USSR invades Ukraine. (1 Viewer)

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Well, he’s kind of brought it on himself and it’s why negotiations will take place that allow him to save face. Unfortunately, the alternative is a never ending conflict.
How’s that going to save him face? His whole reasoning was to stop the expansion of NATO. Now you think he’s going to willingly accept the expansion of NATO to save face. You also seem to have mistaken him for a reasonable man, someone who can be negotiated with.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
At this point I presume you think the West should just join the conflict?

No but they should give Ukraine what they need and lift the restrictions on what Ukraine can do with western weapons.

It's been nearly a month now since the last easing of restrictions which one poster in here assured us was a definite red line for Russia and would result in WW3 or tactical nukes or something and yet...nothing.
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
No but they should give Ukraine what they need and lift the restrictions on what Ukraine can do with western weapons.

It's been nearly a month now since the last easing of restrictions which one poster in here assured us was a definite red line for Russia and would result in WW3 or tactical nukes or something and yet...nothing.
How long are you going to poke the bear before it bites?

Are you even aware of what Putin has done in recent days And how dangerous the situation has become?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
How long are you going to poke the bear before it bites?

Are you even aware of what Putin has done in recent days And how dangerous the situation has become?

What's it going to bite with, it's manky old dentures?

What's he done in the last few days then? I'm guessing you're referring to North Korea sending some poor sods to the meat grinder.
 
Last edited:

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
When you’re posting Simon Jenkins to back up your arguments it’s time for a break really. The man is famous for being wrong about everything.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PVA

Grendel

Well-Known Member
When you’re posting Simon Jenkins to back up your arguments it’s time for a break really. The man is famous for being wrong about everything.

Does that remind you of yourself?
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
How’s that going to save him face? His whole reasoning was to stop the expansion of NATO. Now you think he’s going to willingly accept the expansion of NATO to save face. You also seem to have mistaken him for a reasonable man, someone who can be negotiated with.
Considering he controls the media it could easily be spun into a positive:

- Expansion of Russia territories
- International legislation guaranteeing that Ukraine can never join NATO.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
No but they should give Ukraine what they need and lift the restrictions on what Ukraine can do with western weapons.

It's been nearly a month now since the last easing of restrictions which one poster in here assured us was a definite red line for Russia and would result in WW3 or tactical nukes or something and yet...nothing.
Ukraine needs greater numbers of soldiers which would require the West to join the conflict.

I said a while ago that’s inevitable that the stalemate will end with negotiations and that Ukraine ran the risk of entering them in a worse position that what it was months ago.

The strong likelihood of Trump getting back in and Le Pen’s party winning in France make it even more likely now. Then there’s Meloni who somehow has become key in Europe and who, IMO, has played it pragmatically so far but will eventually show her true colours.

The notion that it’s always been up to Ukraine to decide if and when there should be negotiations has always been questionable at best. It’ll essentially be either you sign this or you’re on your own.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ukraine needs greater numbers of soldiers which would require the West to join the conflict.

I said a while ago that’s inevitable that the stalemate will end with negotiations and that Ukraine ran the risk of entering them in a worse position that what it was months ago.

The strong likelihood of Trump getting back in and Le Pen’s party winning in France make it even more likely now. Then there’s Meloni who somehow has become key in Europe and who, IMO, has played it pragmatically so far but will eventually show her true colours.

The notion that it’s always been up to Ukraine to decide if and when there should be negotiations has always been questionable at best. It’ll essentially be either you sign this or you’re on your own.
I personally think that Putin is desperate for a deal imminently before Starmer comes to power. Quaking in his boots at being forensically examined.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
I personally think that Putin is desperate for a deal imminently before Starmer comes to power. Quaking in his boots at being forensically examined.
Oh I do hope so at least with the Tories, let's get to the bottom of this corruption lark!! Follow the state's in every way, while popping off to Italy for lessons!
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Oh I do hope so at least with the Tories, let's get to the bottom of this corruption lark!! Follow the state's in every way, while popping off to Italy for lessons!
On a more serious note, we are looking at the following being in charge:

Trump
Starmer
Le Pen
Meloni
Modi
Putin

How did it get to that?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Starmer is going to put him on notice
As a past Starmer once said to the last leader of the USSR, ‘Mr Putin, your wall may or may not have failed to comply with planning regulations. Following a 5 year inquiry, you may be forced to remove several bricks up to and including 20% of the overall structure’.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member

PVA

Well-Known Member

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Thinking a negotiated deal is the most likely outcome is not pro Putin, nobody has ever said that.

There’s a big difference between thinking a deal is the most likely outcome and thinking a deal is the best outcome.
I don’t think I’ve ever said it would be the best outcome, other than saving further loss of life.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
But that doesn't mean it will be effective.

If I thought it would have the desired outcome of course I'd be all for it. But it won't. Putin will just spend a couple of years re-arming then invade again.
I addressed this last week. It would end up being something he could sell as a victory, which would be territory gained and a guarantee of Ukraine never joining NATO. In reality there would be conditions that another invasion would draw others into a war, something I doubt even he would do.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I addressed this last week. It would end up being something he could sell as a victory, which would be territory gained and a guarantee of Ukraine never joining NATO. In reality there would be conditions that another invasion would draw others into a war, something I doubt even he would do.
Fair enough if that's what you think. I don't. I think he'd believe that we wouldn't get involved again. If you're talking about some sort of agreement whereby if he invades again we are duty bound to get involved, isn't that basically NATO? Which he won't accept.

Any agreement that he would find agreeable would just embolden him to try again.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Fair enough if that's what you think. I don't. I think he'd believe that we wouldn't get involved again. If you're talking about some sort of agreement whereby if he invades again we are duty bound to get involved, isn't that basically NATO? Which he won't accept.

Any agreement that he would find agreeable would just embolden him to try again.
Yes it is basically NATO but it’s also something that he can sell at home as a victory; it’s not as though the country has a free press.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Nobody said there wasn’t corruption just disagreed with the implication it means we should let Ukraine fall.
Can you point out where someone has implied that? Personally, I don’t think it should join the EU but haven’t said anything about NATO or it being a reason for it to fall.
 

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
As I said before it needs to get to the point where Russia is too weak to do it all again in a few years (like you know, has already happened 3 times) so the west will throw money and weapons at the situation until then.
Your scenario is unlikely to happen if there’s a change of government in the USA.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
Can you point out where someone has implied that? Personally, I don’t think it should join the EU but haven’t said anything about NATO or it being a reason for it to fall.
It’s been one of Grendels main arguments as justification to why the west shouldn’t help. There’s multiple posts in this thread.
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
Fuck sake what a gut wrenching picture.

This after Russia bombed a children's hospital.



Mate, whare is the evidence of bombing?
No broken windows, no smoke, no debris no sign of destruction. People on their phones, (so no interruption to signal etc)
Where is the pictures of the alleged bomb damage ???

That headline could just of easily of read "patients take advantage of good weather to get treatment outside in the sunshine"

Now before the usual suspects start ranting and raving, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but what I am saying is you need to look beyond the headlines, and look for the evidence with your own eyes.
It's way too easy to fall for the propaganda that undoubtedly exists from both sides.

I'd expect to see more such shocking headlines as the USA and the UK struggle to keep public opinion in favour of continuing the senseless slaughter.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top