Russian invasion of Ukraine

Alan Harper's Tash said:
His mistake was being near Germany. Had he docked at Albert Docks, Boris would have given him 18 months to find alternative docks.
Click to expand...

His mistake was it was out of the water in a dry dock getting refitted.

Couldn't sail away to safety like Putin did with his 2 weeks ago.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Russia will float numerous justifications, hoping that some one or more of which meet with agreement among its foes.

In the USA we have a saying for this. Throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks.

Russia's "NATO-aligned Ukraine is an existential threat" shit seems to have stuck on portions of the addle-minded Right.
Click to expand...
If potential NATO expansion into Ukraine was his real concern he had already done what was necessary to stop it by occupying Crimea and supporting separatists in the east. It's a condition of NATO membership that there are no territorial disputes ongoing. But most of us know that NATO expansion just his flimsy excuse, and those still parroting that as a reason for the invasion really haven't been paying attention to everything else that's going on. The irony is that if Russia lose this war and have to retreat out of Ukraine totally, he has almost guaranteed accelerated NATO membership for Ukraine.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
But by neutralising the threat by getting troops up to the column somehow, the cities may or may not need the same protection. Attack being the best defence. It's so annoying just seeing certain awaiting death just sitting there.

P.S. I'm just a normal bloke trying to get his head around it all.
Click to expand...
Same here lovely , i really want them to be bombed to bits as well
 
SWP's back said:
I know it’s 2022 and people shouldn’t be ashamed to come out as gay or trans or even that they identify as cats and need a litter tray… BUT I don’t get why people think it’s ok to out themselves in public as watchers of Russel Cunting Brand.

I’d rather people thought I fingered geese down the local park, it would be a great deal less embarrassing and I’d more that likely learn more. He’s the idiot’s idea of a smart person the scruffy ****.
Click to expand...
Would rile Putin up more if the West started calling him Vladiqueer Putin, to be fair.
 
Tuearts right boot said:
Do they need to have the skies ??. and if so are they constantly flying over it. The convoy is bogged down and flanked by forests. I'm no army bod but surely a platoon of decent blokes with anti tank launchers could take out every 5th one if planned right. Hey Presto, the M25 on a friday night......It's obviously not that simple but it seems it. Failing that, get the Insulate Britain hippies out of prison and let them loose on it.
Click to expand...

They have limited capacity to attack it beyond drones. Apparently they’ve been using what drones they have to good effective taking out the fuel and ammo supply trucks of this convoy rather than the vehicles themselves - hence why it’s just sitting their making this great Russian army look a bit bang average.
 
SWP's back said:
@Vester you say it’s important for Russia to not have a NATO member on its border? But it’s never not had a NATO member on its border since 1947 and currently has 5, none of which are Ukraine. I stopped reading at that line as I wanted to ask you about it before I dig in on the rest of the essay.
Click to expand...
Again I'm not saying I know everything, but if you simply use the argument "they already have Nato on their boarder so there is no difference" its quite obvious you basically have no idea what you talking about and should educate yourself a bit more before getting into further discussions on the subject. If you fail to realize Russia is concerned about Nato expanding to the east and Ukraine becoming a part of Nato, regardless if you think the concerns are valid or not, you must simply have been living under a rock the last 14 years and/or had zero knowledge about the Ukraine situation before Russia invaded them a couple of days ago.

There is also a big difference in importance about how much more vulnerable Russia are along its border to Ukraine, than what they are along the boarder they share with Norway, the Baltics or even USA. Its barely even people living along their border with Norway, its so far up North. Same can be said about their border with Alaska. The Baltics basically have a population of a small Russian city so its nothing they need to be super worried about, from a Russian point of view. But it was quite obvious they were unwilling to let Nato expand to these countries as well at the time, even if they didnt use military force to prevent it. I think this has mainly to do with that Russia didnt have the financial muscles to go to war back then as they have today, but thats just my guess.

Like I said ,I dont think Russia has any right to invade Ukraine regardless if they are concerned about Nato or not. I just find it hard to understand why anyone would think that the reason Russia chooses to invade Ukraine, has anything to do with something else than Ukraines potential Nato expansion.
 
mat said:


Brand opens up a great discussion here.

As it's him some will dismiss it and carry on abusing people with a different opinion to theirs in here.
Click to expand...


For a change, thought I'd make an exception and listen to what Brand has to say.

Can't believe I wasted however many minutes on that shite.

It isn't 'an alternative opinion'. It is showcasing the ability to twist loose facts into implied accusations and excuses while pretending not to be making excuses and accusations.

What a twat.

Why is 1997 or even 1991 the point that matters in this. Why is that more significant than 2014, 2008, 1917, 1019, or 43,000 BC. And why are any of them relevant to the decision to invade it in 2022. Because he wants to be contrary and find excuses to justify it, while pretending not to be taking 'a side'.

'Yeah, so if we are ready to point fingers at others, rather than the aggressors, we might maybe stop it from happening again'. Erm no. If anything, are helping ensure it happens again by strengthening narratives used to start the aggression in the first place.
 
mat said:
Exactly.

It's not about him. It's about asking the right questions of how and why we ended up in this fucked up situation.

The first casualty of war is truth.

Official propaganda is coming from all sides and people must trust their own intelligence to what we see or read on whatever social media were on.
Click to expand...
All of this started 8 years ago when Ukraine decided it no longer wanted a puppet Putin president and instead wanted closer ties to Europe. Don't forget that even that was hard won and hundreds of protesters died at the hands of that president. They eventually removed him and elected subsequent presidents to enact western friendly presidents and this is why the immediate response was for Russia to move into Crimea/Donbas and now the whole country.

I haven't heard Brand discuss the Russian elements of his quest for truth, for example why not mention the reason behind the illegal occupation of Crimea or Donbas? All I captured was his chat around Iraq and then I turned it off because it has absolutely nothing to do with what's happening.

So really it's stupid to blame misinformation and then fall into the trap of not gathering the truth. This laziness is because the truth obviously reveals that Ukrainians are being oppressed by Russia and they want to westernise which is a clear no-go topic for the anti-war types. So actually none of this is about misinformation, it's just a piece of random mumblings about shite.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
west didsblue said:
If potential NATO expansion into Ukraine was his real concern he had already done what was necessary to stop it by occupying Crimea and supporting separatists in the east. It's a condition of NATO membership that there are no territorial disputes ongoing. But most of us know that NATO expansion just his flimsy excuse, and those still parroting that as a reason for the invasion really haven't been paying attention to everything else that's going on. The irony is that if Russia lose this war and have to retreat out of Ukraine totally, he has almost guaranteed accelerated NATO membership for Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Spot on!

Putin simply harkens back to a 1970's Soviet Union where Russia played a dominant role on world politics.

His plan to rekindle the Soviet Union past is to expand Russia's borders by invading its neighbors. First Georgia. Next Crimea. Now the Ukraine proper.

He counts, rightly, among his supporters, those on the west who idiotically believe whatever excuse is proposed for Russia's latest aggression. Thankfully the west seems to have awoken.

Russia is the analogue to Nazi Germany circa 1930-1940. And the West has finally realized this (mostly - I'm looking at you few idiots who believe otherwise, beholden to Putin's propaganda).
 
SWP's back said:
Everyone talking about Roman but I do believe Everton may very well be in the shit.

Click to expand...


They build these yachts so proportionally that in most pictures you really don't grasp the scale of them.

It's only when you see pictures like this the scale really hits.

1646321610878.png

I was in Valletta harbour a few years back and we went past an 80m yacht in a tiny little dayboat and it takes minutes to drive past.

Makes you really appreciate how enormous the Bismarck was though - 251m compared to the paltry 150m of this one.
 
Vester said:
Again I'm not saying I know everything, but if you simply use the argument "they already have Nato on their boarder so there is no difference" its quite obvious you basically have no idea what you talking about and should educate yourself a bit more before getting into further discussions on the subject. If you fail to realize Russia is concerned about Nato expanding to the east and Ukraine becoming a part of Nato, regardless if you think the concerns are valid or not, you must simply have been living under a rock the last 14 years and/or had zero knowledge about the Ukraine situation before Russia invaded them a couple of days ago.

There is also a big difference in importance about how much more vulnerable Russia are along its border to Ukraine, than what they are along the boarder they share with Norway, the Baltics or even USA. Its barely even people living along their border with Norway, its so far up North. Same can be said about their border with Alaska. The Baltics basically have a population of a small Russian city so its nothing they need to be super worried about, from a Russian point of view. But it was quite obvious they were unwilling to let Nato expand to these countries as well at the time, even if they didnt use military force to prevent it. I think this has mainly to do with that Russia didnt have the financial muscles to go to war back then as they have today, but thats just my guess.

Like I said ,I dont think Russia has any right to invade Ukraine regardless if they are concerned about Nato or not. I just find it hard to understand why anyone would think that the reason Russia chooses to invade Ukraine, has anything to do with something else than Ukraines potential Nato expansion.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself this, what are Russia vulnerable to? A NATO invasion? If Ukraine joined NATO or even the EU then what would the problem be? To flip it, why does Ukraine not view its NATO neighbour Poland as a threat but Russia does?

The only reason to fear a NATO country next door is if you want to keep the right to give your neighbours a battering from time to time and that's what Russia has done in the past and is doing now.

Basically if Russia stopped acting like twats then they would have nothing to fear from NATO or even the west.
 
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