Frosty
Logical and sensible but turns women gay
As others have said, I cannot imagine that the Ukrainian Government will still stand if they pause at the status quo.Cease fire as in reorganize while shooting at fleeing people?
As others have said, I cannot imagine that the Ukrainian Government will still stand if they pause at the status quo.Cease fire as in reorganize while shooting at fleeing people?
Indeed.Positive news.
It very well could be, and I hope it is.Are we sure some of those things are not happening? I always presume we're not privvy to all the info and time usually proves that stance correct.
What might be happening is accelerated training of Ukrainians to use Patriot or THAAD systems.Are we sure some of those things are not happening? I always presume we're not privvy to all the info and time usually proves that stance correct.
Russian troops seems to never get the news about the ceasefire so I am not hoping on this having any material effect.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Compared to what?
Moses I will say that with love but if you prefer the likes of Pétain or Churchill then we may have a problem.While that is a fair question and I'm not sure who I'd rather have. I'm not a fan of any of those people to be honest. Not all awful people but not the most capable in my opinion. Any group where Johnson has a loud voice is an instant write off for me.
That's not really true. Historically the largest nations always eventually bordered each other directly, because they had gobbled up areas against their will. And if there were areas that hadn't been gobbled up, they absolutely stepped there. The thing to take away from this is that imperialism is wrong, not that countries should avoid stepping in each others' spheres of influence.It's only a solid point if you ignore geopolitics and the fact that historically the largest nations have areas of influences where other large nations don't really step.
I don’t know what that means, but the goat *is* my zodiac sign. I enjoy Texas Holdem and my favorite thing is calling bluffs.Why you acting the goat?
I'm talking about recent history and in a context of peace. Not in a context of constant war and were these borderings were linked to armed conflicts.That's not really true. Historically the largest nations always eventually bordered each other directly, because they had gobbled up areas against their will. And if there were areas that hadn't been gobbled up, they absolutely stepped there. The thing to take away from this is that imperialism is wrong, not that countries should avoid stepping in each others' spheres of influence.
No I don't honestly, but I do appreciate that you brought love into it so freely.Moses I will say that with love but if you prefer the likes of Pétain or Churchill then we may have a problem.![]()
I just wish there was a way to shut his program and/or to arrest him. Let the bitchers and moaners at Fox complain and bring the government to court later, but that cnut deserves to be silenced after such open treasonous behavior.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Using Putin's pre-invasion playbook and turn it against him has to be a top priority alongside arming Ukraine even more. The Kaliningrad Oblast is a small piece of land surrounded by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea. There are just a little less than one million people in there. The idea has been floated around before the Russian invasion began, and it still stands as of now. All that NATO has to do is to mass troops at the oblast's border and basically cut Kaliningrad off from the entire world while sending a warning (or a bluff, you name it): Putin, it's either the safety of your own people to whom you swore to protect, or it's your ego in Ukraine. Regardless, you can't have both.What would you like NATO to do?
I'm generous like that.No I don't honestly, but I do appreciate that you brought love into it so freely.
(Us Irish don't share the world's view of Winnie)
I agree again, and I’m sure the military has many options below sending in troops we wouldn’t think of. Private contractors can be hired by Ukraine, off the top of my head.Lean forward more. Even if they don't want a NFZ, they can still give the Ukrainians more arms beyond manpads and guns. Give them jets and more sophisticated SAM launchers that can shoot down Russian planes (and by planes, I mean ones that fly at higher altitudes out of reach of manpads). If the Ukrainians don't know how to use some of the equipment, allow outsiders not employed by NATO to participate. Launch PsyOp campaigns inside Russia to destablize Putin among his public, create strategic diversions for Putin by moving troops into parts of eastern Europe, near Kaliningrad, and the Baltics. Be proactive and set the agenda, instead of being reactive and allowing Putin to do it.
The Russians are also using weapons provided by the West. Still, all the wrongs in the World don’t excuse the totally immoral attack on the Ukraine. Rarely in history has their been such an obvious wrong vs right, highlighted by the crackdown on the independent press & media in Russia itself, the oppression of freedom of speech and the lies being spouted by the Russian propaganda machine. If the Russians themselves thought the were in the right then they wouldn’t need to take such desperate actions in their own country would they now.I thought whataboutism isn't allowed in this thread? I suppose it's okay if you want to say your side of the argument but when someone points out the other side it's 'derailing the topic'.
And yea, if only Vietnam had chosen to side with capitalism then they wouldn't have been bombed the sh*t out of for trying to choose a communist.
Or even Yemen should just bring back the Saudi lacky they had so they don't get bombed the sh*t out of by US/UK supplied bombs.
Everyone plays war games when someone goes against them. Russia are doing the same. They are absolutely aholes in this that deserve all kinds of hell, but NATO has a role to play in this as well.
100%. There are former military pilots and SAM operators who are not employed by any government in the present who can help with some of the more modern equipment. The broader problem here is that Biden and his cohorts are being a bit too reactive, and in so doing, allowing Putin to make all the moves. This sort of leading from is less helpful to the Ukrainians.I agree again, and I’m sure the military has many options below sending in troops we wouldn’t think of. Private contractors can be hired by Ukraine, off the top of my head.
The same way the US felt threatened by Vietnam, and multiple other countries in Central America, moving towards communism, that resulted in them invading/bombing those countries, killing scores of innocent people (either through invasion or supporting a murderous anti communist leader).Im a bit confused. At what point has NATO threatened Russia?
After over a decade of mis-steps Turkey appears to be trying to revert to Davutoglu’s “Zero problems with neighbors” approach. Still some way to go though.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
yes they would because as members of NATO they are legally bound to defend fellow NATO members, which is why Russia will not attack a fellow NATO member, that would be suicide for Russia.If Russia attacked Estonia for example I honestly couldn't see macron scholz or Trudeau committing troops and going to fight
Biden... Honestly not sure if he would but I suspect domestic politics would factor at least as heavily in the decision as honouring the article 5 commitments
Boris ... I think he would (if America did) but mainly to live out some elaborate Churchillian cos play rather than any sense of honour.
Looking at that lot possibly putin read the room pretty well
This is almost certainly completely correct. In 20 years we’ll almost certainly hear stories of all of the behind closed doors work that’s been going on the last few weeks but that obviously can’t be publicised right now.Are we sure some of those things are not happening? I always presume we're not privvy to all the info and time usually proves that stance correct.
Why threaten a non-nuclear power with nuclear weapons when you have the more superior military and an array of other horrifying weapons you can call upon?I don’t know what that means, but the goat *is* my zodiac sign. I enjoy Texas Holdem and my favorite thing is calling bluffs.
I have a problem with the stance of “Putin will use nukes if anyone dares to face his troops in the field (except Ukraine) so we can’t use any military tools to stop him, because he’ll end the world.” This is defeatist thinking that can be applied to any type of resistance.
i thought it was very interesting that there was no response by Putin to the initial shipments of arms to Ukraine. I can only guess he didn’t think they would make any difference. He was expecting a short campaign, it was only when jets were discussed that we got a threat. By this point it may have become clear that it would be a longer campaign, and jets are very impactful. But he could have used that threat right away and I expect it would have worked.
Why not threaten Ukraine with nukes if they resist? Well, Russia has a huge advantage in firepower and manpower already. But against NATO all he has to his advantage are tactical nukes. So he threatens because he cannot win, he must bluff, it’s the only way he can win
For me, Putin wants to win, mutually assured destruction isn’t something he wants. He could destroy the world any time he wants if that’s his goal, no one can stop him, if that’s his wish.
The West may not be ready to do anything more until they’ve moved some troops. I’m not a military expert so I’m not sure what the exact best move is. If this is a real statemate on the ground, then it may be best to do nothing.
The US was misguided in many of those cases but it was acting in the context of the cold war - a global competition between Western capitalism versus communism. There is no clash of ideologies in Ukraine - no one signs up for authoritarian kleptocracy unless it’s at gun point. This is a colonial ruler refusing to accept that its former colony wants genuine independence and, as part of that strategy, even denying that the colony has a genuine independent identity. There are parallels but you won’t find them by looking at the US.The same way the US felt threatened by Vietnam, and multiple other countries in Central America, moving towards communism, that resulted in them invading/bombing those countries, killing scores of innocent people (either through invasion or supporting a murderous anti communist leader).
Power brings a hunger to influence around r world and also paranoia at losing it, NATO haven't threatened Russia at all but they should know that Putin is a loon who could react aggressively to NATO looking to accept Ukraine.
World powers play the politics game and it's smaller countries (economically and influence wise) that sadly suffer because of it.
The welfare state many citizens in western countries enjoy is heavily based on oil and gas and has been for many years. I find surprising that so many people -politicians included- speak about their easy substitution so spontaneously. As Vaclav Smil says: is there anything guys in Washington and Brussels know that engineers are not aware of?I find it hilarious how sanctions are supposed to severely punish Russia meanwhile the west is fueling their war through oil and gas exports. They might as well sit and fold their arms for all it's worth.
Minor point: it's not "the Ukraine" but just "Ukraine".Why threaten a non-nuclear power with nuclear weapons when you have the more superior military and an array of other horrifying weapons you can call upon?
The Ukraine doesn’t pose any threat to Russia itself and is simply defending itself. If NATO were to enter the war you’re talking three nuclear powers and the capability of crushing Russia or even invading it and overthrowing Putin.
I don’t think it’s difficult to see the major difference and escalation?
It seems to be the way to go in the US and UK. I don't know why but it's very common.Minor point: it's not "the Ukraine" but just "Ukraine".
In German as well. Plain "Ukraine" sounds very wrong in German.It seems to be the way to go in the US and UK. I don't know why but it's very common.
Old habits die hard.. and it’s not minor.. it used to be the Ukraine when it was part of the USSR. Since it’s now an independent nation it is indeed Ukraine..Minor point: it's not "the Ukraine" but just "Ukraine".
The US was misguided in many of those cases but it was acting in the context of the cold war - a global competition between Western capitalism versus communism.
It only changed in 2012, but Western media now use Ukraine after they requested it. Interestingly it came from the word ukrania meaning borderland, hence "the borderland".It seems to be the way to go in the US and UK. I don't know why but it's very common.
Seinfeld used "The Ukraine" for what it's worthIt seems to be the way to go in the US and UK. I don't know why but it's very common.
Yeah that's the etymology but the dropping of the definite article is not just stylistic but represents their freedom and statehood. Use of The is what one may term the language of the oppressor. These things that seem like minor details can be symbolically huge to the post colonial psyche.It only changed in 2012, but Western media now use Ukraine after they requested it. Interestingly it came from the word ukrania meaning borderland, hence "the borderland".
As others have said it’s how it was referred to back in the USSR days, but it absolutely should be moved away from (and seemingly has started to be in recent weeks, just as the Kyiv/Kiev thing)It seems to be the way to go in the US and UK. I don't know why but it's very common.
You want to start arresting journalists and surround Russian territory? Cool...........I just wish there was a way to shut his program and/or to arrest him. Let the bitchers and moaners at Fox complain and bring the government to court later, but that cnut deserves to be silenced after such open treasonous behavior.
Using Putin's pre-invasion playbook and turn it against him has to be a top priority alongside arming Ukraine even more. The Kaliningrad Oblast is a small piece of land surrounded by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea. There are just a little less than one million people in there. The idea has been floated around before the Russian invasion began, and it still stands as of now. All that NATO has to do is to mass troops at the oblast's border and basically cut Kaliningrad off from the entire world while sending a warning (or a bluff, you name it): Putin, it's either the safety of your own people to whom you swore to protect, or it's your ego in Ukraine. Regardless, you can't have both.
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (retired) brought that point back to the surface just 2-3 days ago on CNN's Jim Sciutto's morning show. Doing so would take Putin's eyes off the ball as a primary purpose, but I would go further as to say that Kaliningrad should become a massive bargaining chip in this war.