| Massacre of Bucha 17:02 - Apr 3 with 5737 views | Kropotkin123 |
Guess we're just going to let this continue to happen, rather than sufficiently protecting Ukrainians.
More empty words from European leaders "condemning" atrocities.
USA and UK had an agreement to protect Ukrainian sovereignty. We have dishonoured this. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |  |
| Massacre of Bucha on 09:56 - Apr 4 with 325 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Massacre of Bucha on 08:50 - Apr 4 by Guthrum |
The UK (amongst others) has been helping to train and equip the Ukrainian army since just after the siezure of Crimea and the beginning of the Donbas conflict. Two Prime Ministers ago. |
Of course.
I was talking more about this view that Johnson has been giving it large to distract from partygate. The Ukrainian Minister of Defence confirmed that the UK was the first to send military aid at the beginning of this year when it was a story that as only bubbling under.
Johnson is a fool and a terrible Prime Minister but we went to Ukraine's aid for the right reasons. Not as a distraction from domestic matters. |  |
| |
| Massacre of Bucha on 10:05 - Apr 4 with 298 views | Churchman |
| Massacre of Bucha on 09:18 - Apr 4 by Guthrum |
I'd disagree that Article 5 is now irrelevant. NATO has coordinated pretty well to send military aid to a non-member country. There hasn't been any suggestion that they would refuse to defend one which is. Even Orban's Hungary has not blocked sanctions.
There is no NATO declaration it would refuse to launch nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Indeed, what both they and the Russians have said are nothing more than restatements of pre-existing policy - namely a response to an enemy nuclear strike or if there was a conventional threat to the survival of the nation.
Korea was a very different scenario. In 1950, the USSR had only just carried out its first nuclear test, with two more during the war. Their weapon stockpile was nonexistant, that of the USA very limited. Neither side had rapid, uninterceptable delivery systems (i.e. missiles), but were reliant upon WWII-era* heavy bombers.
Cuba centred around verbal threats and counter-threats. There was no actual shooting war in progress which could have caused things to get out of hand (tho that still nearly happened). Again, ICBMs did not yet exist - which was the necessity for the USSR to base intermediate-range weapons in Cuba and the USA in Turkey - so the former didn't have the same leverage as today.
I'm not Russia does have the strength (or, more accurately, the organisational capability) to "win" on the ground, even in eastern Ukraine. They may be able to secure the Donbas, but not much more.
* Even the B-36 had been designed in the first half of the 1940s. |
The B36 Peacemaker is an interesting aeroplane and was designed as an intercontinental bomber, hence the impressive size. It was actually pretty outmoded when it went into service in the late 1940s.
The decision to launch nuclear weapons certainly isn’t in the hands of NATO. It was and is a political decision and Putin got his answer on that when Biden and the western countries were scurrying round in panic at the start of the war. The threat has kept a no fly zone out of Ukraine. Korea was one example. There are plenty of others where Russian and US aircraft have gone up against each other.
Basically, I’m with Gen Wesley Clark on this. It should have and could have been imposed with relative ease at the outset. The Russians would have just stopped flying. No other choice bar sabre rattling. They’ve not even managed to exercise total control of the air against Ukraines limited air defence. They wouldn’t last long against F22s, F35s etc.
I think after regroup and re supply they’ll swallow the eastern portion, maybe even the coast and that’ll be enough for now. But sadly he’ll be back for the rest when he’s beefed up his forces and given that’ll take time, it’ll be interesting to see if the west has the resolve to respond.
Just a view and as predictions go, given I thought Ukraine would collapse in three days, probably totally wrong. |  | | |
| Massacre of Bucha on 10:10 - Apr 4 with 286 views | Churchman |
| Massacre of Bucha on 09:56 - Apr 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Of course.
I was talking more about this view that Johnson has been giving it large to distract from partygate. The Ukrainian Minister of Defence confirmed that the UK was the first to send military aid at the beginning of this year when it was a story that as only bubbling under.
Johnson is a fool and a terrible Prime Minister but we went to Ukraine's aid for the right reasons. Not as a distraction from domestic matters. |
Interesting post Glasgow and fair point. The U.K. has also been very active in trying to support the Baltic states and has good relations with Poland, I believe.
The Ukrainian MoD chap’s comment is interesting in that it highlights the differences in western countries’ approach. Let’s hope over time it becomes more co-ordinated. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
