That's exactly what you would expect from 2 of Putin's puppets isn't it.
Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter feedmpenzaandhewillscore
- Start date
Blue.Roys.Son
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2018
- Messages
- 220
I have a theory that I will try and convey.
It started when Putin said its best if Biden won the election.
If the US continues its current support then Ukraine has enough kit to repel Russia but may eventually lose in a few years when the war fatigue and casualties really set in.
However, if Trump wins the election then Europe will finally shit itself and get its act together.
I'm now wondering if it's best for Ukraine that Europe is finally forced properly into the fight and not leave them all alone to fight Putin.
In addition, once the US are out off the way Russia still can't use nuclear weapons due to Britain and France having them and once Europe is forced to fight Russia will be fucked.
No way that useless Russian army (especially after what the wonderful Ukrainians have already done to them) would be able to fight a combined European army which includes Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, France, Britain, etc etc
It started when Putin said its best if Biden won the election.
If the US continues its current support then Ukraine has enough kit to repel Russia but may eventually lose in a few years when the war fatigue and casualties really set in.
However, if Trump wins the election then Europe will finally shit itself and get its act together.
I'm now wondering if it's best for Ukraine that Europe is finally forced properly into the fight and not leave them all alone to fight Putin.
In addition, once the US are out off the way Russia still can't use nuclear weapons due to Britain and France having them and once Europe is forced to fight Russia will be fucked.
No way that useless Russian army (especially after what the wonderful Ukrainians have already done to them) would be able to fight a combined European army which includes Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, France, Britain, etc etc
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 26,185
Russian stuff blowing up: Russia sacks its navy commander
His Black Sea Fleet has been creating lots of new submarines and this is how the Kremlin shows its gratitude. Russia claims to have repelled this attack on the airport at St. Petersburg. Move along. Nothing to see here. This is from a few days ago but...
www.dailykos.com
Alvin-blue-qhd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2023
- Messages
- 190
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I have a theory too.
At the beginning, France didn't want the war(Marcon made many phone call to Putin, he wanted to stop it)
Until the very recently, France has found that it's impossible to stop the war. (Zaluzhnyi dismissed from office, it's a signal)
So, since the war cannot be stopped, the France think it's a good opportunity, to use this war to establish an european army. They like the idea of European army, they want to get rid of the NATO's influence.
But Americans , they love NATO, it's a tool to show US influence on european continent.
So the more troops France put into the battleground, the US must put more troops, that's something like "keep up with bidding"
The US's major focus is in east asia. The France believe, at some point, the US will stop keeping up with bidding. There will be an european army lead by France and its ally.
It will be a huge strategy gain for France, maybe also Germany. They abandoned the traditional european order that had fallen into obscurity (maintaining friendship with Russia for the cheap energy) in exchange for independent european autonomy free from NATO control.
Alvin-blue-qhd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Dec 2023
- Messages
- 190
- Team supported
- Manchester City
And there is a possibility, the west demorcracy win the Russia-Ukraine war, but America lost the Europe.
It's time for the US to think about it.
That's my theroy, maybe it's totally rubbish, just share it ,for fun.
It's time for the US to think about it.
That's my theroy, maybe it's totally rubbish, just share it ,for fun.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Your theory appears to have a fundamental flaw, namely that it is predicated on what Putin said being what he actually wants. The best way to approach anything he says is to believe the opposite. You’ll usually be absolutely spot on.
Kirkstall Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 5,475
- Location
- St Helens. Formally Manchester
- Team supported
- Manchester City
noted.The training of pilots on modern aircraft is happening "with lightning speed", but in general the training process is progressing more slowly than Ukraine and its allies had hoped. However, the Minister of Defense of Denmark noted that Ukrainian pilots are already flying over Denmark's airspace
It's also not difficult to find Russia's narrative coming out of Putin's mouth, which, like my original post stated, makes you wonder why on earth there isn't more self reflection in the motherland (perhaps there is and it's just too scary to protest in any real numbers), but either way, they seem a nation absolutely obsessed with imperialism.
Scottyboi
Well-Known Member
From "The Analyst":
NATO, STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY, TURNING THE TIDE
The NATO alliance in Europe has started to wake up to the threat of a post-Ukraine defeat and what would mean if it was allowed to happen.
President Macron, speaking at a rapidly organised Ukraine support summit in Paris, made the statement that France had no more ‘red lines’ in respect of Russia and that if necessary it would deploy troops to stop Ukraine loosing. Russia reacted with the usual nuclear threats.
Several of the other NATO members rushed to disagree - the Germans nearly wet their pants at the mere thought of it, while Poland raced to support the idea. Britain took its time to think about it and said it was probably best not to do that but you, know things can change.
There are two reasons France has to take the lead.
Firstly it is the only nuclear weapons state on the mainland and in the EU. It’s the only one with tactical as well as strategic nuclear capabilities.
The UK has pretty much only a strategic deterrent, and it’s something of a last resort.
Secondly it has probably the most effective army, navy and air force in the EU and on the continent. Germany’s army is so dysfunctional as to be a waste of space at present.
Poland is rapidly joining France in terms of capabilities and there is great strength in Finland and Sweden combined. The British Army is not what it was, but is small and capable. The RAF is far too small and would struggle to defend British air space let alone involve itself in deeper conflict. The Royal Navy would also struggle to defend from a Russian submarine offensive.
Those things aside these pronouncements are based on taking action in a world where Trump is reelected and the US disengages from Europe. Putin and his predecessors have dreamed of this since 1945.
Macron’s aim is, with other members of NATO and the EU, to create such ambiguity that it clouds the Kremlin’s ability to determine what constitutes the point NATO (or the EU/ or individual members) might - and I stress MIGHT - actually do something. It puts on the table an option and a possibility that’s never been there before.
It was always understood that France would use tactical nuclear weapons on the Soviets if they crossed the River Rhine. That was their last line.
That line may now have moved a long way East.
That we don’t know where is entirely the point. That some say they might intervene, some they probably won’t and some they certainly would if provoked enough, is about as strategically unambiguous as you can get.
The EU and the European/Canadian parts of the NATO alliance are a significant military power when acting together, even without America. France sees itself as the leader of that potential scenario. Germany can’t be even if it wanted to, and much as Britain would like to be, its stupid divorce from the EU has excluded it from contention and its position as leadership contender ended. It’s in danger of being the hanger-on.
As NATO (excluding the US) works more closely - especially as the EU ramps up ammunition production, European leadership is being strengthened.
Finally they get it. And this year, having crossed the gap with external purchases of ammunition, EU sources are now providing just enough to make good and by August will be meeting targets set last year. By late next year the EU ammo supply in key 155mm shells will reach 2.8 million per year -matching Russia and its allies. And the European economies are doing this without breaking a sweat. Much the same goes for every other aspect of military production. For the average man in the street this is having little or no effect on their lives.
You can’t say the same for Russia. It has had to break the economy and put it on a war footing just to keep where it is. It’s become so desperately dependent on China for loans - the Chinese Yuan loans made to Russian businesses have made it the second largest traded currency in the world for the first time ever - (the USD still accounts for 85% of global currency trades, the Yuan a little over 5%, the Euro a
little under 5%).
Continues:
This has had a terminal effect on the value of the Rouble. Nobody in Russia borrows money at 20% when they can borrow it in Yuan at 6%. The rouble is barely trading anywhere - nobody wants it except ordinary Russians - and only because they’re made to use it.
Russia cannot compete with the EU/ NATO even excluding America. It’s in dire economic trouble, bouncing along the bottom of the proverbial barrel to do what it’s doing.
2024 will see Ukraine on the defensive and it will lose territory. But come 2025 Russia will have passed the point it can win, as the weight of long dormant Euro-NATO economies start to produce more and more faster and faster, feeding Ukraine what it needs to permanently and conclusively turn the tide.
Slava Ukraini !
NATO, STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY, TURNING THE TIDE
The NATO alliance in Europe has started to wake up to the threat of a post-Ukraine defeat and what would mean if it was allowed to happen.
President Macron, speaking at a rapidly organised Ukraine support summit in Paris, made the statement that France had no more ‘red lines’ in respect of Russia and that if necessary it would deploy troops to stop Ukraine loosing. Russia reacted with the usual nuclear threats.
Several of the other NATO members rushed to disagree - the Germans nearly wet their pants at the mere thought of it, while Poland raced to support the idea. Britain took its time to think about it and said it was probably best not to do that but you, know things can change.
There are two reasons France has to take the lead.
Firstly it is the only nuclear weapons state on the mainland and in the EU. It’s the only one with tactical as well as strategic nuclear capabilities.
The UK has pretty much only a strategic deterrent, and it’s something of a last resort.
Secondly it has probably the most effective army, navy and air force in the EU and on the continent. Germany’s army is so dysfunctional as to be a waste of space at present.
Poland is rapidly joining France in terms of capabilities and there is great strength in Finland and Sweden combined. The British Army is not what it was, but is small and capable. The RAF is far too small and would struggle to defend British air space let alone involve itself in deeper conflict. The Royal Navy would also struggle to defend from a Russian submarine offensive.
Those things aside these pronouncements are based on taking action in a world where Trump is reelected and the US disengages from Europe. Putin and his predecessors have dreamed of this since 1945.
Macron’s aim is, with other members of NATO and the EU, to create such ambiguity that it clouds the Kremlin’s ability to determine what constitutes the point NATO (or the EU/ or individual members) might - and I stress MIGHT - actually do something. It puts on the table an option and a possibility that’s never been there before.
It was always understood that France would use tactical nuclear weapons on the Soviets if they crossed the River Rhine. That was their last line.
That line may now have moved a long way East.
That we don’t know where is entirely the point. That some say they might intervene, some they probably won’t and some they certainly would if provoked enough, is about as strategically unambiguous as you can get.
The EU and the European/Canadian parts of the NATO alliance are a significant military power when acting together, even without America. France sees itself as the leader of that potential scenario. Germany can’t be even if it wanted to, and much as Britain would like to be, its stupid divorce from the EU has excluded it from contention and its position as leadership contender ended. It’s in danger of being the hanger-on.
As NATO (excluding the US) works more closely - especially as the EU ramps up ammunition production, European leadership is being strengthened.
Finally they get it. And this year, having crossed the gap with external purchases of ammunition, EU sources are now providing just enough to make good and by August will be meeting targets set last year. By late next year the EU ammo supply in key 155mm shells will reach 2.8 million per year -matching Russia and its allies. And the European economies are doing this without breaking a sweat. Much the same goes for every other aspect of military production. For the average man in the street this is having little or no effect on their lives.
You can’t say the same for Russia. It has had to break the economy and put it on a war footing just to keep where it is. It’s become so desperately dependent on China for loans - the Chinese Yuan loans made to Russian businesses have made it the second largest traded currency in the world for the first time ever - (the USD still accounts for 85% of global currency trades, the Yuan a little over 5%, the Euro a
little under 5%).
Continues:
This has had a terminal effect on the value of the Rouble. Nobody in Russia borrows money at 20% when they can borrow it in Yuan at 6%. The rouble is barely trading anywhere - nobody wants it except ordinary Russians - and only because they’re made to use it.
Russia cannot compete with the EU/ NATO even excluding America. It’s in dire economic trouble, bouncing along the bottom of the proverbial barrel to do what it’s doing.
2024 will see Ukraine on the defensive and it will lose territory. But come 2025 Russia will have passed the point it can win, as the weight of long dormant Euro-NATO economies start to produce more and more faster and faster, feeding Ukraine what it needs to permanently and conclusively turn the tide.
Slava Ukraini !
CTID1977
Well-Known Member
it looks like one of the z **** propagandist has had a bad day today