Russia Ukraine WW3

[kanny 20,914]

19 minutes ago, WILF said:

When life gives you Yemens…..make Yemenade ! 

Ffs wilf

[scotty12 2,757]

[Born Hunter 17,828]

One of our boats has just been loaded up with Tomahawks in full view of the world… 

 

[Born Hunter 17,828]

1 minute ago, McVey said:

This is what pisses me off about us and the Yanks, why all this underhand business?

Just say it how it is and be done with it, we are basically in a proxy war with Russia, f**k that, let's just declare war if that's what we want! 

‘We’ don’t want a war. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand?

And everyone plays this game, not just ‘us and the yanks’.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

3 minutes ago, McVey said:

We don't want a war but all this was easily preventable, I'm not having that one tbh mate.

Putin has made it clear that he sees the east expansion of NATO as a threat to it's security.

Where were these guarantees before he decided to invade?

The US are not absolved of responsibility for this.

I haven’t commented on any of those points. You said if we are willing to engage in a proxy war then we should just go all out and actually go to war ourselves. It’s a nonsense statement.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

1 minute ago, McVey said:

I'll ask you this then, why are we supplying the Ukraine with weapons and such?

I'm sorry but if you can prevent a war but deliberately fail to do so then that is pretty telling isn't it?

Putin has asked for guarantees for years and the US have promised him nothing, does anyone seriously think that the US wouldn't do the same as him?

I’m not getting dragged into your nonsense. There are more options and states in life than simply peace or war. It’s unfortunate if that pisses you off.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

14 minutes ago, McVey said:

We have a habit of getting dragged in to other people's nonsense so go ahead.

If you want to go about your day accepting we are peacemakers in disguise then good for you.

I haven’t said we’re peacemakers. You have a habit of thinking if I comment on what is happening then I am making a moral judgement and taking a side.

You implied there was no point in proxy wars and that ‘we’ should actually be at war if ‘we’ are going to engage in a proxy war. I find that incredibly naive. And in doing so I’ve not backed any side as it could apply to both.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

12 minutes ago, McVey said:

I understand that it's a push-pull type relationship with Russia but from my perspective it's frustrating.

If we have this moral duty to help out everyone in strife we'd be constantly at war, but the facts are we only interfere in conflict that suits us, hey, I can understand why.

What irritates me is us beating around the bush, it's always some bullshit reasoning, like Iraq with WOMD. 

Just say it like it is and be done with it, I'd respect those in power more if they said "We are after their oil, and what?"

 

I feel like people over simplify what motivates these sort of foreign policy actions but sure it’s never just about being a force of good, as is how it’s sold. I’m just so far past that I don’t even consider it. But equally it’s not as simple as state sanctioned piracy.

Theres a global power structure that is always being contested at every level and in every area. It’s much more complicated than “we are the force of good” or “we can steal their oil”. 

[chartpolski 24,821]

I don't think the middleast wars were about "stealing" their oil.

I think they were more about protecting the supply of oil and gas.

The choices were between letting despots like Ghaddafi and Saddam control the flow of oil, leaders who were pro Russia, anti west.

Or supporting the despots of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, who were/are pro west, anti Russia.

Its all geo-politics or, as Rudyard Kipling called it, "The Great Game" !

Its been going on since the early 1800's between the west and Russia.

Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

9 minutes ago, McVey said:

I think we have to though as we are not privy to the complete truth mate.

I do think it's clear that Putin is alarmed at the idea of NATO expansion, can anyone really blame him?

 

I think people simplify things too much. It’s not down to a lack of information. It’s simply laziness or frustration.

I’m sure Putin is alarmed by NATO expansion.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

Just now, McVey said:

Don't you think that our sympathy is nothing more than crocodile tears as NATO could have prevented this invasion as easy as the Russians could?

Of course Putin has to be held accountable as he's the one that directly attacked the Ukraine but again it's not just black & white.

I don’t really care about sympathy. Like I said, it’s never just about being a force of good.

NATO or it’s members might’ve been able to prevent the invasion. Imo It’s an over simplification to say this is only about NATO. I also don’t believe that continual power competition I talked about can be a won by just conceding every time someone threatens to kill innocent people.

Lets not fall into the trap of thinking these buffer states are all independent states. Many of them are simply proxies of Russia. How is that any different really to NATO membership? The only difference is as a proxy, Russia can deny their hegemony.

Its a zero sum game for the most part. If there’s somewhere or something, that having hegemony over, would effect the balance of power then it will be contested over. To not do so is to passively concede power. That’s the law of the jungle. 

[Francie 6,368]

3 hours ago, chartpolski said:

I don't think the middleast wars were about "stealing" their oil.

I think they were more about protecting the supply of oil and gas.

The choices were between letting despots like Ghaddafi and Saddam control the flow of oil, leaders who were pro Russia, anti west.

Or supporting the despots of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, who were/are pro west, anti Russia.

Its all geo-politics or, as Rudyard Kipling called it, "The Great Game" !

Its been going on since the early 1800's between the west and Russia.

Cheers.

Protecting it? It wasn't there's to protect charts,it was the iraqi peoples oil an Lybia's oil.

Gaddafi definatley had plans to sack the dollar an trade with gold billions,he brought the African nations together to do so,thsts why he was took out.

[chartpolski 24,821]

1 hour ago, Francie said:

Protecting it? It wasn't there's to protect charts,it was the iraqi peoples oil an Lybia's oil.

Gaddafi definatley had plans to sack the dollar an trade with gold billions,he brought the African nations together to do so,thsts why he was took out.

Saddam invaded Kuwait and Saudi and was headed for the Dammam and Dhahran oilfields and the UAE.

if had took control of the entire Middle East oil and gas production the west would have been extremely vulnerable to the supply being shut off.

The coalition stopped him.

You may have other views, and I respect them, but I was their during both gulf wars, and although Blair took us to war illegally, the outcome protected our supplies.

"The end justifying the means" ?

Who knows ? Way above my pay grade.

Cheers.

 

[kanny 20,914]

I don't know what to make of all this spontaneous combustion...

 

[Nicepix 5,650]

3 hours ago, chartpolski said:

Saddam invaded Kuwait and Saudi and was headed for the Dammam and Dhahran oilfields and the UAE.

if had took control of the entire Middle East oil and gas production the west would have been extremely vulnerable to the supply being shut off.

The coalition stopped him.

You may have other views, and I respect them, but I was their during both gulf wars, and although Blair took us to war illegally, the outcome protected our supplies.

"The end justifying the means" ?

Who knows ? Way above my pay grade.

Cheers.

 

Also the Iraqi people didn't get much wealth out of their country's oil reserves. It all went too the ruling classes. To say that it was the Iraqi people's oil shows a total lack of understanding the Middle East.