Jump to content

Russia

whelk

By whelk
in The Lounge

 Share

Referendum on Moscow to officially become territory of Wales  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Referendum on Moscow to officially become territory of Wales

    • Da!
      33
    • Net!
      3

Recommended Posts

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I will wait out for the next installment from European Leaders - who are falling over themselves telling us to prepare for war with Russia (which is just bonkers). 

who is going to fight? They've been telling us it's alright to be offended by everything and for a man to have a cervix, now they want people to go to war 🤣

  • Like 4
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Neither could we

Your record on predicting, assessing , analysing ,military capabilities intentions and outcomes is woeful.  I can't be bothered to trawl through the hundreds of posts on the subject just to provide evidence.  

moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Defence cuts to capability have been going on since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The SDSR in 1998, then throughout the Blair years brought further drops on the number of people, tanks, aircraft and ships - and that was the boom period!!

What makes it even more tragic in a more local context, we spend more than most in NATO!!!

the UK, like France, use clever accounting to meet the 2% of GDP spend. Just 2% of the national budget is spent on Defence. It is remarkable we have what we have, but as i said many times before, a peer-to-peer bout between UK and Russia would see us all but done after a bad weekend.

This old excuse.  The reductions in capability and numbers from the Cold War peace dividend were mainly instigated and taken by the Major Government ( I had a lovely redundancy package).  The Blair government did reduce numbers but did not notably reduce capability, indeed they increased it, as an example the Carriers which Cameron came very close to cancelling.  No matter how you argue it the Tories have always cut defence more than Labour, John Knott was about to gut the RN in 1982, reducing it to an ASW only Navy.  The Falklands and Admiral Leach saved it, and Knott was never heard of again.

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, moonraker said:

This old excuse.  The reductions in capability and numbers from the Cold War peace dividend were mainly instigated and taken by the Major Government ( I had a lovely redundancy package).  The Blair government did reduce numbers but did not notably reduce capability, indeed they increased it, as an example the Carriers which Cameron came very close to cancelling.  No matter how you argue it the Tories have always cut defence more than Labour, John Knott was about to gut the RN in 1982, reducing it to an ASW only Navy.  The Falklands and Admiral Leach saved it, and Knott was never heard of again.

There were cuts in troop numbers, hulls, tanks and airframes in the good years of 1997-2008. Yes, 2 new carriers were ordered, 3 were retired (albeit, much smaller), along with the sea harrier (for example). T45 destroyers - 50% cut in the tendering process. This was against the backdrop of fighting on 2 major fronts.

Of course this government have not been friends to the forces, but none have since 1991. I am certain not much will change under the next Labour Government, primarily because the general public do not care enough, as they can't get a freebee out of it.

Edited by AlexLaw76
moonraker

moonraker

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

There were cuts in troop numbers, hulls, tanks and airframes in the good years of 1997-2008. Yes, 2 new carriers were ordered, 3 were retired (albeit, much smaller), along with the sea harrier (for example). T45 destroyers - 50% cut in the tendering process. This was against the backdrop of fighting on 2 major fronts.

Of course this government have not been friends to the forces, but none have since 1991. I am certain not much will change under the next Labour Government, primarily because the general public do not care enough, as they can't get a freebee out of it.

So you do not address my key statements, not unexpected.  Sea harriers were deleted from the inventory by Cameron nothing to do with Blair, I don’t understand your T45 reference.  Under the Tories we were committed to Project Horizon with France and Italy, to quote a senior U.K. rep on the design team “The French wanted a comfortable ship, the Italians wanted a good looking ship, and the RN wanted a ship that could fight”.  To many compromises, the Tories were happy to continue with this as it meant no serious budgetary commitment, the Blair government took us out of this intractable arrangement and we now have T45.

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, moonraker said:

So you do not address my key statements, not unexpected.  Sea harriers were deleted from the inventory by Cameron nothing to do with Blair, I don’t understand your T45 reference.  Under the Tories we were committed to Project Horizon with France and Italy, to quote a senior U.K. rep on the design team “The French wanted a comfortable ship, the Italians wanted a good looking ship, and the RN wanted a ship that could fight”.  To many compromises, the Tories were happy to continue with this as it meant no serious budgetary commitment, the Blair government took us out of this intractable arrangement and we now have T45.

T45s were ordered well within the good times of the mid-noughties. The initial scope of the project was for 12 (to replace the 12x T42s left from the Falklands conflict), it was cut to 8, then 6. That is just an example of cuts that happened during the Blair years. Of course, this class requires/required entirely new propulsion systems, which are still being fitted out today up north. That is why we only have 1, maybe 2 available at any time. 

Just for further context, the 1998 SDSRn(and the 2005 installment) 'they' retired a number of frigates early....35 escorts to 25, 12 attack SMs to 10. T45 order was cut from 12 to 8 (now 6). During this time (due to cuts away from the front line), the 'Fleet' availability dropped from 90%-ish to 60%-ish. with 6000 sailors cut. Of course, i refer to the Sea Harrier, a decision made during the good years to cut it from service. The RN have only very recently stood up a fixed-wing sqn, which of course, it posturing as the F35s are effectively owned by the RAF - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/77908.htm

Much of that was to make way for a new carrier enabled power projection capability, that was due around 2012 (already retired the 3x invincible class). To be fair, what the RN delivers against the £ should put the other forces to shame, but lets not suggest that Blair/labour were any more of a friend to the forces than any other government.

Edited by AlexLaw76
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, whelk said:

I am getting the impression that Moonraker knows shedloads more about this subject than the rest of us

Alex too. It's a backwards and forwards that can be summarised thus:

Our navy is fucked. 

  • Like 2
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, egg said:

Alex too. It's a backwards and forwards that can be summarised thus:

Our navy is fucked. 

the very much shortened, but incredibly accurate, version

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Of course, this class requires/required entirely new propulsion systems, which are still being fitted out today up north. That is why we only have 1, maybe 2 available at any time. 

Isn't it because they don't work well in warm waters and are having to be upgraded ?

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Isn't it because they don't work well in warm waters and are having to be upgraded ?

Yep. They were routinely losing some/all power at sea. Just floating around. The first T45 is about half way through its 'life', and all 6 have still not completed the much needed propulsion upgrade

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what-is-the-status-of-the-type-45-destroyer-engine-repairs/

Edited by AlexLaw76
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Sanction the shit out of them, they said...

image.thumb.png.6a30bb93a19539924cd1fc5bc30ed0ca.png

They have proved very adept at bypassing attempts to block their energy trading, and a large part of the economy has been switched to war production directly financed by the economic ministry. Whether in the longer term they can continue to grow GDP largely by public finance intervention remains to be seen.

 

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
On 02/02/2024 at 19:08, Raging Bull said:

Hi gramps, I hope you’re doing ok 👍🏻 

The last time this happened was 15 years ago. 

I’m fine, thanks.

Do you really think we’d know the truth?

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Sanction the shit out of them, they said...

image.thumb.png.6a30bb93a19539924cd1fc5bc30ed0ca.png

Duh. The IMF simply compile the data the countries give them. Russia lies. Who knew? (well not you obvs)   

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/inside-story/2024/1/31/why-does-the-imf-predict-strong-russian-growth-despite-sanctions

The data published in the Statistics Department's International Financial Statistics (IFS) are gathered as part of an ongoing data collection effort in which member country statistical agencies provide public statistics to the IMF.

Data from the country source are updated on their own schedule. 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=The data published in the,updated on their own schedule.

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, buctootim said:

The data published in the Statistics Department's International Financial Statistics (IFS) are gathered as part of an ongoing data collection effort in which member country statistical agencies provide public statistics to the IMF.

Data from the country source are updated on their own schedule. 

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=The data published in the,updated on their own schedule.

Why have you posted this? I have not disputed what you have said...

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I just ordered a squirrel feeder. I had no idea I'd be using it to fatten up the local ones, and try and trap them. Those wood pigeons are getting a lot of food too, now I think about it...

Cut out the middle bird and just eat the food.

Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted
On 03/02/2024 at 18:20, badgerx16 said:

They have proved very adept at bypassing attempts to block their energy trading, and a large part of the economy has been switched to war production directly financed by the economic ministry. Whether in the longer term they can continue to grow GDP largely by public finance intervention remains to be seen.

 

looks like we're providing funding for their war as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68018660

Quote

The exclusive figures shared with the BBC from CREA estimated that during the first 12 months of the Russian oil ban from December 2022, some £569m worth of oil products imported by the UK were derived from Russian crude.

Both reports claimed the so-called loophole indirectly provided the Kremlin with more than £100m in tax revenues.

 

farawaysaint

farawaysaint

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

looks like we're providing funding for their war as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68018660

 

India buys Russian crude at discounted prices and then the rest of the world buys from India. Technically it still hurts Russia as they sell at a discount I guess? 

It's not the ideal solution but it was always going to happen because Viva the capitalist system. 

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, farawaysaint said:

India buys Russian crude at discounted prices and then the rest of the world buys from India. Technically it still hurts Russia as they sell at a discount I guess? 

It's not the ideal solution but it was always going to happen because Viva the capitalist system. 

Ironic really.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why are Ukrainian SF in Sudan?  Haven't they got a more pressing engagement?

No idea, other than possibly the pursuit of Wagner war criminals.

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No idea, other than possibly the pursuit of Wagner war criminals.

Seems a curious use of vital resources. 

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, egg said:

Seems a curious use of vital resources. 

Could be anything. Seizing some particular Russian tech, a commander who knows stuff, a person who is a bargaining chip etc etc. Im sure they are informed choices.  

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

 

I'm not so sure. Admittedly I havent watched the whole thing but in the clips I've seen Putin comes across as creepy at best and reinforces the manistrweam view of him being an Empire builder regardless of what neighbouring countries want.  

skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, buctootim said:

I'm not so sure. Admittedly I havent watched the whole thing but in the clips I've seen Putin comes across as creepy at best and reinforces the manistrweam view of him being an Empire builder regardless of what neighbouring countries want.  

I've watched bits on yootube, its more of a lecture but you only have to read the comments on the video to see that people actually believe Putin, I think again he has changed his reasons for invading Ukraine!

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

I've watched bits on yootube, its more of a lecture but you only have to read the comments on the video to see that people actually believe Putin, I think again he has changed his reasons for invading Ukraine!

:(  can believe it about youtube comments. God knows what the answer is but none of the options are good 

revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted

I suspect the Tucker Carlson interview will change very little.  The majority of people who watch it will be right wing republicans who support Trump and are already of the opinion that support for Ukraine should stop.  Rest of the world will carry on thinking Putin is a cunt.  Pretty much business as usual then. 

Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, buctootim said:

I'm not so sure. Admittedly I havent watched the whole thing but in the clips I've seen Putin comes across as creepy at best and reinforces the manistrweam view of him being an Empire builder regardless of what neighbouring countries want.  

It’s easy for anyone with even a shred of knowledge of Russian disinformation to see it for what it is, but they’re not the target audience. They’re after the same people that have managed to convince themselves that anything on ‘mainstream media’ is automatically untrue, and also it’s extremely useful to Russia to try to present themselves as being in the right to the domestic audience in Russia.

It’s unlikely to change any minds outside of Russia, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it shores up support a bit for the war inside Russia, for a little while at least.

whelk

whelk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Putin can’t even speak even speak English. Thick bald midget cunt.

Carlson is a cunt too. Have no interest in watching anything that fucker does.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...