By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This is frightening and totally irresponsible to just do this when you're leaving your job.
1. Refraining from a tough decision because hes leaving would be wrong, cowardly and dangerous. Putin has escalated with nk troops and massive attacks on civilian infrastructure just before winter. Now is the time for a decision to mark that.
2. Its actually quite clever. Gives putin an off ramp if he wants one- ie lets not escalate. Trump will be in shortly and things could change. Also gives trump negotiating leverage and the ability to say 'this wssnt me so lets talk'
You were pushing that Trump would get peace but didn't seem to mind that it would be through capitulation to Putin's demands.
I don't remember you posting with such vigour about the escalation from Russia bringing in North Korean troops but you're here exaggerating the risk in a change of policy around very short ranged missiles. They aren't going to be raining US made missiles down on Moscow.
To say you have no narrative across your posting doesn't seem true to me but if you say you don't then fair enough, I stand corrected and look forward to your posts criticising Putin and his actions in equal measure.
You were pushing that Trump would get peace but didn't seem to mind that it would be through capitulation to Putin's demands.
I don't remember you posting with such vigour about the escalation from Russia bringing in North Korean troops but you're here exaggerating the risk in a change of policy around very short ranged missiles. They aren't going to be raining US made missiles down on Moscow.
To say you have no narrative across your posting doesn't seem true to me but if you say you don't then fair enough, I stand corrected and look forward to your posts criticising Putin and his actions in equal measure.
SB
Mr Djarin's comments seem remarkably similar to the pro-Kremlin articles in this morning's papers, as reported by Steve Rosenberg of the BBC
Of course, the BBC is part of the MSM and so could be discounted as "fake news" by those who wish
Not in the last 24 hours but made it pretty clear a month a ago what could be on the table if the US allowed their tech to be used on Russian soil.
And the same people on here saying he is a nutter and would stop at nothing to achieve his goals now saying ah, call his bluff, he wont do it.
Nukes come in all sizes and I would not put it past him to use a small tactical nuke.
Hahahaaha, these halfwits have been threatening us on a weekly basis for at least 50 years. They are no different from idiot states like N Korea or Venezuela.
In fact we've crossed a few dozen of their 'red lines' in the past couple of years and there has been no ConSeQuEncEs.
Their rhetoric is for their own citizens to control them or to try and scare some of the more vulnerable outside their country. This thread and your posts being the perfect example of that.
Not in the last 24 hours but made it pretty clear a month a ago what could be on the table if the US allowed their tech to be used on Russian soil.
And the same people on here saying he is a nutter and would stop at nothing to achieve his goals now saying ah, call his bluff, he wont do it.
Nukes come in all sizes and I would not put it past him to use a small tactical nuke.
There is no such thing as a âsmall tactical weaponâ a Nuke is a nuke! Please elaborate where he would use one? On a city with the condemnation that would bring? On the battlefield which would have no tactical advantage because it would be obvious he was going to use one by having to move his troops etc to create the space needed ? on a NATO country with the ramifications that brings down on his head.?
The war is nowhere near lost . The battlefront is barely even in the Ukraine right now Russia have launched a shedload of drones but thatâs about it
Even the Russians arnt stupid enough to use a nuke in the country geographically situated right next to them- that they wouldnât be able to inhabit - which is the whole point
Dearie me
"The war is nowhere near lost . The battlefront is barely even in the Ukraine right now."
But reliable media is reporting exactly the opposite:
The Russian army has significantly accelerated its offensive in the Donetsk region, taking control of a substantial amount of ground in the first two months of autumn â reportedly more than at any point since the initial full-scale invasion.
A number of Ukrainian politicians and military figures have openly spoken of the front âfalling to piecesâ.
âEveryone knows it â this is not a military secret,â stated General Dmytro Marchenko at the end of October. He was in charge of the defence of the city of Mykolaiv at the beginning of the war.
âThe collapse of the frontâ, in his view, was down to short supplies of men and ammunition, as well as âunstable command and controlâ because of frequent swaps in commanding officers and the deployment of poorly-prepared units to unfamiliar areas â such as to the fighting near Vuhledar, which was lost last month.`
This is yet another pointless war. Arming Ukraine is a pointless exercise when it comes to saving Ukraine as a country. What is a country without a people?
It's also a great shame that the only voice for peace in this thread so far has been called a Russian bot. Do people really think that pumping more arms into a retreating Ukraine is going to save Ukraine or be a step in the right direction towards peace?
"The war is nowhere near lost . The battlefront is barely even in the Ukraine right now."
But reliable media is reporting exactly the opposite:
The Russian army has significantly accelerated its offensive in the Donetsk region, taking control of a substantial amount of ground in the first two months of autumn â reportedly more than at any point since the initial full-scale invasion.
A number of Ukrainian politicians and military figures have openly spoken of the front âfalling to piecesâ.
âEveryone knows it â this is not a military secret,â stated General Dmytro Marchenko at the end of October. He was in charge of the defence of the city of Mykolaiv at the beginning of the war.
âThe collapse of the frontâ, in his view, was down to short supplies of men and ammunition, as well as âunstable command and controlâ because of frequent swaps in commanding officers and the deployment of poorly-prepared units to unfamiliar areas â such as to the fighting near Vuhledar, which was lost last month.`
This is yet another pointless war. Arming Ukraine is a pointless exercise when it comes to saving Ukraine as a country. What is a country without a people?
It's also a great shame that the only voice for peace in this thread so far has been called a Russian bot. Do people really think that pumping more arms into a retreating Ukraine is going to save Ukraine or be a step in the right direction towards peace?
The Ukrainianâs are choosing to fight though - itâs not up to people like you to dictate their surrender. If they were laying down their arms and deserting then they should not be forced to fight, but that is not the case.
The Russianâs have made some gains but are still fighting over the same regions they entered in 2022 - theyâve also been suffering their highest daily casualty rates of the war. Thatâs not sustainable for them which is why theyâve turned to NK for help. Theyâve also failed to evict Ukrainian forces from their own territory in Kursk - a valuable bargaining chip for Ukraine. Nobody is seriously considering a full collapse in Ukraine - the west are continuing to finance trade in the West, the he Dniper forms a natural barrier if the situation did deteriorate.
None of which is war mongering, itâs simply helping a fellow Euooean nation under attack from a regressive authoritarian state.
"The war is nowhere near lost . The battlefront is barely even in the Ukraine right now."
But reliable media is reporting exactly the opposite:
The Russian army has significantly accelerated its offensive in the Donetsk region, taking control of a substantial amount of ground in the first two months of autumn â reportedly more than at any point since the initial full-scale invasion.
A number of Ukrainian politicians and military figures have openly spoken of the front âfalling to piecesâ.
âEveryone knows it â this is not a military secret,â stated General Dmytro Marchenko at the end of October. He was in charge of the defence of the city of Mykolaiv at the beginning of the war.
âThe collapse of the frontâ, in his view, was down to short supplies of men and ammunition, as well as âunstable command and controlâ because of frequent swaps in commanding officers and the deployment of poorly-prepared units to unfamiliar areas â such as to the fighting near Vuhledar, which was lost last month.`
This is yet another pointless war. Arming Ukraine is a pointless exercise when it comes to saving Ukraine as a country. What is a country without a people?
It's also a great shame that the only voice for peace in this thread so far has been called a Russian bot. Do people really think that pumping more arms into a retreating Ukraine is going to save Ukraine or be a step in the right direction towards peace?
"The war is nowhere near lost . The battlefront is barely even in the Ukraine right now."
But reliable media is reporting exactly the opposite:
The Russian army has significantly accelerated its offensive in the Donetsk region, taking control of a substantial amount of ground in the first two months of autumn â reportedly more than at any point since the initial full-scale invasion.
A number of Ukrainian politicians and military figures have openly spoken of the front âfalling to piecesâ.
âEveryone knows it â this is not a military secret,â stated General Dmytro Marchenko at the end of October. He was in charge of the defence of the city of Mykolaiv at the beginning of the war.
âThe collapse of the frontâ, in his view, was down to short supplies of men and ammunition, as well as âunstable command and controlâ because of frequent swaps in commanding officers and the deployment of poorly-prepared units to unfamiliar areas â such as to the fighting near Vuhledar, which was lost last month.`
This is yet another pointless war. Arming Ukraine is a pointless exercise when it comes to saving Ukraine as a country. What is a country without a people?
It's also a great shame that the only voice for peace in this thread so far has been called a Russian bot. Do people really think that pumping more arms into a retreating Ukraine is going to save Ukraine or be a step in the right direction towards peace?
And yet in nearly three years of war the Russians have only advanced 30 Kms on the eastern front at the cost of thousands of casualties , they currently hold approx 18% of Ukrainian territory is that a sign of a collapsing country?
You were pushing that Trump would get peace but didn't seem to mind that it would be through capitulation to Putin's demands.
I don't remember you posting with such vigour about the escalation from Russia bringing in North Korean troops but you're here exaggerating the risk in a change of policy around very short ranged missiles. They aren't going to be raining US made missiles down on Moscow.
To say you have no narrative across your posting doesn't seem true to me but if you say you don't then fair enough, I stand corrected and look forward to your posts criticising Putin and his actions in equal measure.
The Ukrainianâs are choosing to fight though - itâs not up to people like you to dictate their surrender. If they were laying down their arms and deserting then they should not be forced to fight, but that is not the case.
The Russianâs have made some gains but are still fighting over the same regions they entered in 2022 - theyâve also been suffering their highest daily casualty rates of the war. Thatâs not sustainable for them which is why theyâve turned to NK for help. Theyâve also failed to evict Ukrainian forces from their own territory in Kursk - a valuable bargaining chip for Ukraine. Nobody is seriously considering a full collapse in Ukraine - the west are continuing to finance trade in the West, the he Dniper forms a natural barrier if the situation did deteriorate.
None of which is war mongering, itâs simply helping a fellow Euooean nation under attack from a regressive authoritarian state.
"The Ukrainianâs are choosing to fight though" - many brave Ukrainians certainly are choosing to fight and do so effectively but there is no way to determine what percentage of their fighters are doing so willingly. There are plenty of online videos showing many women and seniors fighting, but also of forced conscription of unwilling men.
"BERLIN, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Ukraine's population has declined by 10 million, or around a quarter, since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion as a result of refugees leaving, collapsing fertility and war deaths, the United Nations said on Tuesday. Speaking at a Geneva news conference, Florence Bauer, Eastern Europe head at the U.N. Population Fund, said the invasion in February 2022 had turned an already difficult demographic situation into something more severe."
You're right, it's certainly not up to people like me to dictate the surrender of Ukraine. However, I'm not sure up to 10's of thousands of Ukrainians who choose to fight a losing battle when there are 10 million Ukrainians who have left the country.
I agree that there is little chance of the whole of Ukraine collapsing - it's not in Russia's interests to take any part of Ukraine that is not Russia friendly. Yes, the Dniper forms a natural division and even then It's only in the more southern and western areas of the country where Russia is likely to continue to hold territory long term anyway.
Yes, Russia is still fighting over parts of the country they entered in 2022 and even lost a lot of what the initially took early in the conflict but you don't need to take territory to win a war - especially if occupying a whole country is not your objective, but you do need to kill the people who want to fight you. Not advancing much in territorial terms in the last two years, taking on NK soldiers and not evicting Ukrainian soldiers from the Kursk region is reported as Russian failure by the Western press, but I would sooner take the word of Ukrainian Generals and politicians reporting a Ukrainian collapsing front line as an honest account of the current situation.
And yet in nearly three years of war the Russians have only advanced 30 Kms on the eastern front at the cost of thousands of casualties , they currently hold approx 18% of Ukrainian territory is that a sign of a collapsing country?
It depends what your measure for success is. If you buy into our media's argument that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union, then it's an absolute failure. If on the other hand you believe that Russia wants a neutral Ukraine it can trade with, then there's a case for Russia being successful based on the comments made by Ukrainian military and political people as reported in my first contribution to this thread.
It depends what your measure for success is. If you buy into our media's argument that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union, then it's an absolute failure. If on the other hand you believe that Russia wants a neutral Ukraine it can trade with, then there's a case for Russia being successful based on the comments made by Ukrainian military and political people as reported in my first contribution to this thread.
Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves! Ukraine was neutral and was getting on with life until attacked by Russia .What was the reason for taking Crimea in 2014? If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves! Ukraine was neutral and was getting on with life until attacked by Russia .What was the reason for taking Crimea in 2014? If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
[Post edited 18 Nov 2024 22:32]
"Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves!"
If you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.
"If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
Well as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?
It depends what your measure for success is. If you buy into our media's argument that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union, then it's an absolute failure. If on the other hand you believe that Russia wants a neutral Ukraine it can trade with, then there's a case for Russia being successful based on the comments made by Ukrainian military and political people as reported in my first contribution to this thread.
If you believe it's the latter you are extremely deluded
"Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves!"
If you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.
"If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
Well as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?
Well with your answers you obviously have not got a clueđ On that note cherio
"Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves!"
If you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.
"If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
Well as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?
That is Russian propaganda. They invaded because they want their empire back and believe that, for some historical reason, that is their entitlement. Putin has written papers on the subject.
"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people."
"Obviously you have not heard pootin and his minions actually brag about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire then it isnât our media making these claims itâs Russians themselves!"
If you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.
"If these claims by Russia were not taken seriously why do you think Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO?
Well as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?
âIf you buy into our media's argument that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union, then it's an absolute failure. If on the other hand you believe that Russia wants a neutral Ukraine it can trade with, then there's a case for Russia being successfulâŚâŚ.â
âIf you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.â
âWell as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?â
This is apologism for the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Youâre making the same arguments as Putin.
âIf you buy into our media's argument that Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union, then it's an absolute failure. If on the other hand you believe that Russia wants a neutral Ukraine it can trade with, then there's a case for Russia being successfulâŚâŚ.â
âIf you (or anyone else) can actually provide me with evidence of "pootin and his minions actually bragging about wanting to reclaim the Russian empire", I'll start to think differently.â
âWell as I understand it, Russia invaded Ukraine precisely because the West wants to bring her into NATO. By that argument, Finland and Sweden are putting themselves in danger with their decision.
If Russia really did have an expansionist agenda, why didn't they invade Finland and Sweden before they joined NATO and before they gained Article 5 protection?â
This is apologism for the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. Youâre making the same arguments as Putin.
* Did Ukraine pose an extenstial threat to Russia? * What happened to Ukraine's Nuclear threat? * What happened in Crimea? * Quite simply who invaded who?
While the recent news is welcomed, personally the continued appeasement of Russia for so long has led to where we are today.
I'd also share that it is not just Ukrainian's losing their lives in this war but many nationalties too.
Being honest, Putin has played the West and while we supported Ukraine we didn't go all in when needed. In terms of defending a sovereign territory from a bully.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
