Russian invasion of Ukraine

Don't panic

Boris is giving Putin detention and 200 lines (not of coke)

Then he's going to pull his (Putins) trousers down and bend him over in front of a coal fire. If we have any coal left.

Then he's going to zip wire in waving Union Jacks.

That package will make them shit themselves.

Rule Britannia....sanctions rule KO

 
Looking at some of the videos etc going around - it does appear the whole situation is descending into chaos pretty quickly.
 
No because that would mean WW3
Is WW3 all that infeasible? Do Russia (and China), deep down, want WW3 to establish a new world order?

Russia (and China) has been taking the piss for 15 years, with little repercussions. I’m not sure the threats off the back of invading further worries them.

Is the threat of all our nuclear arsenals just that - a threat - and would never actually be used? Therefore meaning WW3 could easily come about in ground and air forces, and medium range ballistics. Rather than nuclear war and a few keys and big red buttons?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All down the length and breadth of Europe the café vlogging cappuccino drinkers will be trying to sort out a doctors appointment so they can get an exemption certificate from conscription.
 
We’d have lost the Battle of Britain if we’d have gone to war a year earlier. We had fuck all fighter aircraft in 1938 but built over 1,000 between 1938 and the summer of 1940 and each and every one was needed.

No doubt, bud, but appeasement started years before 1938. Your figures only go to show how unprepared we were in those years even at the commencement of war, rather than some historians perhaps suggesting appeasement as a plot to reaarm and buy us time.
 
Fully expecting the internet to go down once proper bigger sanctions are announced - I’m certain Putin will want a concerted cyber attack
 
It is revisionism, but that's an integral part of how we study history. The idea it was an unpopular or controversial policy doesn't really hold up, at the time everyone was in favour of it - public, politicians, military, diplomats.

The idea that it was a bad idea or a sign of weakness came primarily from the book Guilty Men in 1940, commissioned by Lord Beaverbrook (owner of the Daily Express which was the biggest paper in the world at the time).

That book and Beaverbrook's backing of it was incredibly influential, but since the 1950's after everything was said and done and research and information about everyone's actual military situations pre-war came to light, it's been increasingly accepted as a good policy.

It's actually taught at schools now as an example of how history is not set in stone and how opinions of events change over time as new information comes to light and emotional ties and propaganda lose power.
What's taught in schools now isn't necessarily the benchmark for what is factual - more likely demonstrates modern day sensibilities., which as we know, ride roughshod over history.
IMO appeasement left us further off guard and a false sense of security that led to some complacency.
But happy to agree to disagree.


Ps You're wrong.
 
The thing is our army is so depleted now it’s shameful the cuts they have had to endure

We’ve never really run a large peacetime military. You could have said exactly the same prior to WW1 or WW2. It’s the peace dividend, and with NATO we don’t really need a military that can go toe to toe with Russia.

That’s not to say we should have let it get quite so small in terms of equipment but it’s certainly a very modern military being one of only two nations capable of deploying a 5th gen strike carrier group. The Russians don’t have any 5th gen aircraft, their heavily delayed 5th gen is going to be quick but it needs to be as it has all the stealth capability of a fiat uno.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.