I would like to know what the concessions are because we have a long history of betraying and feck the kurds over.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
The danger as far as I'm concerned isn't that Putin will start bombing European capitals or the US east coast or anything. The problem is that there are many ways Putin could escalate where NATO would have absolutely no response. What if we do what you suggest and take an even stronger stance, only for Putin to order the use of tactical nukes in East and/or South Ukraine? As horrible as that would be, it still wouldn't warrant full nuclear retaliation from NATO, nor should it.
Pushing the Putin regime as far as we can into the corner just because we don't think he's 100 % 'demented' and suicidal is a game we cannot win, because we will quickly end up in a situation where we will have to back down or risk nuclear war. Putin has several ways of drastic military escalation which won't trigger NATO to react militarily - it's an uneven playing field and the Ukrainians are the ones who would suffer for it - even more than they are suffering now.
But do you really think Putin will not take those actions anyway if he starts to lose in conventional warfare if west supplies more weapons to Ukraine.
Maybe. Maybe not. But there’s absolutely no reason to try and push him to do so
I would say 70% of population holding negative views of Russia sounds about right for Singapore.
Singapore's population mix is about 60-70% ethnic Chinese. A good proportion of them, including new immigrants from China and older Chinese Singaporeans, consume news/propaganda from China. Not surprising if some of them are more sympathetic towards Russia.
But in general, i think for most Southeast Asian countries, the real prevalent attitude is indifference.
This is a really bad generalization. The Singapore Government (aka the state) is one of the most vocal against the invasion in Asia. In fact, the government's stance probably goes further than how the population feels about the invasion.
This is a very interesting point and well argued.
There is a big difference between threatening the West with Russian nuclear weapons and actually deciding to do it. Because of the MAD probability.
That is why I still don't believe he will do anything more than sabre rattling.
NATO has been caught off guard and is now frantically trying to catch up.
But seriously. I do not see Putin having a death wish.
Yes, i talking about Russia invading Ukraine, which is what they were talking about, though I did say as an aside that Russia didn’t have to worry about being invaded themselves thanks to their nukes.
Anyway it seems we’re on the same page now. Don’t make me read it all back again!!
One US military figure commented that the US would respond in equal measure if Russia used tactical nukes, but probably not with tactical nuclear weapons, because they’re not limited to that option, and it’s bad PR. Though he didn’t give any detail beyond that.
Ha, deal!
Due to a threat of being surrounded by orcs the Ukrainian armed forces are retreating from Lysychansk completely.
I don't have a good answer to that. I think it's possible he might do something destructive to escalate in the scenario you describe, but if we get get directly involved I think it goes from possible to very likely.
I understand why the US says this, but I really hope it's strategic rhethoric under the hopeful presumption that they'll never have to actually follow through. As much as I appreciate the US as our security guarantor, I really would rather not have the warfare spread out of Ukraine, which I think would be a given if the US gets involved in a tit for tat game with Russia. I realize it sounds very cynical saying it, but I don't think most European voters (except Poland and Lithuania maybe) are willing to risk this kind of escalation on the European continent, even with the kind of support we see for Ukraine now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This was the price of the Finnish and Swedish NATO membership.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sauce? Not good news if so really. That's the high ground right?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Allegedly
LONDON, June 28 (Reuters) - Russia on Tuesday denied hitting a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk with missiles, saying that it had struck a nearby depot of U.S. and European arms triggering an explosion which ignited a fire in the mall.
[Maury Povich voice] Video shows that to be a lie...
[Maury Povich voice] Video shows that to be a lie...
The guy who jumps into the water definitely expected the water to be deeper. His reactions are impressive.
Is there any good reason that guy jumped into the lake? Just panic or is there any advantage to it in case of an explosion?
Well, I'd say a mixture of shock, seeing a giant fireball, and a lake being water.
Fair.
Unfortunately, the best way to get that outcome, is to ensure Putin believes we would indeed be prepared to risk that. We have to look, act and be prepared to do the things we don't want to, in order to make them less likely. I do think Putin would have to pay a very very high price for using nukes.
Can I just say that if the news about the prisoner exchange is infact true, and 95 members of the azov fighters have been returned to Ukraine, then it is one of the best outcomes of recent weeks.glad they're home.
I think he was just going in the opposite direction of the blast, without concern for getting wet. But surely being in water would be good if flaming debris headed your way.
Yeah makes sense. I asked because I assume the general population are getting advice on how to act in certain situations and maybe there was something more to it.
Among other things, I read that Turkey are demanding the extradition of several people from both Finland and Sweden.
Russians will claim shopping center was used by Ukrainian soldiers.
UK failure to tackle ‘dirty money’ led to it ‘laundering Russia’s war funds’
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-money-led-to-it-laundering-russias-war-funds
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-money-led-to-it-laundering-russias-war-funds
Are we meant to be shocked? UK is up there as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
One of the most corrupt in the world? Surely not.
edit: one of the least actually: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
I love these lists Switzerland are 7th. I repeat, Switzerland are 7th. Money laundering and known corruption paradises somehow manage to find themselves at the top of these lists.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They have specific metrics. Like the police don't randomly stop you for no reason at all and demand a bribe and accuse you of a crime you didn't commit and take you in if you don't offer the bribe.
Which is the issue. The City, Luxembourg or Switzerland are corruptions heaven and yet these rankings gloss over it.
To some extent I agree, but the difference between say Switzerland and Thailand or pick almost any third world country are miles apart.
https://www.transparency.org/en/news/how-cpi-scores-are-calculated
Yep, it's only "3rd world, man-on-the-street corruption" they measure. End of the day Britain is at the centre of a global tax evasion and money laundering web, it's probably the most corrupt nation on earth, but it's "the right kind of corruption".
Thanks for posting btw, wasn't at all clear from BBC whether the Russians had really left of their own accord.
Exacty. I don’t need a list to tell me how corrupt the UK is.