Sick Boy
Super Moderator
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?Because NATO doesn’t want war and thought it could do it without. They 100% want to shift the balance, but Russia has shown they’re a million miles from military capability to do so. The Chinese economy is fucked and the last thing they need is a trade war with the west. Their army has basically never fought in anger. The idea of WW3 is the preserve of weird old men with too much interest in military history who believe China and Russia are some great military superpowers.
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
Naive to think that no,there'll always be a member of Eton dreaming of charging down the step?Read that earlier and it’s grim but unfortunately the only way Ukraine will get Russia out is with western support on the ground, which won’t happen.
If there’s no risk of it sparking a wider conflict, surely it makes sense for the USA and its allies to crush Russia and restore Ukraine’s territories.Surely you can see the difference between sending arms/aid and sending in soldiers to be killed?
If there’s no risk of it sparking a wider conflict, surely it makes sense for the USA and its allies to crush Russia and restore Ukraine’s territories.
Better to do it without having any Americans killed though, which is exactly what they were doing until the Republicans shat their pants.
What about the ambassador who was hounded out of it a couple of year's before it all kicked off, don't find that questionable,or see it as Trump aligning with his mate so he can focus his energy on Europe?Better to do it without having any Americans killed though, which is exactly what they were doing until the Republicans shat their pants.
You are really making a nonsense of your own argument here
It was hardly crippling them, the whole thing was just a stalemate, especially as the counter-offensive failed.The US were crippling one of their main adversary's army without losing a man, without having to declare war, just by sending over a load of outdated (to them) kit.
Why would they risk all that by putting boots on the ground?
It was hardly crippling them, the whole thing was just a stalemate, especially as the counter-offensive failed.
And yet the war is still ongoing and Russia has the upper-hand. At this point it is just going to capture more territory and and turn Ukraine into a wasteland.Of course it was. We're over 2 years into a 3 day war in which time they've lost:
Over 300,000 men
Goodness knows how many thousands of tanks
Half of their black sea fleet, including the flagship of that fleet, to a country with no navy
Lost more men taking one small town in 4 months than they did in 10 years of the Soviet afghan war
That is not sustainable.
And yet the war is still ongoing and Russia has the upper-hand. At this point it is just going to capture more territory and and turn Ukraine into a wasteland.
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.I said it *was* being crippled.
And Russia has the upper hand purely because US support has dried up. There is a direct correlation.
Nothings by accident, this is American policy!I said it *was* being crippled.
And Russia has the upper hand purely because US support has dried up. There is a direct correlation.
I imagine there’s reluctance after seeing what happened with the counter-offensive. Obviously they’re not going to openly say it.Nothings by accident, this is American policy!
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.
You can surely see things could escalate without it turning to WW3? Putin is constantly being quoted saying he’ll escalate things and take revenge on any country that puts boots on the ground, not to mention the political ramifications back home of any leader who sends their soldiers to die.In that case, why aren’t those funding Ukraine sending in troops? If there’s no risk of WW3, what’s the issue?
…you were using it for a reason as to why they wouldn’t put boots on the ground now. Even when funding was in place it was nothing other than a stalemate that neither side was going to win.
It's not really worth me spending the weekend putting in some new fence posts then..
If you’re on your own, maybe you’re right. Otherwise, keep to plan.It's not really worth me spending the weekend putting in some new fence posts then..
In the UN? It was on a ceasefire in Gaza and Russia and China either abstained or voted against it, which I think ultimately leads to the same result in UN votes IIRC.What vote did they veto today and why?
Yeah it was more what was the actual vote about really? Did it have conditional clauses of any type?In the UN? It was on a ceasefire in Gaza and Russia and China either abstained or voted against it, which I think ultimately leads to the same result in UN votes IIRC.
Yeah it was more what was the actual vote about really? Did it have conditional clauses of any type?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?