Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not disagreeing with that but you can't help someone who doesn't see what your doing is help. Look at Afghanistan, despite the intervention, all the training, equipment and money, the entire country fell in a couple of days, that had nothing to do with the talibans military prowess and was to do with the populations desire of how they wanted their country. 

That's what separates Ukraine and Afghanistan, the Ukrainians wish to be a free, democratic state just as the UK is, the fight they have pput up and the lives they have lost, I would suggest they've earnt our help. 

Not really,  looking at Afghanistan they never asked for our help, they don't want to live like us in a western way and various different countries have tried over the years to tame them, they have resisted and always will.

Countries only go into Afghanistan to take resources out.

The Ukraine are fighting to resist Russia and its commendable,  but they are already being given more help and supplies than I thought they would be after Putin's threat, and it's far from discreet.

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Fair enough but let's come back to this:

The people of Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, DRC etc. - even Russia and China - are the same as us in the same way as the Ukrainians are in so much that they aspire for peace, individual and collective freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, opportunity and access to education etc. It's the regimes and factions in their country that primarily prevent that and in some cases prior exploitation by the developed world along with recent, in a few cases ongoing, meddling by outsiders in their affairs.

This is why, objectively speaking, a verified refugee is a verified refugee regardless of where in the world they are refugees of. They should all be afforded equal rights as mandated under International Law.

To be clear, I fully support the assistance we are providing Ukraine and it's people - just merely suggesting we should perhaps not be so selective in whom we consider worthy of such assistance.

The reality is that it's a function of self interest and perception of a direct threat to our own way of life. I'm not criticising self interest either, it's a fact of life and necessity. But let's be real here...

Well said.

[Good shot?]

13 hours ago, ditchman said:

 

the only thing that is truly going to put an end to this ....is going to have to come from within Russia itself...

I totally agree with the above. It would resolve a lot of the immediate problems and hopefully a reaction from within Russia is imminent.

However I am not seeing or hearing much regarding what the West is doing to get the truth over to the Russian population who only see what Putin wants them to see.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, do you think Turkey is sucking up to Putin by allowing Russian owned boats to moor up in Turkish waters ?

[Vince Green]

2 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, do you think Turkey is sucking up to Putin by allowing Russian owned boats to moor up in Turkish waters ?

in a word?

yes

3 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

 

However I am not seeing or hearing much regarding what the West is doing to get the truth over to the Russian population who only see what Putin wants them to see.

Thats the whole problem

[clangerman]

27 minutes ago, Good shot? said:

 I am not seeing or hearing much regarding what the West is doing to get the truth over to the Russian population who only see what Putin wants them to see.

that’s because they are to busy pumping out their own rubbish that all the sheep are swallowing 

[Smokersmith]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z63wwty
 

This may help those who are worried about propaganda.

[ditchman]

3 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z63wwty
 

This may help those who are worried about propaganda.

is that what they do when they are with  Chris Packham...........seems BBC need to practice what they preach

[Rewulf]

44 minutes ago, ditchman said:

seems BBC need to practice what they preach

Amen to that.

The BBC lecturing on misinformation and fake news~? Nauseating. Woke agendas , left leaning , overpaid shills.

The Germans had great respect for the level of propaganda the BBC used to pump out in WW2.

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, Mice! said:

Not really,  looking at Afghanistan they never asked for our help, they don't want to live like us in a western way and various different countries have tried over the years to tame them, they have resisted and always will.

Countries only go into Afghanistan to take resources out.

The Ukraine are fighting to resist Russia and its commendable,  but they are already being given more help and supplies than I thought they would be after Putin's threat, and it's far from discreet.

Well said.

I'm a little confused, you've stated you disagree with me and then proceeded to make my point for me, the points you've listed explain why we should help ukraine and not necessarily some of the other countries Raja listed, which was what I was trying to do 🤔. 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm a little confused, you've stated you disagree with me and then proceeded to make my point for me, the points you've listed explain why we should help ukraine and not necessarily some of the other countries Raja listed, which was what I was trying to do 🤔. 

My point was half the time the help wasn't asked for or wanted, I can't imagine how much must have been spent in Afghanistan alone, and what did it achieve?

Ukraine want help, but only now that Russia has gone in, but they never joined NATO,  apparently they couldn't because Russia would have vetoed them.

We can't be expected to send troops after Putins threat, nobody likes whats being seen on the news, but its not our fight, at least not yet, and I hope it stays not our fight.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, listening to Putin on the news there maybe a change in his policy ? or is it a lull to regroup his troops, I also heard a Russian general was shot buy his own ?? 

[Jim Neal]

Meanwhile, in North Korea....

https://www.channel4.com/news/north-korea-tests-its-largest-intercontinental-ballistic-missile

[12gauge82]

4 hours ago, Mice! said:

My point was half the time the help wasn't asked for or wanted, I can't imagine how much must have been spent in Afghanistan alone, and what did it achieve?

Ukraine want help, but only now that Russia has gone in, but they never joined NATO,  apparently they couldn't because Russia would have vetoed them.

We can't be expected to send troops after Putins threat, nobody likes whats being seen on the news, but its not our fight, at least not yet, and I hope it stays not our fight.

Agree with everything up until you say its not our fight, if we followed that strategy during ww2, the nazis would have won. 

I also believe it sets a precidence for other despots around the world who fancy their chances. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Agree with everything up until you say its not our fight, if we followed that strategy during ww2, the nazis would have won. 

I also believe it sets a precidence for other despots around the world who fancy their chances. 

You are wrong again, Britain drew the line and supported Poland when it was invaded by Germany after false flag operations suggesting the Poles attacked Germany. We then supported France when they were invaded by Germany.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I still say we as in all the NATO, UN, USA stood up to Putin maybe just maybe he would have thought twice to invade Ukraine, it's not like WW2 or Afghanistan fighting a Nazi regime or terrorists in Afgan, these a peaceful people , is it all about the old Russian federation or complete hate for any country not wanting to live under his rule, 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

You are wrong again, Britain drew the line and supported Poland when it was invaded by Germany after false flag operations suggesting the Poles attacked Germany. We then supported France when they were invaded by Germany.

I'm not disputing that and If you read the thread again you'll find its you that is wrong, yet again 😁. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I still say we as in all the NATO, UN, USA stood up to Putin maybe just maybe he would have thought twice to invade Ukraine, it's not like WW2 or Afghanistan fighting a Nazi regime or terrorists in Afgan, these a peaceful people , is it all about the old Russian federation or complete hate for any country not wanting to live under his rule, 

This is spot on. 

I feel the west (by that I mean general public and politicians, not our brave military men and women) has gone soft and is afraid to pull its socks up and fight where necessary. Which in the long run could lead to a bigger conflict at a later date. Its all a fine balance, but attacking a peaceful country in an attempted invasion is black and white in my opinion. 

[Mice!]

8 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Agree with everything up until you say its not our fight, if we followed that strategy during ww2, the nazis would have won. 

I also believe it sets a precidence for other despots around the world who fancy their chances. 

This is nothing like WW2 and the only other countries with the clout Russia has are China and USA,  we these days are a small specialised Armed forces and can't be expected to run to everyone's aid.

[ditchman]

the soviets lost 15,000 troops in Afganistan........over 10 years

NATO reports that Russia has to date lost at least 15,000 troops in Ukraine . ..over 4 weeks

is Putin looking at these figurers??...........is that why a new objective has been realeased  ?

the russians will consider their position when the losses have a politicle impact that they cant cover up

the ukraines will consider their position when all their troops are dead

 

[Smokersmith]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

 

I feel the west (by that I mean general public and politicians, not our brave military men and women) has gone soft and is afraid to pull its socks up and fight where necessary. Which in the long run could lead to a bigger conflict at a later date. Its all a fine balance, but attacking a peaceful country in an attempted invasion is black and white in my opinion. 

I think by now your position is clear, and I completely understand how we can all feel helpless seeing the destruction going on … the emotions to intervene are going to be strong.

Where we diverge is that many of us feel that with a hugely unstable leader with a hand on the button, the risk of immediate escalation and nukes dropping on us here within 20 minutes just isn’t worth it.

Soldiers and bravery can’t fight nukes.

Ukraine may end up surrendering some territory, but the boundaries of peace that became soft over recent years are now crystal clear, and Putin will not be able to conventionally throw his weight around like he did.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

GORDON BENNETT!

[old man]

On 25/03/2022 at 06:20, Raja Clavata said:

If he can't beat Ukraine militarily (helped in part by the rest of us) then he has no chance against the full force of NATO on a conventional warfare basis, not a cat in hells chance frankly.

Those calling for direct action by NATO now need to seriously ask themselves if they are prepared to die to save Ukraine and Ukrainian lives, not just die themselves but potentially the death of everyone they know and love, the end of everything they ever lived for, for eternity. And to be clear, we're not talking about the "button" being pressed and everything evaporating in an instant, we're talking about a slow and extremely excruciatingly painful death for the majority.

If the unequivocal answer to that is yes, then I can at least begin to understand the asinine point of drawing parallels between the Third Reich, Ukraine and Brexit.

In my opinion, the likelihood of him progressing beyond Ukraine even into bordering non NATO countries is much lower now, and going forward, than at the start of this war, it's even less likely for him to try it on a NATO member state. This endorses the decision not to impose a no fly zone over Ukraine as well as other direct military intervention by NATO forces to date.

Whilst he remains in power, the West need to try to provide Putin enough wiggle room to withdraw whilst maintaining some kind of face, that is in the interest of Ukraine and the rest of us. Particularly us in the UK as apparently the outcome of various gamification scenarios that result in escalation and the use of any kind of nuclear conflict show the UK as the front line on a global basis (between Russia and the US).

Under one such scenario, the NATO block falls apart within 5 minutes of the UK being hit with tactical nukes from Russia. The US is then the only credible force in NATO which has to choose between hitting back at Russia or allowing the UK to take one for the rest of the free world.

There's even a sub-scenario where the US nukes the UK in an attempt to prevent the UK independently retaliating against Russia.

The key point is that once a "corner case" is encountered things can escalate quickly, and in ways almost inconceivable prior to the immediate next step after the corner case occurring.

Thank "God" the real decision makers on our side are reading from their informed playbook rather than the BoJo version which draws parallels with Brexit.

 

 

Thank you, we got there in the end!

Good post, Brexit and Ukraine are not the same thankfully someone keeping the codes out of his reach otherwise a party with bingo numbers could be a prospect?

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

I think by now your position is clear, and I completely understand how we can all feel helpless seeing the destruction going on … the emotions to intervene are going to be strong.

Where we diverge is that many of us feel that with a hugely unstable leader with a hand on the button, the risk of immediate escalation and nukes dropping on us here within 20 minutes just isn’t worth it.

Soldiers and bravery can’t fight nukes.

Ukraine may end up surrendering some territory, but the boundaries of peace that became soft over recent years are now crystal clear, and Putin will not be able to conventionally throw his weight around like he did.

Yeah I get all that and understand people's fears, I just believe one should never let fear prevent someone carrying out an action in defence of another if it is the  morally correct thing to do and I certainly don't say that lightly, I have immediate family who will almost certainly be one of the very first into the fray if it all kicks off. 

[Rewulf]

5 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I still say we as in all the NATO, UN, USA stood up to Putin maybe just maybe he would have thought twice to invade Ukraine, it's not like WW2 or Afghanistan fighting a Nazi regime or terrorists in Afgan, these a peaceful people , is it all about the old Russian federation or complete hate for any country not wanting to live under his rule, 

What do you mean 'stood up to' ?
We have sanctioned them to death, threatened anyone who dares to buy off them , including Germany for gas , and Turkey for weapons systems.
If you mean 'stood up to' as in militarily , have we not trained and equipped the opposing sides, going back decades ?
Stinger missiles in Afghan, NLAWs in Ukraine ?
What are we talking here, putting NATO troops in the line of fire , shooting down Russian air ?
With all the possible consequences that entails , with an alleged madman on the button.

Then theres the other side of the coin, where Putin is 'standing up to' the west, who have edged ever closer to Russias borders over the past 20 years ?
Not apologising for their actions, but there is a level of provocation, its just what that level is ?
You will hear in the mainstream press, that there was no provocation whatsoever, but that clearly isnt true.

3 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

Soldiers and bravery can’t fight nukes.

Ukraine may end up surrendering some territory, but the boundaries of peace that became soft over recent years are now crystal clear, and Putin will not be able to conventionally throw his weight around like he did.

This.

 

38 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Yeah I get all that and understand people's fears, I just believe one should never let fear prevent someone carrying out an action in defence of another if it is the  morally correct thing to do and I certainly don't say that lightly, I have immediate family who will almost certainly be one of the very first into the fray if it all kicks off. 

This is the essence of deterrence , how far do you go to defend another, when the possible outcome is your own destruction ?
You can threaten as much as you like , and hope the aggressor believes youll do it, thus proving the threat of action is real, but if the aggressor isnt buying into it, you have a problem.
Russia has proved with Ukraine, that NATO arent willing to get into the thick of it, they simply darent risk the escalation into a possible nuclear exchange, for a country that isnt in NATO and has little to offer strategically, given its demographic.
The question several of the newer NATO members might be asking themselves now is, if Russia went for them, would the same rules apply ?
Would say , the US risk their home soil getting nuked for some tiny east European countries liberty..?

I should think Taiwan are getting pretty nervous too.

[12gauge82]

21 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What do you mean 'stood up to' ?
We have sanctioned them to death, threatened anyone who dares to buy off them , including Germany for gas , and Turkey for weapons systems.
If you mean 'stood up to' as in militarily , have we not trained and equipped the opposing sides, going back decades ?
Stinger missiles in Afghan, NLAWs in Ukraine ?
What are we talking here, putting NATO troops in the line of fire , shooting down Russian air ?
With all the possible consequences that entails , with an alleged madman on the button.

Then theres the other side of the coin, where Putin is 'standing up to' the west, who have edged ever closer to Russias borders over the past 20 years ?
Not apologising for their actions, but there is a level of provocation, its just what that level is ?
You will hear in the mainstream press, that there was no provocation whatsoever, but that clearly isnt true.

This.

 

This is the essence of deterrence , how far do you go to defend another, when the possible outcome is your own destruction ?
You can threaten as much as you like , and hope the aggressor believes youll do it, thus proving the threat of action is real, but if the aggressor isnt buying into it, you have a problem.
Russia has proved with Ukraine, that NATO arent willing to get into the thick of it, they simply darent risk the escalation into a possible nuclear exchange, for a country that isnt in NATO and has little to offer strategically, given its demographic.
The question several of the newer NATO members might be asking themselves now is, if Russia went for them, would the same rules apply ?
Would say , the US risk their home soil getting nuked for some tiny east European countries liberty..?

I should think Taiwan are getting pretty nervous too.

I'm glad you raised that as that is my exact line of thought, my opinion is we avoid conflict where possible, but not at the expense of defence of Ukraine, I believe we should push into all Ukraine held areas and hold a new line, if Russian attacks that, then clearly they are the aggressor. 

And in answer to how far do you go, I say all the way, whatever it takes.

[oldypigeonpopper]

42 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

What do you mean 'stood up to' ?
We have sanctioned them to death, threatened anyone who dares to buy off them , including Germany for gas , and Turkey for weapons systems.
If you mean 'stood up to' as in militarily , have we not trained and equipped the opposing sides, going back decades ?
Stinger missiles in Afghan, NLAWs in Ukraine ?
What are we talking here, putting NATO troops in the line of fire , shooting down Russian air ?
With all the possible consequences that entails , with an alleged madman on the button.

Then theres the other side of the coin, where Putin is 'standing up to' the west, who have edged ever closer to Russias borders over the past 20 years ?
Not apologising for their actions, but there is a level of provocation, its just what that level is ?
You will hear in the mainstream press, that there was no provocation whatsoever, but that clearly isnt true.

This.

 

This is the essence of deterrence , how far do you go to defend another, when the possible outcome is your own destruction ?
You can threaten as much as you like , and hope the aggressor believes youll do it, thus proving the threat of action is real, but if the aggressor isnt buying into it, you have a problem.
Russia has proved with Ukraine, that NATO arent willing to get into the thick of it, they simply darent risk the escalation into a possible nuclear exchange, for a country that isnt in NATO and has little to offer strategically, given its demographic.
The question several of the newer NATO members might be asking themselves now is, if Russia went for them, would the same rules apply ?
Would say , the US risk their home soil getting nuked for some tiny east European countries liberty..?

I should think Taiwan are getting pretty nervous too.

Hello, I can understand your sentiment but while the west sits on the side line , Ukrainian men women and children are being killed through no fault on their own and their homes, cities, and villages and factories completely destroyed let alone the physiological impact , from a previous post I still believe if we had all stood up to Putin i don't think he would have gone into Ukraine , the only thing is to hope the majority of Russians see the real news and rise up against him or one of his ilk shoots him,