Putin & Russia

[johnola]

He should ask the local Ukrainian farmers. They have loads of tanks.

Yeah lol, cannot get enough of that - it’s the only thing I am not desensitised to or just plain upset by.

 

[johnola]

It's war. The goal now should be to end the war reduce the violence and get people to safety. Treaty or not, can always be rediscussed.

Cede territory even, but come back hard on more sanctions, tarrif and non tariff barriers on Russian everything.

The US feeds their war machineries. Always happy to start a war. They gain the most our of this.

Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk

You know you can follow Zelensky on twitter. Why not tell him your plan yourself.

I can do it for you if you like.

 

[Rorschach]

It is not tanks they need really but air cover/defense according to almost every 'expert', and Zelensky himself.

This is the bit I am struggling with. Where is the line for NATO? Drones, MANPADS, Stingers, and even helicopters and vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine but more planes are a bridge too far. Really? Why is one weapon of war OK but another not? I know there are a thousand factors at play here but Putin and his genocidal army are not respecting any rules of engagement. I say give them the planes, and anything else they fudging want.

 

[Mikey10]

It is not tanks they need really but air cover/defense according to almost every 'expert', and Zelensky himself.

This is the bit I am struggling with. Where is the line for NATO? Drones, MANPADS, Stingers, and even helicopters and vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine but more planes are a bridge too far. Really? Why is one weapon of war OK but another not? I know there are a thousand factors at play here but Putin and his genocidal army are not respecting any rules of engagement. I say give them the planes, and anything else they fudging want.

I really could not agree more.

By saying we are not prepared to provide air cover, or put boots on the ground, we have signalled to Putin that he can slowly reduce Ukraine to rubble while slaughtering as many Ukrainians as he likes in the process.

It’s a bizarre - and disgusting - policy.

 

[Kandi1977]

It is not tanks they need really but air cover/defense according to almost every 'expert', and Zelensky himself.

This is the bit I am struggling with. Where is the line for NATO? Drones, MANPADS, Stingers, and even helicopters and vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine but more planes are a bridge too far. Really? Why is one weapon of war OK but another not? I know there are a thousand factors at play here but Putin and his genocidal army are not respecting any rules of engagement. I say give them the planes, and anything else they fudging want.

It's not that easy. They need jets that their pilots are trained on, which basically limits it to Mig-29's which some NATO countries have a few of, namely Poland and Germany. BUT, these are fitted with other avionics, commutation systems and all other sort of equipment, that their pilots are not familiar with, and its also a high probability that several systems are not compatible with what the Ukraine has. It's not like driving a car. It's a bit more complicated.

Watch this for a show down of the Mig-29 and the roosterpit. Jump to around 8m30s for a tour of the c ockpit

 

[Rorschach]

It's not that easy. They need jets that their pilots are trained on, which basically limits it to Mig-29's which some NATO countries have a few of, namely Poland and Germany. BUT, these are fitted with other avionics, commutation systems and all other sort of equipment, that their pilots are not familiar with, and its also a high probability that several systems are not compatible with what the Ukraine has. It's not like driving a car. It's a bit more complicated.

Watch this for a show down of the Mig-29 and the roosterpit.

Yep, I understand that. They have Mig 29s from Poland I think in Ramstein but won't fly them in. I'm sure it is not as simple as just swapping in a new pilot but the reason they will not do this is a political one rather than a technical one, at least from press reporting.

 

[johnola]

It is not tanks they need really but air cover/defense according to almost every 'expert', and Zelensky himself.

This is the bit I am struggling with. Where is the line for NATO? Drones, MANPADS, Stingers, and even helicopters and vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine but more planes are a bridge too far. Really? Why is one weapon of war OK but another not? I know there are a thousand factors at play here but Putin and his genocidal army are not respecting any rules of engagement. I say give them the planes, and anything else they fudging want.

Strategic nuclear bombs?

 

[Rorschach]

Strategic nuclear bombs?

Give Ukraine battlefield nukes? No.
No for many reasons including that they would be nuking their own country.

 

[johnola]

Give Ukraine battlefield nukes? No.
No for many reasons including they would be nuking their own country.

No not the tactical tiddlers, the strategic ones are the MAD City bursting b******s.

Had Ukraine held onto these in the 1990’s we would not be in this mess.

 

[SteveAWOL]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506988213637890048

 

[SpurMeUp]

It is not tanks they need really but air cover/defense according to almost every 'expert', and Zelensky himself.

This is the bit I am struggling with. Where is the line for NATO? Drones, MANPADS, Stingers, and even helicopters and vehicles have been supplied to Ukraine but more planes are a bridge too far. Really? Why is one weapon of war OK but another not? I know there are a thousand factors at play here but Putin and his genocidal army are not respecting any rules of engagement. I say give them the planes, and anything else they fudging want.

Escalate war. Cause more human deaths. Isn't peace and less destruction the aim? Didn't you learn anything from Syria, Afghanistan etc?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I really could not agree more.

By saying we are not prepared to provide air cover, or put boots on the ground, we have signalled to Putin that he can slowly reduce Ukraine to rubble while slaughtering as many Ukrainians as he likes in the process.

It’s a bizarre - and disgusting - policy.

I would guess that you haven't looked in much depth into the needless horrors and suffering of the Syrian war? In all the recent western funded wars, take a look at the outcomes - what was achieved by arming and destroying nations? Were Iraq or Afghanistan better off because of our intervention? Did anyone in Syria benefit from the millions of dollars worth of weapons we unleashed? Did it make a difference or just cause more suffering?

What has been the benefit of fueling the Yemini war, apart from keeping oil supply routes to the west secure? How many extra people have died as a result of the west giving arms and intelligence to the Saudis?

All of these interventions - that have resulted in greater destruction and hundreds of thousands of extra people dead - are caused by people sitting far away, trying to do the 'right' thing.

 

[DTA]

I would guess that you haven't looked in much depth into the needless horrors and suffering of the Syrian war? In all the recent western funded wars, take a look at the outcomes - what was achieved by arming and destroying nations? Were Iraq or Afghanistan better off because of our intervention? Did anyone in Syria benefit from the millions of dollars worth of weapons we unleashed? Did it make a difference or just cause more suffering?

What has been the benefit of fueling the Yemini war, apart from keeping oil supply routes to the west secure? How many extra people have died as a result of the west giving arms and intelligence to the Saudis?

All of these interventions - that have resulted in greater destruction and hundreds of thousands of extra people dead - are caused by people sitting far away, trying to do the 'right' thing.

your comparisons are all wrong.

taking Syria aside. All the examples you have are of the west actually doing the invading… under the guise of war or terror. Most of those were brick shows and Tony Blair and many others in the west should be brought forward as war criminals and see prison at the least.

none of that means that the west shouldn’t help a sovereign nation that is being invaded by another sovereign nation, especially as that nation gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of protection… that alone brings shame that we ain’t doing more… what is our word worth?

 

[Rorschach]

Escalate war. Cause more human deaths. Isn't peace and less destruction the aim? Didn't you learn anything from Syria, Afghanistan etc?

We had this debate a few pages back and needless to say, I wish for peace more than anything, but we disagree on the quickest way to achieve it. IMO the fastest way to stop the suffering in this war and the next (there will be a next), is to defeat Russia on the battlefield here and now. The lesson to be learned is appeasement emboldens Putin to be bolder the next time.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill these last few weeks and their response is to level Ukraine's cities with artillery and bombs indiscriminately killing every man woman and child in them. Stopping this barbarism via airpower is not really escalation, it is quite the opposite really. This is the lesson to be learned from Syria.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill these last few weeks and their response is to level Ukraine's cities with artillery and bombs indiscriminately killing every man woman and child in them. Stopping this barbarism via airpower is not really escalation, it is quite the opposite really. This is the lesson to be learned from Syria.

You can't see the irony? Escalating and fueling war causes more deaths and destruction. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Thought experiment: if your life was on the line, would you choose wrongful invasion but you live, or years of war, destruction and you lose your life?

 

[SpurMeUp]

your comparisons are all wrong.

taking Syria aside. All the examples you have are of the west actually doing the invading… under the guise of war or terror. Most of those were brick shows and Tony Blair and many others in the west should be brought forward as war criminals and see prison at the least.

none of that means that the west shouldn’t help a sovereign nation that is being invaded by another sovereign nation, especially as that nation gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of protection… that alone brings shame that we ain’t doing more… what is our word worth?

Not really no. Afghanistan was first destabilised by the US funding the Mujahideen to fight...the Russians. All of these examples were brick shows, which weren't? So what you are saying is in these cases mention where we fueled war - either directly or indirectly - the outcome was "a brick show", yet we should now pursue this route, rather than try and de-escalate?

 

[metalgear]

We had this debate a few pages back and needless to say, I wish for peace more than anything, but we disagree on the quickest way to achieve it. IMO the fastest way to stop the suffering in this war and the next (there will be a next), is to defeat Russia on the battlefield here and now. The lesson to be learned is appeasement emboldens Putin to be bolder the next time.

Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill these last few weeks and their response is to level Ukraine's cities with artillery and bombs indiscriminately killing every man woman and child in them. Stopping this barbarism via airpower is not really escalation, it is quite the opposite really. This is the lesson to be learned from Syria.

Zelensky didn't sort out evacuation plans. Was he so naive to think that Russia would not attack given the signs. Or did he deliberately leave the Ukrainians in their homes to make it difficult for Russia to attack.

Whatever the case, its too late to get the people out now, so war on the battlefield will result in lots of innocent lives lost.

I would agree that defeating Russia on the battlefield would be the best outcome if were mostly soldiers fighting each other.




Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Zelensky didn't sort out evacuation plans. Was he so naive to think that Russia would not attack given the signs. Or did he deliberately leave the Ukrainians in their homes to make it difficult for Russia to attack.

Whatever the case, its too late to get the people out now, so war on the battlefield will result in lots of innocent lives lost.

I would agree that defeating Russia on the battlefield would be the best outcome if were mostly soldiers fighting each other.




Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk

Mate, I think your looking at it from the completely wrong angle. It seems like you think Ukraine/Zelensky should just let Russia take over their country and if they don’t then any blood is on the Ukrainians hands?

This isn’t an internal conflict in a rebel region of Russia that they are just taking back, they are invading another sovereign nation.

If the UK went to invade France, would you blame Macron for not evacuating his people and not surrendering to save lives, or would you blame Boris and the UK?

 

[metalgear]

Mate, I think your looking at it from the completely wrong angle. It seems like you think Ukraine/Zelensky should just let Russia take over their country and if they don’t then any blood is on the Ukrainians hands?

This isn’t an internal conflict in a rebel region of Russia that they are just taking back, they are invading another sovereign nation.

If the UK went to invade France, would you blame Macron for not evacuating his people and not surrendering to save lives, or would you blame Boris and the UK?

If I were Macron I'd be ready to cede territory and move civilians out but train long range weapons on possible invasion territories so I can inflict as much casualty on the English without facing the enemy.

As a leader I would cede land first not lives. And continue this retrograde warfare for the rest of the war.

The more territory the English occupy the harder it is for them to defend - assuming if I had prepared Nato and the US and will be getting endless supply of armaments of the right type.

Damn if French historians judge me a coward, at least they lived to write my obituary.









Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk

 

[SpurMeUp]

Mate, I think your looking at it from the completely wrong angle. It seems like you think Ukraine/Zelensky should just let Russia take over their country and if they don’t then any blood is on the Ukrainians hands?

This isn’t an internal conflict in a rebel region of Russia that they are just taking back, they are invading another sovereign nation.

If the UK went to invade France, would you blame Macron for not evacuating his people and not surrendering to save lives, or would you blame Boris and the UK?

I agree. But maybe Scotland or Wales vs an English invasion is a better analogy as Ukraine was part of the Russian empire 31 years ago.