|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Mar 20, 2024 14:39:17 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning?
Obviously that's how some people will want to characterise it but if you can see past such simplistic jingoism, he's actually talking a lot of sense.
Putins main reasoning for invading Ukraine was because they wanted closer ties to the west and wanted to join NATO, who is Putin or any other country to demand that another sovereign independent country shouldn’t and can’t attempt join any alliance, it’s up to that country to decide their own future. Ukraine voted on independence in 1991, Putin eventually managed to install a puppet president In Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych after a first attempt was found to be full of corruption (It was later determined by the Ukrainian Supreme Court that the election was plagued by widespread falsification of the results in favour of Yanukovych) As soon as he went against the wishes of the Ukrainian people he was overthrown. And they democratically voted for their own president. Putin is a bully a mass murderer and he kills anyone who dares to stand against him even his own countrymen. He committed genocide in Ukraine and invaded a democratic independent country. The sooner he is overthrown and tried for his crimes the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 20, 2024 15:36:29 GMT
Putin is a bully a mass murderer and he kills anyone who dares to stand against him even his own countrymen. He committed genocide in Ukraine and invaded a democratic independent country. The sooner he is overthrown and tried for his crimes the better. I haven't suggested any different but you make his overthrow sound such a simple thing to do. But it really isn't at all and the nukes hugely complicate matters and mean that our response has to be far more measured than it would be in a conventional conflict. Saying he needs to be overthrown and tried for his crimes as soon as possible, is, at the end of the day, just words if those words aren't combined with a credible strategic plan. And at the moment there isn't a credible one, that eliminates the nuclear issue, beyond doing what we're already doing. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has ensured that we haven't had a Third World War for over 80 years and during that time it has meant that Russia won't attack the West and the West won't attack Russia, or else we're all dead. And absolutely nothing has changed. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 20, 2024 15:51:51 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning? I thought he was giving useful context as why Putin invaded. Doesn’t obviously justify it but useful nonetheless I read a lot of his stuff back in 2022, didn't watch the video because I was sick of his shit. Will give it a spin when I have time. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Mar 20, 2024 16:28:23 GMT
Putin is a bully a mass murderer and he kills anyone who dares to stand against him even his own countrymen. He committed genocide in Ukraine and invaded a democratic independent country. The sooner he is overthrown and tried for his crimes the better. I haven't suggested any different but you make his overthrow sound such a simple thing to do. But it really isn't at all and the nukes hugely complicate matters and mean that our response has to be far more measured than it would be in a conventional conflict. Saying he needs to be overthrown and tried for his crimes as soon as possible, is, at the end of the day, just words if those words aren't combined with a credible strategic plan. And at the moment there isn't a credible one, that eliminates the nuclear issue, beyond doing what we're already doing. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has ensured that we haven't had a Third World War for over 80 years and during that time it has meant that Russia won't attack the West and the West won't attack Russia, or else we're all dead. And absolutely nothing has changed. I didn’t say it was simple, If it was simple it would have been done already, he kills anyone who stands up to him politically and the elections are rigged, so any chance of someone standing and winning any future election is non existent. So the only way I can see change is if he dies, even then it depends how deep routed his ideas are. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 20, 2024 16:28:38 GMT
For the first ~20 months the russian attacks lost a certain mix of tanks and lighter armoured vehicles. Now they're losing more light vehicles for every tank.
Why?
Maybe they're keeping more tanks outside drone range, but they're still losing just as many tanks as before.
Instead, Russian attacks now use a lot more lighter vehicles. They also use tanks from the 1950s and 1960s, and Chinese off-road golf carts.
I think they still have loads of armour, just nowhere near enough for what they're trying to do. Things will get worse for Russia unless they slow down and save up some of their vehicles for 2025.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 20, 2024 16:52:20 GMT
Putin is a bully a mass murderer and he kills anyone who dares to stand against him even his own countrymen. He committed genocide in Ukraine and invaded a democratic independent country. The sooner he is overthrown and tried for his crimes the better. I haven't suggested any different but you make his overthrow sound such a simple thing to do. But it really isn't at all and the nukes hugely complicate matters and mean that our response has to be far more measured than it would be in a conventional conflict. Saying he needs to be overthrown and tried for his crimes as soon as possible, is, at the end of the day, just words if those words aren't combined with a credible strategic plan. And at the moment there isn't a credible one, that eliminates the nuclear issue, beyond doing what we're already doing. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has ensured that we haven't had a Third World War for over 80 years and during that time it has meant that Russia won't attack the West and the West won't attack Russia, or else we're all dead. And absolutely nothing has changed. I think it has changed though Paul. Putin has subtly moved the goalposts by threatening nukes in response to conventional boots on the ground and full conventional weapon support to Ukraine. Russia has never done this before even in the Cuban Missile crisis and so now we have a scenario where Putin is preventing full conventional support to Ukraine with the threat of nukes.and at present, this is clearly stalling a full NATO response. You would hope that his thinking reverts to the concept of MAD, in which case as you say nothing has changed, and stops him acting like the madman he is. His current strategy of threatening nukes also gives encouragement to North Korea and Iran to continue to develop and threaten their own nuclear arsenal in the same way. I really don’t know what the answer is if Putin continues in this way and fear that Ukraine will have to cede the territory already occupied. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Mar 20, 2024 19:54:17 GMT
I thought he was giving useful context as why Putin invaded. Doesn’t obviously justify it but useful nonetheless I read a lot of his stuff back in 2022, didn't watch the video because I was sick of his shit. Will give it a spin when I have time. TBH I haven’t a clue who he is |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 20, 2024 21:55:31 GMT
I haven't suggested any different but you make his overthrow sound such a simple thing to do. But it really isn't at all and the nukes hugely complicate matters and mean that our response has to be far more measured than it would be in a conventional conflict. Saying he needs to be overthrown and tried for his crimes as soon as possible, is, at the end of the day, just words if those words aren't combined with a credible strategic plan. And at the moment there isn't a credible one, that eliminates the nuclear issue, beyond doing what we're already doing. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has ensured that we haven't had a Third World War for over 80 years and during that time it has meant that Russia won't attack the West and the West won't attack Russia, or else we're all dead. And absolutely nothing has changed. I think it has changed though Paul. Putin has subtly moved the goalposts by threatening nukes in response to conventional boots on the ground and full conventional weapon support to Ukraine. Russia has never done this before even in the Cuban Missile crisis and so now we have a scenario where Putin is preventing full conventional support to Ukraine with the threat of nukes.and at present, this is clearly stalling a full NATO response. You would hope that his thinking reverts to the concept of MAD, in which case as you say nothing has changed, and stops him acting like the madman he is. His current strategy of threatening nukes also gives encouragement to North Korea and Iran to continue to develop and threaten their own nuclear arsenal in the same way. I really don’t know what the answer is if Putin continues in this way and fear that Ukraine will have to cede the territory already occupied.
Agree with most of that Lawrie.
At the end of the day, we didn't threaten Russia with putting boots on the ground during the Cuban Missile crisis (or indeed at any other time) so, in that regard, things have changed on both sides but (as you acknowledge) my point is more to do with the result of us going to war with each other.
I think North Korea's and Iran's desire to become established nuclear powers would always be there, regardless of Putin's current rhetoric.
I genuinely believe that Macron's claim that if Putin succeeds in Eastern Ukraine, it will then mean that it will encourage him to advance further West, is a bogus claim and especially not into NATO countires.
All this nonsense about there can only be peace if Crimea is returned to Ukraine, is just that, nonsense. Putin, based on how easy it was for him to annex Crimea, thought that it would be a similar walk in the park in Ukraine. How wrong has that belief proven to be? He had no idea how robust the response from the West would be and he has essentially been stopped in his tracks, he maybe crazy but he's not stupid, he doesn't have the money or the resources to successfully propogate the war further afield, well not in a conventional way anyway. Of course however, if he is cornered with no dignified way out available to him, then there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that he will choose the MAD option.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 20, 2024 22:00:19 GMT
I think it has changed though Paul. Putin has subtly moved the goalposts by threatening nukes in response to conventional boots on the ground and full conventional weapon support to Ukraine. Russia has never done this before even in the Cuban Missile crisis and so now we have a scenario where Putin is preventing full conventional support to Ukraine with the threat of nukes.and at present, this is clearly stalling a full NATO response. You would hope that his thinking reverts to the concept of MAD, in which case as you say nothing has changed, and stops him acting like the madman he is. His current strategy of threatening nukes also gives encouragement to North Korea and Iran to continue to develop and threaten their own nuclear arsenal in the same way. I really don’t know what the answer is if Putin continues in this way and fear that Ukraine will have to cede the territory already occupied. Agree with most of that Lawrie. At the end of the day, we didn't threaten Russia with putting boots on the ground during the Cuban Missile crisis (or indeed at any other time) so, in that regard, things have changed on both sides but (as you acknowledge) my point is more to do with the result of us going to war with each other. I think North Korea's and Iran's desire to become established nuclear powers would always be there, regardless of Putin's current rhetoric.
I genuinely believe that Macron's claim that if Putin succeeds in Eastern Ukraine, it will then mean that it will encourage him to advance further West, is a bogus claim and especially not into NATO countires. All this nonsense about there can only be peace if Crimea is returned to Ukraine, is just that, nonsense. Putin, based on how easy it was for him to annex Crimea, thought that it would be a similar walk in the park in Ukraine. How wrong has that belief proven to be? He had no idea how robust the response from the West would be and he has essentially been stopped in his tracks, he maybe crazy but he's not stupid, he doesn't have the money or the resources to successfully propogate the war further afield, well not in a conventional way anyway. Of course however, if he is cornered with no dignified way out available to him, then there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that he will choose the MAD option.
The last time we threatened Russia with boots on the ground was 1917 Thing is they haven't forgotten |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 20, 2024 22:17:06 GMT
Agree with most of that Lawrie. At the end of the day, we didn't threaten Russia with putting boots on the ground during the Cuban Missile crisis (or indeed at any other time) so, in that regard, things have changed on both sides but (as you acknowledge) my point is more to do with the result of us going to war with each other. I think North Korea's and Iran's desire to become established nuclear powers would always be there, regardless of Putin's current rhetoric.
I genuinely believe that Macron's claim that if Putin succeeds in Eastern Ukraine, it will then mean that it will encourage him to advance further West, is a bogus claim and especially not into NATO countires. All this nonsense about there can only be peace if Crimea is returned to Ukraine, is just that, nonsense. Putin, based on how easy it was for him to annex Crimea, thought that it would be a similar walk in the park in Ukraine. How wrong has that belief proven to be? He had no idea how robust the response from the West would be and he has essentially been stopped in his tracks, he maybe crazy but he's not stupid, he doesn't have the money or the resources to successfully propogate the war further afield, well not in a conventional way anyway. Of course however, if he is cornered with no dignified way out available to him, then there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that he will choose the MAD option.
The last time we threatened Russia with boots on the ground was 1917 Thing is they haven't forgotten
Obviously mine and Lawrie's conversation was based on events since the Second World war, in a new nuclear age.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 21, 2024 0:28:54 GMT
It seems 10+ russian strategic bombers have launched, it looks just like all the other past mass missile strikes.
The republicans and Putin will now be watching to see if they've managed to exhaust Ukraine's air defence ammunition. This could be bad - a lot more civilians could die if the ammo is low.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 21, 2024 1:43:17 GMT
Scary if true. Ukraine says they've programmed a drone to guide itself the last distance into targets. Loads of drones miss because of jamming as they get close.
Both sides will be doing this. And using loads of drones, like thousands per day.
The drone war's a nightmare and I can't shake the idea we're gonna see our squaddies getting blown up on video in future.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 21, 2024 15:26:46 GMT
In that video is he apologising for being a useful idiot shoveling Putinist propaganda from the beginning? I thought he was giving useful context as why Putin invaded. Doesn’t obviously justify it but useful nonetheless I turned it off after a minute, he's repeating his 2022 points. IMO: why is NATO expansion relevant? It's no threat to russia, but somehow Russia must invade a democracy because those people want protection from being tortured and murdered? Putinists like Sachs can't show any NATO expansion treaty, but he knows "for sure" James Baker made a super-secret promise to Gorbachev, while Gorbachev said "the topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all". Even if NATO expansion was mentioned, should we always enforce things from negotiations that were never agreed? Seems crazy to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 21, 2024 18:30:10 GMT
Who thinks the missile was actually hit by the gun? Amazing shot if so...
|
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Mar 21, 2024 19:04:15 GMT
I think it has changed though Paul. Putin has subtly moved the goalposts by threatening nukes in response to conventional boots on the ground and full conventional weapon support to Ukraine. Russia has never done this before even in the Cuban Missile crisis and so now we have a scenario where Putin is preventing full conventional support to Ukraine with the threat of nukes.and at present, this is clearly stalling a full NATO response. You would hope that his thinking reverts to the concept of MAD, in which case as you say nothing has changed, and stops him acting like the madman he is. His current strategy of threatening nukes also gives encouragement to North Korea and Iran to continue to develop and threaten their own nuclear arsenal in the same way. I really don’t know what the answer is if Putin continues in this way and fear that Ukraine will have to cede the territory already occupied. Agree with most of that Lawrie. At the end of the day, we didn't threaten Russia with putting boots on the ground during the Cuban Missile crisis (or indeed at any other time) so, in that regard, things have changed on both sides but (as you acknowledge) my point is more to do with the result of us going to war with each other. I think North Korea's and Iran's desire to become established nuclear powers would always be there, regardless of Putin's current rhetoric.
I genuinely believe that Macron's claim that if Putin succeeds in Eastern Ukraine, it will then mean that it will encourage him to advance further West, is a bogus claim and especially not into NATO countires. All this nonsense about there can only be peace if Crimea is returned to Ukraine, is just that, nonsense. Putin, based on how easy it was for him to annex Crimea, thought that it would be a similar walk in the park in Ukraine. How wrong has that belief proven to be? He had no idea how robust the response from the West would be and he has essentially been stopped in his tracks, he maybe crazy but he's not stupid, he doesn't have the money or the resources to successfully propogate the war further afield, well not in a conventional way anyway. Of course however, if he is cornered with no dignified way out available to him, then there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that he will choose the MAD option.
I agree that he would use nukes if he was truly cornered I.e stuck in a bunker surrounded by hostile forces. I don’t think that anything the West wants really represents that type of existential threat to him and/or ‘mother Russia’. Even if he suffers a humiliating defeat he would still likely remain President. He also has children and grandchildren to consider. Not sure he’d be willing to vaporise himself. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 21, 2024 19:14:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 21, 2024 19:35:18 GMT
The last time we threatened Russia with boots on the ground was 1917 Thing is they haven't forgotten Obviously mine and Lawrie's conversation was based on events since the Second World war, in a new nuclear age. My point is in Russia they still bring the west's attempts to support the Whites against the Bolshevik revolution old history for us Source of intense paranoia and a bedrock of their foreign policy for tgem |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 16:03:31 GMT
Massive Russian drone and missile attack on civilian targets.
The republican plan is to help Putin kill so many innocent Ukrainians that Ukraine breaks and Russia can conquer more of the country and eventually surrender.
We don't know if Ukraine+Europe have enough anti air ammo to survive the attacks, although F-16s should help with cruise missiles later this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 16:50:47 GMT
Russian "carrier killer" missiles get near the target then hit the biggest thing their radar can see. Designed like this because usually an aircraft carrier sticks out of the ocean a lot.
Russia fires them into cities, often wiping our apartment blocks filled with civilians. Sometimes they just whack into a random neighbourhood.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 17:51:08 GMT
Another russian terrorist strike on a dam.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 22, 2024 18:03:11 GMT
Some kind of attack happening in Moscow? Terrorist attack maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 18:04:09 GMT
Weeks ago the US embassy warned Americans to avoid large gatherings in Moscow because of terrorism risk.
It seems there is an attack in Moscow right now, videos showing gunmen.
My first guess is the russians will say they're linked to some Ukrainian group and Putin will do some speech explaining why they need to do even more war.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 18:11:38 GMT
The videos of the mall attack are horrible. Just normal folk going about and getting mown down. 😢
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 22, 2024 18:18:40 GMT
The videos of the mall attack are horrible. Just normal folk going about and getting mown down. 😢 Yeah the videos ain't nice, people just going to some kind of concert from what I can tell, just being mown down by bullets & the whole building is ablaze now. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 22, 2024 18:43:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 18:59:51 GMT
He used the apartment blasts in the 90s to take power and invade Chechnya. So I think he'll use it for something else. Not sure what though. Domestic? Anti Ukraine? Excuse to invade somewhere else or repress Muslims? |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 22, 2024 19:00:38 GMT
The videos of the mall attack are horrible. Just normal folk going about and getting mown down. 😢 Yeah the videos ain't nice, people just going to some kind of concert from what I can tell, just being mown down by bullets & the whole building is ablaze now. How fucking sick do you have to be to do an attack like that. So many people are just broken. FFS they could have attacked a shell factory or something instead. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 22, 2024 19:23:56 GMT
Little point in commenting on any of this utter madness, everyone has their agendas and theories, finding the truth about any event during a war is like platting snot, it’s not going to happen. So much bollocks written and said by all sides, I’m sick of it!
Interesting that the US and UK embassies warned people to avoid large gathering in Moscow, they knew something was coming!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Mar 22, 2024 19:41:47 GMT
Little point in commenting on any of this utter madness, everyone has their agendas and theories, finding the truth about any event during a war is like platting snot, it’s not going to happen. So much bollocks written and said by all sides, I’m sick of it! Interesting that the US and UK embassies warned people to avoid large gathering in Moscow, they knew something was coming! At the risk of raising your ire by speculating and starting conspiracy theories, but: Warning people to avoid a gathering reminds me of our own gunpowder plot. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokiemad1 on Mar 22, 2024 19:47:16 GMT
Weeks ago the US embassy warned Americans to avoid large gatherings in Moscow because of terrorism risk. It seems there is an attack in Moscow right now, videos showing gunmen. My first guess is the russians will say they're linked to some Ukrainian group and Putin will do some speech explaining why they need to do even more war. Any thoughts? Already starting: @nexta_tv ❗️ #Medvedev said that if #Ukraine was found to be behind the attack, "all the attackers and organizers should be found and ruthlessly eliminated as terrorists. Including state officials." Earlier, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian president's office, Podolyak, said that "Ukraine had nothing to do with the terrorist attack." |
|
