Russian invasion of Ukraine

JamesMCFC said:
We should scrap all these green energy bollocks in this country and try and become more self sufficient.

Get fracking, build more nuclear reactors anything to become more independent.
Click to expand...
The green energy “bollocks” is part of us trying to become more self sufficient.
 
Petethemancinleeds said:
Putins timing makes perfect sense, Trump would have fought fire with fire, Biden is heading for full time care and Boris cannot manage himself let alone the Uk.

Impotent long term enemies who he has clearly told to do one while he expands and secures his empire.
Click to expand...
Trump tried to make support to Ukraine conditional on them digging up dirt on Biden whilst praising Putin every chance he got, even taking his word over his own intelligence services. Trump would have been, and still is, firmly on Russia’s side and anyone who thinks different really wasn’t paying attention over the last 5 years.
 
bluesteel said:
I don’t want this war, what the fuck are you talking about?

I said NATO have created this mess, and I stand by that.

There are a lot of people here who are clearly very simple. The world needs a political resolution to this, some on here don’t appreciate how dangerous this is…. “kick them out of everything”, “assassinate Putin” you do realise that if that were to happen or happen and fail, WE ARE ALL DEAD. They have 6000+ nuclear weapons, if Russia are backed into a corner, or they’re in a position where they’ve “lost” I’m convinced they’ll use them.

Look, they were losing a political war, so they turned it into a military war, we’ve started an economic war, trust me, they’ll turn it into a nuclear war, when their people are on the streets starving, I have no doubt that he’ll press that red button from a sub somewhere for what the west have done to the Russian people.

They test launched two ICMB’s the days before they invaded Ukraine for fucks sake.
Click to expand...
Nato's response to that assertion:

Top Five Russian Myths Debunked​

Myth 1: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War​

Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.

The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."


Myth 2: NATO is aggressive and a threat to Russia​

Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our members. NATO’s official policy is that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia." NATO didn’t invade Georgia; NATO didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia did.

NATO has reached out to Russia consistently and publicly over the past 30 years. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning – even during periods of NATO enlargement. However, in 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. We do not seek confrontation, but we can’t ignore Russia breaking international rules, undermining our stability and security.

In response to Russia's use of military force against Ukraine, NATO deployed four multinational battlegroups to the Baltic States and Poland in 2016. These units are not permanently based in the region, are in line with Allies’ international commitments, and amount to around 5,000 troops. They do not pose a threat to Russia’s 1,000,000 strong army. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no Allied troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.

NATO remains open to meaningful dialogue with Russia. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to discuss European security, including the situation in and around Ukraine, NATO-Russia relations, and arms control and non-proliferation.


Myth 3: Ukraine cannot join NATO​

Fact: NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.

Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process.

Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999).


Myth 4: NATO is encircling and trying to contain Russia​

map

Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our member states. Our exercises and military deployments are not directed against Russia – or any other country.

This myth also ignores geography. Only 6% of Russia’s land borders touch NATO countries. Russia has land borders with 14 countries. Only five of them are NATO members.

Outside NATO territory, the Alliance only has a military presence in Kosovo and Iraq. The KFOR peacekeeping mission is carried out with a United Nations Security Council mandate.

NATO's non-combat mission in Iraq contributes to the fight against terrorism and is carried out at the request of the Iraqi government, with full respect for Iraq's sovereignty. In contrast, Russia has military bases and soldiers in three countries – Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine – without the consent of their governments. Russia also has amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border and is threatening to invade Ukraine.


Myth 5: NATO's interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Libya prove that the Alliance is not defensive​

Fact: The former Yugoslavia did not break up because of NATO. The Alliance did not use military force to change borders in the former Yugoslavia. From 1992-1995, NATO conducted several military operations in Bosnia, including enforcing a no-fly-zone and providing air support for UN peacekeepers. These activities were mandated by the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a member. NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions in 1995 helped pave the way for the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia that had killed over 100,000 people. From 1996 onwards, NATO led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, which included troops from Russia. The European Union took over that mission in 2004.

The NATO-led operation in Libya in 2011 was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), 1970 and 1973, neither of which was opposed by Russia. UNSCR 1973 authorized the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

NATO’s operation in Kosovo in 1999 followed over a year of intense diplomatic efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to end the conflict. The UN Security Council repeatedly branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's mission helped to end large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians. KFOR, NATO’s ongoing peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, has a UNSC mandate (UNSCR 1244) and is supported by both Belgrade and Pristina.
 
Bazzmand Show said:
Just reactionary nonsense when people post stuff like he did.

We should be doubling down on renewables now.
Click to expand...
Yes we definitely should but renewables will never be the whole answer.

I also think we should be investing in nuclear and the decision to stop fracking was short sighted and based on pressure from NIMBYs in Tory constituencies. A highly regulated shale gas industry would help our energy security immeasurably.
 
bobmcfc said:

Very good read. There are multiple tweets btw click on tweet to read the whole explaination
Click to expand...

That’s what it’s all about. The strategic position of Ukraine. The Baltic States will be next (they’re already completely surrounded by Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad, it would be piss easy for Russia to take them). All round giving Russia better access to the important waterways close to them and bridging Kaliningrad back to Russia.

Ukraine is also the fifth biggest producer of wheat in the world. Russia has a small, weak, and unvaried economy and adding an extra 9% of the world’s wheat production to its GDP has its values to them. We will be consuming wheat for much longer after we’ve stopped using gas and oil.

There’s also the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is a different denomination in Ukraine. Putin has always been big on making the traditional Eastern Orthodox Church a more prominent feature of Russian life and he doesn’t recognise the Ukraine Orthodoxy and wants rid of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bobmcfc said:

Very good read. There are multiple tweets btw click on tweet to read the whole explaination
Click to expand...


This is a really bad thread, sorry.

Russia didn't need Crimea to have a black sea port, and securing Crimea didn't stop the fact they still only have trade through there because Turkey allows it.

Also the nonsense put forward about the US killing Russian trade, and literally parroting Putin talking points?
 
SWP's back said:
Fuck me, another one.

Trump would have waved him in. How are you not aware of that?
Click to expand...

Russian tv is rerunning the clip of Trump calling it a “genius move” by Putin, he’s continuing to do as much damage to the West’s response as anyone.

How anyone can think Trump would have stood up to him is beyond me, it would be completely against everything that he’s done and said for the last five years.
 
bluesteel said:
No haha.

Honestly it’s ridiculous, what are the west going to do if Russia say “your economic sanctions are hurting us so badly we’re going to start selling nuclear weapons to Iran and Afghanistan”?

For what? The US could have put a naval base in Sevastopol after the Ukraine joined NATO. Did the US honestly think the Russians would let them have what’s been their naval base for 200 years without a fight?

The difference is, most on here think this about Ukraine joining Europe, and I think it’s about Russian security and politics.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought on Russia selling weapons to plug financial gap - it’s a danger however would counter that by saying sanctions will limit Russians ability to manufacture weapons/military equipment but there is a big chance that they have stockpiled given Putin will have anticipated some/most/more of these sanctions.

I don’t agree with you that NATO could have done more per-se, nor the US put a naval base next to the Russian Black Sea fleet however I do think the US didn’t pay enough attention to Russian sensitivities after the Cold War - there was a world of hope and I think the US was focused on embracing new found freedoms in the east at the same time seeing Russia as a irrelevant player. It wasn’t meant to offend or unsettle Russia. Bush and Gorbachev needed more time in power to press home that peace; Yeltsin also wanted to join a European institution but eventually ended up being slighted and warning Clinton when he felt the west was ignoring Russia in negotiations and saw this proud nation as a irrelevance - and I see Putin as a product of the those mis-steps.

But like all these things the resolution of a war is often followed by decisions that, well intended, create open sores that eventually need scratching/solving. That we have ended up with Russia invading a peaceful sovereign neighbour is entirely on Putin however and his inability to achieve anything without reverting to force.
 
meltonblue said:
Russian tv is rerunning the clip of Trump calling it a “genius move” by Putin, he’s continuing to do as much damage to the West’s response as anyone.

How anyone can think Trump would have stood up to him is beyond me, it would be completely against everything that he’s done and said for the last five years.
Click to expand...
It’s because “Trump tells the trufe innit”
 
5 Hit Gibbon said:
It sounds good on paper to just say cut Russia off, but it's not as clear cut when you depend on them. Most people just look at things from a simplistic point of view. If you were Italy why would you just go along with all the measures if it has a massive impact on your own country?
Click to expand...

Because them Germany and Hungary owe it to Europe. Short memories on these cunts it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top