| WWW 3 18:15 - Nov 18 with 8019 views | Pippin1970 |
Would it happen or just bluff from all sides ? |  | | |  |
| WWW 3 on 22:41 - Nov 18 with 2448 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 21:09 - Nov 18 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Is it really cold war II? Isn't the likely impact of Trump coming in that there will be a big softening towards Putin or is that a misnomer? |
I think it’s Cold War 2 but there’s a problem. In Cold War 1 the lines were clearly defined. I’m not sure they are now. Everything looks blurred (it’s not just my poor eyesight). The only clarity is what Putin wants.
I believe Trump will do anything to appear what he isn’t. A great man, decisive thinker, broker of peace, builder of a great America again (nonsense rhetoric). In his way, he’s as simple as Putin. I suspect they might get the Sun easy Sudoko done together after a few hours of head scratching but that’s about your lot.
Because Trump will do anything and doesn’t care beyond what he sees in the mirror, Ukraine will be sold out and the world will become more dangerous. The rest of Europe needs to wean itself off America and look out for itself and fast.
In many ways, this feels more dangerous than the 1st Cold War which is why, in my view, Putin should told to poke his threats where the sun don’t shine. |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 00:20 - Nov 19 with 2386 views | Xatticus |
| WWW 3 on 20:55 - Nov 18 by Kropotkin123 |
Giving the weapons are far too late. Just before Trump turns up and can pull the useage again. A lot of important sites have been moved further inland. Sure, it will help, bring more parity. But the important things are still way off. We should be closing Ukrainian airspace and expanding the Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System to Ukraine. It is stain on us that we are okay with Ukrainian citizens being killed and infraestructure being destroyed when we absolutely can do something about it.
WW3? I don't understand why, 10 years into the conflict (nearly 3 in this stage) people are still too scared to do the right thing - Support Ukraine fully to total victory. Frankly, talk about us creating WW3, when Russia has troops from North Korea, weapons from Iran and North Korea, and financial support from China (loans, increase trade, discounts, etc) is non-sensensical.
The UK is embarassing at times. We are a round error away from 2.5% military spending and we still don't commit to it. [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 20:55]
|
That sort of victory was never the goal. The mistakes were made long before the war started. Obama's inaction in 2014 only encouraged Putin to head down this path. Putin probably thought he could acquire Ukraine without aggression as long as Trump was in office, but between the Maidan and Biden's election victory, the winds were clearly shifting against him.
Putin's rhetoric has been pretty straightforward and it was taken as little more than pomp and bluster. He has always said that Ukraine was a natural part of Russia. I'm sure he didn't expect to end up in the mess he is in. If it had been made clear to him at some point during the intervening eight years that he wouldn't be permitted an unfettered conquest of Ukraine, then he might never have attempted it. He kept poking the bear and the bear didn't respond.
The problem with supporting Ukraine at this point is that a destabilized Russia makes the world a much more dangerous place. So the goal is to keep Russia mired in conflict until Putin figures out a way to withdraw without losing face, which won't be easy given his warped view of the world. He is an autocrat. Autocrats believe that showing weakness invites demise. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 03:29 - Nov 19 with 2341 views | Kropotkin123 |
| WWW 3 on 00:20 - Nov 19 by Xatticus |
That sort of victory was never the goal. The mistakes were made long before the war started. Obama's inaction in 2014 only encouraged Putin to head down this path. Putin probably thought he could acquire Ukraine without aggression as long as Trump was in office, but between the Maidan and Biden's election victory, the winds were clearly shifting against him.
Putin's rhetoric has been pretty straightforward and it was taken as little more than pomp and bluster. He has always said that Ukraine was a natural part of Russia. I'm sure he didn't expect to end up in the mess he is in. If it had been made clear to him at some point during the intervening eight years that he wouldn't be permitted an unfettered conquest of Ukraine, then he might never have attempted it. He kept poking the bear and the bear didn't respond.
The problem with supporting Ukraine at this point is that a destabilized Russia makes the world a much more dangerous place. So the goal is to keep Russia mired in conflict until Putin figures out a way to withdraw without losing face, which won't be easy given his warped view of the world. He is an autocrat. Autocrats believe that showing weakness invites demise. |
I'm well aware and agree with your general assessment. The weapons dried up when Ukraine was making its biggest advancements |  |
| 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 |
| |
| WWW 3 on 08:05 - Nov 19 with 2234 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| WWW 3 on 19:06 - Nov 18 by Denny32 |
It's,all a game for all sides..all leaders want to keep the wars going as they are pocketing handsomely from all the sales of arms to the respective countries. It'd Bidens last favour to his friends in the arms trade to change the narrative so as more missiles are brought in..and to extend the conflict around the world..putin Biden.zelensky Iran Israel...all murder and genocide on their hands so as they become rich and the arms trade healthy .look how much money usa has given Ukraine in arms..70.billion ...what has it achieved ..nothing only close to a million deaths on both sides if figures are to be true ..shocking |
So ignorant it's actually offensive. As if Zelensky, for one, wants the war extended because he's making money out of arms. You're an idiot. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 with 2201 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 20:55 - Nov 18 by Kropotkin123 |
Giving the weapons are far too late. Just before Trump turns up and can pull the useage again. A lot of important sites have been moved further inland. Sure, it will help, bring more parity. But the important things are still way off. We should be closing Ukrainian airspace and expanding the Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense System to Ukraine. It is stain on us that we are okay with Ukrainian citizens being killed and infraestructure being destroyed when we absolutely can do something about it.
WW3? I don't understand why, 10 years into the conflict (nearly 3 in this stage) people are still too scared to do the right thing - Support Ukraine fully to total victory. Frankly, talk about us creating WW3, when Russia has troops from North Korea, weapons from Iran and North Korea, and financial support from China (loans, increase trade, discounts, etc) is non-sensensical.
The UK is embarassing at times. We are a round error away from 2.5% military spending and we still don't commit to it. [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 20:55]
|
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that spending for Ukraine defence has been lumped in by Labour with U.K. military spend. That means in real term defence cuts for the U.K. and because the end isn’t in sight, the MoD/military cannot plan spending. Let’s hold yet another review then.
Labour isn’t and never was serious about defence. They’re not interested. I hope I’m wrong and if anyone can point to anything beyond empty words to disprove my view I’ll be happy to hold my hand up. [Post edited 19 Nov 2024 8:44]
| | | |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 with 2201 views | Chris_ITFC |
What does the extra W stand for?
Answers on a postcard. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 09:44 - Nov 19 with 2127 views | Radlett_blue |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 by Churchman |
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that spending for Ukraine defence has been lumped in by Labour with U.K. military spend. That means in real term defence cuts for the U.K. and because the end isn’t in sight, the MoD/military cannot plan spending. Let’s hold yet another review then.
Labour isn’t and never was serious about defence. They’re not interested. I hope I’m wrong and if anyone can point to anything beyond empty words to disprove my view I’ll be happy to hold my hand up. [Post edited 19 Nov 2024 8:44]
|
The Conservatives, despite their bluster, have never been keen on defence spending either. The same applies to most European politicians. Spending more on defence requires either raising taxes or cutting something else, while defence spending is notoriously unproductive in economic terms. But Europe need to wake up collectively to the fact that Uncle Sam isn't going to protect them forever from aggressors like Putin, or his successor (who may be worse). |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| WWW 3 on 12:46 - Nov 19 with 2017 views | BlueBadger |
| WWW 3 on 19:06 - Nov 18 by Denny32 |
It's,all a game for all sides..all leaders want to keep the wars going as they are pocketing handsomely from all the sales of arms to the respective countries. It'd Bidens last favour to his friends in the arms trade to change the narrative so as more missiles are brought in..and to extend the conflict around the world..putin Biden.zelensky Iran Israel...all murder and genocide on their hands so as they become rich and the arms trade healthy .look how much money usa has given Ukraine in arms..70.billion ...what has it achieved ..nothing only close to a million deaths on both sides if figures are to be true ..shocking |
Bloody hell, didn't;t know Jeremy Corbyn posted on here. I though he was an Arsenal man. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 12:49 - Nov 19 with 2004 views | EdwardStone |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 by Chris_ITFC |
What does the extra W stand for?
Answers on a postcard. |
Is it World Wide War? |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 12:50 - Nov 19 with 2004 views | Trequartista |
Prefer not to try and find out. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 14:42 - Nov 19 with 1922 views | GreenEye |
| WWW 3 on 18:25 - Nov 18 by LeoMuff |
Bluff you would think, who would win from total annihilation?
However a caveat is that Putins ego is so fragile, he might just push the button rather than fail. |
The problem withn Russia is that they think lose-lose is a win for them!
Ultimately, bullies have to be confronted. The West has been spending the peace dividend for years and it's time to wake up & pay up to protect the freedoms we enjoy. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 15:01 - Nov 19 with 1890 views | Kievthegreat |
It's all bluster from Putin. All the weapons he's claiming would be an "escalation" if they were used against Russia, by his own definitions have already been used against Russia. All these systems from Anglo-French Storm Shadow/Scalp to US ATACMS have all been used against Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk oblasts which Russia formally annexed.
All that's been granted is Ukraine can shoot a little further now, which they have apparently already done! As always, the red line will be hastily redrawn to save Putin's face. [Post edited 19 Nov 2024 15:01]
|  | | |
| WWW 3 on 15:35 - Nov 19 with 1837 views | Benters |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 by Chris_ITFC |
What does the extra W stand for?
Answers on a postcard. |
Wrestling With Women 3 or more if possible. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 16:04 - Nov 19 with 1787 views | Pippin1970 |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 by Chris_ITFC |
What does the extra W stand for?
Answers on a postcard. |
Damn it last letter should of been an F. The Undertaker comeback. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 17:39 - Nov 19 with 1713 views | redrickstuhaart |
| WWW 3 on 15:01 - Nov 19 by Kievthegreat |
It's all bluster from Putin. All the weapons he's claiming would be an "escalation" if they were used against Russia, by his own definitions have already been used against Russia. All these systems from Anglo-French Storm Shadow/Scalp to US ATACMS have all been used against Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk oblasts which Russia formally annexed.
All that's been granted is Ukraine can shoot a little further now, which they have apparently already done! As always, the red line will be hastily redrawn to save Putin's face. [Post edited 19 Nov 2024 15:01]
|
Crucially, all the things he complains of as escalation, he is already doing to Ukraine.
The idea that it is unfair that Ukraine should have support of third parties, or fire missiles across the border, is extraoardinary given the support he has from China, NK , Iran, etc, and the thousands of missiles which have been launched across the border at Uklranian infrastructure.
Time to stand up to the bully imo. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:49 - Nov 19 with 1615 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| WWW 3 on 08:44 - Nov 19 by Chris_ITFC |
What does the extra W stand for?
Answers on a postcard. |
Wayne's |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 08:32 - Nov 20 with 1433 views | ericclacton |
If it does go ahead it will sting like hell.
 |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 08:49 - Nov 20 with 1410 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| WWW 3 on 14:42 - Nov 19 by GreenEye |
The problem withn Russia is that they think lose-lose is a win for them!
Ultimately, bullies have to be confronted. The West has been spending the peace dividend for years and it's time to wake up & pay up to protect the freedoms we enjoy. |
"The problem withn Russia is that they think lose-lose is a win for them!"
I don't think this is universally true, replace 'Russia' with 'Putin' and thats probably more accurate. Russians are not stupid people, they know the risks, and they fully know what could happen should Putin make good on his threats.
The problem with pushing someone like Putin, thinking that he won't respond is that he might flip it onto us, release a tactical nuke and wait to see if we respond, with us knowing that if we do, it could tip it over into armageddon.
My suspicion is that Trump is currently on the phone to him, "I'll be there in 6 weeks", "Everything will change then", "Short term pain" etc.etc. Once Trump is in, he'll rescind permission to use those weapons, and will slowly back out of support. Ukraine will be encouraged to give up the Donbas in return for the withdrawal of Russian forces from aggressive positions.
...at which point Russia will spend the next two years building up troop numbers and training..... [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 8:52]
|  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 12:08 - Nov 20 with 1300 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 08:49 - Nov 20 by Cheltenham_Blue |
"The problem withn Russia is that they think lose-lose is a win for them!"
I don't think this is universally true, replace 'Russia' with 'Putin' and thats probably more accurate. Russians are not stupid people, they know the risks, and they fully know what could happen should Putin make good on his threats.
The problem with pushing someone like Putin, thinking that he won't respond is that he might flip it onto us, release a tactical nuke and wait to see if we respond, with us knowing that if we do, it could tip it over into armageddon.
My suspicion is that Trump is currently on the phone to him, "I'll be there in 6 weeks", "Everything will change then", "Short term pain" etc.etc. Once Trump is in, he'll rescind permission to use those weapons, and will slowly back out of support. Ukraine will be encouraged to give up the Donbas in return for the withdrawal of Russian forces from aggressive positions.
...at which point Russia will spend the next two years building up troop numbers and training..... [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 8:52]
|
There is no problem pushing back on Putin. If you don’t, the bully dictator wins. He won’t flip anything on us. The only way he would is with shown weakness on our part.
Let’s be clear on this. A tactical nuclear missile or bomb is not a warning. It is an attack. They are smaller than an ICBM but several times more powerful than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He won’t do it.
What he is doing is crushing Ukraine. They’ve taken a lot of territory recently and I’m not sure a surrender (‘peace’ agreement) is too far away. Ukraine in its entirety will be part of the Russian homeland before you know it, or at best a puppet state with Zelenski in exile or in the ground because without the areas it’s going to lose it’s not really viable. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 14:28 - Nov 20 with 1186 views | Perublue |
The government’s plans I’m just listening to in regards to the dismantling of defence is really odd timing .. read the room |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 18:02 - Nov 20 with 1086 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 14:28 - Nov 20 by Perublue |
The government’s plans I’m just listening to in regards to the dismantling of defence is really odd timing .. read the room |
Attached is an interesting read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/update-on-defence-capabilities
It’s the usual the tories hid the mess followed by we are going to fix the foundations. Does anyone know what that stupid phrase means? What foundations? How? By demolishing the house? Well, given ships and aircraft are going to the scrapyard and the army is shrinking yet again this year, it must mean cuts and more cuts so yes demolish the house.
The Tories weren’t interested and even their own people said it’s been hollowed out over 14 years. It was a mess long before that too. The current govt clearly are happy with that and see it as a useless spend to be used elsewhere.
Given we now have isolationist Trump in charge in America, parasitic leeching off them may no longer be an option so what’s it to be? Ask that nice Mr Putin to look after us or bury our heads in the sand in denial? Throw out an empty promise bone that we’ll do something about it after yet another time buying review and when there’s lots of spare money available. In other words never.
Also are the government serious about defence? Do they see any threat? The answer is no. They should be at least honest and say so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0292v0w1o
Getting rid of stuff when you have nothing to replace it. Yep, I can see the sense in that - as long as your only objective is budget cuts. [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 18:09]
| | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:05 - Nov 20 with 1022 views | redrickstuhaart |
| WWW 3 on 18:02 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
Attached is an interesting read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/update-on-defence-capabilities
It’s the usual the tories hid the mess followed by we are going to fix the foundations. Does anyone know what that stupid phrase means? What foundations? How? By demolishing the house? Well, given ships and aircraft are going to the scrapyard and the army is shrinking yet again this year, it must mean cuts and more cuts so yes demolish the house.
The Tories weren’t interested and even their own people said it’s been hollowed out over 14 years. It was a mess long before that too. The current govt clearly are happy with that and see it as a useless spend to be used elsewhere.
Given we now have isolationist Trump in charge in America, parasitic leeching off them may no longer be an option so what’s it to be? Ask that nice Mr Putin to look after us or bury our heads in the sand in denial? Throw out an empty promise bone that we’ll do something about it after yet another time buying review and when there’s lots of spare money available. In other words never.
Also are the government serious about defence? Do they see any threat? The answer is no. They should be at least honest and say so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0292v0w1o
Getting rid of stuff when you have nothing to replace it. Yep, I can see the sense in that - as long as your only objective is budget cuts. [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 18:09]
|
Have you actually read about the intent behind it? We have ships which were not intended to go to sea again ahead of decomissioning, but which were costing a fortune in maintenance. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:36 - Nov 20 with 977 views | Radlett_blue |
| WWW 3 on 19:05 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Have you actually read about the intent behind it? We have ships which were not intended to go to sea again ahead of decomissioning, but which were costing a fortune in maintenance. |
The Royal Navy now has more Admirals (41) than combat ships. Anyone think the navy has become a little top-heavy? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
