TODAYS BIG CONVERSATION: War with Russia

[symyjym]

not really doing anything to dissuade from the accusation your citing Russian propaganda.

No, I listen to our propaganda. The news I watch is Al Jazeera English and Channel 4 primarily. I do not spend any time on Russian news to hear this propaganda you claim I listen to because our bad behaviour tends to speaks for itself. It needs no sexing up so to speak.

 

[Two Professors]

War with Russia is off.Angie surrendered.

 

[Biscuit]

The Russian military mocked Britain's new aircraft carrier on Thursday, saying the HMS Queen Elizabeth presented "a large convenient target" and would be wise to keep its distance from Moscow's warships.

The giant vessel, Britain's most advanced and biggest warship, embarked on its maiden voyage on Monday, prompting British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon to say he thought the Russians would look at it "with a little bit of envy."

More 》》》》http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-britain-aircraft-idUSKBN19K0XT

Their ageing, poorly maintained fleet of warships.. Don't forget that Russia's entire economy is smaller than California's.

Russia have lots of men, far more warships, attack planes, subs and tanks. They'd completely out gun us, not to mention their Nuclear weapon arsenal. That makes them a huge threat. We may have far fewer men, tanks, planes and ships but they're all far more modern and better equipped. Also, we'd never take on Russia alone, but as part of a NATO alliance.

 

[beorhthelm]

No, I listen to our propaganda. The news I watch is Al Jazeera English and Channel 4 primarily. I do not spend any time on Russian news to hear this propaganda you claim I listen to because our bad behaviour tends to speaks for itself. It needs no sexing up so to speak.

so where has the idea come from that NATO is/was planning to deploy to Crimea (or even Ukraine for that matter)

 

[symyjym]

It doesn't help as your approach is far from balanced, in just a few posts you have thrown a huge amount of largely unrelated issues at this thread, from Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Syria and Sunni Wahhabism(your favourite topic! [/B]) you even included Stalin, the 2nd world war and even had a quick bash at rewriting history!

Its a typical ploy used to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.

In fact you are throwing so much mud you appear to be struggling to remember what you said so for the record:

In Post 51, You claimed that Ukraine is a facist state.
In post 58, you were challenged about that statement specifically.
In post 61, you posted those videos as a direct response to that challenge.

So not at all balanced and pretty sensationalist behaviour.

Unrelated they are continuing consequences of "leading by example" and "monkey see monkey do". It's not my fault that you lot don't get it and are more keen on picking an argument and numbering comments than seeing the problem with the bigger picture.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the amount of nuclear weapons they had we could have had any old nutter, or a series of nutters threatening the world with nuclear wars. Putin has caused much less trouble in the world than Bush, Blair, Obama and Cameron but this would depend on how honest we are.

 

[symyjym]

so where has the idea come from that NATO is/was planning to deploy to Crimea (or even Ukraine for that matter)

Really

 

[blue-shifted]

Yeh, I know nothing about our respective military capabilities, but my guess is that in some imaginary UK v Russia scenario which thankfully would never happen, we'd probably hold our own it bit more than many would think. More likely is continued escalation of cyberwar with the west totally clueless on how best to deal with Russian provocation.

Their ageing, poorly maintained fleet of warships.. Don't forget that Russia's entire economy is smaller than California's.

Russia have lots of men, far more warships, attack planes, subs and tanks. They'd completely out gun us, not to mention their Nuclear weapon arsenal. That makes them a huge threat. We may have far fewer men, tanks, planes and ships but they're all far more modern and better equipped. Also, we'd never take on Russia alone, but as part of a NATO alliance.

 

[symyjym]

Bloody Russian propaganda in the Guardian. Who would have thought eh?

Neo-Nazi groups recruit Britons to fight in Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/neo-nazi-groups-recruit-britons-to-fight-in-ukraine

Where the government and police turn a blind eye the Azov Battalion. Of course the Ukraine is not a fascist state

 

[larus]

Their ageing, poorly maintained fleet of warships.. Don't forget that Russia's entire economy is smaller than California's.

Russia have lots of men, far more warships, attack planes, subs and tanks. They'd completely out gun us, not to mention their Nuclear weapon arsenal. That makes them a huge threat. We may have far fewer men, tanks, planes and ships but they're all far more modern and better equipped. Also, we'd never take on Russia alone, but as part of a NATO alliance.

This. Their economy really is not all that. Only 60% of the UK (very approx). They aren't as well equipped as they want to portray - mind you, neither are many of the NATO countries as they don't fund their defence well. They want the protection of the US.

1 United States 19,390,600
2 China 12,014,610
3 Japan 4,872,135
4 Germany 3,684,816
5 United Kingdom 2,624,529
6 India 2,611,012
7 France 2,583,560
8 Brazil 2,054,969
9 Italy 1,937,894
10 Canada 1,652,412
11 South Korea 1,538,030
12 Russia 1,527,469
13 Australia 1,379,548
14 Spain 1,313,951
15 Mexico 1,149,236
16 Indonesia 1,015,411
17 Turkey 849,480
18 Netherlands 825,745
19 Saudi Arabia 683,827
20 Switzerland 678,575

Also, I read that a lot of their nuclear arms were decoys. Silos made to look like nuclear weapons but weren't really.