Russia

[moonraker]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Didn’t realise South Africa were such cunts

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/21/africa/africa-leaders-ukraine-response-cmd-intl/index.html

Sadly ‘western’ countries do not have great track record in their dealings with African nations.  I can sort of understand them not toeing the wests line.  I think they are playing a dangerous game but they have been shafted so many times over the years by the west.

 

Edited 21 March, 2022 by moonraker

[sadoldgit]

20 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

We covered this a few days ago, if you missed it….

 

I’m not sure if the conflict is nothing to do with us? We have a proud history of standing up for other countries subjected to attack from superior forces, Belgium and Poland in recent times. Ukraine have asked from help from the West and, as signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, ourselves and the US promised to stand by Ukraine if their security was threatened once they gave up their nukes. I completely understand the reluctance to implement a NFZ for all the reasons given and the reluctance to put boots on the ground in Ukraine territory but where does this end? The signal we are giving Putin is that he can effectively do what he likes as long as he doesn’t involve a NATO member and get away with it. This has been going on for years as we know. He has seen since his involvement in the Syrian conflict that we have no appetite to get involved with him directly. His recent nuclear threat isn’t the first and it is working for him. At some point we (the West) need to front up this threat otherwise there will be more Russian aggression against sovereign countries. If history has taught us one thing it is that appeasement does not work. We were quick to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that Putin presents a bigger threat to world peace than either of those adversaries, we are going to need more than economic sanctions to put an end to this tyranny.

[Lighthouse]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m not sure if the conflict is nothing to do with us? We have a proud history of standing up for other countries subjected to attack from superior forces, Belgium and Poland in recent times. Ukraine have asked from help from the West and, as signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, ourselves and the US promised to stand by Ukraine if their security was threatened once they gave up their nukes. I completely understand the reluctance to implement a NFZ for all the reasons given and the reluctance to put boots on the ground in Ukraine territory but where does this end? The signal we are giving Putin is that he can effectively do what he likes as long as he doesn’t involve a NATO member and get away with it. This has been going on for years as we know. He has seen since his involvement in the Syrian conflict that we have no appetite to get involved with him directly. His recent nuclear threat isn’t the first and it is working for him. At some point we (the West) need to front up this threat otherwise there will be more Russian aggression against sovereign countries. If history has taught us one thing it is that appeasement does not work. We were quick to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that Putin presents a bigger threat to world peace than either of those adversaries, we are going to need more than economic sanctions to put an end to this tyranny.

You're still missing the bigger picture. Getting involved with an active military intervention presents a huge number and severity of consequences with very little achieved in terms of real world gains. Russian air power is not the decisive factor in this conflict. It's clear now that Russia doesn't have the economy or the military power to do much other than attack Ukraine and possibly Moldova.

As cruel as it is on the Ukrainians, who I greatly admire, I think we're relatively content to let Russia blow their load on this conflict. They're getting embarrassed in a war they should have won quickly and easily. They will struggle to commit more resources to this because they can't afford to replace most of it, meanwhile we can keep drip feeding Ukraine with sophisticated weapons which knock out their hardware.

The end game, as I see it, is a prolonged, bloody stalemate and the erosion of Russia's reputation as any kind of superpower.

[kyle04]

Who knows what Putins long term goals are, if he has any. Will he try to annexe some of the former USSR (non NATO) countries next? I doubt it, his actions in Ukraine have been a disaster for his country so far. The "wests" involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan were for completely different reasons, I don't recall any planes being crashed into the Kremlin, and after Saddams invasion of Kuwait he was viewed as a legitimate threat to the region (oil) , despite the fact that WMD proved to be total bollocks. I think the Iraq invasion was a catastrophic blunder though, but "W" can sit in his summer log cabin and tell himself he did the right thing. I really don't know what more NATO can do for Ukraine, other than to go "all in". Khrushchev withdrew his ships form the Cuban coast in 1962, in the nick of time. Putin may not prove to be as pragmatic, and whatever he does, he'll blame NATO .

[whelk]

Anonymous seem to be doing a good job hacking Russian sites and printers

[whelk]

52 minutes ago, moonraker said:

Sadly ‘western’ countries do not have great track record in their dealings with African nations.  I can sort of understand them not toeing the wests line.  I think they are playing a dangerous game but they have been shafted so many times over the years by the west.

 

I get that but seeing a despot invading and claiming NATO caused it is never justifiable. As I said cunts

[kyle04]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

Anonymous seem to be doing a good job hacking Russian sites and printers

Not to be underestimated, those fuckers can do some serious damage, DDos, malware attacks etc. Russia has been targeting Ukraine with this sort of thing for a while now, and yet their military is communicating on unencrypted 4G because the dopey fuckers blew up the 3G mast in Kyiv.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

11 hours ago, kyle04 said:

Who knows what Putins long term goals are, if he has any. Will he try to annexe some of the former USSR (non NATO) countries next? I doubt it, his actions in Ukraine have been a disaster for his country so far. The "wests" involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan were for completely different reasons, I don't recall any planes being crashed into the Kremlin, and after Saddams invasion of Kuwait he was viewed as a legitimate threat to the region (oil) , despite the fact that WMD proved to be total bollocks. I think the Iraq invasion was a catastrophic blunder though, but "W" can sit in his summer log cabin and tell himself he did the right thing. I really don't know what more NATO can do for Ukraine, other than to go "all in". Khrushchev withdrew his ships form the Cuban coast in 1962, in the nick of time. Putin may not prove to be as pragmatic, and whatever he does, he'll blame NATO .

If Putin was sane, his best hope would be to get Ukraine to concede to their demands (no NATO/EU membership, certain agreements about who can hold power in the east, maybe some denazification) and then total withdrawal. An outright win is no longer an option as the length and damage of the war means Russia will be globally blacklisted unless they completely withdraw and pay to fix the damage.

However, Putin isn't sane and may feel like withdrawal will be seen as failure and the end of him.

[sadoldgit]

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

You're still missing the bigger picture. Getting involved with an active military intervention presents a huge number and severity of consequences with very little achieved in terms of real world gains. Russian air power is not the decisive factor in this conflict. It's clear now that Russia doesn't have the economy or the military power to do much other than attack Ukraine and possibly Moldova.

As cruel as it is on the Ukrainians, who I greatly admire, I think we're relatively content to let Russia blow their load on this conflict. They're getting embarrassed in a war they should have won quickly and easily. They will struggle to commit more resources to this because they can't afford to replace most of it, meanwhile we can keep drip feeding Ukraine with sophisticated weapons which knock out their hardware.

The end game, as I see it, is a prolonged, bloody stalemate and the erosion of Russia's reputation as any kind of superpower.

I do get the bigger picture. I also think that you underplay Putin’s desire to make Russia a major power again and that this isn’t the end of his ambitions. The only thing he understands is brute force and at some point we will need to use it unless we are happy for him to carry on doing to others what he has done already elsewhere.  I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me that, as long as this man remains in power, things will only continue to get worse. He has no regard for human life, not even those of his own countrymen, and that puts him squarely in the same territory as those of the last century who we need to fear the most. 

Edited 22 March, 2022 by sadoldgit

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I do get the bigger picture. I also think that you underplay Putin’s desire to make Russia a major power again and that this isn’t the end of his ambitions. The only thing he understands is brute force and at some point we will need to use it unless we are happy for him to carry on doing to others what he has done already elsewhere. 

Putin has limited scope for further re-integration of former Soviet/Russian territories; on his Western borders only Finland, ( lost to Russia after WW1 ) and Belarus are not in NATO, and to reach Moldova he is going to have to do much better in Ukraine. To the South he has been embroiled for years in the Caucasus, without really achieving much, and further East I am not sure he is really after the 'Stans. The other consideration is how much blood and treasure the current actions are costing him, and whether he would have the military capacity, or domestic support, to go further.

[AlexLaw76]

46 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I do get the bigger picture. I also think that you underplay Putin’s desire to make Russia a major power again and that this isn’t the end of his ambitions. The only thing he understands is brute force and at some point we will need to use it unless we are happy for him to carry on doing to others what he has done already elsewhere.  I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me that, as long as this man remains in power, things will only continue to get worse. He has no regard for human life, not even those of his own countrymen, and that puts him squarely in the same territory as those of the last century who we need to fear the most. 

Why do we have to use it?  Ukraine are winning right?  If that is true, we are beating him without having to step in conventionally. 

What is for certain, they have more nuclear weapons - ICBMs, SLBMs, Nuclear Torpedoes, Tactical Nukes - than anyone else, and probably have a far far lower threshold for using them!

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Why do we have to use it?  Ukraine are winning right?  If that is true, we are beating him without having to step in conventionally. 

What is for certain, they have more nuclear weapons - ICBMs, SLBMs, Nuclear Torpedoes, Tactical Nukes - than anyone else, and probably have a far far lower threshold for using them!

If winning is having your towns and cities reduced to rubble and your citizens butchered, then yes. As for the nukes, whenever I have said that our spend on Trident was/is a huge waste of money as we will never use them and our would be adversaries know that I get shouted down and told we need them because of MAD. Given that, then no one is going to use them and we only have to worry about using conventional force, yes (unless MAD is bollocks?). Our defence Secretary believes that we have kicked the Ruskies arse before and can do it again, so all’s fine eh?

[whelk]

Staggered that Alexei hasn’t posted this video yet. 

 

[whelk]

31 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If winning is having your towns and cities reduced to rubble and your citizens butchered, then yes. As for the nukes, whenever I have said that our spend on Trident was/is a huge waste of money as we will never use them and our would be adversaries know that I get shouted down and told we need them because of MAD. Given that, then no one is going to use them and we only have to worry about using conventional force, yes (unless MAD is bollocks?). Our defence Secretary believes that we have kicked the Ruskies arse before and can do it again, so all’s fine eh?

Woudl you be sitting comfortably now knowing we had no nuclear deterrent against Putin? 

[kyle04]

Regarding MAD, there is a difference between using nukes first and using them in retaliation as a last resort. The acronym was never more apt but you could argue that it's kept World War at bay for 70 years. The world would be a better place without these terrible weapons certainly, but you have to ask why has Russia still got such a huge number of them , over 6000 I think ? The argument that no one would use them I hope is true, but it wouldn't be out of some moral rationale, rather that it would be suicide. I would hope that one or two of Putins generals are ready should his finger go anywhere near the button.

[LuckyNumber7]

48 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If winning is having your towns and cities reduced to rubble and your citizens butchered, then yes. As for the nukes, whenever I have said that our spend on Trident was/is a huge waste of money as we will never use them and our would be adversaries know that I get shouted down and told we need them because of MAD. Given that, then no one is going to use them and we only have to worry about using conventional force, yes (unless MAD is bollocks?). Our defence Secretary believes that we have kicked the Ruskies arse before and can do it again, so all’s fine eh?

Who says no-one is going to use them? Nukes are a deterrant, hopefully never to be used but there as an absolute last resort. Putin knows that if he sends nukes our way he will get the same back. If Russia was the only nuclear power I think we'd all be feeling pretty vulnerable right now.

Do you think he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes?

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Who says no-one is going to use them? Nukes are a deterrant, hopefully never to be used but there as an absolute last resort. Putin knows that if he sends nukes our way he will get the same back. If Russia was the only nuclear power I think we'd all be feeling pretty vulnerable right now.

Do you think he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes?

Pointless asking that question to Soggy as he clearly has no understanding of how MAD works!

In Soggy's world, Putin would never fire nukes at us if we didn't have any as our daisy chain necklaces would protect us.

At the same time, he comes out with this classic (which suggests he doesn't even know what his own argument is) :

Quote

I also think that you underplay Putin’s desire to make Russia a major power again and that this isn’t the end of his ambitions.

 

[buctootim]

<iframe width="1136" height="753" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qkvu9v1eqBI" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[whelk]

A dude

 

[sadoldgit]

5 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Who says no-one is going to use them? Nukes are a deterrant, hopefully never to be used but there as an absolute last resort. Putin knows that if he sends nukes our way he will get the same back. If Russia was the only nuclear power I think we'd all be feeling pretty vulnerable right now.

Do you think he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes?

I don’t know if he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes but it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands. For a supposed deterrent nukes don’t deter very well as there have been countless armed conflicts involving nuclear powers since 1945. As for MAD, how does that work if you have someone who is prepared to launch first and isn’t fussed about the consequences of a second strike? I don’t know if that is the case with Putin but he seems to be sticking two fingers up to our nuclear threat by putting his own systems on alert when we have not threatened Russian territory. There are far more effective ways of waging war nowadays and the money on Trident would be far better spent on things we would actually use. Putin knows full well that we won’t launch first no matter what he does. If Putin launches first it really doesn’t matter about our ability to strike back because MAD would have failed and much of the West will be laid to waste. Another thing to remember about the MAD theory supposedly working is that there has been no direct armed conflict between any of the nuclear powers since the middle of the last century. Had there been we don’t know if nukes would have been used by either side or whether MAD would have led to use of conventional weapons only. Russia has already used chemical weapons, including here in the UK. Just one more indication that Putin has no respect or fear of what the West can or will do in response. 

[Lighthouse]

20 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t know if he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes but it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands. For a supposed deterrent nukes don’t deter very well as there have been countless armed conflicts involving nuclear powers since 1945. As for MAD, how does that work if you have someone who is prepared to launch first and isn’t fussed about the consequences of a second strike? I don’t know if that is the case with Putin but he seems to be sticking two fingers up to our nuclear threat by putting his own systems on alert when we have not threatened Russian territory. There are far more effective ways of waging war nowadays and the money on Trident would be far better spent on things we would actually use. Putin knows full well that we won’t launch first no matter what he does. If Putin launches first it really doesn’t matter about our ability to strike back because MAD would have failed and much of the West will be laid to waste. Another thing to remember about the MAD theory supposedly working is that there has been no direct armed conflict between any of the nuclear powers since the middle of the last century. Had there been we don’t know if nukes would have been used by either side or whether MAD would have led to use of conventional weapons only. Russia has already used chemical weapons, including here in the UK. Just one more indication that Putin has no respect or fear of what the West can or will do in response. 

Perhaps a brief role-play will illustrate the issue. I’m Russia and I’ve just invaded Ukraine. You’re NATO and none of your members have nukes. What do you do?

[kyle04]

There's so many contradictions in your statement Soggy :

I don’t know if he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes but it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands.

Didn't need to use nukes, a patched up BEF did the job quite nicely.

Putin but he seems to be sticking two fingers up to our nuclear threat by putting his own systems on alert when we have not threatened Russian territory.

Do you seriously think the west hasn't responded to this, only not advertised it?

Another thing to remember about the MAD theory supposedly working is that there has been no direct armed conflict between any of the nuclear powers since the middle of the last century.

Exactly, why do you think that is, could it be the possibility of MAD should two nuked up countries start a war?

Russia has already used chemical weapons, including here in the UK.

A clumsy assassination attempt, hardly a dirty bomb or a mass sarin attack.

I think Russia's shocking actions in Ukraine have taught us that you can take nothing for granted. We (the West) were getting on fine with Russia, Macdonalds and Prada in their high streets, buying their energy in vast quantities, their artistic output allowed to flourish on the west's porn websites (allegedly), turned a blind eye in Chechnia, Syria etc, but the old Cold War dog that is Putin wants to live in the 1950's. While there's still people in the world like him we need the ultimate deterent.

[whelk]

Completely baffling how the scenario that is playing out still doesn’t stop people wanting to get rid of nukes. Got no idea how their brain works as post above has highlight SOG’s incoherent mess.

[Lighthouse]

23 minutes ago, whelk said:

Completely baffling how the scenario that is playing out still doesn’t stop people wanting to get rid of nukes. Got no idea how their brain works as post above has highlight SOG’s incoherent mess.

It was two years ago this very month that I was thinking, "guess this shuts up all those anti-vaxxers once and for all." How wrong was I.

[Picard]

Are there any weapons that would be able to take out incoming nukes?

[kyle04]

3 minutes ago, Picard said:

Are there any weapons that would be able to take out incoming nukes?

If you're talking about long range ICBM,s , probably not. The US were developing their "Star Wars" programme back in the 80,s a satelite based system of taking out nukes when in high orbit, but it was traded off , probably wouldn't have worked anyway and may have been a huge bluff. It's possible some modern SAM systems may be able to intercept incoming nukes, who knows what the US have in area 51 (apart from alien corpses, right guys?).

[Whitey Grandad]

46 minutes ago, Picard said:

Are there any weapons that would be able to take out incoming nukes?

Unlikely, but would you feel safe relying on them?

[AlexLaw76]

7 hours ago, Picard said:

Are there any weapons that would be able to take out incoming nukes?

Detection of ICBMs, yes. Stopping them coming from the sky? No! That is the whole point.

What we could stop are their tactical nukes, but high likely not their Nuclear torpedoes.

 

 

 

 

[LuckyNumber7]

11 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t know if he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes but it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands. For a supposed deterrent nukes don’t deter very well as there have been countless armed conflicts involving nuclear powers since 1945. As for MAD, how does that work if you have someone who is prepared to launch first and isn’t fussed about the consequences of a second strike? I don’t know if that is the case with Putin but he seems to be sticking two fingers up to our nuclear threat by putting his own systems on alert when we have not threatened Russian territory. There are far more effective ways of waging war nowadays and the money on Trident would be far better spent on things we would actually use. Putin knows full well that we won’t launch first no matter what he does. If Putin launches first it really doesn’t matter about our ability to strike back because MAD would have failed and much of the West will be laid to waste. Another thing to remember about the MAD theory supposedly working is that there has been no direct armed conflict between any of the nuclear powers since the middle of the last century. Had there been we don’t know if nukes would have been used by either side or whether MAD would have led to use of conventional weapons only. Russia has already used chemical weapons, including here in the UK. Just one more indication that Putin has no respect or fear of what the West can or will do in response. 

I think you just answered your own question there.

Russia's nuclear deterrant seems to be working pretty well right now as it is the very reason we (NATO) are refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine. Likewise I doubt even Vlad is mad enough to attack Nato territory. Both sides know the potential consequences.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

10 hours ago, Picard said:

Are there any weapons that would be able to take out incoming nukes?

Genuine question - if you "stop" a nuke once it's been launched, I assume it therefore explodes where it is, potentially over another country.  So if Russia were to aim at us for example and we shot it out of the air above Germany, what sort of consequences could we face?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Genuine question - if you "stop" a nuke once it's been launched, I assume it therefore explodes where it is, potentially over another country.  So if Russia were to aim at us for example and we shot it out of the air above Germany, what sort of consequences could we face?

No, it shouldn't explode. There are safeguards in place.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

Genuine question - if you "stop" a nuke once it's been launched, I assume it therefore explodes where it is, potentially over another country.  So if Russia were to aim at us for example and we shot it out of the air above Germany, what sort of consequences could we face?

A very precise chain of events needs to happen to detonate the warhead on reaching its target. This wouldn't happen if the missile was intercepted and it would just fall out of the sky.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Interesting, and relieving, thanks.

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

I think you just answered your own question there.

Russia's nuclear deterrant seems to be working pretty well right now as it is the very reason we (NATO) are refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine. Likewise I doubt even Vlad is mad enough to attack Nato territory. Both sides know the potential consequences.

It depends who you are. If you are Putin the deterrent works very well as he just has to mention nukes and the West backs off. It certainly hasn’t stopped any Russian aggression in the areas he is interested in and has worked against us and those without nukes. It hasn’t really worked against him has it?

This is a reasoned argument against MAD

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

[Lighthouse]

27 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It depends who you are. If you are Putin the deterrent works very well as he just has to mention nukes and the West backs off. It certainly hasn’t stopped any Russian aggression in the areas he is interested in and has worked against us and those without nukes. It hasn’t really worked against him has it?

This is a reasoned argument against MAD

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

How do you know all of that, what are you comparing it to? You may have missed it before but what's your answer to this question?

16 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Perhaps a brief role-play will illustrate the issue. I’m Russia and I’ve just invaded Ukraine. You’re NATO and none of your members have nukes. What do you do?

 

[sadoldgit]

40 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

How do you know all of that, what are you comparing it to? You may have missed it before but what's your answer to this question?

 

Because of what he has done so far in Syria etc etc etc.  As for your second question, what do you mean? If NATO didn’t have nukes what difference would it make? It has nukes and it hasn’t stopped Russian aggression.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

It depends who you are. If you are Putin the deterrent works very well as he just has to mention nukes and the West backs off. It certainly hasn’t stopped any Russian aggression in the areas he is interested in and has worked against us and those without nukes. It hasn’t really worked against him has it?

This is a reasoned argument against MAD

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

Name a NATO country he has invaded!?

[cloggy saint]

I see Russia are interested in hosting Euro '28 or '32 ......

[Lighthouse]

28 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Because of what he has done so far in Syria etc etc etc.  As for your second question, what do you mean? If NATO didn’t have nukes what difference would it make? It has nukes and it hasn’t stopped Russian aggression.

That’s not an answer, you’ve just repeated a baseless assertion. I’ll ask again; I’m Russia and I’ve just invaded Ukraine. You’re nato and you don’t have nukes. What is your response?

[Millbrook Saint]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Because of what he has done so far in Syria etc etc etc.  As for your second question, what do you mean? If NATO didn’t have nukes what difference would it make? It has nukes and it hasn’t stopped Russian aggression.

Which NATO states have been invaded by Russia then?  You know full well Russia would think twice about chucking nukes into any NATO country, or for that matter any other country which have them for the simple fact they'd get them back. It may or may not have stopped conventional wars in that time, but my thinking is that if Russia thought they had the upper hand over NATO ie they had nukes and NATO didn't they would be more encouraged to invade, threatening a non nuclear country with their nukes if they dared fight back.

You seem to be a bit of a contrarian who would argue the sky is green, I guess it's up to people whether they think you're a cock or not

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, cloggy saint said:

I see Russia are interested in hosting Euro '28 or '32 ......

I'm not suggesting there's any corruption in football, but they'll probably get both of them.

[badgerx16]

From the BBC

"A former defence attaché at the British embassy in Moscow says that his warnings of "a long, dark march to war" by Vladimir Putin were ignored.

Air Commodore Carl Scott, now retired, writes in a letter to the Financial Times that he and his colleagues "reported the inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly and with the despair of Cassandra".

The former senior officer alleges that in the years he served in Moscow (2011-16), in the UK things changed and "all was subjugated to the City, all served the interests of our lucrative status as a safe haven for corrupt, and corrupting, wealth".

[whelk]

Our best bet is the cunt still wants to go to G20 conferences and just take him out and fuck the consequences

[badgerx16]

I really want these to be true...

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3437016-russian-serviceman-surrenders-tank-to-ukraine-after-kyiv-offers-10000-reward-citizenship-prospects.html

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-troops-are-now-turning-on-each-other-its-a-shtshow-one-soldier-is-recorded-telling-another?source=articles&via=rss

Edited 23 March, 2022 by badgerx16

[skintsaint]

Ukraine have hit the Russian port of Berdyansk this morning by the looks of it. One large vessel had explosions coming off it. Seems Ukraine still hitting deep into Russian territory instead of just on the current fronts.

 

 

[sadoldgit]

18 hours ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Which NATO states have been invaded by Russia then?  You know full well Russia would think twice about chucking nukes into any NATO country, or for that matter any other country which have them for the simple fact they'd get them back. It may or may not have stopped conventional wars in that time, but my thinking is that if Russia thought they had the upper hand over NATO ie they had nukes and NATO didn't they would be more encouraged to invade, threatening a non nuclear country with their nukes if they dared fight back.

You seem to be a bit of a contrarian who would argue the sky is green, I guess it's up to people whether they think you're a cock or not

I am not talking about NATO countries. Why shouldn’t any country expect not to be attacked by a major power? Just because someone has a different view to you doesn’t mean they are a cock. There are many people who argue that MAD is well past it’s sell by date. Are they all cocks? We guaranteed Ukraine’s security when they have up their nukes. That ended well. If for you the world is black and white, good luck with that. If you think the world is a safer place for having nuclear weapons in it, good luck with that too. Here is another view from a cock that will probably upset you.

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jns.org%2Fopinion%2Fthe-death-of-mad-mutually-assured-destruction%2F&data=04|01||63357f53e95e4929ee1308da0ce60159|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|637836479240393858|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D|3000&sdata=FOgUzh6zqjgLoc3S022l5SJgHQENeZvwk26L%2B4UyymU%3D&reserved=0

Edited 24 March, 2022 by sadoldgit

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I am not talking about NATO countries. Why shouldn’t any country expect not to be attacked by a major power? Just because someone has a different view to you doesn’t mean they are a cock. There are many people who argue that MAD is well past it’s sell by date. Are they all cocks? We guaranteed Ukraine’s security when they have up their nukes. That ended well. If for you the world is black and white, good luck with that. If you think the world is a safer place for having nuclear weapons in it, good luck with that too. Here is another view from a cock that will probably upset you.

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jns.org%2Fopinion%2Fthe-death-of-mad-mutually-assured-destruction%2F&data=04|01||63357f53e95e4929ee1308da0ce60159|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|637836479240393858|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D|3000&sdata=FOgUzh6zqjgLoc3S022l5SJgHQENeZvwk26L%2B4UyymU%3D&reserved=0

Wanting to live in a world without nukes is idealistic and implausible.

Wanting to live in a world where Putin has nuclear weapons and we don’t is insanity.

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I am not talking about NATO countries. Why shouldn’t any country expect not to be attacked by a major power? Just because someone has a different view to you doesn’t mean they are a cock. There are many people who argue that MAD is well past it’s sell by date. Are they all cocks? We guaranteed Ukraine’s security when they have up their nukes. That ended well. If for you the world is black and white, good luck with that. If you think the world is a safer place for having nuclear weapons in it, good luck with that too. Here is another view from a cock that will probably upset you.

https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jns.org%2Fopinion%2Fthe-death-of-mad-mutually-assured-destruction%2F&data=04|01||63357f53e95e4929ee1308da0ce60159|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|637836479240393858|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D|3000&sdata=FOgUzh6zqjgLoc3S022l5SJgHQENeZvwk26L%2B4UyymU%3D&reserved=0

Thanks to the security of/in the UK, you (we) enjoy such a privileged lifestyle compared to most of the global population.

Whilst we have nations, who are our enemies in multiple ways, who have significant nuclear capabilities -it would be wise to maintain our deterrent

Edited 24 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Ukraine have hit the Russian port of Berdyansk this morning by the looks of it. One large vessel had explosions coming off it. Seems Ukraine still hitting deep into Russian territory instead of just on the current fronts.

 

 

Berdyansk is Russian occupied, not Russian. They took control early in the 'Special Military Operation'.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

22 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Berdyansk is Russian occupied, not Russian. They took control early in the 'Special Military Operation'.

Is does, hopefully, suggest that Ukraine are starting to counter attack.