Born Hunter 17,751 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 I also wonder who you might be… 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FLATTOP 4,341 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 13 minutes ago, Born Hunter said: I also wonder who you might be… Welcome Back Grebster …. 2 1 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 5 minutes ago, McVey said: My posts are not specifically aimed at you fella. I just think you're cutting them short, who knows the full truth of the situation. NATO are obviously alarmed at what the Russian's have done yet the threat of nuclear war will prevent them from going to war with them. Truth be told I don't even think they would go to war if Russia was to take it one step further and attack a NATO county such has Poland. All I’m doing is commenting on what they are actually doing in a real test of their actual capability. Using contemporary Western examples as comparison. The importance of the conclusions of that are far from ‘bollocks’. Russias real power has consequences. Nuclear weapons don’t just remove those. Nuclear weapons don’t simply end state competition or even guarantee an end to conventional war between nuclear powers. The fact that Russia have lost a major surface combatant has consequences to everyone. The fact that Russia have failed to occupy a weaker state that is literally next door and in fact have retreated from their northern advance has consequences to everyone. The list goes on. Yes NATO are alarmed. Just as Russia were alarmed by Ukraine 2014. Both sides have taken actions to counter their strategic adversaries. Neither have attacked those strategic adversaries in a way which is accepted to trigger open war. That doesn’t mean there’s not below the threshold victories to be had which have real consequences. ”It’s all bollocks” makes absolutely no sense. Like world powers contesting for hegemony doesn’t have an effect… Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Neobliviscaris1776 1,998 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 2 hours ago, W. Katchum said: I’ve got 2 real good mates I served with an know 2 other lads that v met last few years an all 4 are over in Ukraine now, they don’t seem to think it’s fake, or digital I'm not disputing that mate. There are real people involved and real soldiers on the ground but imo the motivation for this Ukraine/Russia situation is a 'money making sanction threatening' operation. Why should anyone else be involved other than the Ukrainians and Russians? The only logical reason is to complicate matters and give each side the motivation to continue its course. Without Western involvement this would of been all over in a week, but no, we had to all get involved. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 16 minutes ago, Born Hunter said: All I’m doing is commenting on what they are actually doing in a real test of their actual capability. Using contemporary Western examples as comparison. The importance of the conclusions of that are far from ‘bollocks’. Russias real power has consequences. Nuclear weapons don’t just remove those. Nuclear weapons don’t simply end state competition or even guarantee an end to conventional war between nuclear powers. The fact that Russia have lost a major surface combatant has consequences to everyone. The fact that Russia have failed to occupy a weaker state that is literally next door and in fact have retreated from their northern advance has consequences to everyone. The list goes on. Yes NATO are alarmed. Just as Russia were alarmed by Ukraine 2014. Both sides have taken actions to counter their strategic adversaries. Neither have attacked those strategic adversaries in a way which is accepted to trigger open war. That doesn’t mean there’s not below the threshold victories to be had which have real consequences. ”It’s all bollocks” makes absolutely no sense. Like world powers contesting for hegemony doesn’t have an effect… So what's the craic in Ukraine now born are the Russians still advancing? Is the Russian military still in Ukraine?were abouts are they I'm not keeping up on it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 23,101 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 Anyone who thinks this isn't a real war needs sectioning ! Cities, towns and villages being destroyed, thousands on each side dying, millions displaced, rapes, torture, murder commonplace, a Russian ship of the line sunk........ Whats it all about ? Way above my pay grade, but I guess it's another proxy war. Korea ? America v China. Vietnam ? America v Russia. Middle East ?the West and Israel against Russia and its ambitions in the Mediterranean. Yemen ?a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with the West backing Saudi and Russia backing Iran Uraine v Russia ? NATO, the EU, and the former soviet states, now in NATO and the EU v Russia with China looking on to see how the West reacts before it makes its move for Taiwan. I guess proxy wars are "better" than all out war, nuclear conflagration and what would be left afterwards. Cheers. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 12 minutes ago, Francie said: So what's the craic in Ukraine now born are the Russians still advancing? Is the Russian military still in Ukraine?were abouts are they I'm not keeping up on it? It looks like they’ve given up on Kyiv and therefore given up on taking the whole of Ukraine. They now seem to be focussing on the south and east. Giving themselves a land bridge from Russia to Crimea. They should be able to achieve that. Almost have. Beyond achieving that, things seem too unpredictable to say. The next stages will likely involve counterinsurgency within this new Russian controlled territory. The Russians tend to be successful at that. And perhaps also a counter offensive to retake these regions by Ukrainian forces. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said: It looks like they’ve given up on Kyiv and therefore given up on taking the whole of Ukraine. They now seem to be focussing on the south and east. Giving themselves a land bridge from Russia to Crimea. They should be able to achieve that. Almost have. Beyond achieving that, things seem too unpredictable to say. The next stages will likely involve counterinsurgency within this new Russian controlled territory. The Russians tend to be successful at that. And perhaps also a counter offensive to retake these regions by Ukrainian forces. Goodman born,could you read this an see if there's any truth in it Log into Facebook WWW.(!64.56:886 Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,751 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 1 minute ago, Francie said: Goodman born,could you read this an see if there's any truth in it Log into Facebook WWW.(!64.56:886 Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know. No idea tbh. I’m more interested in military capabilities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 The above states that zelenski promised to deescalate tensions if he got into power? Says he pulled out of the 8year Minsk negotiations?why Says zelenski put 60,000 troops on the edge of 'ethnic' towns in Ukraine. If this guys telling the truth then it's zelensky who is the aggressor backed by nato/us? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 That's all from the man who sold Ukraine by Mike Whitney. I can see the point from putin,he has nsto on his doorstep he tried to negotiate but zelenski pulled out,the Yanks would never allow russia at there doorstep,it seems to me nato an the Yanks are pulling the strings here an we all know what happens then Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 23,101 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 18 minutes ago, Francie said: The above states that zelenski promised to deescalate tensions if he got into power? Says he pulled out of the 8year Minsk negotiations?why Says zelenski put 60,000 troops on the edge of 'ethnic' towns in Ukraine. If this guys telling the truth then it's zelensky who is the aggressor backed by nato/us? How can Zelensky be the aggressor ? Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way round ? Cheers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kanny 20,420 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 14 minutes ago, Francie said: That's all from the man who sold Ukraine by Mike Whitney. I can see the point from putin,he has nsto on his doorstep he tried to negotiate but zelenski pulled out,the Yanks would never allow russia at there doorstep,it seems to me nato an the Yanks are pulling the strings here an we all know what happens then There's many different narratives that fit into this situation, I generally go with follow the money, controlling the black sea ports is very lucrative because of the resources that flow out of this area and also of great military strategic value for putin. Add to that the east/south of Ukraine and under the black sea has most oil and gas reserves I think you start to get a picture of what putins true intentions are , but that's just me... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 4 minutes ago, chartpolski said: How can Zelensky be the aggressor ? Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way round ? Cheers. I don't know charts I'm going from what Mike Whitney has stated. He says Zelenski promised to deescalate the tensions if he got voted in?but he didn't. Zelenski put 60,000 troops at the boarder with russia,not just Ukrainian but nato troops,is that not aggression? He pulled out of the Minsk negotiations? Is that not aggressive from someone who promised to deescalate things? Nato troops right on russisn border,Yanks,Brits etc Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie 6,368 Posted April 16, 2022 Report Share Posted April 16, 2022 2 minutes ago, kanny said: There's many different narratives that fit into this situation, I generally go with follow the money, controlling the black sea ports is very lucrative because of the resources that flow out of this area and also of great military strategic value for putin. Add to that the east/south of Ukraine and under the black sea has most oil and gas reserves I think you start to get a picture of what putins true intentions are , but that's just me... But has the Yanks not done the same with lots of countries kanny,yes they have,an now there doing it with Ukraine. 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.