Blackbriar 8,569 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's no need for WW3, when you can fight it on a proxy basis ! We'll back the Ukrainian government and Russia will back the 'ethnic insurgents' , militia, or whatever they call themselves. Then each side can sit back and claim the moral high ground. We are supporting a 'legitimate, sovereign government' and the Russians are defending a 'persecuted minority' (for once !). Much easier, cheaper and safer to get someone else to do your fighting for you. Parliaments are reluctant to involve their own troops (thanks to Tony B-Liar), but much more willing to equip someone else's ! I think Putin's ultimate aim is to annexe the whole of Ukraine BUT if he really thought we'd stand by, knock-kneed and impotent, then surely he would have just marched in by now ? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) the russians didnt do to well in afganeestan. About the same as us then? Edited April 25, 2014 by ChrisJones 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't believe NATO assets are being moved east to counter a Russian invasion of Ukrain, that's now a lost cause militarily through a clearly weak western resolve. I believe what is going on is bolstering the defences of the other ex soviet NATO members as a deterent to further Russian invasions. There's a constant 24/7 AWACs patrol and 16 alliance fighters on patrol. Do you thing they are going to role out into Eastern Europe? They're f*****g Russian! They'd be landing marines on skeggy beach if they thought they could get away with it! I wouldn't give them an inch. The majority of the UK population wouldn't give a shit mate, as long as TOWIE and Big Brother were on when they were meant to be on... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Themoocher 231 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't believe NATO assets are being moved east to counter a Russian invasion of Ukrain, that's now a lost cause militarily through a clearly weak western resolve. I believe what is going on is bolstering the defences of the other ex soviet NATO members as a deterent to further Russian invasions. There's a constant 24/7 AWACs patrol and 16 alliance fighters on patrol. Do you thing they are going to role out into Eastern Europe? They're f*****g Russian! They'd be landing marines on skeggy beach if they thought they could get away with it! I wouldn't give them an inch. I'm not sure if they will or won't. Don't know what the fuckers will do thou sneaky Russians. Only thing that makes me think they won't is it will f**k there economy up. I don't think they will want to get isolated like 70 and 80s. As it fooked them up and ended up on there arse. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Neither would you if the west threw a billion dollars worth of equip to beat them lol See should have left the Germans alone, there would have been no Russia today lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brigzy 1,298 Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 the russians didnt do to well in afganeestan. Possibly because the spelling confused them ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 There a few of the hard liners in the kremlin who would be only to glad to be isolated again. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's no need for WW3, when you can fight it on a proxy basis ! We'll back the Ukrainian government and Russia will back the 'ethnic insurgents' , militia, or whatever they call themselves. Then each side can sit back and claim the moral high ground. We are supporting a 'legitimate, sovereign government' and the Russians are defending a 'persecuted minority' (for once !). Much easier, cheaper and safer to get someone else to do your fighting for you. Parliaments are reluctant to involve their own troops (thanks to Tony B-Liar), but much more willing to equip someone else's ! I think Putin's ultimate aim is to annexe the whole of Ukraine BUT if he really thought we'd stand by, knock-kneed and impotent, then surely he would have just marched in by now ? Shot myself in the foot, though, as this wasn't the case viz a vis Syria. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 The majority of the UK population wouldn't give a shit mate, as long as TOWIE and Big Brother were on when they were meant to be on... Well me and my partisans would be shooting those traitors along with the reds! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brigzy 1,298 Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Neither would you if the west threw a billion dollars worth of equip to beat them lol See should have left the Germans alone, there would have been no Russia today lol General Patton said "I've got the army here now to beat the Russians, they will be our next enemy"; when we beat Germany in WW2, but the victorious allies said no........ What a mistake that turned out to be !!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 There's no need for WW3, when you can fight it on a proxy basis ! We'll back the Ukrainian government and Russia will back the 'ethnic insurgents' , militia, or whatever they call themselves. Then each side can sit back and claim the moral high ground. We are supporting a 'legitimate, sovereign government' and the Russians are defending a 'persecuted minority' (for once !). Much easier, cheaper and safer to get someone else to do your fighting for you. Parliaments are reluctant to involve their own troops (thanks to Tony B-Liar), but much more willing to equip someone else's ! I think Putin's ultimate aim is to annexe the whole of Ukraine BUT if he really thought we'd stand by, knock-kneed and impotent, then surely he would have just marched in by now ? Shot myself in the foot, though, as this wasn't the case viz a vis Syria. Worry is though, Syria is/was a proxy war...... Ukrain on the other hand has developed into something far more serious. The russians are'nt backing minority malitia, they're parachuting in fecking unbadged Spetsnaz! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 the russians didnt do to well in afganeestan. One reason - Geography.. Same reason that Scotland was never fully subdued and the Welsh language and culture survived despite the best efforts of the English, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc over the years. Some places are more suitable for warfare and conquest than others, Afghanistan is extremely unsuitable for it.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) the russians didnt do to well in afganeestan. One reason - Geography.. Same reason that Scotland was never fully subdued and the Welsh language and culture survived despite the best efforts of the English, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc over the years. Some places are more suitable for warfare and conquest than others, Afghanistan is extremely unsuitable for it.. Take a man. Strip him of his right to defend himself. Strip him of his money. His livelihood and well being. Drug him, his family, his neighbours... remove all of his hope. What's not now ripe for conquest? His own people have already done the donkey work! Edited April 25, 2014 by ChrisJones 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Themoocher 231 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 the russians didnt do to well in afganeestan. One reason - Geography.. Same reason that Scotland was never fully subdued and the Welsh language and culture survived despite the best efforts of the English, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, etc over the years. Some places are more suitable for warfare and conquest than others, Afghanistan is extremely unsuitable for it.. No one does well in Afghan. Some amount of battles took place in the country yet there still walking about with flip flops in the snow, donkeys, AK47s, mopeds and can't be controlled. Think a lot of problems is due to it been the same as multiply countries been made into one and getting everyone on side is impossible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,975 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 Moocher... Can't be controlled or won't be controlled? They've been reduced to rubble, over the last few decades, and still they resist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.