War in Ukraine

[Wisbech Eagle]

Another emotional argument.

Ukraine is now minus the land Russia took......far less land than it would have had if the 2022 peace deal was signed that people like yourself supported rejecting.....Now it has countless graveyards full of young men it needed, huge unpayable debts (lots of which I imagine will be written off), half its population left for Europe or Russia and about 20 more percent of its land gone.....Yeah, well played Corny.

No, I don't support Trump plundering Ukraine....Making deals with Russia, sure, where it benefits him.....his entire purpose and motivation is to improve the American economy and he's got two years to do it.

If I start to think about what's best for Ukraine from this point I just get a headache.....that country has been led down the primrose path by people who couldn't sign the cheques they issued.

There was no peace deal in 2022. There were negotiations that failed. Negotiations fail for good reasons. Just as there won’t be a peace deal in 2025 unless Ukraine agrees to it. If it does in these circumstances, because it has been forced to, it will be the triumph of a bully assisted by an appeaser.

One major difference between 2022 and 2025 is that Russia has had 3 years of sanctions and weakening of its military. In 2022 it had none and would hardly have needed to pause for breath before tearing up the agreements and finding another excuse for a “special operation”.

Ukraine has seen a large number, particularly of women and children, seek safe refuge. Not though half:-

Ukraine: Over 6 Million Refugees Spread Across Europe

No fewer than 6.168 million Ukrainian refugees were registered across Europe by the end of July 2024, according to UNHCR

unric.org

Nor has it lost 20% of its land. Nothing is lost until an agreement is reached. It may well do, but even 0.1% is too much. Bullies should never be rewarded.

Making deals with your enemies is a risky business for even the most experienced and astute negotiator of international relationships. Which comprehensively excludes Trump. Unless you get very significant guarantees of integrity you risk destroying existing alliances and making new enemies. What benefits Trump is not what benefits the USA. Real Presidents understand that and set aside personal short term considerations. Jumped up megalomaniacs with big mouths don’t.

Nobody has led Ukraine anywhere. They managed to break the chains which bound them and like some of the other previous Soviet Republics see their future as part of the free world. That’s their decision alone.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Well you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't offer a solution however I'm unconvinced of your knowledge on some of the weapons given your suggestion that the Falklands was a 'foregone conclusion'. I don't wish to patronise but that war was unbelievably lucky for Britain, there are several "VAR decisions" that went against the Argentines, and any of those could've caused us considerable issues, more likely a total loss. Just look up the Battle of San Carlos and that may give you an idea of the massive good fortune we had. (I don't wish to be rude on that btw, maybe you were there I don't know)

I think I said that if we landed troops on the island it was a forgone conclusion....by that I mean most of the troops we sent. Essentially the war was decided by us being able to protect our carriers, which was probable but not certain.

The point being that the Falklands war was always likely to succeed and difficult for Argentina to win.....they had to sink a carrier and we had them well protected.

As for stopping Russia, a no fly zone would've been enough to force Russia's hand, you must've seen what the "bear" was really like, beaten back by Western castoff out of date weapons (plus a few bits of good kit which has been hamstrung in use). There is a lovely story of a big engagement in Syria between Russian forces and an American encampment which is not talked about because the Russians trying to take the US FOB were totally destroyed in a single engagement, all of them. Russia never mentioned it.

Well, Nato have basically sent most of their European equipment and it hasn't done that job so I think you're being a bit optimistic......we all have heard a lot of this type of talk about the Russians, oh they are losing, they are grabbing circuits out of washing machines, fighting with spades. I didn't believe it then and it gives me no pleasure to see I was right.

All of the countries that you talk about were swallowed by the Soviets post WW2, they've every right to exist on their own should they wish to and join NATO because they want to be away from Russia, they are not Russian. Russia not liking the expansion is not something I care about because I'm British and support our side, so stuff Putin. Ukraine has had 300 years of problems with Russia, this isn't new, and they wanted to join us because Putin coming back was inevitable - nobody provoked it, and if the other countries weren't in NATO Putin would do the same to them again. All this peace talk is imaginary, and Ukrainians will carry on regardless. I'm just saddened that for all the things Trump has said that many have been crying out for, this isn't one of them, and it's not a solution.

Well, that's a somewhat separate argument to the point that Putin is unlikely to attack Nato. While I certainly have sympathy with Eastern Europe under its experience with the Soviets (a choice we enabled by siding with Stalin) I also don't think it's our responsibility to risk a WW3 over it just on the chance that Putin could invade.

I really have to make the point that before Bush started interfering in Ukraine in 2008, Russia had made no noises over issues with Ukraine and it took the overthrow of its government until it said no more.....We can't say warnings weren't made.

Thanks for the welcome, I can say that the BBS has declined and villainised anyone with any kind of opinion which isn't the kind the BBC like to hand out, and it's their loss. FWIW the language they use there now for this site is that it is basically extreme right wing and fascist. I've been watching for a month and not seeing that, looks mixed. Trust me many here would be instantly banned.

I miss the anti-Brighton talk though ngl

I agree and think they are missing out. Hol itself use to be majority left of centre I'd say....then there was an event that occurred that tipped the scales to the right. But it's important to say that Hol itself isn't ideologically set...people will attack opinions right or left wing but Hol won't attack your right to make them. It's not like the bbs where there seems to be a requirement on what you can think.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Well, I said to its capital....but right, but you were the one who thought the point was worth responding too.

It highlights the risks and madness of to inch Ukraine away from Russia covertly. The likelihood of a response amid warning upon warning starting from 2008 from Putin when Bush first started involvement in Ukraine.

That’s what you actually posted! Nothing about the capital of Ukraine. Kyiv not being the nearest point.

Nobody tried to inch Ukraine away! They want to come. That some support might have been under the radar is hardly unusual. Not everything needs to be spread all over the newspapers when an aggressive predator is lurking.

 

[Stirlingsays]

View attachment 672

That’s what you actually posted! Nothing about the capital of Ukraine. Kyiv not being the nearest point.

I think you might just be losing your marbles mate.

Nobody tried to inch Ukraine away! They want to come. That some support might have been under the radar is hardly unusual. Not everything needs to be spread all over the newspapers when an aggressive predator is lurking.

Yep, the marbles are definitely lost.

 

[Spindle]

Trumps latest on Truth Social. Jesus Christ

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United...

truthsocial.com

 

[Stirlingsays]

Trumps latest on Truth Social. Jesus Christ

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United...

truthsocial.com

😆

I can't wait for the Trump movie.

 

[DanH]

😆

I can't wait for the Trump movie.

Do you agree with what he’s said?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Do you agree with what he’s said?

It's mostly true, some of it is debatable.

 

[DanH]

It's mostly true, some of it is debatable.

Which bits are true?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Which bits are true?

Ukraine couldn't win the war.....Which was true militarily and as I stated from the start without full Nato boots on the ground winning that way was never on the cards....and boots on the ground was never going to happen during the war.

US have spent hundreds of billions of dollars.
Bad deal for the US....for example no audit of most of that money.
Russia not a necessary threat to US.
Ukraine has suspended elections, banned opposition to the war in all media and political parties and even banned churches so after Zelensky's election mandate ended I think the term dictator can be used.....though I view it as undiplomatic.

That would be what I'd agree with from the message.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I think you might just be losing your marbles mate.



Yep, the marbles are definitely lost.

You must have done a very long time ago.

What I posted is true. What you did isn’t.

That you cannot see why isn’t my fault.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You must have done a very long time ago.

What I posted is true. What you did isn’t.

That you cannot see why isn’t my fault.

Dude, of course it's your fault.

Just like the gas appliances.

Your opinions are a worst disaster than the Titanic.

 

[georgenorman]

It is evocative of 1938-39: The Munich Agreement and the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Ukraine couldn't win the war.....Which was true militarily and as I stated from the start without full Nato boots on the ground winning that way was never on the cards....and boots on the ground was never going to happen during the war.

US have spent hundreds of billions of dollars.
Bad deal for the US....for example no audit of most of that money.
Russia not a necessary threat to US.
Ukraine has suspended elections, banned opposition to the war in all media and political parties and even banned churches so after Zelensky's election mandate ended I think the term dictator can be used.....though I view it as undiplomatic.

That would be what I'd agree with from the message.

Wars aren’t always won militarily. The Cold War wasn’t. Squeezing Russia economically whilst supplying superior weaponry to Ukraine can very well produce a better outcome than boots on the ground. Which was never an option for NATO.

Wars aren’t economic exercises which are determined on balance sheets. Long term strategic imperatives play much bigger roles.

Ukraine is under martial law, has 20% of its territory occupied and 1/3rd of its people sheltering elsewhere. You don’t hold elections in such circumstances. You do control information. It will last just as long as their constitution requires it to last.

You are parroting Trump, who is parroting Putin. Neither worthy role models but parrots tend not to think do they?

 

[Stirlingsays]

It is evocative of 1938-39: The Munich Agreement and the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

What's your prediction of what's going to happen then?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Dude, of course it's your fault.

Just like the gas appliances.

Your opinions are a worst disaster than the Titanic.

And you think I am losing my marbles!

None of the above makes any sense. It has the wisdom of a Trump post on Truth Social. He is showing signs of dementia so has an excuse.

 

[DanH]

Ukraine couldn't win the war.....Which was true militarily and as I stated from the start without full Nato boots on the ground winning that way was never on the cards....and boots on the ground was never going to happen during the war.

US have spent hundreds of billions of dollars.
Bad deal for the US....for example no audit of most of that money.
Russia not a necessary threat to US.
Ukraine has suspended elections, banned opposition to the war in all media and political parties and even banned churches so after Zelensky's election mandate ended I think the term dictator can be used.....though I view it as undiplomatic.

That would be what I'd agree with from the message.

And then you have Andrew Neil, quite to the right on most issues, and an extremely robust journalist, saying this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892256612183626060

 

[Stirlingsays]

Wars aren’t always won militarily. The Cold War wasn’t. Squeezing Russia economically whilst supplying superior weaponry to Ukraine can very well produce a better outcome than boots on the ground. Which was never an option for NATO.

It's right that there were only two routes to victory. One was economic and the second was an internal break up in Russia.

Both were unlikely and it was a very bad assessment to go down those routes.

For people who knew Russia's motivation for the war they know that they considered it existential and thus the Russian economy would have had to collapse for that to happen....well considering that Russia is a massive food and gas hub, that was unlike to happen.....all that happened was to push them to China, who would back them for geostrategic reasons.

So in short a disastrous policy.

As for the policy of relying on a break up of Russia with its high nationalistic sentiment and massive number of nuclear weapons.....I consider that as even crazier.

Wars aren’t economic exercises which are determined on balance sheets. Long term strategic imperatives play much bigger roles.

Economies, demographics and will decide wars....the last two being the most important. Any student of history could tell you that.

Ukraine is under martial law, has 20% of its territory occupied and 1/3rd of its people sheltering elsewhere. You don’t hold elections in such circumstances. You do control information. It will last just as long as their constitution requires it to last.

You are parroting Trump, who is parroting Putin. Neither worthy role models but parrots tend not to think do they?

I get bored having to state the same answers to your obviously bad memory. Ok, elections were held in Iraqi, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Russia while wars were underway. So your analysis here is faulty as usual....It may well pan out that we see an election in Ukraine itself before this war ends as well.

My parrot was correct, your parrot wasn't.

 

[Stirlingsays]

And then you have Andrew Neil, quite to the right on most issues, and an extremely robust journalist, saying this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892256612183626060

Only the left would view 'Andrew Neil' as quite to the right.

I think you mean compared to you Dan.

Neil is a social liberal and a centralist.....he even thinks GBNews is too right wing.

 

[georgenorman]

What's your prediction of what's going to happen then?

The US will withdraw all support for Ukraine, throwing them under the bus. They might fight on alone but will be defeated and lose even more land. If they agree to some so called deal, Putin will consolidate and resume hostilities in a year or two. Europe and the UK will wring their hands but do nothing of substance. China will probably move against Taiwan as Trump is making it obvious that he is going to follow an isolationist policy. Israel's enemies will also be energised but Israel are more than capable of dealing with them alone.