Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[mchughcb]

1 minute ago, welsh1 said:

More a case of warning putin that there will be severe consequences should he decide on the stupid option.

Currently with US$60B+ worth of military aid flowing into Ukraine in 8 months and most of it used up already and 8 rounds of economic sanctions, what consequences would that be?

[welsh1]

5 minutes ago, mchughcb said:

Lol, how long did Mugabe live, 95?

Mehhh. If they are so concerned why don't they declare war on Russia and put boots on the ground.

Do you actually know what you are talking about both politically and militarily, because you come accross as very naive on all.

But then as a mouth piece of putin we should expect naivety.

1 minute ago, mchughcb said:

Currently with US$60B+ worth of military aid flowing into Ukraine in 8 months and most of it used up already and 8 rounds of economic sanctions, what consequences would that be?

Agian you show your naievety, go look up the subject we are talking about, then come back when you have the facts.

 

4 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I'd say that's exactly what's going on,  except the Ukraine are being given weapons and aid, meanwhile the Ukraine continues to suffer, while the world watches on.

Everyone seems pretty sure Putin won't invade a NATO country, why would he?

So you are saying that we are doing nothing? but then you say ukraine is being given aid and weapons!
Please make your mind up.

 

[mchughcb]

Mugabe lasted until he was well in his nineties, it was almost like Breakfast at Bernies there for the last few years. Not me saying that the West has to do something otherwise the expansion of Russia will move west and into europe. 

[Mice!]

12 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

A very sad but fair assesment of the situation.. posturing at its best at the moment. The only thing that will stop Russia is Putin actually being very sick and passing away and then the people around him changing their position..

People like to say it's all Putin, but what are the chances that others high up in Russia aren't perfectly happy with what's going on?

Ukraine looked like it was siding with Nato and the West, and Russia didn't like it, removing Putin might not be the silver bullet People hope for, Saddam was removed but things in Iraq didn't improve. 

[mchughcb]

Whoa, there. Removing Saddam, Gadaffi, the Taliban certainly did improve things there. Just ask the MSM and the military industrial complex.

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

More a case of warning putin that there will be severe consequences should he decide on the stupid option.

What a strange thing to say ...
Weve been pointing nukes at them for over 70 years, and they us, NATO is specifically designed to defeat Russia , why do we need to remind them not to do the 'stupid' option ?

[Mice!]

5 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

So you are saying that we are doing nothing? but then you say ukraine is being given aid and weapons!
Please make your mind up.

We are allowing the conflict to continue by supplying the Ukraine,  its allowing them to fight on, but at what cost?

I don't see how sending weapons and watching the Ukraine get slowly turned to rubble is helping them, it looks good and caring but the cost is astronomical,  at what point is enough enough, because I don't see Russia withdrawing,  only ramping things up, although they were supposed to have ran of equipment by now.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

We are allowing the conflict to continue by supplying the Ukraine,  its allowing them to fight on, but at what cost?

Ukraine will find out when its all over, when the US ends them the bill.

[welsh1]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

What a strange thing to say ...
Weve been pointing nukes at them for over 70 years, and they us, NATO is specifically designed to defeat Russia , why do we need to remind them not to do the 'stupid' option ?

Do you think the areas these exercises are conducted in are just chance?and the type of exercise.

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

We are allowing the conflict to continue by supplying the Ukraine,  its allowing them to fight on, but at what cost?

I don't see how sending weapons and watching the Ukraine get slowly turned to rubble is helping them, it looks good and caring but the cost is astronomical,  at what point is enough enough, because I don't see Russia withdrawing,  only ramping things up, although they were supposed to have ran of equipment by now.

So you want us to let ukraine be overrun and let putin take control.
Is this your answer to all acts of aggression, let the aggressor win because it's easier and not so much damage.

[ShootingEgg]

12 minutes ago, Mice! said:

People like to say it's all Putin, but what are the chances that others high up in Russia aren't perfectly happy with what's going on?

Ukraine looked like it was siding with Nato and the West, and Russia didn't like it, removing Putin might not be the silver bullet People hope for, Saddam was removed but things in Iraq didn't improve. 

As I said the people around him would have to change position, I am not saying they are or are not onside with him. Sometimes you jump out of the fire onto the hot coals ... Got to be very careful in how this gets played out, as any wrong move could cause world wide disaster...

[mchughcb]

I was hoping Zelensky would pull the UA out of donbass and if they wanted to join the russian federation, let them.

However that is not to be so the more Zelensky ramps it up with the goading of the West, the more the russian's will reduce his ability to remove them.

Unlike the USA or the UK, Russia spans Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. It has shrewdest foreign minister Lavrov.

It has to work with its neighbours regardless.

[Rewulf]

Just now, welsh1 said:

Do you think the areas these exercises are conducted in are just chance?and the type of exercise.

Not at all , whats your point ?
You said Putin needed 'warning' you mean MORE warning than the last 70 years, and more specifically the last 6 months.

Any pretence that the cold war never ended , is surely evident now ?
The west doesnt want Russia in its orbit , and has done everything possible to undermine its economic and cultural modernisation, it simply doesnt want that new kid on the block, there only room for one neighbourhood bully.

Solve this right now , offer them BOTH NATO and EU membership, no more war , no more trade barriers, no more vast defence budgets, no more fear...Oh wait...

[welsh1]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Not at all , whats your point ?
You said Putin needed 'warning' you mean MORE warning than the last 70 years, and more specifically the last 6 months.

Any pretence that the cold war never ended , is surely evident now ?
The west doesnt want Russia in its orbit , and has done everything possible to undermine its economic and cultural modernisation, it simply doesnt want that new kid on the block, there only room for one neighbourhood bully.

Solve this right now , offer them BOTH NATO and EU membership, no more war , no more trade barriers, no more vast defence budgets, no more fear...Oh wait...

You do realise these exercises are conducted yearly, and the timing of them warns putin that his threat of nuclear weapons will have consequences.
Do you Know why NATO exists? and what it's biggest threat has been.It appears the west were correct to never trust russia.

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

Unlike the USA or the UK, Russia spans Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. It has shrewdest foreign minister Lavrov.

It has to work with its neighbours regardless.

 

Does "work with its neighbours" normally mean invading them?

Just who, aside from you, designated Lavrov as the shrewdest Foreign Minister in the World?

[oowee]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Does "work with its neighbours" normally mean invading them?

Just who, aside from you, designated Lavrov as the shrewdest Foreign Minister in the World?

love it. 

[mchughcb]

38 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Does "work with its neighbours" normally mean invading them?

Just who, aside from you, designated Lavrov as the shrewdest Foreign Minister in the World?

Yeah well  , Truss can't tell the difference between the black Sea and the Baltic sea.

Lavrov showed Kerry he had the pull with Assad over chemical weapons inspections.

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

You do realise these exercises are conducted yearly, and the timing of them warns putin that his threat of nuclear weapons will have consequences.

With respect , that doesnt really make sense.
They have to do exercises EVERY year , threatening nuclear retaliation, if Russia steps out of line ?
Do the Russians do exercises every year in Cuba threatening nuclear retaliation if the US steps out of line, you know , with all those ICBMs they have in Cuba ... Oh wait , America didnt like that did they ?

If both sides are unsure of the consequences of a nuclear attack , well, I dont know what to say really...

40 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Do you Know why NATO exists? and what it's biggest threat has been.It appears the west were correct to never trust russia.

 No , go on , why does NATO exist ?
Is it the threat of the Warsaw pact, that has been defunct for 30 years, and which came 4 years AFTER NATO was formed, and only really came about in response to NATO, and the fact that W Germany was going to be integrated into it.
You know the same west Germany that 10 years previously laid waste to huge swathes of soviet territory, and killed 25 million Russians ? 
Cant see a problem ,can you ?😆

Fun fact , when NATO was formed , Russia applied for membership, and was robustly rejected for being a dictatorship, Portugal , a dictatorship , had no such problem.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Does "work with its neighbours" normally mean invading them?

 

Indeed, we were all getting along fine until Russia decided to invade Ukraine and a start a war.

Now we're not.

Go figure?

[welsh1]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

With respect , that doesnt really make sense.
They have to do exercises EVERY year , threatening nuclear retaliation, if Russia steps out of line ?
Do the Russians do exercises every year in Cuba threatening nuclear retaliation if the US steps out of line, you know , with all those ICBMs they have in Cuba ... Oh wait , America didnt like that did they ?

If both sides are unsure of the consequences of a nuclear attack , well, I dont know what to say really...

 No , go on , why does NATO exist ?
Is it the threat of the Warsaw pact, that has been defunct for 30 years, and which came 4 years AFTER NATO was formed, and only really came about in response to NATO, and the fact that W Germany was going to be integrated into it.
You know the same west Germany that 10 years previously laid waste to huge swathes of soviet territory, and killed 25 million Russians ? 
Cant see a problem ,can you ?😆

Fun fact , when NATO was formed , Russia applied for membership, and was robustly rejected for being a dictatorship, Portugal , a dictatorship , had no such problem.

Theydon't have to do the exercise every year, but if you don't train how do you stay ready and effective?
And yet again you try to compare it to something else just to try and deflect from the subject at hand, instead of the subject of russia invading another country and making veiled threats of nuclear strikes, i would be sure russia is observing the exercise, and taking note of the posssible consequences to itself.

 

NATO was formed in 1949, it a collective who all agree that if one member is attacked all members will come to it's aid

Funny isn't it that countries like finland and sweden are now so scared of russia they want to join NATO. It tells you a lot about the aggressive nature of russia, and the invasion of ukraine proves the lengths russia will go to against another nation.

Has portugal attacked and kept under its rule any other western country or region since the end of the second WW?

Fun fact, no country who has joined NATO has ever chosen to leave.

How's the warsaw pact doing?

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

Yeah well  , Truss can't tell the difference between the black Sea and the Baltic sea.

Lavrov showed Kerry he had the pull with Assad over chemical weapons inspections.

 

What has Liz Truss and her alleged lack of geography knowledge got to do with anything? It's a pathetic attempt to deflect from your rather bizarre position.

I will admit defeat on your Lavrov point. Who could argue with your detailed assessment of Lavrov being the World's best Foreign Minister. When you leave school, I trust your reasoning skills will have improved.

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:

As I said the people around him would have to change position, I am not saying they are or are not onside with him. Sometimes you jump out of the fire onto the hot coals ... Got to be very careful in how this gets played out, as any wrong move could cause world wide disaster...

Absolutely,  but I don't think anybody is really bothered about the Ukraine, its just where this is being played out.

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

So you want us to let ukraine be overrun and let putin take control.
Is this your answer to all acts of aggression, let the aggressor win because it's easier and not so much damage

We shouldn't be involved with what's going on in the Ukraine,  we are not a super power, had the tanks rolled in, the Ukrainian government stepped down and real countrywide elections took place none of this may have happened. 

The Russians are being stood up to, they're being sanctioned to the hilt but it's the Ukraine that's being ruined.

Is the Ukraine worth WW3, not as far as I'm concerned. 

Why has a country larger than us not got a capable military ?

I would normally say meet the aggressor head on, fight back, but its normally some nut case committing genocide on their own people, or something like the Falklands where we were attacked,  or backing up a NATO country.

We are really more of a peace keeping force these days I think, capable of defending ourselves and helping in humanitarian situations,  that doesn't mean supplying weapons.

I was going to ask if we would be doing the same thing if Russia had invadedTurkey, I thought they'd only joined NATO fairly recently,  but joined in the 50s

So what if it was Kazakhstan,  would we be going to bat for them even though they haven't paid into NATO. 

Is it because it looked like the Russians would go straight through Ukraine into Europe?

How many people even gave the Ukraine a second thought before this started, probably no one.

[welsh1]

10 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Absolutely,  but I don't think anybody is really bothered about the Ukraine, its just where this is being played out.

By the amont of help and support from governments and people i think you are wrong people are bothered

We shouldn't be involved with what's going on in the Ukraine,  we are not a super power, had the tanks rolled in, the Ukrainian government stepped down and real countrywide elections took place none of this may have happened. 

Ahh the old roll over and accept your new master, maybe if russia had not invaded ukraine none of this would be happening, tell me if your son/daughter/wife/ mother was getting beat up in front of you would you just accept it as it seems your stance is do nothing and accept the aggressor is going to win

The Russians are being stood up to, they're being sanctioned to the hilt but it's the Ukraine that's being ruined.

Again none of this would have happened if russia had not invaded Ukraine would it?

Is the Ukraine worth WW3, not as far as I'm concerned. 

Has ww3 started? did i miss that one, only one country is hinting at using nukes, that is the country that has invaded another

Why has a country larger than us not got a capable military ?

You are right russia's military has been shown to be dire

I would normally say meet the aggressor head on, fight back, but its normally some nut case committing genocide on their own people, or something like the Falklands where we were attacked,  or backing up a NATO country.

So where do you actually stand, you seem to support a country fighting another who has invaded thier territory (argentina and the falklands) yet you don't support a country fighting another who has invaded their territory russia and ukraine) you cannot have it both ways.

We are really more of a peace keeping force these days I think, capable of defending ourselves and helping in humanitarian situations,  that doesn't mean supplying weapons.

Why doesn't it mean supplying weapons? we have shown we have the capability, a lot of the missiles supplied would be destroyed as they came to the end of thier shelf life,there is no rule to how we help, you can bet we have plenty of advisors helping out as well, some of the best tactical brains in the world are in the British Military.

I was going to ask if we would be doing the same thing if Russia had invadedTurkey, I thought they'd only joined NATO fairly recently,  but joined in the 50s

So what if it was Kazakhstan,  would we be going to bat for them even though they haven't paid into NATO. 

It's not though is it, lets stick to what is happening.

Is it because it looked like the Russians would go straight through Ukraine into Europe?

Ukraine is the bread basket of europe, probably the world and it has strategic importance, why do you think russia wants it 

How many people even gave the Ukraine a second thought before this started, probably no one.

You may be ignorant of places in europe like ukraine but many are not.

 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

So where do you actually stand, you seem to support a country fighting another who has invaded thier territory (argentina and the falklands) yet you don't support a country fighting another who has invaded their territory russia and ukraine) you cannot have it both ways

No I do support that, WE fought against Argentina because we were attacked, we didn't drag all of Europe or In that case South America into it.
We had assistance from others.

Isn't Ukraine fighting because they were attacked?

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Ukraine is the bread basket of europe, probably the world and it has strategic importance, why do you think russia wants it 

I've never doubted that's one of the reasons Russia wants it, plus the ports.

But why is the Ukraine practically the only country not in Nato? When you look at a map almost every other country is in Nato along the Russian border on Europe's side, or has an existing treaty in place.

If it was so important why were they not already members?

Do some reading, there are many reasons

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

You may be ignorant of places in europe like ukraine but many are not.

Not at all, I know they are there, but they have little or no bearing on my day to day life, other than people going on holiday how often does anyone mention Europe?

I can't remember the last time someone in work even mentioned the on going conflict. 

Why would they? but you see support in places with flags and banners, people wearing pins etc, just because it's not the hot topic of the day does not mean people are not thinking about it.

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

tell me if your son/daughter/wife/ mother was getting beat up in front of you would you just accept it as it seems your stance is do nothing and accept the aggressor is going to win

Far from it, but we/I the UK has not been attacked.

Should we not support others? would you walk by an old lady getting mugged?

1 hour ago, welsh1 said:

Again none of this would have happened if russia had not invaded Ukraine would it?

Clearly not, but if you keep poking the bear it's going to respond at some point.

Poking the bear lol, it was russia that invaded no one poked them, they cinically massed troops on the border of another country with assurances that they were only conducting exercises and then they invade, they had clear choices, don't invade and kill people of another country was one of them, it appears they are not very good in the choices department.

 

 

[mchughcb]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

Indeed, we were all getting along fine until Russia decided to invade Ukraine and a start a war.

Now we're not.

Go figure?

Pretty limited view of the world. Instability in North Africa and the Middle East that Europe caused has resulted in an influx of refugees into Europe. 

[Dave-G]

Bear with me here because I might have missed it but has Russia actually threatened 'anyone who retaliates' with Nukes - or is it the west assuming that's what he meant?

I'm wondering if it was deliberately not specified and may possibly mean he refers to 'something else' like perhaps FOAB or even chemicals.