Jump to content

Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.


Dave-G
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, GingerCat said:

No point splitting hairs over it, they each have thousands so it makes no difference, the point stands though, he won't invade Alaska. I doubt agmftwr this he can do very much for a while. 

Agreed, they both have enough to wipe all humans of the planet, many times over.

He will not invade any NATO country, even at full strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 08/06/2022 at 09:24, mick miller said:

Only in the Ukraine is it okay to supply as many weapons as you like, to anyone from kindergarten to care home, with zero checks on where they end up (roaring trade on the black market at present for NLAWs, amongst many other things). 

Everywhere else, especially America of course, nobody except the powerful should have access to them.

It makes perfect sense to me. I can't see how any of these unchecked weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists and end up being used against the very people that supplied them and their foreign interests. Not at all.

As I said, this latest iteration of decision makers seem both malign and as thick as mince. 


You edited your post, but your prediction was Russian total victory inside of 1 month of 8th June. 

What are your Russian propaganda outlets telling you now? 

64D42C0A-3EC8-4315-91DB-60E78E97FB10.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

To be honest, I too expected the Russians to roll over Ukraine in a few weeks. Their resistance has astonished me, but they are paying a very heavy price. Their country will be trashed before this is over.

I've said this all along, then everyone says what else can they do.

Russia will keep going till they get to a point they can defend,  I said the river which splits the country roughly North to South, but they have a way to go before they get there.

So the weapons will keep being supplied and the Ukraine will continue to suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I've said this all along, then everyone says what else can they do.

Russia will keep going till they get to a point they can defend,  I said the river which splits the country roughly North to South, but they have a way to go before they get there.

So the weapons will keep being supplied and the Ukraine will continue to suffer.

Yes Ukraine will continue to suffer not because of weapons supplied, but because they were attached by Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Yes Ukraine will continue to suffer not because of weapons supplied, but because they were attached by Russia.

We know they were attacked by Russia,  we know there has been a conflict going on for years, but without the weapons being supplied they would have had to surrender by now, I very much doubt Russia were expecting the level of resistance they have come up against. 

16 minutes ago, Scully said:

The Ukraine people will continue to suffer for as long as they offer resistance, which they have chosen to do because the alternative isn’t acceptable to them. Fair enough, their choice. 

It is their choice, but how much 9f the country will be left?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ordnance said:

What do you suggest, any country that is attacked surrenders to avoid damage and casualties  

I think they shouldn't have resisted,  then fought a guerrilla war if they wanted to fight, they are trying unsuccessfully to fight a super power, with no help or allies.

The weapons they are being supplied with mean they can keep fighting,  nothing more, the longer they fight the more they suffer, and the more damage is done to their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mice! said:

 

It is their choice, but how much 9f the country will be left?

That’s entirely up to them. Like I said, their choice. 

Just now, Mice! said:

I think they shouldn't have resisted,  then fought a guerrilla war if they wanted to fight, they are trying unsuccessfully to fight a super power, with no help or allies.

The weapons they are being supplied with mean they can keep fighting,  nothing more, the longer they fight the more they suffer, and the more damage is done to their country.

Again. Their choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I think they shouldn't have resisted,  then fought a guerrilla war if they wanted to fight, they are trying unsuccessfully to fight a super power, with no help or allies.

The weapons they are being supplied with mean they can keep fighting,  nothing more, the longer they fight the more they suffer, and the more damage is done to their country.

As said their country their choice. Not every country and people are willing to just roll over and surrender, especially a country that has experienced Russian / soviet occupation and the genocide of its people in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I think they shouldn't have resisted,  then fought a guerrilla war if they wanted to fight, they are trying unsuccessfully to fight a super power, with no help or allies.

Under that scenario it’s highly probable Zelensky and other high profile Ukrainians would have been dead before the end of February.

They are getting billions of dollars / euros of help, along with training and intel, plus a lot more that isn’t publicised.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Under that scenario it’s highly probable Zelensky and other high profile Ukrainians would have been dead before the end of February.

They are getting billions of dollars / euros of help, along with training and intel, plus a lot more that isn’t publicised.

Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean…

A few high profile people who would no doubt have gone to a safe country and continued to encourage their people,  instead they are trying to go toe to toe with with a much larger aggressor who seems prepared to ruin their country.

24 minutes ago, ordnance said:

especially a country that has experienced Russian / soviet occupation and the genocide of its people in the past

That's probably it, but I can't imagine anyone going back to the areas worst affected anytime soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A few high profile people who would no doubt have gone to a safe country and continued to encourage their people,  instead they are trying to go toe to toe with with a much larger aggressor who seems prepared to ruin their country.

So are you saying if the aggressor is bigger and more powerful a country should just surrender without a fight. I will go back to WW2 again should the UK have surrendered to Nazi Germany a larger more powerful aggressor, should Israel have surrendered to larger more powerful aggressors.  

Edited by ordnance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole ‘should have thrown Putin the keys and let them in rather than see the country damaged’, whilst very French, is not an idea the Ukrainians are willing to support and that should be the end of that - their choice and the West is happy to support them in that choice.

What I am seeing on-line is a large number of people brainwashed by Russian propaganda and telling us the war will be over swiftly, that Ukrainian morale is broken, that Zelensky is a crook who will flee with a bag full of stolen Ukrainian assets etc. and so on. And the thing is, they can’t even see it. 

Back on to the war, I just don’t see Russia taking and occupying Ukraine; the country is way too big and the inhabitants way too motivated not to be part of Russia.

This is going to be Afghanistan II for the Russians and firmly in the Top 10 of ‘military blunders’ of all time.

If the Russians are having to have emergency talks with Iran to source a fleet of drones (to locate the HIMARS) then I wonder what the total value of kit they have wasted / had blown up to get to here let alone the loss of Russian life. Mind you, the Russian mindset is odd and the country is enormous - there’s no end of villages to plunder for young men to sacrifice and that’s certainly not anything that’s previously troubled a Russian regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mungler said:

What I am seeing on-line is a large number of people brainwashed by Russian propaganda and telling us the war will be over swiftly, that Ukrainian morale is broken, that Zelensky is a crook who will flee with a bag full of stolen Ukrainian assets etc. and so on. And the thing is, they can’t even see it.

/\ This.

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Back on to the war, I just don’t see Russia taking and occupying Ukraine; the country is way too big and the inhabitants way too motivated not to be part of Russia.

This is going to be Afghanistan II for the Russians and firmly in the Top 10 of ‘military blunders’ of all time.

/\ This

9 minutes ago, Mungler said:

I wonder what the total value of kit they have wasted / had blown up to get to here let alone the loss of Russian life.

I think the other issue is that Russian kit has proved to be very poor, notably in it's ability to compare to Western technology and maybe they have only very limited quantities of their latest kit and are relying on older generation stuff?

Also, they didn't expect this to drag on over months/years, and their logistics seems very poor with (allegedly) fuel and supply shortages hampering progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ordnance said:

What do you suggest, any country that is attacked surrenders to avoid damage and casualties  

Thats what France did in WW2. After all the loss of life and economic damage resulting from WW1, General Petain (a hero of the First World War) rolled over and capitulated with the Nazis to avoid a repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Thats what France did in WW2. After all the loss of life and economic damage resulting from WW1, General Petain (a hero of the First World War) rolled over and capitulated with the Nazis to avoid a repeat.

That and what the history books don’t mention too much is that most of France were happy to be ruled over by the Germans - contrary to popular belief they weren’t all resistance fighters during the war.

Then there’s the whole French fleet ‘thing’ and operation Torch and don’t forget Merdjayoun where the French fought the Australian forces.

To keep peace in Europe we are all told it was a war with ‘the Nazis’ and not Germans per se and that French fighting for ‘the Nazis’ were the Vichy French not the plain old French.

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

Were they.

We still had some of the empire and our commonwealth allies.

Britain alone maybe, but Britain never stood alone agaist the Nazis.

You’re splitting hairs.

In Europe we were alone.

Not too sure how many Australian air planes flew in to help at the Battle of Britain, for example.

.

Edited by Mungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mungler said:

That and what the history books don’t mention too much is that most of France we’re happy to be ruled over by the Germans - contrary to popular belief they weren’t all resistance fighters during the war.

Then there’s the whole French fleet ‘thing’ and operation Torch and don’t forget Merdjayoun where the French fought the Australian forces.

To keep peace in Europe we are all told it was a war with ‘the Nazis’ and not Germans per se and that French fighting for ‘the Nazis’ were the Vichy French not the plain old French

The Jews in Paris were rounded up by the French not the Germans and the French Government seized their properties. They still have them today. Hundreds of French Civil Servants live in grace and favour houses and apartments today that were stolen from murdered Jews in the war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

You’re splitting hairs.

Am I though

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

In Europe we were alone.

At the outbreak of war in 1939, India and the other colonial parts of the Empire had no choice and automatically joined in the war on the side of Britain.

During the war the British Empire and Dominions raised a total of 8,586,000 men for military service. More than 5 million came from the British Isles, 1,440,500 from India, 629,000 from Canada, 413,000 from Australia, 136,000 from South Africa, 128,500 from New Zealand and more than 134,000 from other colonies.

Troops from the Dominions fought in all theatres where British troops were engaged. 

Link

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Not too sure how many Australian air planes flew in to help at the Battle of Britain, for example.

Their planes may not have, but their pilots certainly did.

1567506708_Screenshot_20220713-081648_SamsungInternet.jpg.76b4c7e0aec92168d979d42fe786be9a.jpg

Around 20% of the RAF were not British.

Edited by Newbie to this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ordnance said:

So are you saying if the aggressor is bigger and more powerful a country should just surrender without a fight. I will go back to WW2 again should the UK have surrendered to Nazi Germany a larger more powerful aggressor, should Israel have surrendered to larger more powerful aggressors.  

When were Germany more powerful than us?

We weren't alone in the war with Germany,  we had an Army, Navy and Air force and we had declared war against Germany along with others. And we are an Island which makes invading us a lot harder.

The Ukraine are alone, yes they are being supplied but how long will that last if prices Continue to rise on fuel and food across Europe, will the supplies keep flowing if it means we, France or Germany start going without?

Israel couldn't surrender,  its a war based on religion that I've never understood,  they survive because there is no option,  because they have Nukes and because they have the support of the USA

The Ukraine could possibly have let Putin roll into the Donbass region, the region that's been at war for the last 8 years, but now he'll take more or ruin what he can't take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

This whole ‘should have thrown Putin the keys and let them in rather than see the country damaged’, whilst very French, is not an idea the Ukrainians are willing to support and that should be the end of that - their choice and the West is happy to support them in that choice.

What I am seeing on-line is a large number of people brainwashed by Russian propaganda and telling us the war will be over swiftly, that Ukrainian morale is broken, that Zelensky is a crook who will flee with a bag full of stolen Ukrainian assets etc. and so on. And the thing is, they can’t even see it. 

Back on to the war, I just don’t see Russia taking and occupying Ukraine; the country is way too big and the inhabitants way too motivated not to be part of Russia.

This is going to be Afghanistan II for the Russians and firmly in the Top 10 of ‘military blunders’ of all time.

If the Russians are having to have emergency talks with Iran to source a fleet of drones (to locate the HIMARS) then I wonder what the total value of kit they have wasted / had blown up to get to here let alone the loss of Russian life. Mind you, the Russian mindset is odd and the country is enormous - there’s no end of villages to plunder for young men to sacrifice and that’s certainly not anything that’s previously troubled a Russian regime.

Agree with all that, except the need to constantly bash the French.

You can't extrapolate the Vichy French in WW2 to all of France, that is a distortion of historical fact.

Just a couple of counter points:

  • What was the ultimate fate of the puppet leader of the Vichy?
  • How many French perished in securing the repatriation of British & Commonwealth troops at Dunkirk?

Since answering the questions doesn't suit your agenda, I'll do so for you:

  • He was tried and found guilty of TREASON >> death by firing squad
  • Around 16,000, so for every ~20 British & Commonwealth soldiers who left, 1 French soldier made the ultimate sacrifice.
11 hours ago, Mice! said:

A few high profile people who would no doubt have gone to a safe country and continued to encourage their people,  instead they are trying to go toe to toe with with a much larger aggressor who seems prepared to ruin their country.

Could be seen as a gross act of cowardice, especially for anyone who has a pathological dislike of Ukrainians, or who tries to write history to align with their bias.

Edited by Raja Clavata
write not right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

This whole ‘should have thrown Putin the keys and let them in rather than see the country damaged’, whilst very French, is not an idea the Ukrainians are willing to support

Its not an idea NATO are willing to support either, they put a lot of money and effort into 'turning' Ukraine.

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

the West is happy to support them in that choice.

You bet it is , have you seen the share prices on western military corps ?

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

What I am seeing on-line is a large number of people brainwashed by Russian propaganda

Where are they getting this Russian propaganda, show me one link to RT or any other pro Russian news source ?

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

that Zelensky is a crook who will flee with a bag full of stolen Ukrainian assets etc. and so on.

He wont need Ukraines money , hes already a multi millionaire (somehow) and I should imagine his commission off various US arms companies will see him right.
Then theres the book, film and speaking tours.....

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

This is going to be Afghanistan II for the Russians

Considering the millions of Afghan deaths and destruction the soviets caused, lets hope this isnt what happens.
But I dont know why youre bring this up , it was after all 35 years ago :lol: so doesnt count ?

4 hours ago, Mungler said:

To keep peace in Europe we are all told it was a war with ‘the Nazis’ and not Germans per se and that French fighting for ‘the Nazis’ were the Vichy French not the plain old French.

True , there were 100s of 1000s of non vichy French, Dutch and Belgians fighting for the Germans, some may have been coerced or threatened.

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

You can't extrapolate the Vichy French in WW2 to all of France, that is a distortion of historical fact.

Not all of France , but geographical and ethnic lines are blurred in the region, Alsace-Lorraine is French , or is it German for instance ?
How many French people had Germanic ancestry ?
There are even British and Americans who , through ancestry or politics , fought for the nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...