| WWW 3 18:15 - Nov 18 with 7763 views | Pippin1970 |
Would it happen or just bluff from all sides ? |  | | |  |
| WWW 3 on 18:18 - Nov 18 with 4810 views | carlo88 |
What, Russia with it's army that now has to rely on North Korean conscripts, against the rest of the world? Wouldn't last long would it. |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 18:25 - Nov 18 with 4768 views | 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. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 18:27 - Nov 18 with 4760 views | TheMoralMajority |
| WWW 3 on 18:18 - Nov 18 by carlo88 |
What, Russia with it's army that now has to rely on North Korean conscripts, against the rest of the world? Wouldn't last long would it. |
Russia, who have threatened nuclear weapons so many times now that it has become effectively meaningless.
Russia, who have said they will 'respond appropriately', as if they haven't been throwing everything they can at Ukraine already, and still not achieved their aims.
"Peace for our time". Appeasement worked so well back in the late 1930's. I'm sure it would work just as well today [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 18:28]
|  |
| ...but do signatures really work? |
| |
| WWW 3 on 18:36 - Nov 18 with 4690 views | factual_blue |
No,
I think... |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 18:45 - Nov 18 with 4645 views | RegencyBlue |
Russia started this the best part of three years ago, have achieved very little, and sustained such heavy losses that they are having to bring in North Korean troops to bolster their army. If they want to start a conventional war against NATO, which now includes a heavily armed Finland, I think they would very soon realise it was a big mistake!
As for the nuclear posturing, even Putin, and if not him those around him, must realise how that could end. |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 18:49 - Nov 18 with 4587 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Like most bullies, Putin doesn’t like it when his victims punch back.
China won’t go to war for Putin, they have their own territorial disputes with Russia (they are happy just watching the West and Russia weaken each other). Iran has had its proxies decimated, and been humiliated by a country smaller than Wales with a 10th of Iran’s population.
So Russia is alone aside from a handful of badly armed North Korean infantry. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 18:53 - Nov 18 with 4541 views | Churchman |
Complete bluff. Putin is a complete coward. He is scared of death which is why he’s happy to see so many others die. He is a bully that likes to smack somebody else in the mouth but rages if they hit back.
There won’t be WW3. His next new masters the Chinese won’t allow it for beginners.
The only threat is to show weakness. Had Britain and France not shown weakness in the 1920s and particularly 1930s, WW2 probably would never have happened (a debate for another time). [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 18:56]
|  | | |
| WWW 3 on 18:54 - Nov 18 with 4526 views | catch74 |
Does this feel anything like the build up to the seven years’ war? |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| WWW 3 on 19:03 - Nov 18 with 4467 views | Ftnfwest |
Only a couple days after trump and Biden met, it’s likely (either at trumps or Biden suggestion) a ratcheting up of the pressure to give Zelenskyy and the US another bargaining chip in January |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:06 - Nov 18 with 4459 views | 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 | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:08 - Nov 18 with 4434 views | orfordbuoy |
| WWW 3 on 18:53 - Nov 18 by Churchman |
Complete bluff. Putin is a complete coward. He is scared of death which is why he’s happy to see so many others die. He is a bully that likes to smack somebody else in the mouth but rages if they hit back.
There won’t be WW3. His next new masters the Chinese won’t allow it for beginners.
The only threat is to show weakness. Had Britain and France not shown weakness in the 1920s and particularly 1930s, WW2 probably would never have happened (a debate for another time). [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 18:56]
|
Agree with first two paragraphs, but third looks dodgy. European nations, bar Germany, had just completed the 'scramble for Africa' - which came and went within one generation - and the Kaiser (can I use that term?) through jealousy thought he'd grab some of Europe to keep up. Britain had no army to prevent this. It had a rolls royce diplomacy which, unfortunately, didn't stack up against Wilhelm's imperalist ambitions.
but 'Putin is a complete coward' is spot on |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:10 - Nov 18 with 4425 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 19:03 - Nov 18 by Ftnfwest |
Only a couple days after trump and Biden met, it’s likely (either at trumps or Biden suggestion) a ratcheting up of the pressure to give Zelenskyy and the US another bargaining chip in January |
On this subject, Trump is wrong. His idea of ending the war by surrender just kicks the dictator can down the road.
If Mexico decided Texas and a big chunk of the US was theirs, invaded it (theoretically) and hung on to it for three years then a third party, say China, said to Trump, ‘well for peace you need to give up Texas and New Mexico’ what would his response be?
His policy, if you can call it that, is of course based on the simple principle of might is right and anyone can be chucked under the bus as long as it benefits him. Berk. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:12 - Nov 18 with 4393 views | orfordbuoy |
| 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 |
Biden has effectively stopped Russian aggression from taking Ukraine and consequently, surrender. This would then be the start of the domino effect. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:14 - Nov 18 with 4360 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 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 |
This rubbish again. The west has over 300bn of trapped assets in Ukraine and Russia, not including any lost trade, or the impact of commodity driven inflation. The Economist estimated prolonged conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East could cost the global economy over $1trn in growth. All of these sums dwarf whatever profit has been made from arms. And bear in mind a lot of the equipment donated to Ukraine is actually current stocks from Western militaries - most of the cost is just replacing this.
‘What has it achieved’ - it stopped Russia seizing Kiev in the initial invasion, and subsequently limited Russia’s gains two around 25pc of the country rather than sealing it whole. And it’s not just a territorial dispute - Ukrainians in occupied territories have faced Russification, abductions, beatings, and summary executions, ask yourself why they are willing to put their lives on the line, they could refuse to fight or mutiny tomorrow. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:19 - Nov 18 with 4331 views | orfordbuoy |
| WWW 3 on 19:08 - Nov 18 by orfordbuoy |
Agree with first two paragraphs, but third looks dodgy. European nations, bar Germany, had just completed the 'scramble for Africa' - which came and went within one generation - and the Kaiser (can I use that term?) through jealousy thought he'd grab some of Europe to keep up. Britain had no army to prevent this. It had a rolls royce diplomacy which, unfortunately, didn't stack up against Wilhelm's imperalist ambitions.
but 'Putin is a complete coward' is spot on |
Wrong war. I do apologise.
But again, Britain had no army to prevent Hitler. Navy yes, but army - it's not even royal | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:20 - Nov 18 with 4311 views | Ftnfwest |
| WWW 3 on 19:10 - Nov 18 by Churchman |
On this subject, Trump is wrong. His idea of ending the war by surrender just kicks the dictator can down the road.
If Mexico decided Texas and a big chunk of the US was theirs, invaded it (theoretically) and hung on to it for three years then a third party, say China, said to Trump, ‘well for peace you need to give up Texas and New Mexico’ what would his response be?
His policy, if you can call it that, is of course based on the simple principle of might is right and anyone can be chucked under the bus as long as it benefits him. Berk. |
Your analogy is completely correct except it will never actually happen so trump will never care about it. He’s not any sort of moralist but a businessman (how good a businessman is certainly up for debate) but it’s always explained why he could never deal with the EU as there was no one person to deal with. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:21 - Nov 18 with 4299 views | Guthrum |
If Putin's position and/or life were under threat, then it may kick off. Otherwise unlikely as he's an entirely sane Russian Nationalist who doesn't want to see his country destroyed.
But it also depends exactly what you mean. The best descriptor for this period is Cold War II. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 20:06 - Nov 18 with 4046 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 19:19 - Nov 18 by orfordbuoy |
Wrong war. I do apologise.
But again, Britain had no army to prevent Hitler. Navy yes, but army - it's not even royal |
The Kaiser’s war could not be prevented. It was what Imperial Germany and in particular Wilhelm wanted. It is interesting that you raise it because if the allies had carried on and smashed Germany as it easily could have in 1918 the myth of the German army not being defeated would never have happened. But after the cruelty of 4 years there was no appetite from the British and French to peruse it. People had had enough.
WW2 could have been prevented. I deliberately included the 20s where the policy of appeasement was really born. Into the 1930s, Germany was militarily weak compared to the French army, British Navy and boths’ airforce. Their military parades were mostly a charade. That was the case well into the 1930s when people like Churchill were raising the alarm, but the policy of peace begets peace, disarmament, peace dividend was alive and well until too late.
It is on record that after 1938 Munich paper wave rearmament was slowed and many MPs voted against defence spending including the Labour Party. Fear of WW1 repeated was just too great and it was peace at any price. The price turned out to be 55 million lives.
Germany could have been stopped at just about any period right up to 1940, but the French army and political bosses had rotted inside out. It had years to modernise not just its kit (which was actually ok) but it’s will, organisation and tactics. It was politically busted. The Maginot spirit infected everyone.
Britain could only field an expeditionary force, and did (meagre defence spending had gone to the navy and air force primarily), but between the two even in 1940 the Germans could have been stopped. But old men, appeasement and revulsion of 1914-18 meant they brought upon France utter ruin and in the U.K. case ruin and bankruptcy the effects of which are with us to this day. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:25 - Nov 18 with 3978 views | redrickstuhaart |
| 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 |
What utter bollox. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:55 - Nov 18 with 3888 views | 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]
|  |
| 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 21:09 - Nov 18 with 3828 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| WWW 3 on 19:21 - Nov 18 by Guthrum |
If Putin's position and/or life were under threat, then it may kick off. Otherwise unlikely as he's an entirely sane Russian Nationalist who doesn't want to see his country destroyed.
But it also depends exactly what you mean. The best descriptor for this period is Cold War II. |
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? |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 21:12 - Nov 18 with 3804 views | factual_blue |
| WWW 3 on 18:54 - Nov 18 by catch74 |
Does this feel anything like the build up to the seven years’ war? |
It's more like the lead up to The Anarchy in 1135. | |
| |
| WWW 3 on 21:27 - Nov 18 with 3717 views | factual_blue |
| WWW 3 on 19:10 - Nov 18 by Churchman |
On this subject, Trump is wrong. His idea of ending the war by surrender just kicks the dictator can down the road.
If Mexico decided Texas and a big chunk of the US was theirs, invaded it (theoretically) and hung on to it for three years then a third party, say China, said to Trump, ‘well for peace you need to give up Texas and New Mexico’ what would his response be?
His policy, if you can call it that, is of course based on the simple principle of might is right and anyone can be chucked under the bus as long as it benefits him. Berk. |
Mexico could argue that historically Texas is theirs anyway.... | |
| |
| WWW 3 on 21:36 - Nov 18 with 3680 views | blueasfook |
| WWW 3 on 21:27 - Nov 18 by factual_blue |
Mexico could argue that historically Texas is theirs anyway.... |
You're not wrong there |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 22:09 - Nov 18 with 3610 views | Guthrum |
| 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'd say that's open to question. After all, will Trump's nose be put out of joint if Putin doesn't give him a win on Ukraine?
In any case, Cold War tensions come and go. There are periods of detente and others of greater hostility. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
