War in Ukraine

[Spindle]

Now China have joined the party supporting USA, looks like its game up for Zelensky.
Wonder if they will inspect the accounts before his departure?
As for Starmer, would Ukraine come here to be 'peacekeeper' if Scotland and England got into conflict?
Crawl back onto your island 2tier and try and avoid bankruptcy at home.
Leave Ukraine to the grown ups.

Thanks for this.

 

[Spindle]

View attachment 677
View attachment 678

Sources like these need ignoring. It's not hard to find things like approval ratings.

POLITICO Poll of Polls — British polls, trends and election news for the United Kingdom and Scotland

All polls, trends and election news for the the United Kingdom, Scotland and London — Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party, SNP, Greens, Scottish independence referendum and Scotland elect…

www.politico.eu

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the USA on approval ratings and the likes. I was talking to a friend last night who's from Colorado, he voted Trump and is delighted with the domestic policies, but admitted that this befriending of Russia sticks in the craw. Just like I mentioned earlier, US citizens aren't mug enough to think that Putin is an ally and Europe/NATO is not.

 

[eaglesdare]

Perhaps you would like to share the details of the "better deal on the table a few years back"? What was it that Zelensky did not take that has apparently come back to haunt him given your analysis?

I believe it has already been shared.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Now China have joined the party supporting USA, looks like its game up for Zelensky.
Wonder if they will inspect the accounts before his departure?
As for Starmer, would Ukraine come here to be 'peacekeeper' if Scotland and England got into conflict?
Crawl back onto your island 2tier and try and avoid bankruptcy at home.
Leave Ukraine to the grown ups.

That is not actually true, is it?

They have supported the idea of peace talks, but want everyone involved. Especially Ukraine.

They are playing a diplomatic game with Trump. Something they are much better at than him. Flattering his ego to try to avoid a trade war.

Meanwhile there is a flurry of diplomatic activity between China and Europe. Quiet contacts establishing positions.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I believe it has already been shared.

It hasn’t. It’s been asserted by our resident font of all knowledge.

If it exists I am sure you can find it and share the link.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Sources like these need ignoring. It's not hard to find things like approval ratings.

POLITICO Poll of Polls — British polls, trends and election news for the United Kingdom and Scotland

All polls, trends and election news for the the United Kingdom, Scotland and London — Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party, SNP, Greens, Scottish independence referendum and Scotland elect…

www.politico.eu

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the USA on approval ratings and the likes. I was talking to a friend last night who's from Colorado, he voted Trump and is delighted with the domestic policies, but admitted that this befriending of Russia sticks in the craw. Just like I mentioned earlier, US citizens aren't mug enough to think that Putin is an ally and Europe/NATO is not.

one person's opinion is hardly a reliable gauge of the National trend - if we're going to criticise polls.

 

[Spindle]

I don't know why, but i have this image of Boris Johnson coming back from an early meeting with Zelensky, with Boris coming off the plane with thumbs in the air. "Yes, we've given Ukraine assurances"
It transpired Boris had also been gifted a crate of Ukrainian vodka.
For me, it just illustrated very well how today's Elites don't give a s*** about anything, except themselves. The vodka went, along with his assurances.

The slight difference about Trump (compared to Boris) is that he is very up front about his intentions. Trump is negotiating peace (because the USA has the firepower), with a share of the spoils that are in Ukraine.
Europe offers no threat to Russia

Russia is on a total war footing. Europe is not. If Europe were then I'm sorry, but Europe would. Although NATO weapons are very much shared and the bulk are American, there is still a great deal of top quality arms out of Europe. And the USA is a seller of arms, that very much helps it all to run, they need that business too. The best weapons that the USA has handed over to Ukraine are Javelins, Excaliber rounds, ATACMS (which was until recently very restricted in use), some patriot systems and intelligence. The Viper is an export weapon and European forces are selling them off anyway to upgrade to 4.5 and 5th gen machines, AIM-120C is a stockpiled weapon, AIM-9L is old.

If Europe actually put in force because they had to then the kit would own the Russians, especially now. Where are the "T-90 Armada" tanks and the "Su-57 Felon Stealth (not really) warbirds"? Nope, they are fielding T-62s and dropping modified glide FABs from well behind the front using Su-34s. Meteor and Typhoons with ECRS would end that, not even involving F35. I think it would then be a case of mobilisation and industrialisation if it came to it.

 

[Spindle]

one person's opinion is hardly a reliable gauge of the National trend - if we're going to criticise polls.

Exactly. Hence we shouldn't listen to some bird with an agenda who wrote a book

 

[Stirlingsays]

That extract was but one part. There are many other analyses of his intentions, some of which I provided links to. You can argue that he doesn’t want to go back to the Soviet era but not that he doesn’t want to expand the borders of Russia to include all the territories it once claimed as it’s own. The extract were his own words justifying that.

I don’t suppose the now independent states that used to be regarded by Russia as part of its Empire have any more desire to be reunited under any banner, whether called the Soviet Union or not.

The problem with the claim you make....which is problematic because it's increasingly common in our media....is that not only are you putting words in his mouth but you are....I would say....deliberately ignoring all the reasons why Putin attacking Nato isn't realistic.

Putin became Russia's leader in the late 90s and started out pro western. The Bush policy of expanding eastwards started this mess and turned Putin's attitude rather than some latent desire to be Stalin. Indeed, Yeltsin (probably the most pro western Russian leader ever) himself was warning about the NATO expansionist policy and the ignoring of Russia's concern for Serbia. I regard the selective ignoring of inconvenient facts about our policy choices as non objective....and deliberately so.

Sure, in theory there could be a threat to former Soviet Union countries that didn't join Nato, but the very controversial polity of expanding NATO eastwards meant there are only two I think.

• Belarus
• Moldova

Both of these countries contain significant ethnic Russian populations and in the case of Belarus have chosen to tie itself to Russia. Moldova, itself is similar to Ukraine insomuch that the division between its western and eastern facing populations has resulted in an actual break within the country......thankfully a settlement has been found that currently keeps peace but this constant warmongering could see more death and destruction there.

Old men finding reasons to commit young men to wars is a meme in history and lots of the same people who supported the decline of our military and reduction in British power in the world are the same people now who are bellyaching for continuing a cold war with Russia.....A war that is economic nuttery.

We need more sensible voices that operate in Britain's interest, which would be protecting us from the harsh economic times ahead as much as possible.....I'm not seeing that being done.....and we are stuck with incompetency and waffle for years to come.

 

[Stirlingsays]

It’s a terrible analogy.

The war in Europe was over and we were desperate to try to return to normality. It wasn’t just a pause negotiated so an election could be held. Just imagine if Hitler had said we will stop bombing London for a while whilst you choose your leader and, by the way, if you don’t release Oswald Mosely and choose him (or another with similar views) we will start again.

Ukraine is deep into a war and living under martial law. Only when a guaranteed peace has been established could elections to choose a future government be held. They’re too busy dealing with today to worry about the rebuilding. If Ukraine had some involvement in another war on the other side of the world then I don’t think that would stop them holding elections at home, if the local conditions allowed them.

My response was a factual answer and your interpretations of history aren't something I really agree with nor particularly wish to focus on.

Ukraine has taken the path it has and it will also make future choices regarding whether or not it wishes to continue fighting Russia.

My opinion is concerned with how everything effects this country and the problem with people like you Corny is that your past opinions have been shown to considerably worsen our future and I see little deviation with your current ones.

 

[Stirlingsays]

To be fair to Zelensky he's probably done more to deal with corruption than any previous leaders. Russia would still meddle, you know that. And again, what's the point of a deal with Putin? As I said before, this is a man who has breached over 190 deals, agreements, accords and other international arrangements in his 25 years. He simply cannot be trusted.

Well the saintly Zelensky featured prominently in the Panama Papers back before our media started covering for him. I think he recently admitted that he couldn't account for roughly half the funds spent on Ukraine and all the efforts he's made on corruption only seem to have occurred due to American pressure.

Ukraine's battle with Russia is not new, there's 300 years of scrapping, there's no way they are going to lie down and take the big L, I don't know why you seem to indicate that they would tbh.

Eastern Ukraine has been majority ethnically Russian since Soviet times, however whatever Ukraine is left at the conclusion of this war can decide for itself how it wants to relate to Russia.....I supported the voices advising against the primrose path Bush, Nuland, Biden and co spent 5 billion taking it down.

What matters to me is my country, not Ukraine....a country most people were only dimly aware of years ago. However the obsessive globalists amongst us will continue to insist on playing the game of worsening just about every situation they touch.

As for the stuff on the Falklands luck, I think you let that slide, but anyway, we'd never have landed any troops had the Argies had the right fuses in their bombs. They hit every landing ship, Harriers couldn't stop most of the attacks, but many bombs failed to detonate. Those ships were packed with troops and kit.

When I looked for where these unexploded bombs hit none of them hit the carriers, which meant that while we would have had greater casualties if every bomb had gone off (unlikely in every war especially then) Due to the carriers being protected the landing would occur and the end result would be the same.

And Hitler didn't want to fight us. Stalin was broken, he was helped massively by lend lease and the opening of fronts in the west. All this "Russia won it" is bollocks, they even could've capitulated.

Russia killed 4 out of 5 Germans who died in the war, quite a shocking fact that hardly anyone knows about.

It's definitely true that if we hadn't spent so much of our resources protecting the communists that the fascists could have eventually won a pyrrhic victory. We started the war because we wanted to protect the dictatorship in Poland and we ended the war with the Communists controlling it and nearly half a million British dead and quickly no empire and managed decline a generation later......Yeah, my opinion on entering world wars isn't great......like Lord Salisbury I believe in a conservative approach to foreign policy.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Sources like these need ignoring. It's not hard to find things like approval ratings.

POLITICO Poll of Polls — British polls, trends and election news for the United Kingdom and Scotland

All polls, trends and election news for the the United Kingdom, Scotland and London — Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party, SNP, Greens, Scottish independence referendum and Scotland elect…

www.politico.eu

I didn't really post it in reference to the accuracy of a poll rating Starmer or even anything specific to him or Labour.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the USA on approval ratings and the likes. I was talking to a friend last night who's from Colorado, he voted Trump and is delighted with the domestic policies, but admitted that this befriending of Russia sticks in the craw. Just like I mentioned earlier, US citizens aren't mug enough to think that Putin is an ally and Europe/NATO is not.

I don't think Trump is considering Russia as its ally anyway. There is an awful lot of hyperbole made on political positions. Trump just isn't pathologically opposed like the left and.....I have to say it....some people stuck in a cold war mentality.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Sources like these need ignoring. It's not hard to find things like approval ratings.

POLITICO Poll of Polls — British polls, trends and election news for the United Kingdom and Scotland

All polls, trends and election news for the the United Kingdom, Scotland and London — Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Brexit Party, SNP, Greens, Scottish independence referendum and Scotland elect…

www.politico.eu

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the USA on approval ratings and the likes. I was talking to a friend last night who's from Colorado, he voted Trump and is delighted with the domestic policies, but admitted that this befriending of Russia sticks in the craw. Just like I mentioned earlier, US citizens aren't mug enough to think that Putin is an ally and Europe/NATO is not.

That narrative is just a Democrat ploy. Trump is a realist. Sure he wants to be on good terms with Putin, and he knows that this situation will only be resolved if both sides give a little. I'd argue that the world is a safer place with a respectful, cordial relationship between the two most powerful nation's leaders than otherwise.
Unfortunately, Ukraine became the focus of friction between East and West. Both sides want to have influence there. Putin decided to use old fashioned methods. The lives lost are not excusable unless of course you are a ruthless operator. Putin is certainly ruthless and untrustworthy, but we have to deal with him. WW2 comparisons don't really work here. There can be no WW3. That would be the end of everything. That has been the case since the '50s. There can only be de escalation and compromise.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Exactly. Hence we shouldn't listen to some bird with an agenda who wrote a book

It's a bloke.

Yes, he has an agenda...one I mostly agree with....and I might add that we are always being led by people with agendas.

What matters is how the agendas pan out and I only see neo and social liberals continually fecking things up.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I have to say I agree with Zelensky being very very wary of signing away Ukraine's mineral rights.

He should know by now that the US will come to some agreement with Russia on what the lines are before America becomes military involved in terms of troops on the ground and I can't imagine that line involves Ukraine....it'll be strictly related to attacks on Nato.

However, there would obviously be an agreed line over which the Americans will massively supply Ukraine and/or back European troops with air support under the eventual settlement.....Russia won't want that, so essentially what the US/Russia talks will comprise of will be an agreement on what the defacto borders will be of the new Ukraine.

So I'm not exactly sure what Zelensky gets out of signing away mineral rights......Whatever someone thinks of the wisdom of it the Europeans will back in terms of peacekeeping troops and rebuilding infrastructure and defences and Russia are likely to adhere to a Trump agreement.....Well, while there is an administration they trust in the White House.

Whoever is leading Ukraine once an agreement is signed needs to focus upon making it hard for Russia to invade with fortifications again and obvious economic infrastructure.......The less you sign away to those looking to asset strip you the better.

 

[cryrst]

Trump dealing with this is causing lots to meltdown. If putin makes an agreement and then goes against it I doubt trump will turn away. It’s basically last chance saloon for putin no matter what he thinks he can get away with. Trump will not be made a fool of so in some ways putin has to be onboard with whatever is agreed. The USA army under trump will not f*** around if called on. There are probably plans in place for a renage of any deal already.

 

[Spindle]

Well the saintly Zelensky featured prominently in the Panama Papers back before our media started covering for him. I think he recently admitted that he couldn't account for roughly half the funds spent on Ukraine and all the efforts he's made on corruption only seem to have occurred due to American pressure.



Eastern Ukraine has been majority ethnically Russian since Soviet times, however whatever Ukraine is left at the conclusion of this war can decide for itself how it wants to relate to Russia.....I supported the voices advising against the primrose path Bush, Nuland, Biden and co spent 5 billion taking it down.

What matters to me is my country, not Ukraine....a country most people were only dimly aware of years ago. However the obsessive globalists amongst us will continue to insist on playing the game of worsening just about every situation they touch.




When I looked for where these unexploded bombs hit none of them hit the carriers, which meant that while we would have had greater casualties if every bomb had gone off (unlikely in every war especially then) Due to the carriers being protected the landing would occur and the end result would be the same.

View attachment 680



Russia killed 4 out of 5 Germans who died in the war, quite a shocking fact that hardly anyone knows about.

It's definitely true that if we hadn't spent so much of our resources protecting the communists that the fascists could have eventually won a pyrrhic victory. We started the war because we wanted to protect the dictatorship in Poland and we ended the war with the Communists controlling it and nearly half a million British dead and quickly no empire and managed decline a generation later......Yeah, my opinion on entering world wars isn't great......like Lord Salisbury I believe in a conservative approach to foreign policy.

Honestly I'm afraid I'm not going to talk to you on warfare fella, I don't think you know very much at all. You just don't get the significance of Argentina hitting all those ships and nothing happening. Those bombs would've sent those ships to the bottom no problem had the bombs been correctly fused, the whole Task Force would've been done for, war over and the carriers failed to prevent that regardless even if they did manage to get a few sidewinders away at the cost of about 5 Skyhawks. There were a few other key events too that we got lucky on btw.

I get that you are patriotic but in this case it's blinding.

As for WW2 I know far more about that than the Falklands but I'll derail the thread. The view that Russia won it is the most ridiculous myth spouted about, it really doesn't hold water.