| Ukraine 17:42 - Feb 12 with 5451 views | LeoMuff |
Sounds like Russia will take a large part of Ukraine territory, crush any NATO application and Ukraine will lose most USA funding if not all under Trumps “Peace” deal. Nice. Oh and it seems Zelenskyy won’t be invited to the discussions. |  |
| |  |
| Ukraine on 22:05 - Feb 12 with 1916 views | Trequartista |
| Ukraine on 21:04 - Feb 12 by StokieBlue |
Might is right then?
Nobody is going to use nukes, it's an irrelevance.
However conceding to Putin that land grabs are acceptable is a very slippery slope.
SB |
I deliberately phrased it as least worst option rather than best option. It's far from ideal but I don't see the continual deaths of thousands of young men and women just to preserve a stalement as better.
If nobody is going to use nukes and they are irrelevant, then why do we have them? [Post edited 12 Feb 22:08]
|  |
| |
| Ukraine on 22:14 - Feb 12 with 1883 views | mellowblue |
| Ukraine on 21:43 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
Winston was a terrible Chancellor but was the right man for the job in 1940.
The Skua and Stuka were different beasts. The Ju87 was designed as a close support bomb truck to replace the Herschel 123. It was superb at it and nothing was designed during that period by anyone to compare with it apart from maybe the Aichi D3A ‘Val’ Japanese naval dive bomber.
The Stuka gets mocked because of its Battle of Britain losses. But it was never designed as a fighter and nobody knew who to defend an aircraft with its flight characteristics. The Germans considered it obsolete in 1940 but had zilch to replace it. Even the truly brilliant Fw190 couldn’t do quite the same job.
The Skua was typical of muddled naval procurement and conflicts in what the wanted. Dowding actually told the navy when it was delivered that they got what they asked for and they did.. They wanted essentially a multi role aeroplane and that’s what it was. And despite bringing down the first German aircraft of WW2 (a Do18) it was hopeless. The turreted version (the Roc) even worse.
The Swordfish was more modern and advanced than it looked and stayed in service until the Grumman Avenger could be bought. The Fulmar was a Fairey Battle derivative that was pretty rubbish, but better than nothing until the Martlet/Wildcat was bought.
The Hood was a WW1 design laid down in 1916. It was meant to be modernised but impending war and budgets ended that. It was a Battlecruiser whose concept was so far out of date it was ridiculous. It was though a symbol and a beautiful one. ‘The mighty Hood’. Shame it was blown to pieces in minutes.
Rangefinding wasn’t too bad in WW2, though German optics were still a little better. Remember it was an early salvo from Prince of Wales, despite a scratch crew, that damaged Bismarck and forced it to run to Brest. German ships suffered from reliance on WW1 design and weaknesses. In Bismarck it was the back end and layout. Early hits from KGV and Rodney knocked out its fire control early and as it did when Duke of York ripped Scharnhorst apart in no time at all.
British design of cruisers and destroyers was excellent as was the creativity in designing the little ships (MGBs, MTBs and MLs).
Re Putin, I felt the same way at the time
Regarding Gladiator to Meteor, it was certainly astonishing. I recommend the book on the creator of the jet engine Frank Whittle called ‘Jet’. The biography on Sidney Camm by John Sweetman is good not least as it goes into how aeroplanes were procured and came about. For Churchill, the Andrew Roberts book is a fascinating read. |
The stuka evolved into a fine battlefield support bomber and tank buster, as you say as a conventional bomber was completely obsolete. the Swordfish though slow was effective and very hard to shoot down, could take a lot of damage. Re the Hood it was the face of the RN between the wars for soft diplomacy. There is debate as to how she was sunk, whether it was a gun battery exploding or it's own torpedoes being hit etc, whether she was underarmoured etc. She was certainly designed with speed in mind and was felt to be one of the few that could outspeed the the Bismarck. As you say, beautiful lines.
Our detail might differ, I have the memory of a sieve, ha ha, but we largely agree on things. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 22:25 - Feb 12 with 1854 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 21:04 - Feb 12 by StokieBlue |
Might is right then?
Nobody is going to use nukes, it's an irrelevance.
However conceding to Putin that land grabs are acceptable is a very slippery slope.
SB |
Yes SB, might is right. Trump likes Putin because he respects strength. He despises weedy little people like Macron and co so he will ‘do a deal’ with Putin and f the consequences to the nobodies of Europe. Greenland? Denmark get stuffed. Nothings like that lot don’t matter. It’s americas and they’ll take it. Panama: who? International law? Belongs to the strong.
It’s up to the Europeans. Three years since Putin started on phase 2 in Ukraine. What’s Europe done for itself? Poland and the breakfast for Vlad Baltics plenty. The rest? Pretty much nothing. Moaned about money and let America carry the load.
Well now, free meals are over so what will Germany, France and the U.K. who have the largest economies actually do? I think I can guess. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 22:58 - Feb 12 with 1813 views | mellowblue |
| Ukraine on 22:25 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
Yes SB, might is right. Trump likes Putin because he respects strength. He despises weedy little people like Macron and co so he will ‘do a deal’ with Putin and f the consequences to the nobodies of Europe. Greenland? Denmark get stuffed. Nothings like that lot don’t matter. It’s americas and they’ll take it. Panama: who? International law? Belongs to the strong.
It’s up to the Europeans. Three years since Putin started on phase 2 in Ukraine. What’s Europe done for itself? Poland and the breakfast for Vlad Baltics plenty. The rest? Pretty much nothing. Moaned about money and let America carry the load.
Well now, free meals are over so what will Germany, France and the U.K. who have the largest economies actually do? I think I can guess. |
Procrastinate. They will not be copying the Poles who have read the geo-political situation well. They are arming to the max. Good for them. | | | |
| Ukraine on 23:28 - Feb 12 with 1771 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 22:58 - Feb 12 by mellowblue |
Procrastinate. They will not be copying the Poles who have read the geo-political situation well. They are arming to the max. Good for them. |
Agreed. The Polish people have got it right.
Europe as some journo has just said on Sky news is resetting to 1941 (pre Pearl Harbour) | | | |
| Ukraine on 00:34 - Feb 13 with 1715 views | Eireannach_gorm |
Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 00:47 - Feb 13 with 1701 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 00:34 - Feb 13 by Eireannach_gorm |
Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. |
All ripped up and chucked in the bin.
I suspect aside from any land Putin wants, total disarmament will be what is required. All countries that joined NATO after the late 90s membership to be rescinded and if I was Putin I’d demand all those countries disarm to provide a buffer zone - security to be guaranteed by Russia.
Mineral rights in Ukraine to be exclusively shared between the US and Russia. Why not? It’s what I’d demand along with compensation from Ukraine and Zelenski put on trial.
America has already given territory away and told Europe Nato in terms of its principles of collective defence is dead. | | | |
| Ukraine on 01:44 - Feb 13 with 1670 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Ukraine on 19:32 - Feb 12 by Churchman |
It really didn’t. Rearmament in the U.K. actually slowed after Munich. Politicians voted against it including most of the Labour Party with the exception of Attlee and a few enlightened people. Chamberlain loathed Hitler but thought the agreement would do the job. He hung like grim death to it. He duped himself supported by appeasers like Halifax who were horrified by the prospect of war.
So who saved Britain? Churchill, inventors of radar, the designers of Hurricane and Spitfire (Camm and Mitchell), Chadwick and some others who saw the future and knew Churchill was right. Even in 38 they were minorities in a sea of appeasement and head burial. In moribund France the stench of fear was even greater. Sniff the air. That stench is there now.
A lot of the German motorised equipment used to invade Poland and France was produced by the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia. The Germans armed themselves far faster and to greater extent than Britain and France in that period. Had Czechoslovakia been allowed to defend themselves, they’d have lost but denuded Germany to such an extent that WW2 in full May never have happened. Even the men in denial would have had to respond.
But they failed. Just as the EU and U.K. will fail now. Russia wins, America wins, but the Ukrainian people who’ve fought so bravely will truly pay with their country and for some their lives. |
I find it strange that you are so strong on the history but lack a grasp of the reality of the relative military strengths of Russia and non-USA NATO right now. Russia is spent, in terms of conventional military strength.
You say that Czechoslovakia fighting back would have denuded Hitler, but fail to see that Ukraine fighting back has completely denuded Russia.
They have so few tanks and APCs left that their troops have made armed assaults in Golf Buggies and Saloon Cars.
The Russian SAM batteries and air defences were considered world leading prior to the Ukraine War, but Ukraine has found ways around and through them. Whilst Ukraine isn't hitting Russian industry at will, there are significant strikes every week against oil processing plants, some deep within Russia.
Russia was assumed to have air supremacy, but hasn't managed to overcome Ukrainian air defences, and so doesn't have dominance over the skies of Ukraine.
The Black Sea fleet has been defeated by a Navy with no ships! Utterly humiliated.
Ukraine has held lines in spite of being beholden to substantial delays in deliveries of promised ammunition, such that they have been out-shelled 10 to 1 at times in some sectors of the front.
If the whole of non-US NATO (which would include Canada, which has a large Ukrainian population) were taken on by what is left of Putin's armed forces then there would only be one winner in a conventional war*. Putin would lose Kaliningrad very quickly, and with it the Baltic fleet.
Putin can't achieve his goal of restoring the Greater Russian empire, and any deal now short of taking the whole of Ukraine admits that. It will be a deal he takes because he has to.
*Of course, if things went Nuclear then everybody would lose. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Ukraine on 06:04 - Feb 13 with 1622 views | brogansnose |
| Ukraine on 18:31 - Feb 12 by Steve_M |
And then then the rest of Ukraine, and then Estonia, Liuthuania and Latvia.
Hesgeth has basically said NATO is dead and Tulsi Gabbard has been confirmed Director of National Intelligence (sic).
It's a very good day for Putin, rather less good for Ukraine or Europe or probably the US either. [Post edited 12 Feb 18:34]
|
Add Moldova to that list, the easiest one to grab out of the lot. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 07:36 - Feb 13 with 1571 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Ukraine on 01:44 - Feb 13 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I find it strange that you are so strong on the history but lack a grasp of the reality of the relative military strengths of Russia and non-USA NATO right now. Russia is spent, in terms of conventional military strength.
You say that Czechoslovakia fighting back would have denuded Hitler, but fail to see that Ukraine fighting back has completely denuded Russia.
They have so few tanks and APCs left that their troops have made armed assaults in Golf Buggies and Saloon Cars.
The Russian SAM batteries and air defences were considered world leading prior to the Ukraine War, but Ukraine has found ways around and through them. Whilst Ukraine isn't hitting Russian industry at will, there are significant strikes every week against oil processing plants, some deep within Russia.
Russia was assumed to have air supremacy, but hasn't managed to overcome Ukrainian air defences, and so doesn't have dominance over the skies of Ukraine.
The Black Sea fleet has been defeated by a Navy with no ships! Utterly humiliated.
Ukraine has held lines in spite of being beholden to substantial delays in deliveries of promised ammunition, such that they have been out-shelled 10 to 1 at times in some sectors of the front.
If the whole of non-US NATO (which would include Canada, which has a large Ukrainian population) were taken on by what is left of Putin's armed forces then there would only be one winner in a conventional war*. Putin would lose Kaliningrad very quickly, and with it the Baltic fleet.
Putin can't achieve his goal of restoring the Greater Russian empire, and any deal now short of taking the whole of Ukraine admits that. It will be a deal he takes because he has to.
*Of course, if things went Nuclear then everybody would lose. |
Well said. It’s taken Russia over 2 years, and half a million casualties to take an area smaller than Iceland. The Trump deal as outlined would be a complete capitulation. Let’s not forget the Russian army are so stretched they’ve brought in lightly armed North Korean infantry to bolster their strength. They can’t even defend their own borders hence Ukraine are still occupying a region of Russia (a valuable bargaining chip). It will take Russia years to rearm to any level, and the orange buffoon will be long gone.
Economically things are bad too the Russian economy is overheating through all the central bank stimulus to prop up the Rouble. Skilled western jobs have been replaced by unskilled ones making shells, as they’ve moved to a war economy and Western firms pulled out. They’ve also only got around 2 years of sovereign wealth reserves left, the West even without the US has much deeper pockets and must continue to give Ukraine what they want, as long as they are willing to fight.
Re the 1,000’s dying that is true, but the Ukrainians continue to resist as the alternative is a grim one, kidnappings, extra judicial executions, Russification etc as seen in the occupied territories. It should be up to the defenders to decide when they want to stop fighting, not a failed property tycoon.
The US have little to gain from this - Trump is too thick to se the bigger picture- emboldened enemies of the West, US and western assets in Ukraine reappropriated by Russia, and reduced influence in Europe all to save a (comparatively) few dollars on NATO spending. Contrastingly the rearmament of Poland has seen them achieve phenomenal economic growth. | | | |
| Ukraine on 09:07 - Feb 13 with 1471 views | bluejacko |
| Ukraine on 07:36 - Feb 13 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Well said. It’s taken Russia over 2 years, and half a million casualties to take an area smaller than Iceland. The Trump deal as outlined would be a complete capitulation. Let’s not forget the Russian army are so stretched they’ve brought in lightly armed North Korean infantry to bolster their strength. They can’t even defend their own borders hence Ukraine are still occupying a region of Russia (a valuable bargaining chip). It will take Russia years to rearm to any level, and the orange buffoon will be long gone.
Economically things are bad too the Russian economy is overheating through all the central bank stimulus to prop up the Rouble. Skilled western jobs have been replaced by unskilled ones making shells, as they’ve moved to a war economy and Western firms pulled out. They’ve also only got around 2 years of sovereign wealth reserves left, the West even without the US has much deeper pockets and must continue to give Ukraine what they want, as long as they are willing to fight.
Re the 1,000’s dying that is true, but the Ukrainians continue to resist as the alternative is a grim one, kidnappings, extra judicial executions, Russification etc as seen in the occupied territories. It should be up to the defenders to decide when they want to stop fighting, not a failed property tycoon.
The US have little to gain from this - Trump is too thick to se the bigger picture- emboldened enemies of the West, US and western assets in Ukraine reappropriated by Russia, and reduced influence in Europe all to save a (comparatively) few dollars on NATO spending. Contrastingly the rearmament of Poland has seen them achieve phenomenal economic growth. |
Well put,the war can stop right now if. Pootin stops offensive operations!If Ukraine has to give up land,which is likely the least that should happen is the people in the occupied territories should have the chance to relocate to the rest of Ukraine if the wanted to. | | | |
| Ukraine on 09:36 - Feb 13 with 1416 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 01:44 - Feb 13 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I find it strange that you are so strong on the history but lack a grasp of the reality of the relative military strengths of Russia and non-USA NATO right now. Russia is spent, in terms of conventional military strength.
You say that Czechoslovakia fighting back would have denuded Hitler, but fail to see that Ukraine fighting back has completely denuded Russia.
They have so few tanks and APCs left that their troops have made armed assaults in Golf Buggies and Saloon Cars.
The Russian SAM batteries and air defences were considered world leading prior to the Ukraine War, but Ukraine has found ways around and through them. Whilst Ukraine isn't hitting Russian industry at will, there are significant strikes every week against oil processing plants, some deep within Russia.
Russia was assumed to have air supremacy, but hasn't managed to overcome Ukrainian air defences, and so doesn't have dominance over the skies of Ukraine.
The Black Sea fleet has been defeated by a Navy with no ships! Utterly humiliated.
Ukraine has held lines in spite of being beholden to substantial delays in deliveries of promised ammunition, such that they have been out-shelled 10 to 1 at times in some sectors of the front.
If the whole of non-US NATO (which would include Canada, which has a large Ukrainian population) were taken on by what is left of Putin's armed forces then there would only be one winner in a conventional war*. Putin would lose Kaliningrad very quickly, and with it the Baltic fleet.
Putin can't achieve his goal of restoring the Greater Russian empire, and any deal now short of taking the whole of Ukraine admits that. It will be a deal he takes because he has to.
*Of course, if things went Nuclear then everybody would lose. |
NATO is America. Without the US, it doesn’t exist.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
The state of Russian military is summarised rather neatly here:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12606
Russia has the second most powerful military in the world and a wartime economy to back it along with allies whose interests are not ours. Army strength is heading towards Putin’s demanded 1.5m with 2m in reserve. That’s more than 50 divisions. The U.K. could in theory field 1 Division, the Germans 2. France’s army is larger, but all of this does not necessarily equate to military capability or political will.
In terms of political will, the attached describes how Poland is awake to the threat posed against it and is modernising thanks to a vibrant economy and need to replace what it passed to Ukraine. Great people, the Poles, who have been chucked under the bus twice in 100 years.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/dispatch-from-warsaw-polan
I listened to Labours defence minister last night and all I heard was nothing. He had nothing to say and when it comes to it, who is deciding Europes future security wise? Putin and Trump. Ukraine won’t be in the room bar a bit of PR and the European NATO countries won’t be in the building.
That is why I believe there is a redrawing of the world underway. Yes, the European economies and population size means there is strength there potentially, but only of there’s a collective will to act in concert with each other without the US going forwards - as Britain and France did so remarkably in WW1.
This is just my take on the situation. Hopefully my gloomy, pessimistic view driven by my loathing of dictators, the far right and the Trumps of this world will be proved utterly wrong, as I so often am. | | | |
| Ukraine on 12:00 - Feb 13 with 1259 views | Reus30 |
I don't have anything meaningful to contribute because I am just astounded.
Ok so world leaders are going to stand by and let this happen?
And just like society in general, toothless a holes.
The people of Ukraine have stood and fought for what? I know all wars are pointless but are we basically saying if we are any sort of trouble, we should just accept our fate and behind over.
Someone just come over and inject me in the head. |  | | |
| Ukraine on 12:55 - Feb 13 with 1214 views | keighleyblue |
| Ukraine on 01:44 - Feb 13 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I find it strange that you are so strong on the history but lack a grasp of the reality of the relative military strengths of Russia and non-USA NATO right now. Russia is spent, in terms of conventional military strength.
You say that Czechoslovakia fighting back would have denuded Hitler, but fail to see that Ukraine fighting back has completely denuded Russia.
They have so few tanks and APCs left that their troops have made armed assaults in Golf Buggies and Saloon Cars.
The Russian SAM batteries and air defences were considered world leading prior to the Ukraine War, but Ukraine has found ways around and through them. Whilst Ukraine isn't hitting Russian industry at will, there are significant strikes every week against oil processing plants, some deep within Russia.
Russia was assumed to have air supremacy, but hasn't managed to overcome Ukrainian air defences, and so doesn't have dominance over the skies of Ukraine.
The Black Sea fleet has been defeated by a Navy with no ships! Utterly humiliated.
Ukraine has held lines in spite of being beholden to substantial delays in deliveries of promised ammunition, such that they have been out-shelled 10 to 1 at times in some sectors of the front.
If the whole of non-US NATO (which would include Canada, which has a large Ukrainian population) were taken on by what is left of Putin's armed forces then there would only be one winner in a conventional war*. Putin would lose Kaliningrad very quickly, and with it the Baltic fleet.
Putin can't achieve his goal of restoring the Greater Russian empire, and any deal now short of taking the whole of Ukraine admits that. It will be a deal he takes because he has to.
*Of course, if things went Nuclear then everybody would lose. |
Right. So Russia being a core member of the BRICS axis doesn't trouble you - before you add in DPRK - ? |  | | |
| Ukraine on 13:53 - Feb 13 with 1132 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 22:14 - Feb 12 by mellowblue |
The stuka evolved into a fine battlefield support bomber and tank buster, as you say as a conventional bomber was completely obsolete. the Swordfish though slow was effective and very hard to shoot down, could take a lot of damage. Re the Hood it was the face of the RN between the wars for soft diplomacy. There is debate as to how she was sunk, whether it was a gun battery exploding or it's own torpedoes being hit etc, whether she was underarmoured etc. She was certainly designed with speed in mind and was felt to be one of the few that could outspeed the the Bismarck. As you say, beautiful lines.
Our detail might differ, I have the memory of a sieve, ha ha, but we largely agree on things. |
The Ju87 concept was that targeted munitions in small quantities planted on a target were better than conventional bombers dropping more bombs using inaccurate conventional bombsight. Its design was so clever it could be adapted for tank busting, ship attack and goodness knows what else. It was cheap to produce and flew well too.
The noise it made was with a device called a ‘Jericho Trumpet’ attached to an undercarriage leg. It made such a din that it drove the crews nuts so most were removed following the Poland attack. The aeroplane was loud enough on its own!
The Fairey Swordfish was actually quite modern in some ways and perfectly designed to drop a torpedo at the right speed. It carried good avionics and handled well. But OMG the bravery of the lads that flew them. No thanks! Of the time, the Nakajima B5N ‘Kate’ was far better (albeit a flying petrol bomb) and obviously the Grumman aircraft coming in were superior. The Barracuda wasn’t (scary aeroplane) and Swordfich outlasted its successor the Albacore.
You are right about HMS Hood’s destruction. Nobody truly knows beyond more or less where the fatal shell(s) hit. As a design it was actually heavy and sat low in the water which made it look even better! A proper rebuild would have meant taking the ship apart, as happened with HMS Warspite rebuild, and there was neither time or money.
HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser so never designed to go against a battleship like Bismarck. Nor was it ever going to be as well protected. Admiral Holland knew this so pointed Hood at Bismarck to reduce the target to width. German gunnery was just too good.
Still, Hood remains one of the most beautiful ships ever for me, along with HMS Tiger. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (WW2 ones) looked good too. | | | |
| Ukraine on 14:05 - Feb 13 with 1113 views | NewcyBlue |
| Ukraine on 13:53 - Feb 13 by Churchman |
The Ju87 concept was that targeted munitions in small quantities planted on a target were better than conventional bombers dropping more bombs using inaccurate conventional bombsight. Its design was so clever it could be adapted for tank busting, ship attack and goodness knows what else. It was cheap to produce and flew well too.
The noise it made was with a device called a ‘Jericho Trumpet’ attached to an undercarriage leg. It made such a din that it drove the crews nuts so most were removed following the Poland attack. The aeroplane was loud enough on its own!
The Fairey Swordfish was actually quite modern in some ways and perfectly designed to drop a torpedo at the right speed. It carried good avionics and handled well. But OMG the bravery of the lads that flew them. No thanks! Of the time, the Nakajima B5N ‘Kate’ was far better (albeit a flying petrol bomb) and obviously the Grumman aircraft coming in were superior. The Barracuda wasn’t (scary aeroplane) and Swordfich outlasted its successor the Albacore.
You are right about HMS Hood’s destruction. Nobody truly knows beyond more or less where the fatal shell(s) hit. As a design it was actually heavy and sat low in the water which made it look even better! A proper rebuild would have meant taking the ship apart, as happened with HMS Warspite rebuild, and there was neither time or money.
HMS Hood was a Battlecruiser so never designed to go against a battleship like Bismarck. Nor was it ever going to be as well protected. Admiral Holland knew this so pointed Hood at Bismarck to reduce the target to width. German gunnery was just too good.
Still, Hood remains one of the most beautiful ships ever for me, along with HMS Tiger. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (WW2 ones) looked good too. |
I don’t really have anything to add, I have really enjoyed reading your posts though.
Thanks, it’s been really interesting. |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 16:13 - Feb 13 with 1005 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 14:05 - Feb 13 by NewcyBlue |
I don’t really have anything to add, I have really enjoyed reading your posts though.
Thanks, it’s been really interesting. |
Thank you Newcy | | | |
| Ukraine on 19:12 - Feb 13 with 930 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Ukraine on 18:18 - Feb 12 by Trequartista |
It's probably the least worst feasible option. |
I don't think that's a good take at all. Putin has been in a really uncomfortable situation for a while now. He's desperate for an out as much as Ukraine really and this is Christmas come early for him!!
There is an opportunity for Trump to genuinely get this resolved to a much better outcome than looks to be happening. Certainly Crimea would need to be conceded and probably some other pockets for Putin to save face but this is going to be Russia getting there way. Awful | |
| |
| Ukraine on 22:02 - Feb 13 with 845 views | Swansea_Blue |
Now Zelenskyy will be allowed to be involved, apparently. The man baby makes it up as he goes along. Best ignore what he says and only worry about what he does (a lesson I’m trying my best to learn). |  |
| |
| Ukraine on 23:28 - Feb 13 with 791 views | positivity |
| Ukraine on 22:02 - Feb 13 by Swansea_Blue |
Now Zelenskyy will be allowed to be involved, apparently. The man baby makes it up as he goes along. Best ignore what he says and only worry about what he does (a lesson I’m trying my best to learn). |
the person who comes in and has to clear up the mess after he makes his mad remarks really has to earn their money... [Post edited 13 Feb 23:30]
| |
| |
| Ukraine on 00:16 - Feb 14 with 756 views | Churchman |
| Ukraine on 19:12 - Feb 13 by Nutkins_Return |
I don't think that's a good take at all. Putin has been in a really uncomfortable situation for a while now. He's desperate for an out as much as Ukraine really and this is Christmas come early for him!!
There is an opportunity for Trump to genuinely get this resolved to a much better outcome than looks to be happening. Certainly Crimea would need to be conceded and probably some other pockets for Putin to save face but this is going to be Russia getting there way. Awful |
Why does Crimea have to be conceded? Russia broke their guarantees to steal it now America says ‘that’s just fine along with anything else you want’. It’s unacceptable and we all know what happens next.
In terms of negotiation there hasn’t been any and nor will there be. Trump has finished by giving the tyrant what he wants. It’s no different to Chamberlain staying at home in 1938 and telling Hitler have what you like.
It’s a nonsense. But it’s a new world order nonsense of might is right. At what point do you object or resist? Why should Russia not take the Balkans, Baltics, Poland and historic lands of Sweden and Finland? Give me a reason. In return, what’s to stop Greenland, Gaza, Panama and Canada being part of the new American empire, as long as China and Russia agree.
Right and wrong? In the bin. Just grab your real estate. [Post edited 14 Feb 0:17]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
