Russian invasion of Ukraine

[ultimateharold]

imagine they actually try this.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Genuinely curious, does the same logic apply to Israel Gaza? With the former being a nuclear power, should Gazans cede whatever territory is demanded indefinitely for a more peaceful world for the rest of us?

No. Because the facts aren't the same. Israel cannot threaten the world. Russia can.

 

[Irwell]

Nothing wrong with that statement. Ukraine has lost the war. Russia needs to come to the table and name it's terms. Ukraine need to accept that they have lost territory and come to terms with it and demand assurances and protection from the West to prevent further losses.

All of what you say is true, but it does not negate the fact that Ukraine is defeated and that the war needs to stop and that conflict is not worth starting WW3 or a nuclear conflict over.

Alternatively, we arm Ukraine enough that they can destroy the Russian army and we can keep the sanctions applied so their economy completely collapses. Russia needs to never be able to recover to where Russia was, it needs to come back as something new.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Here are magic Grandad's words

View attachment 138542

All of which sounds fine and dandy until you address the issue of what a "diplomatic solution" is, given that Russia is fascist state which denies the right of a Ukrainian state to exist and has systematically raped, tortured, kidnapped and murdered civilians, including children, in regions it has occupied.

What a tosser. Mind you he wanted to gift Ukraine to Putin as he still thinks Russia is still Socialist.

No we aren't at war - we supplied weapons to Ukraine ti's all.

 

[BlueAnorak]

No. Because the facts aren't the same. Israel cannot threaten the world. Russia can.

Oh bless - willing to surrender democracy to tyrants.

 

[Irwell]

How do you see Ukraine winning the war?

Do you honestly see them turning this around?

The new weapons are being supplied to halt the advances of the Russian army. It's about slowing them down, not changing the course of the war.

No, it's about draining the Russians as much as we can as cheaply as we can. We are using old weapons to decimate their forces and destroying their economy at the same time. If we went shock and awe with the best weapons it would cost Russians less and they would just go again in a couple of years. The more we destroy their forces and their economy, the harder it will be to try again.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

No, it's about draining the Russians as much as we can as cheaply as we can. We are using old weapons to decimate their forces and destroying their economy at the same time. If we went shock and awe with the best weapons it would cost Russians less and they would just go again in a couple of years. The more we destroy their forces and their economy, the harder it will be to try again.

New weapons referred to the weapons that Ukraine were granted permission to use this week. The missiles from the UK and the anti personnel mines from USA.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Oh bless - willing to surrender democracy to tyrants.

I'd rather that than nuclear holocaust.

 

[Irwell]

New weapons referred to the weapons that Ukraine were granted permission to use this week. The missiles from the UK and the anti personnel mines from USA.

My disagreement wasn't about the age of the weapons, it was about whether the sole aim was to slow the Russian advances. It isn't, it's to do as much damage as we can as cheaply as we can.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Nothing wrong with that statement. Ukraine has lost the war. Russia needs to come to the table and name it's terms. Ukraine need to accept that they have lost territory and come to terms with it and demand assurances and protection from the West to prevent further losses.

All of what you say is true, but it does not negate the fact that Ukraine is defeated and that the war needs to stop and that conflict is not worth starting WW3 or a nuclear conflict over.

WW3 is already upon us, we just haven’t had the bollox to call it.