|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 15, 2024 7:59:51 GMT
I’d love to see a podcast/live debate between Paul Spencer and Bayern. Who wants to moderate? Paul Spencer, Oggy, Wannabee & Bayern present "The Experts" - A series of live debate with audience interactivity in the form of a weekly vote to determine who wins the title of Most Supercilious this episode. Bought to you by Archewell Entertainment. Constantly spamming threads you clearly have no interest in whilst accusing people who do want to debate as having a superiority complex is such a weird take if I may be so bold.......
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 8:06:58 GMT
They’d try to stop him first if that’s what they wanted and if they didn’t then it wouldn’t be the act of an individual. Because he’s acting strong. He needs to back it up with some planes. They won’t 🤣🤣 they are surrounded. You have to keep that pressure up. Japan is building aircraft carriers again. Australia is only getting stronger. India would take advantage. Christ even Vietnam have more against the Chinese than with them. China tries to bully them all. They should just accept that? Nah you fight back. We can’t keep appeasing dictators. It doesn’t work, why do you think it does? You're not answering the question, how is Macron acting strong, if you don't believe his threats? You've completely missed the thrust of my argument, I've already said, that it's not about a specific military strategy but rather, it is about respecting being in a military alliance, especially if that alliance has pledged to protect you if you get attacked. If you had said that you believe that Macron is worried about Trump winning in November, thus leaving Ukraine high and dry and as such, we (now) need to be prepared to form a new European military alliance, then I think your argument would have carried more credence but you didn't. It seems to me that you're just itching to blow shit up. As for Macron sending some planes? Bring it on, if he's so determined that Putin must not win, then why has he been so pathetically short in matching the amount of weaponry that the UK and Germany have supplied to Ukraine?
Because he’s backed by nukes, a strong army, navy and air force and the second biggest arms exporters in the world? They haven’t. They’ve gone as far as us by sending SCALP’s which is further than Germany has been willing to go. He does however need to do more.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 15, 2024 8:42:16 GMT
Paul Spencer, Oggy, Wannabee & Bayern present "The Experts" - A series of live debate with audience interactivity in the form of a weekly vote to determine who wins the title of Most Supercilious this episode. Bought to you by Archewell Entertainment. Constantly spamming threads you clearly have no interest in whilst accusing people who do want to debate as having a superiority complex is such a weird take if I may be so bold....... Free speech for all
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 15, 2024 9:09:15 GMT
Constantly spamming threads you clearly have no interest in whilst accusing people who do want to debate as having a superiority complex is such a weird take if I may be so bold....... Free speech for all Freedom of speech (within the rules of the board) Freedom to ignore Freedom to respond (within the rules of the board) Freedom to stay of threads that are of absolutely no interest to you etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 15, 2024 9:09:26 GMT
All of that becomes completely moot, once you factor in a) Russia's nuclear arsenal and b) you've got a fuckin madman with his finger on the button, if he doesn't have a dignified retreat available to him.
I've already said that I've got absolutely no issue with arming Ukraine much further but with respect, we were talking about Macron unilaterally sending French troops into battle. And fuck me, what are you suggesting now about Xi, that we attack China? The only dignified exit putin should be given is that he won’t be strung up by a lamppost like Mussolini I wouldn't rule it out yet its definitely a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 9:19:04 GMT
Macron the first leader since Boris to have some balls and say it how it is, I’m sick to death of leaders pussy footing around Putin. Putins army is weak, poorly and under equipped and would last about a week against NATO. It’s time countries leaders stopped being scared to speak up against him. Russia on its own, yes. I don’t think that China, Iran and North Korea would idly just sit back and let Western European nations + the U.S. destroy Russia though. China would imo. They have a lot to gain if Russia collapsed. China barely has any oil. Eastern Russia has loads. If Russia collapsed then it would be a strategic goal imo of China to take over swathes of eastern Russia ie up to Siberia for the oil. They have already started making noises about this via maps and place names. Russia collapsing is an excellent opportunity for China to expand.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 15, 2024 9:33:06 GMT
Free speech for all Freedom of speech (within the rules of the board) Freedom to ignore Freedom to respond (within the rules of the board) Freedom to stay of threads that are of absolutely no interest to you etc etc. I would be interested if it wasn't having to respond to war and peace all the bloody time!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2024 10:28:34 GMT
Russia on its own, yes. I don’t think that China, Iran and North Korea would idly just sit back and let Western European nations + the U.S. destroy Russia though. China would imo. They have a lot to gain if Russia collapsed. China barely has any oil. Eastern Russia has loads. If Russia collapsed then it would be a strategic goal imo of China to take over swathes of eastern Russia ie up to Siberia for the oil. They have already started making noises about this via maps and place names. Russia collapsing is an excellent opportunity for China to expand. China isn’t a country of expansion. The last place it was in was Vietnam 40 odd years ago. Having allies is important. If China took Russia, it wouldn’t have any.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Mar 15, 2024 11:33:37 GMT
This isn't a comment on Macron's remarks, but something that I think is worth bearing in mind when the prospect of 'inevitable' peaceful settlements is raised...
Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev posted a detailed call for the total elimination of the Ukrainian state and its absorption into the Russian Federation under what he euphemistically called a “peace formula.”[1] Medvedev’s demands are not novel but rather represent the Kremlin’s actual intentions for Ukraine — intentions that leave no room for negotiations for purposes other than setting the precise terms of Ukraine’s complete capitulation. Medvedev begins the “peace plan” by rhetorically stripping Ukraine of its sovereignty, referring to it as a “former” country and placing the name Ukraine in quotation marks. Medvedev laid out the seven points of his “peace formula,” which he sardonically described as “calm,” “realistic,” “humane,” and “soft.”[2] The seven points include: Ukraine’s recognition of its military defeat, complete and unconditional Ukrainian surrender, and full “demilitarization”; recognition by the entire international community of Ukraine’s “Nazi character” and the “denazification” of Ukraine’s government; a United Nations (UN) statement stripping Ukraine of its status as a sovereign state under international law, and a declaration that any successor states to Ukraine will be forbidden to join any military alliances without Russian consent; the resignation of all Ukrainian authorities and immediate provisional parliamentary elections; Ukrainian reparations to be paid to Russia; official recognition by the interim parliament to be elected following the resignation of Ukraine’s current government that all Ukrainian territory is part of Russia and the adoption of a “reunification” act bringing Ukrainian territory into the Russian Federation; and finally the dissolution of this provisional parliament and UN acceptance of Ukraine’s “reunification” with Russia.[3]
The tone of Medvedev’s post is deliberately sardonic, and the calls he is making appear extreme, but every one of the seven points in Medvedev’s “peace formula” are real and central pieces of the Kremlin’s ideology and stated war aims and justifications — Medvedev just simplified and synthesized them into a single brutal Telegram post. The first two of the seven points call for the complete military defeat, disarmament, “demilitarization,” and “denazification” of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin identified the full “demilitarization” (stripping Ukraine of all its military and self-defense capabilities) and “denazification” (complete regime change) as Russia’s main goals in Ukraine when initially announcing the invasion on February 24, 2022. Putin and other Kremlin officials have frequently re-emphasized these goals in the subsequent two years of the war.[4] Medvedev’s calls for the resignation of all Ukrainian authorities and the creation of a new provisional government are calls for regime change simply made with more specificity about the methods. The demand that any successor state to Ukraine be forbidden to join military alliances without Russian permission is a call for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, a demand that Putin and other Kremlin officials reiterate regularly.[5]
Putin established the principles that align the Kremlin’s objectives in Ukraine with Medvedev’s seven points in Putin’s 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Putin claimed in that article that Ukrainians and Russians are historically one united people who were violently and unjustly separated by external nefarious forces.[6] Putin used this essay to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and claims over its own political, social, historical, linguistic, and cultural development — all suggestions that underpin Medvedev’s calls to dissolve Ukraine as a legal entity and fully absorb it into the Russian Federation. Putin and other Russian officials have long set informational conditions to define Ukraine as an integral and inseparable part of Russian territory and set Russia’s goal in Ukraine as “reuniting” Ukrainian territories with their supposed historic motherland.[7] Medvedev’s “peace formula” makes explicit and brutal what Putin and the Kremlin have long demanded in somewhat more euphemistic phrases: that peace for Russia means the end of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent state of any sort with any borders. Those advocating for pressing Ukraine to enter negotiations with Russia would do well to reckon with this constantly reiterated Russian position.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 12:15:23 GMT
You're not answering the question, how is Macron acting strong, if you don't believe his threats? You've completely missed the thrust of my argument, I've already said, that it's not about a specific military strategy but rather, it is about respecting being in a military alliance, especially if that alliance has pledged to protect you if you get attacked. If you had said that you believe that Macron is worried about Trump winning in November, thus leaving Ukraine high and dry and as such, we (now) need to be prepared to form a new European military alliance, then I think your argument would have carried more credence but you didn't. It seems to me that you're just itching to blow shit up. As for Macron sending some planes? Bring it on, if he's so determined that Putin must not win, then why has he been so pathetically short in matching the amount of weaponry that the UK and Germany have supplied to Ukraine?
Because he’s backed by nukes, a strong army, navy and air force and the second biggest arms exporters in the world? They haven’t. They’ve gone as far as us by sending SCALP’s which is further than Germany has been willing to go. He does however need to do more. He's just had his arse handed to him on a plate in Burkina Faso and you yourself have said that you think his threats are nothing more than a bluff. Germany HAVE backed Ukraine militarily far more than France has, it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 15, 2024 12:23:29 GMT
This isn't a comment on Macron's remarks, but something that I think is worth bearing in mind when the prospect of 'inevitable' peaceful settlements is raised... Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev posted a detailed call for the total elimination of the Ukrainian state and its absorption into the Russian Federation under what he euphemistically called a “peace formula.”[1] Medvedev’s demands are not novel but rather represent the Kremlin’s actual intentions for Ukraine — intentions that leave no room for negotiations for purposes other than setting the precise terms of Ukraine’s complete capitulation. Medvedev begins the “peace plan” by rhetorically stripping Ukraine of its sovereignty, referring to it as a “former” country and placing the name Ukraine in quotation marks. Medvedev laid out the seven points of his “peace formula,” which he sardonically described as “calm,” “realistic,” “humane,” and “soft.”[2] The seven points include: Ukraine’s recognition of its military defeat, complete and unconditional Ukrainian surrender, and full “demilitarization”; recognition by the entire international community of Ukraine’s “Nazi character” and the “denazification” of Ukraine’s government; a United Nations (UN) statement stripping Ukraine of its status as a sovereign state under international law, and a declaration that any successor states to Ukraine will be forbidden to join any military alliances without Russian consent; the resignation of all Ukrainian authorities and immediate provisional parliamentary elections; Ukrainian reparations to be paid to Russia; official recognition by the interim parliament to be elected following the resignation of Ukraine’s current government that all Ukrainian territory is part of Russia and the adoption of a “reunification” act bringing Ukrainian territory into the Russian Federation; and finally the dissolution of this provisional parliament and UN acceptance of Ukraine’s “reunification” with Russia.[3] The tone of Medvedev’s post is deliberately sardonic, and the calls he is making appear extreme, but every one of the seven points in Medvedev’s “peace formula” are real and central pieces of the Kremlin’s ideology and stated war aims and justifications — Medvedev just simplified and synthesized them into a single brutal Telegram post. The first two of the seven points call for the complete military defeat, disarmament, “demilitarization,” and “denazification” of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin identified the full “demilitarization” (stripping Ukraine of all its military and self-defense capabilities) and “denazification” (complete regime change) as Russia’s main goals in Ukraine when initially announcing the invasion on February 24, 2022. Putin and other Kremlin officials have frequently re-emphasized these goals in the subsequent two years of the war.[4] Medvedev’s calls for the resignation of all Ukrainian authorities and the creation of a new provisional government are calls for regime change simply made with more specificity about the methods. The demand that any successor state to Ukraine be forbidden to join military alliances without Russian permission is a call for Ukraine’s permanent neutrality, a demand that Putin and other Kremlin officials reiterate regularly.[5] Putin established the principles that align the Kremlin’s objectives in Ukraine with Medvedev’s seven points in Putin’s 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” Putin claimed in that article that Ukrainians and Russians are historically one united people who were violently and unjustly separated by external nefarious forces.[6] Putin used this essay to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty and claims over its own political, social, historical, linguistic, and cultural development — all suggestions that underpin Medvedev’s calls to dissolve Ukraine as a legal entity and fully absorb it into the Russian Federation. Putin and other Russian officials have long set informational conditions to define Ukraine as an integral and inseparable part of Russian territory and set Russia’s goal in Ukraine as “reuniting” Ukrainian territories with their supposed historic motherland.[7] Medvedev’s “peace formula” makes explicit and brutal what Putin and the Kremlin have long demanded in somewhat more euphemistic phrases: that peace for Russia means the end of Ukraine as a sovereign and independent state of any sort with any borders. Those advocating for pressing Ukraine to enter negotiations with Russia would do well to reckon with this constantly reiterated Russian position. Negotiation with the Putin regime is a complete non starter
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 12:30:38 GMT
Does there have to be an opposite, is there not a third option?
Russia has made little in the way of advances, why not maintain that position, rather than jump straight to 'Russia overrunning Ukraine'?
Most analysts seem to think that Russia isn't even capable of overrunning Ukraine as long as the current level of military aid is maintained.
Macron specifically said French troops not NATO troops.
The third option is what we have right now which is stalemate, it is convenient for US and some in Europe to weaken Russia but not to give Ukraine sufficient Military Equipment to make a decisive difference. In my view this is a risky tactic as the balance can very quickly alter as we have seen in US Senate wavering support. If anything Russia is making advances albeit modest but if it were able to punch through the Eastern defences there would be little to stop them "overrunning Ukraine" A crucial period is approaching in the next couple of months when the weather improves. Every report I read of what Macron said in February and again yesterday was "Western" Troops not "French" Toops, at least that's how he was quited in Le Monde www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/14/macron-says-russian-ukraine-victory-would-reduce-europe-s-credibility-to-zero_6619721_7.htmlMacron said that responsibility for prompting such a move (sending Western Troops to Ukraine) would lie with Moscow – "It wouldn't be us – and said France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine. But he also said, "Today, to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak." As I said originally his speech contained a lot of ambiguity which in my view is the correct approach Unfortunately I don't speak French but this specific sentence is being quoted literally everywhere ... "There will be French troops in Ukraine. There will be no red lines. I am the president of France and I decide" Can anybody who does speak French confirm whether this is or isn't an accurate translation of what he said, establishing the fact, is obviously an extremely important element to the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 12:38:41 GMT
China would imo. They have a lot to gain if Russia collapsed. China barely has any oil. Eastern Russia has loads. If Russia collapsed then it would be a strategic goal imo of China to take over swathes of eastern Russia ie up to Siberia for the oil. They have already started making noises about this via maps and place names. Russia collapsing is an excellent opportunity for China to expand. China isn’t a country of expansion. The last place it was in was Vietnam 40 odd years ago. Having allies is important. If China took Russia, it wouldn’t have any. China would be in there like a rat in a drainpipe!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2024 12:43:43 GMT
Because he’s backed by nukes, a strong army, navy and air force and the second biggest arms exporters in the world? They haven’t. They’ve gone as far as us by sending SCALP’s which is further than Germany has been willing to go. He does however need to do more. He's just had his arse handed to him on a plate in Burkina Faso and you yourself have said that you think his threats are nothing more than a bluff. Germany HAVE backed Ukraine militarily far more than France has, it's not even close. It’s a different type of warfare. In a conventional war they’d smash Russia. In Africa they still act all colonial and haven’t learned from what we did in Malaya. Germany haven’t gone as far. Missiles that can strike deep is a step above what Germany have sent and Germany won’t send Taurus missiles as they see it as a red line they won’t cross. They have sent lots but they haven’t gone as far as us or France.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 15, 2024 13:05:30 GMT
The third option is what we have right now which is stalemate, it is convenient for US and some in Europe to weaken Russia but not to give Ukraine sufficient Military Equipment to make a decisive difference. In my view this is a risky tactic as the balance can very quickly alter as we have seen in US Senate wavering support. If anything Russia is making advances albeit modest but if it were able to punch through the Eastern defences there would be little to stop them "overrunning Ukraine" A crucial period is approaching in the next couple of months when the weather improves. Every report I read of what Macron said in February and again yesterday was "Western" Troops not "French" Toops, at least that's how he was quited in Le Monde www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/03/14/macron-says-russian-ukraine-victory-would-reduce-europe-s-credibility-to-zero_6619721_7.htmlMacron said that responsibility for prompting such a move (sending Western Troops to Ukraine) would lie with Moscow – "It wouldn't be us – and said France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine. But he also said, "Today, to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak." As I said originally his speech contained a lot of ambiguity which in my view is the correct approach Unfortunately I don't speak French but this specific sentence is being quoted literally everywhere ... "There will be French troops in Ukraine. There will be no red lines. I am the president of France and I decide" Can anybody who does speak French confirm whether this is or isn't an accurate translation of what he said, establishing the fact, is obviously an extremely important element to the discussion? I don't disagree that this is what Macron said but it was in the context of providing French Troops as part of a NATO Force This was Russia's interpretation prior to Macron doubling down on what he said Russia on Saturday requested a UN Security Council meeting to discuss French President Emmanuel Macron's idea to send NATO troops to Ukraine. Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting in New York, Russia's deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Dmitry Polyansky said Moscow would like to know more about such "ideas fraught with the beginning of the Third World War." On Feb. 27, Macron confirmed his offer to NATO partners to send troops to Ukraine. However, he added that an official consensus to send ground troops "has not yet been reached, but nothing can be ruled out." Later, he said France would send soldiers if Russia moved to Kyiv or Odesa. www.aa.com.tr/en/world/russia-requests-un-security-council-meeting-to-discuss-macrons-threats-to-send-troops-to-ukraine/3160065
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 13:07:50 GMT
He's just had his arse handed to him on a plate in Burkina Faso and you yourself have said that you think his threats are nothing more than a bluff. Germany HAVE backed Ukraine militarily far more than France has, it's not even close. It’s a different type of warfare. In a conventional war they’d smash Russia. In Africa they still act all colonial and haven’t learned from what we did in Malaya. Germany haven’t gone as far. Missiles that can strike deep is a step above what Germany have sent and Germany won’t send Taurus missiles as they see it as a red line they won’t cross. They have sent lots but they haven’t gone as far as us or France. France way behind Germany on military aid to Ukraine, data shows. France, with one of Europe's largest military industrial complexes, trails far behind. The Insitute found that French commitments — aid given and promised — were €635 million, while Germany was €17.7 billion, second only to the U.S. www.politico.eu/article/military-aid-ukraine-france-way-behind-germany/
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 13:13:13 GMT
Unfortunately I don't speak French but this specific sentence is being quoted literally everywhere ... "There will be French troops in Ukraine. There will be no red lines. I am the president of France and I decide" Can anybody who does speak French confirm whether this is or isn't an accurate translation of what he said, establishing the fact, is obviously an extremely important element to the discussion? I don't disagree that this is what Macron said but it was in the context of providing French Troops as part of a NATO Force This was Russia's interpretation prior to Macron doubling down on what he said Russia on Saturday requested a UN Security Council meeting to discuss French President Emmanuel Macron's idea to send NATO troops to Ukraine. Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting in New York, Russia's deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Dmitry Polyansky said Moscow would like to know more about such "ideas fraught with the beginning of the Third World War." On Feb. 27, Macron confirmed his offer to NATO partners to send troops to Ukraine. However, he added that an official consensus to send ground troops "has not yet been reached, but nothing can be ruled out." Later, he said France would send soldiers if Russia moved to Kyiv or Odesa. www.aa.com.tr/en/world/russia-requests-un-security-council-meeting-to-discuss-macrons-threats-to-send-troops-to-ukraine/3160065So your interpretation is that Macron has no intention of acting unilaterally then? If NATO say no ground troops are going in, then that means that by definition French troops won't be going in either? I'm totally fine with that and I guess it's the lack of clarity in his comments that sow the seeds of confusion.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Mar 15, 2024 13:51:13 GMT
I don't disagree that this is what Macron said but it was in the context of providing French Troops as part of a NATO Force This was Russia's interpretation prior to Macron doubling down on what he said Russia on Saturday requested a UN Security Council meeting to discuss French President Emmanuel Macron's idea to send NATO troops to Ukraine. Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting in New York, Russia's deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Security Council Dmitry Polyansky said Moscow would like to know more about such "ideas fraught with the beginning of the Third World War." On Feb. 27, Macron confirmed his offer to NATO partners to send troops to Ukraine. However, he added that an official consensus to send ground troops "has not yet been reached, but nothing can be ruled out." Later, he said France would send soldiers if Russia moved to Kyiv or Odesa. www.aa.com.tr/en/world/russia-requests-un-security-council-meeting-to-discuss-macrons-threats-to-send-troops-to-ukraine/3160065So your interpretation is that Macron has no intention of acting unilaterally then? If NATO say no ground troops are going in, then that means that by definition French troops won't be going in either? I'm totally fine with that and I guess it's the lack of clarity in his comments that sow the seeds of confusion. Yes that is definitely my interpretation His Ukraine Policy is self-styled "Strategic Ambiguity" so its hardly surprising it has caused a certain amount of confusion I believe its a clever strategy, why establish red lines when there is no reason to do so. I also believe Macrons speech is not without intent and he sees Russia prevailing in Ukraine as an existential treat to Europe and is building a coalition of like minded Countries in the Baltic States and Poland who support his position if such an eventuality of NATO engagement with Russia becomes necessary Macron is not long back from meeting with Zelenski and I believe he is genuinely concerned with the lack of armaments Ukraine has to propagate the War with Russia while recognising Europe doesn't have the capacity in the short term to fill the void.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 15, 2024 14:42:10 GMT
Another russian terrorist attack. Apparently a "double tap". Hit civilians, wait for rescuers to arrive and hit again to try and kill them. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones hit another oil target.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 15, 2024 14:48:55 GMT
We've seen videos of lots of mercenaries recently, the individuals claim they are Indian, Nepali, Somali and Cuban on videos.
This sucks. Putin only cares if enough "valuable" russians die - working white slavs from major cities.
He's been using up hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians, prisoners and people from eastern areas like Buryatia as meat shields for his "actual" russians.
These mercenaries will be the same.
If Muscovites were being killed and maimed by the hundreds of thousands instead, Putin would be in trouble.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 15, 2024 14:53:55 GMT
A Russian BTR hit by a drone with 11+ russian soldiers clinging to its back instead of inside any armour.
They're using older kit, less of it and also attacking riding outside or on these funny golf cart things.
Russia doesn't have the armoured vehicles it wants any more, and they're sacrificing meat to make up for it.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 15, 2024 15:26:54 GMT
If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does. When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ... "My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
I think I don't completely agree with that. NATO doesn't prevent you doing your own stuff. Vietnam, Suez or Mali didn't get all NATO involved. Everyone talks about Article 5 but often doesn't mention Article 6: mutual defence is only triggered by attacks inside NATO territory ( source). So I don't see how France is stopped. There just needs to be more money for Ukraine, but if the politicians pussy out of that then I'd like to see the French, Polish, British + Nordic air forces covering Ukraine and bombing the crap out of Russian logistics.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 15:43:42 GMT
If he unilaterally puts French troops onto the Ukrainian battlefields, then of course it does. When you're a part of a military alliance, you act in accordance with the wishes and decisions of that alliance, or else you completely compromise it.
How would you feel if the next time he addresses the French public, he says something like, I dunno, er ... "My fellow French citizens, I'm pleased to tell you today, that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia's activities once and for all. We begin bombing in five minutes."
I think I don't completely agree with that. NATO doesn't prevent you doing your own stuff. Vietnam, Suez or Mali didn't get all NATO involved. Everyone talks about Article 5 but often doesn't mention Article 6: mutual defence is only triggered by attacks inside NATO territory ( source). So I don't see how France is stopped. There just needs to be more money for Ukraine, but if the politicians pussy out of that then I'd like to see the French, Polish, British + Nordic air forces covering Ukraine and bombing the crap out of Russian logistics. I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation?
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 15, 2024 16:27:54 GMT
I think I don't completely agree with that. NATO doesn't prevent you doing your own stuff. Vietnam, Suez or Mali didn't get all NATO involved. Everyone talks about Article 5 but often doesn't mention Article 6: mutual defence is only triggered by attacks inside NATO territory ( source). So I don't see how France is stopped. There just needs to be more money for Ukraine, but if the politicians pussy out of that then I'd like to see the French, Polish, British + Nordic air forces covering Ukraine and bombing the crap out of Russian logistics. I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Russia needs to be defeated without triggering nuclear war. Russia also doesn't want to be nuked. If we self deter, we tell Russia that invasion and conquest are ok and they will invade and try to conquer more. The same argument will then be applied to Poland and the Baltics. Unless Poland gets nukes. So we have to defeat Russia now or fight a much bigger, bloodier, more expensive and dangerous war later. Obviously Putin wants us to self deter and be terrified of their nukes now. Russian nuclear doctrine is clear they won't use nukes to hold onto Ukraine.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 16:46:43 GMT
I've already explained this to Bayern earlier mate, you're comparing apples with oranges. The countries you mention, didn't have the capability to nuke every major city in Europe. There would have been a completely different dialogue if they could have done. Do you genuinely believe that NATO would have said, yeah guys, you go ahead and crack on, when we went to war over the Falklands, if Buenos Aries had had the capability of nuking New York and Washington in retaliation? Russia needs to be defeated without triggering nuclear war. Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago. But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Mar 15, 2024 18:48:23 GMT
Russia needs to be defeated without triggering nuclear war. Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago. But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself. This narcissistic psychopath do you feed him cookies and milk and tell him to carry on ?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2024 19:03:58 GMT
Absolutely and that's the very hard bit. If we were that convinced that our response might not trigger a nuclear war, then the war would be already over and Putin would have been finished a long time ago. But thankfully we've got some sensible heads in the alliance and we must remain as an alliance and not go off doing things unilaterally. I sometimes wonder if people understand what a nuclear war would actually mean. If there is a nuclear war between the West and Russia, then that's it, it's over for all of us. Could you imagine in a hundred years, when our descendants (well the few that managed to survive) teach their school kids, how in 2024, the West, due to a country (Russia) advancing 3km in 5 months decided they had no choice but to turn large swathes of Europe into a nuclear wasteland. The stakes are as high as they can possibly be and you don't corner a narcissistic psychopath who's only regard is for himself. This narcissistic psychopath do you feed him cookies and milk and tell him to carry on ? Some Hawks would have gone in ages ago, acting all John Wayne but thankfully, there are some level heads about, we listen to them and we take as long as it takes. You truly want to risk nuclear war because you're so desperate to teach Putin a lesson? Really? He's hardly made any advances whatsoever. In the meantime, we continue to arm Ukraine to the fullest extent. Do you seriously think Putin is going to say, oh no, we surrender now, just because Macron got a bit shouty, one Thursday evening in March? Macron is either going to have to follow through with his threats, or else it's just hot air. If he can build a coalition that will break away from NATO and he can convince the French public to go with him, then that changes things but I notice today that a major polling group has 68% of the French against sending troops in. And he's got to be able to demonstrate that he can win, the thing is, nobody wins a nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 15, 2024 19:46:19 GMT
Freedom of speech (within the rules of the board) Freedom to ignore Freedom to respond (within the rules of the board) Freedom to stay of threads that are of absolutely no interest to you etc etc. I would be interested if it wasn't having to respond to war and peace all the bloody time! Are they your nicknames for Bayern and Spencer?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 15, 2024 22:14:03 GMT
Ukraine's politicians have been pussyfooting around mobilisation. New soldiers are needed so frontline troops can rest. Apparently this is why Zelenskyy fired Zaluzhnyi. There's a huge risk that the politicians being idiots will let Russia take advantage of the opening they were given by North Korea and US republicans, and the Ukrainian army could crack and allow a big russian advance before ammo and reinforcements arrive. So many moving parts and a horrible fog of war. web.archive.org/web/20231215105108/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/15/world/europe/ukraine-military-recruitment.htmlThey've been doing road blocks, pulling people out of businesses and homes, taking peoples passports and trying to recruit the mentally disabled in at least one case. Of course some officials are complicit of bribery but I wouldn't say they've been pussyfooting around. I'm completely against forced conscription. Why should those men be forced to fight against their will. Its not Zelensky who's on the front line risking his life or life changing injuries. It's very easy for us to cheerlead it from the comforts of our own home but I think there's a real lack of empathy. These men have children, wives, brothers, sisters, parents. If they don't want to fight they shouldn't have to. Let them flee and leave the country. I'm sure the majority of them give little shit about how it affects the West or Nato either. I know if it was over there in Kyiv reading this I'd be saying "Bayern, Mtrstudent, if it's so important we recruit more people and hold the line. Why don't yous come over and do a shift yourselves on the front line lads and I'll house sit for you for 2 years and provide a commentary" Doesn't fucking matter about weakening Russia. The Soviet union collapsed decades ago and look did that make any difference? Here we are with Russian aggression. What's the solution? Kill every Russian in a gaza esque attack? But then next decade it will be China. Or Germany. Or Iraq. Or Argentina. Or Vietnam. Or maybe the roman empire will come back and it will be them. If those people don't want to have their name enscripted in a big monument, don't want a random medal passed down to their orphans, don't want their countrymen to stand silent for them for one minute a year. And if they instead want to make memories, live their lives, raise their children, grow old with their partners. Then that's their choice. Its pretty evident that alot of Ukranians do not want to risk their lives and that's OK. Nobody should be forced to fight. It's not even in Ukraines interests either because the more personnel you put out there against their will, the more at risk you are of them eventually turning and doing a coup. Who will it be next after the Ukranians die? Maybe the polish are the next least worthy? Swedish? Maybe musik and his family can die in the name of Nato next. I'll tell you who'll be last though. America. Yeah they may send in their troops. But half way across the world their citizens won't be conscripted. Their borders aren't going to be under any immediate threat. Also is there even Russian propoganda out there? Maybe it's due to algorithms but I literally don't see anything about this conflict pop up on my social media feeds anywhere. The only time I learn anything about what's happening is within this thread. What Russian propoganda is out there? At the end of the day what's most important is what the Ukranian people want. I can't find any polls since October 23 on ukranians views of the war. But the polls I have seen show ukranian support for the conflict on a downward trajectory with each new poll. A wise man once said "if everyone around you is the problem then you're the problem". And the west seem to be doing a very good job at pointing out problem nations in recent decades.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 16, 2024 0:26:22 GMT
If those people don't want to have their name enscripted in a big monument, don't want a random medal passed down to their orphans, don't want their countrymen to stand silent for them for one minute a year. And if they instead want to make memories, live their lives, raise their children, grow old with their partners. Then that's their choice. Its pretty evident that alot of Ukranians do not want to risk their lives and that's OK. Nobody should be forced to fight. It's not even in Ukraines interests either because the more personnel you put out there against their will, the more at risk you are of them eventually turning and doing a coup. Who will it be next after the Ukranians die? Maybe the polish are the next least worthy? Swedish? Maybe musik and his family can die in the name of Nato next. I'll tell you who'll be last though. America. Yeah they may send in their troops. But half way across the world their citizens won't be conscripted. Their borders aren't going to be under any immediate threat. Also is there even Russian propoganda out there? Maybe it's due to algorithms but I literally don't see anything about this conflict pop up on my social media feeds anywhere. The only time I learn anything about what's happening is within this thread. What Russian propoganda is out there? At the end of the day what's most important is what the Ukranian people want. I can't find any polls since October 23 on ukranians views of the war. But the polls I have seen show ukranian support for the conflict on a downward trajectory with each new poll. I've always supported Ukrainians choosing, and also the right of a country to mobilise for its own self defence. I've seen more recent polls and regularly talk to Ukrainians, incliding those in a lot of situations - delivering to the front line, in rear cities, outside the country etc. Their choice is to fight now, or be tortured and exterminated if they don't bow down to Russia and get thrown into Russia's next meatgrinder. They've seen what's happened to the citizens of the occupied parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Within 10 months, the Donetsk puppet government said they'd taken 20,000 casualties. About 5% of all men of fighting age. And they're still being rounded up and sent to the front with russian guns at their backs. We should support them as long as they're willing to fight. Or do we just give up and let Estonians, Latvians ans Poles be the next to face the russian torture chambers? I totally disagree with the "shut up about defending democracy and freedom unless you're willing to go to the front line now". The Ukrainians I speak to are begging westerners to make more noise and show their support.
|
|