The Ukraine War

[BaaLocks]

4 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

This war for the Ukrainians is about the survival of their nation state, nothing more or less than that. Of course they're going to fight until the very last man. A political leader going to fight every day on the front lines would be height of idiocy but Zelensky has done a great job. Geo-politically Putin has totally miscalculated this invasion. He assumed that the Ukrainian leadership would pack up and get out, that the US and NATO would sit back and watch chaos unfold as they did in Afghanistan and the countries near them would get the willies and stop 'NATO expansion' (there's really no such thing as it is portrayed by some) in its tracks.

The reality is precisely the opposite. Putin is misguided in thinking Russia remains a great power in anything (an economically and politically deformed mess of a country) in anything but in nuclear weapon levels. They're now faced with a choice of embracing total war or humiliation, personally I can only see this going one way and that's a tactical retreat and a peace treaty. Those who fear the previous soviet union's guile and resources in combat misunderstand that a lot of the soviet union's forces and power came from those not in what we consider Russia today. 

The idea that this is really about democratic referendums in the donbass is nonsense. Putin's been more than happy annexing territory for over a decade, terror bombing blockaded starving people in Syria and has no regard for democracy at home as he happily kills off anyone who dares challenge him. Lavrov has recently even been threatening the menacing might of Moldova because they obviously pose such a threat... using exactly the same tactics Russia's been applying in Ukraine. International Relations are tricky, unpredictable and largely based on guesses and intuition, the idea that anyone is 'pulling the strings' behind an imaginary curtain has a deformed and unrealistic view of how politics is managed (chaotically by humans not necessarily adequately equipped for the job). 

Strange as you might consider it but I agree with a lot of that. Zelensky has done a great job (as a leader of his nation) mobilising the forces against Russia, and particularly gaining favour and support from nations such as Germany and (notably, according to BoJoke's leaving speech) the UK. But if you think he hasn't been supported for years prior to this by the right wing oligarchs in Ukraine and also by US involvement (Hunter Biden being just one breadcrumb in the trail) then we'll have to disagree on that part.

Yes, internationally Russia is a mess and you are right that they have completely miscalculated - but your view of Schrodinger's Putin, that he has over extended himself but yet still is keen to expand into the likes of Moldova does not even stand up to your own scrutiny. But why is Russia a mess internationally? Domestically (at least prior to Feb 24th) it is in a very robust state, I can tell you this from first hand, personal experience.

However, internationally it has been, since 1991, repeatedly shafted by America in the same way that they chose to destabilise the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc, etc), Afghanistan and Central America. It's their MO, repeated ad nauseum and yet every time we lap up the story of the evil tyrant - Saddam, Noriega, Ortega, Yanukovich - coz it fits the narrative. As I am sure you know, Al Qaeda didn't exist until the US created them as an organization (in order to proceed with terror claims after the first World Trade Centre bombings) so really, let's not be so naive to believe they are all sitting there watching CNN thinking "oh what a shame, another country that needs our help".

And the idea that this was about referendums in Donbass is exactly what this was about, it was laid out in the first Minsk protocol as part of the initial (admittedly broken) cease fire. I don't deny it has morphed way beyond this now but initially that is, to repeat, exactly what this was about.

It's a mess, I agree with you that a peace treaty of some sort is the likely outcome now. Ukraine will join NATO, destabilising the region even further and creating the resentment for whoever follows Putin, or whoever follows them, to come at this again in twenty years time with more anger, more bile and more rage. Yet we all somehow think Russia - with what we can all agree is a certain amount of paranoia built on seventy years of real experience - is expected to just appreciate this is all for the greater global peace effort having NATO borders abutting it's own (and who can miss the irony of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization feeling it has to have a presence in Eastern Europe). We learn nothing from history, or even attempt to.

And no, I'm not saying that means that Ukraine should roll over for all our safety - I am simply saying, again, this is what happens when powers like Uncle Sam meddle in matters like they do.

Oh, and @Norman - no need to waste time putting up the laughing emoji on this one - I consider it as said without needing saying. But if it gives you a little buzz, I won't mind too much - glad to know I've bought a little endorphin rush to your late evening.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

25 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Strange as you might consider it but I agree with a lot of that. Zelensky has done a great job (as a leader of his nation) mobilising the forces against Russia, and particularly gaining favour and support from nations such as Germany and (notably, according to BoJoke's leaving speech) the UK. But if you think he hasn't been supported for years prior to this by the right wing oligarchs in Ukraine and also by US involvement (Hunter Biden being just one breadcrumb in the trail) then we'll have to disagree on that part.

Yes, internationally Russia is a mess and you are right that they have completely miscalculated - but your view of Schrodinger's Putin, that he has over extended himself but yet still is keen to expand into the likes of Moldova does not even stand up to your own scrutiny. But why is Russia a mess internationally? Domestically (at least prior to Feb 24th) it is in a very robust state, I can tell you this from first hand, personal experience.

However, internationally it has been, since 1991, repeatedly shafted by America in the same way that they chose to destabilise the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc, etc), Afghanistan and Central America. It's their MO, repeated ad nauseum and yet every time we lap up the story of the evil tyrant - Saddam, Noriega, Ortega, Yanukovich - coz it fits the narrative. As I am sure you know, Al Qaeda didn't exist until the US created them as an organization (in order to proceed with terror claims after the first World Trade Centre bombings) so really, let's not be so naive to believe they are all sitting there watching CNN thinking "oh what a shame, another country that needs our help".

And the idea that this was about referendums in Donbass is exactly what this was about, it was laid out in the first Minsk protocol as part of the initial (admittedly broken) cease fire. I don't deny it has morphed way beyond this now but initially that is, to repeat, exactly what this was about.

It's a mess, I agree with you that a peace treaty of some sort is the likely outcome now. Ukraine will join NATO, destabilising the region even further and creating the resentment for whoever follows Putin, or whoever follows them, to come at this again in twenty years time with more anger, more bile and more rage. Yet we all somehow think Russia - with what we can all agree is a certain amount of paranoia built on seventy years of real experience - is expected to just appreciate this is all for the greater global peace effort having NATO borders abutting it's own (and who can miss the irony of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization feeling it has to have a presence in Eastern Europe). We learn nothing from history, or even attempt to.

And no, I'm not saying that means that Ukraine should roll over for all our safety - I am simply saying, again, this is what happens when powers like Uncle Sam meddle in matters like they do.

Oh, and @Norman - no need to waste time putting up the laughing emoji on this one - I consider it as said without needing saying. But if it gives you a little buzz, I won't mind too much - glad to know I've bought a little endorphin rush to your late evening.

Not being funny but the support until recently from Germany has been lamentable.

Britain were the most supportive nation by far both diplomatically and militarily initially and are still the second largest arms exporter behind the u.s, especially in terms of technologicaly advanced weaponry such as the anti tank n-law and startstreak anti aircraft munitions....and much of that support was because of Boris's personal belief in supporting Ukraine (whatever else he may have done wrong,this was a defining moment in creating the atmosphere of support that Ukraine needed by shaming some other nations into action)

 

[Leeds Ram]

34 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Strange as you might consider it but I agree with a lot of that. Zelensky has done a great job (as a leader of his nation) mobilising the forces against Russia, and particularly gaining favour and support from nations such as Germany and (notably, according to BoJoke's leaving speech) the UK. But if you think he hasn't been supported for years prior to this by the right wing oligarchs in Ukraine and also by US involvement (Hunter Biden being just one breadcrumb in the trail) then we'll have to disagree on that part.

Yes, internationally Russia is a mess and you are right that they have completely miscalculated - but your view of Schrodinger's Putin, that he has over extended himself but yet still is keen to expand into the likes of Moldova does not even stand up to your own scrutiny. But why is Russia a mess internationally? Domestically (at least prior to Feb 24th) it is in a very robust state, I can tell you this from first hand, personal experience.

However, internationally it has been, since 1991, repeatedly shafted by America in the same way that they chose to destabilise the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Yemen etc, etc), Afghanistan and Central America. It's their MO, repeated ad nauseum and yet every time we lap up the story of the evil tyrant - Saddam, Noriega, Ortega, Yanukovich - coz it fits the narrative. As I am sure you know, Al Qaeda didn't exist until the US created them as an organization (in order to proceed with terror claims after the first World Trade Centre bombings) so really, let's not be so naive to believe they are all sitting there watching CNN thinking "oh what a shame, another country that needs our help".

And the idea that this was about referendums in Donbass is exactly what this was about, it was laid out in the first Minsk protocol as part of the initial (admittedly broken) cease fire. I don't deny it has morphed way beyond this now but initially that is, to repeat, exactly what this was about.

It's a mess, I agree with you that a peace treaty of some sort is the likely outcome now. Ukraine will join NATO, destabilising the region even further and creating the resentment for whoever follows Putin, or whoever follows them, to come at this again in twenty years time with more anger, more bile and more rage. Yet we all somehow think Russia - with what we can all agree is a certain amount of paranoia built on seventy years of real experience - is expected to just appreciate this is all for the greater global peace effort having NATO borders abutting it's own (and who can miss the irony of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization feeling it has to have a presence in Eastern Europe). We learn nothing from history, or even attempt to.

And no, I'm not saying that means that Ukraine should roll over for all our safety - I am simply saying, again, this is what happens when powers like Uncle Sam meddle in matters like they do.

Oh, and @Norman - no need to waste time putting up the laughing emoji on this one - I consider it as said without needing saying. But if it gives you a little buzz, I won't mind too much - glad to know I've bought a little endorphin rush to your late evening.

Your retelling of middle Eastern politics is quite odd. The United States had nothing to do with the creation of al-qaeda that is a common misconception (worth reading Jason Burke, Lawrence Wright and Peter Berger on the subject as a start), had nothing to do with Syrian destabilisation (Arab Spring and Assad letting out known jihadists) and even the rebuilding of Iraq was as much a problem of regional politics as US incompetence and I could go on and on. 

The problem with this is that it waters down any credibility on whatever else you say for me. You say my claims about Moldova don't stand up to my own scrutiny but never say why? I was merely pointing to comments made by lavrov. He has made similar comments in reference to Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine... Two of those countries Russia has annexed part of. It's a well established pattern over a decade of crying about borders, ethnic Russians being persecuted followed by a military intervention. 

Whwther Russia was strong internally (an economy with the size of Italy, large scale social and health problems, and limited democracy) all point to something else it's geopolitical calculations have been treading on a dodgy line since the downturn of the war on terror. Whether Russia actually feels afraid or not the answer isn't merely to back down. It's paranoid at best and the end result would be either the annexation or sterilisation of sovereignty for countries in Eastern Europe which is not okay.

 

[Crewton]

Saddam wasn't an evil tyrant? Well I never....

Anyhow, it's apparently all of the NATO soldiers in Ukraine that are causing Russia to lose ground - there's apparently more Polish soldiers fighting the Russians than Ukrainians, which would be fitting if it was remotely true, as the Russians seem to be using an awful lot of Chechens and others from the poorer regions of their Empire i.e not so many 'European' Russians as that would damage public morale too much.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Crewton

[BaaLocks]

9 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Not being funny but the support until recently from Germany has been lamentable.

Britain were the most supportive nation by far both diplomatically and militarily initially and are still the second largest arms exporter behind the u.s, especially in terms of technologicaly advanced weaponry such as the anti tank n-law and startstreak anti aircraft munitions....and much of that support was because of Boris's personal belief in supporting Ukraine (whatever else he may have done wrong,this was a defining moment in creating the atmosphere of support that Ukraine needed by shaming some other nations into action)

 

€700m of tanks, 200,00 Ukranian children currently in German schools, promise for support on mine clearance and infrastructure. If that fits your definition of lamentable then fair enough.

[BaaLocks]

9 hours ago, Crewton said:

Saddam wasn't an evil tyrant? Well I never....

Anyhow, it's apparently all of the NATO soldiers in Ukraine that are causing Russia to lose ground - there's apparently more Polish soldiers fighting the Russians than Ukrainians, which would be fitting if it was remotely true, as the Russians seem to be using an awful lot of Chechens and others from the poorer regions of their Empire i.e not so many 'European' Russians as that would damage public morale too much.

Just as a (genuine) suggestion, maybe watch 'Once Upon A Time In Iraq' on the BBC iPlayer. Then, if you still believe Iraq is in a better place as a result of American intervention OK.

As for Chechens - you are aware that Chechnya is part of Russia? So, not it's not really fitting at all. But I also appreciate the reasons why this is of interest to Poland to want to ensure that Russia does not get too much of a geographical footprint too near to their own borders. BTW - Ramzan Khadyrov has recently been quite critical of Putin's strategy so I am not sure how long that will continue.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

45 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

€700m of tanks, 200,00 Ukranian children currently in German schools, promise for support on mine clearance and infrastructure. If that fits your definition of lamentable then fair enough.

In comparison to the UK's £2.3 billion and range of equipment,it certainly is.

Plus Germany's contribution was a long time coming and much of it still hasn't arrived.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61482305.amp

Edited September 15, 2022 by kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong

[BaaLocks]

10 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

Your retelling of middle Eastern politics is quite odd. The United States had nothing to do with the creation of al-qaeda that is a common misconception (worth reading Jason Burke, Lawrence Wright and Peter Berger on the subject as a start), had nothing to do with Syrian destabilisation (Arab Spring and Assad letting out known jihadists) and even the rebuilding of Iraq was as much a problem of regional politics as US incompetence and I could go on and on. 

The problem with this is that it waters down any credibility on whatever else you say for me. You say my claims about Moldova don't stand up to my own scrutiny but never say why? I was merely pointing to comments made by lavrov. He has made similar comments in reference to Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine... Two of those countries Russia has annexed part of. It's a well established pattern over a decade of crying about borders, ethnic Russians being persecuted followed by a military intervention. 

Whwther Russia was strong internally (an economy with the size of Italy, large scale social and health problems, and limited democracy) all point to something else it's geopolitical calculations have been treading on a dodgy line since the downturn of the war on terror. Whether Russia actually feels afraid or not the answer isn't merely to back down. It's paranoid at best and the end result would be either the annexation or sterilisation of sovereignty for countries in Eastern Europe which is not okay.

 

It's not odd at all, it's just different to your perspective. That's the point of the discussion from my side, I'm not here to say you are wrong / right / stupid / clever but to bring a different lens to the discussion. To your point on Moldova - as I saw it, you say yourself that the Russian attack and expansion is failing yet a few sentences later say they are also looking beyond Ukraine. The two points don't align - they are contradictory. If you want my version of 'odd' I'd say your suggestion that the US had nothing to do with the Arab Spring or Syrian destabilisation would be my view there - beyond bizarre to me that you could suggest that with such clarity.

Your point on Russia exhibiting paranoia, fair point but to quote the great philosopher Kurt Cobain “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”

As always, we're not going to agree - I doubt you'll lose too much sleep over that. But at least the opening request of the thread is respected - it's not personal, it's not abusive (not that I care that much if it is, we're never going to meet and my opinion matters as much to you, likely, as that of any other passer by on the street).

[BaaLocks]

5 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

In comparison to the UK's £2.3 billion and range of equipment,it certainly is.

Plus Germany's contribution was a long time coming and much of it still hasn't arrived.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61482305.amp

I'd argue that it's £2.3bn (it's actually reported as £3.8bn) of support from UK that is lamentable - whichever way you look at it.

Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.

Want a anti-Govt spin? UK willingly removed ourselves in 2015 as an integrated player in European politics and has a limited geographical proximity to Ukraine - it's a terrible conflict but no more, no less than many others happening around the world (except these are whities, that look a lot like a lot of us, maybe not you - it's not a personal jibe). But all the flags, lapel badges and speeches from Boris suited two aspects perfectly - firstly to deflect from other news (partygate being an obvious one) but also to satisfy Bunter's desire to be all Churchillian and play silly war games (something he might have done for personal benefit but with imprecise return to the UK).

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

8 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I'd argue that it's £2.3bn (it's actually reported as £3.8bn) of support from UK that is lamentable - whichever way you look at it.

Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.

Want a anti-Govt spin? UK willingly removed ourselves in 2015 as an integrated player in European politics and has a limited geographical proximity to Ukraine - it's a terrible conflict but no more, no less than many others happening around the world (except these are whities, that look a lot like a lot of us, maybe not you - it's not a personal jibe). But all the flags, lapel badges and speeches from Boris suited two aspects perfectly - firstly to deflect from other news (partygate being an obvious one) but also to satisfy Bunter's desire to be all Churchillian and play silly war games (something he might have done for personal benefit but with imprecise return to the UK).

Hilarious left wing bias there,but if it helps carry on.

The Ukrainians are the true arbiters of the support that they are receiving and who from...

And what is this nonsense about a white war?

It's a conflict on the edge of Europe,that unchecked would have probably led to an increasing bullish Kremlin extending its borders even further westwards.

This isn't a minor skirmish,it has worldwide implications and it's vital to contain that....Boris,for all his faults,saw the big picture and acted decisively when most didn't or were constrained from doing so.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, BaaLocks said:

 

As for Chechens - you are aware that Chechnya is part of Russia? So, not it's not really fitting at all. But I also appreciate the reasons why this is of interest to Poland to want to ensure that Russia does not get too much of a geographical footprint too near to their own borders. BTW - Ramzan Khadyrov has recently been quite critical of Putin's strategy so I am not sure how long that will continue.

Good piece here from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/11/putin-loyalist-kadyrov-criticises-russian-armys-performance-over-ukraine-retreat?amp;amp

[Wolfie]

30 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Want a pro-Ukraine spin? Well we've just signed of fifty times that to energy suppliers, fifteen times that on a non-exisent app for C-19. Kind of shows where the really focus is.

 

Not for this topic but are people still peddling that utter rubbish?

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

44 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Not for this topic but are people still peddling that utter rubbish?

It would appear so.

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

Just as a (genuine) suggestion, maybe watch 'Once Upon A Time In Iraq' on the BBC iPlayer. Then, if you still believe Iraq is in a better place as a result of American intervention OK.

As for Chechens - you are aware that Chechnya is part of Russia? So, not it's not really fitting at all. But I also appreciate the reasons why this is of interest to Poland to want to ensure that Russia does not get too much of a geographical footprint too near to their own borders. BTW - Ramzan Khadyrov has recently been quite critical of Putin's strategy so I am not sure how long that will continue.

Show me where I said that Iraq was in a better place? I didn't, did I? I was simply pointing out that they didn't have to demonise him - anyone unclear as to whether Saddam and his sons were tyrants must have a very high threshold of tyrannical behaviour - they merely had to invent/exaggerate a premise for removing him. 

As for Chechnya, they wanted to secede, just like the separatists in Crimea and Donbass, but Putin crushed them ruthlessly, like Stalin before him, and placed Khadyrov on the throne as his proxy to keep his boot on the neck of Chechen nationalism (you know all this of course). I noted Khadyrov's comments, which probably is an indication that he knows he's someone that Putin would struggle to replace and still hope to keep Chechnya suppressed.

 

[Alph]

1 hour ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

 

And what is this nonsense about a white war?

 

I know your perspective on it because you went on to say that it's because it's close to home that we should be/are more concerned than any other war. 

But the other perspective is that there a places and people in the world that we are ok with seeing war. We're ok with them dying. We're ok with border doubling, tripling, quadrupling and more if it's a part of the world where that sort of thing just happens. We're ok with widespread famine and displacement of millions of people if it's over there where they're always fighting. Cus that's what they do, there. 

But Ukraine are white people. European people. Civilised people. Our people. 

Now I'm obviously not suggesting you're one of these people. This isn't a personal attack mate. 

Why is it so unimaginable to have war in Europe. We're civilised people! We're the peak of humanity. You don't get extremists here. We're not like those barbarians in the Middle East. It's not acceptable for Europeans to die. It's certainly not acceptable for Americans to die in America. What happened in Iraq? What happened in Palestine? Gaza you say? Afghanistan? Well that's just what they do there isn't it? Barbarians! Uncivilised barbarians who should live like us. 

I just feel, and it's fine if you disagree, that we're desensitized when it comes to America's enemies dying. But when it's an ally then insert sad music and show the human cost. 

It's not white war as in everyone is racist. It's about how conflicts are presented to you and how you're trained to feel about that. Because they don't want you talking about the Azov Battalion. They don't want you to ask why Israel has swallowed up land. They don't want you asking why we step in to help these people but not those people. 

Or worse still, why do we help them people kill those people if we're the good guys? Isn't that a contradiction to what we're saying over here? 

 

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

19 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I know your perspective on it because you went on to say that it's because it's close to home that we should be/are more concerned than any other war. 

But the other perspective is that there a places and people in the world that we are ok with seeing war. We're ok with them dying. We're ok with border doubling, tripling, quadrupling and more if it's a part of the world where that sort of thing just happens. We're ok with widespread famine and displacement of millions of people if it's over there where they're always fighting. Cus that's what they do, there. 

But Ukraine are white people. European people. Civilised people. Our people. 

Now I'm obviously not suggesting you're one of these people. This isn't a personal attack mate. 

Why is it so unimaginable to have war in Europe. We're civilised people! We're the peak of humanity. You don't get extremists here. We're not like those barbarians in the Middle East. It's not acceptable for Europeans to die. It's certainly not acceptable for Americans to die in America. What happened in Iraq? What happened in Palestine? Gaza you say? Afghanistan? Well that's just what they do there isn't it? Barbarians! Uncivilised barbarians who should live like us. 

I just feel, and it's fine if you disagree, that we're desensitized when it comes to America's enemies dying. But when it's an ally then insert sad music and show the human cost. 

It's not white war as in everyone is racist. It's about how conflicts are presented to you and how you're trained to feel about that. Because they don't want you talking about the Azov Battalion. They don't want you to ask why Israel has swallowed up land. They don't want you asking why we step in to help these people but not those people. 

Or worse still, why do we help them people kill those people if we're the good guys? Isn't that a contradiction to what we're saying over here? 

 

It's unimaginable to have war in Europe, not because of its geography or the race of the people involved,it's because of the fact that nuclear powers are/could become involved and the threat of a nuclear conflict becomes a reality.

The same applies to a war in the Pacific region that threatened to involve the major players.

Those wars wouldn't be localised,they would involve the world.

A lot of people are interested in the pros and cons of Israel and the Palestinians and other ongoing minor conflicts that will forever plague the world (it's the nature of man to be in conflict,it's never going to be irradicated and looking at it from a anti Israel/American/bad guy standpoint is inherently ridiculous) but what gets the big interest is the threat of world/nuclear war which big conflicts have led to twice in the past 100 or so years...

So it's not that we are not interested in people dying in other countries or that no one cares that they may be black or Hispanic or Palestinian or American or whatever....it's just that these incidents aren't on the potential global scale that scares the living s*** out of everyone.

Edited September 15, 2022 by kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong

[BaaLocks]

46 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Show me where I said that Iraq was in a better place? I didn't, did I? I was simply pointing out that they didn't have to demonise him - anyone unclear as to whether Saddam and his sons were tyrants must have a very high threshold of tyrannical behaviour - they merely had to invent/exaggerate a premise for removing him. 

As for Chechnya, they wanted to secede, just like the separatists in Crimea and Donbass, but Putin crushed them ruthlessly, like Stalin before him, and placed Khadyrov on the throne as his proxy to keep his boot on the neck of Chechen nationalism (you know all this of course). I noted Khadyrov's comments, which probably is an indication that he knows he's someone that Putin would struggle to replace and still hope to keep Chechnya suppressed.

 

I didn't you are right - but you did suggest that Saddam was an evil tyrant, Uncle Sam helped remove that evil tyrant so if they've done that and the country isn't in a better place then, well, ooops I guess.

As for Chechnya, when Russians try to maintain their sovereign borders (that have been in place since 1858) it's crushing them ruthlessly. When Ukraine try to do the same with borders that have been in place since 1991 it's a wonderful thing that's needs our undying (and sometimes dying) support. But no strings being pulled eh? 

[BaaLocks]

19 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

It's just that these incidents aren't on the potential global scale that scares the living s*** out of everyone.

Well it scared Britain out of the EU.

Lifted from "The World.org" 

It didn’t matter that many of those pictured were likely refugees fleeing war and violence in the Middle East. Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party (UKIP), which produced the poster, sought to make the link in voters’ minds between the refugee crisis in mainland Europe and immigration.

Contrast that with the Ukranian flag flying on your local village green or the help points for refugess at every entry point into the UK.

[Bob The Badger]

On 12/09/2022 at 21:45, uttoxram75 said:

"A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at either end".

A wise old soldier told me that many years ago.

You knew Lenin?

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

14 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

Well it scared Britain out of the EU.

Lifted from "The World.org" 

It didn’t matter that many of those pictured were likely refugees fleeing war and violence in the Middle East. Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party (UKIP), which produced the poster, sought to make the link in voters’ minds between the refugee crisis in mainland Europe and immigration.

Contrast that with the Ukranian flag flying on your local village green or the help points for refugess at every entry point into the UK.

You think that it was primarily immigration that defined Brexit?

(that's one of the mindsets that led to it being achieved in the first place by the way i.m.o)

Its a very narrow minded view of the British electorate or indeed it's response to the Ukrainian crisis (both involving eastern European refugees mind)

But let's stay off Brexit if we can,it's a revolving door of arguements that both go nowhere and stifle discussions of other subjects when everyone climbs over to their personal side of the fence.

Edited September 15, 2022 by kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong