stronger military nor is there any point in having one because it's always a token of what our enemies spend on theirs. Instead, like many wars before, do we therefore put our faith in others and hope to recover from whatever initial blow there is, to fight another day or make peace on our enemies terms?

The thing is I think, if we don't get a stronger military,and if Ukraine suffers a crap deal, then not long until Russia invades Baltics and finishes off Ukraine...so how close do we want them to get?
Yes, pay for a bigger military and save Ukraine's military too.

 

[Eric the meek]

I found this interesting today, not only for the updates on Pokrovsk, but the extensive discussion of Trump's attempted extortion of Ukraine's mineral wealth.

That discussion of Trump's hamfisted attempt to snatch 50% of all the rare earths, was good. At first I thought he went on a bit, but I stayed with it to the finish. By using the analogy of a foodbank, he illustrated the affrontery, the bare-faced cheek, the absolute piss-take of the American cash-grab.

Jake Broe described it as the US underestimating the 'walk-away power' of Ukraine. By declining the kind US offer, Zelensky showed that while he is still open to making a deal, he thinks Ukraine will be OK without a deal.

I find this really encouraging.

 

[fly high]

The thing is I think, if we don't get a stronger military,and if Ukraine suffers a crap deal, then not long until Russia invades Baltics and finishes off Ukraine...so how close do we want them to get?
Yes, pay for a bigger military and save Ukraine's military too.

My thought on his post was WTF? To me the post seemed more a case of lets just not bother & capitulate to anyone who wants to attack us because it's just not worth it & anyway there may be lots of Brits who support Russia anyway. Seems to be something a Russian bot would say & really not worth comment.

 

[fly high]

That discussion of Trump's hamfisted attempt to snatch 50% of all the rare earths, was good. At first I thought he went on a bit, but I stayed with it to the finish. By using the analogy of a foodbank, he illustrated the affrontery, the bare-faced cheek, the absolute piss-take of the American cash-grab.

Jake Broe described it as the US underestimating the 'walk-away power' of Ukraine. By declining the kind US offer, Zelensky showed that while he is still open to making a deal, he thinks Ukraine will be OK without a deal.

I find this really encouraging.

Just a thought but maybe Europe get together & say "ignore the US, we will give you want ever it takes to rid your country of Russia & help you rebuild if our companies can get shares in helping you extract your valuable minerals"

 

[raymondo]

This is worth a listen, it's a bit weird, telling Russia you want to break their alliances with certain countries ...
And Kellogg says Russia will have to make territorial concessions, whereas Vance says they won't IIRC.
They don't know what they're doing.

Anyway, nice to see Kellogg is still alive.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm no expert on the willingness to fight of the British people and I'm no tough military man myself, but I like to think that if push came to shove, I'd have joined in the defence of our country. The alternative (being ruled by the likes of Russia) doesn't bear thinking about.

I am afraid if the recent survey on Gen Z attitudes is even remotely correct you better start contemplating alternatives.

Britain is racist says 48% of Gen Z - The Day

Can national pride revive?

search.app

It’s also why, contrary to the opinions of the armchair generals on this thread why the UK’s continuing involvement in this conflict represents significant medium to long term risk.

Our political leaders may talk a good game, but they are not reading the room with the public. The public know our current leadership are unable to secure this country’s borders or deport known terrorists or convicted criminals.

What kind of fool would want to fight for a country like that?