Yawn.
Besides, the Fins have nowt to fear from Russia. They’ve proven that before.
Pretty sure the Finnish president disagrees with your fairly baseless assertion.
Yes yes whatever.
Zzzzzz
Besides, the Fins have nowt to fear from Russia. They’ve proven that before.
Because they beat a very poorly equipped and lead Soviet Army in '39-40? Don't you think things might be a wee bit different?
If you quote the rest of what she said
""All in all, I believe the NATO discussion will increase in the coming years," Marin said."
So they are on a journey, I imagine a Russian invasion of Ukraine might accelerate it.
What a tedious person you are.
on the 1 January 2022, Finland's president, Sauli Niinistö, reasserted Finnish sovereignty by stating that the Finnish government reserved the right to apply for NATO membership. Furthermore, Niinistö said that Russian demands threaten the "European security order". Additionally, he believes that transatlantic cooperation is needed for the maintenance of sovereignty and security of some EU member states, including Finland.
or does your opinion supersede that of the elected Finnish leader?
@B&D if infact the Russians invade the Ukraine. And when they dont....
Because they're looking for concessions. And to invade means zero chance of any and can only lead to considerably more and greater problems. So why would they invade. Too many negatives for them.
Better to rattle the sabre, as other countries do from time to time.
Because they beat a very poorly equipped and lead Soviet Army in ’39-40? Don’t you think things might be a wee bit different?
No, because I googled what the Finnish people think of Russia and if the populous as a whole was afraid of Russian aggression. They are wary of them, but from the answers from Finnish people of today on reddit and quora they are stating they arent afraid.
Soviet union in the 40's was at the height of its power under a total nutter who instilled fear in his troops. The boss wouldnt have been to chuffed had his people lost to such a small country that is Finland..but as you say suffered disproportional losses. Finland didnt win incidentally. They remained sovereign, but ceded land.
So you appear to be wrong, and are even unaware of the history of their conflict. But stand and shout at me. No offence mate, but ..well enough said there eh 😕
Honestly 🙄
Pretty sure the Finnish president disagrees with your fairly baseless assertion.
I should answer this ,not fair to be as dismissive of someone elses opinion eh 😕
Do the Finnish really want such a weak president who is quaking in his boots at the thought of what Russia might do ?
But if you think my assertion based upon what the Finnish people think, please respond with the evidence that the Finnish president is afraid of the Russians.
So are the Finnish afraid of Russia ?. Wary yes, afraid no.
dyna-ti
Free Member
Tell you what. Go argue amongst yourselves, I’ll not be checking back into this thread.
But then you came back to post more drivel like this:
Yes yes whatever.
Zzzzzz
Whatever thols. you cant accept my opinion so resorted to posting derogatory messages towards me.So why should i pay you the slightest bit of respect.
Reasserted Finnish sovereignty by stating that the Finnish government reserved the right to apply for NATO membership.
{PLEASE FFS SHOW WHERE THAT SAYS THEY ARE INTENT ON JOINING NATO. PLEASE FFS, GO ON.
See until they ACTUALLY do it. They've not ACTUALLY done it. Christ in a handcart. 🙄
I have the right to vote, doesnt mean i will. I have the right to pop over to the shops later, doesnt mean i will. Just because I have the right to, doesnt mean I actually will
But forget all that. Forget my opinion and answer why the Finnish foreign secretary stated that Finland has no desire now or in the future to join nato, and if you cant the sod off and keep your nonsensical opinion to yourself.
Oh look Pictonroad you tedious so and so, my article directly from theFinnish prime minister is dated 20 Jan, and yours the 1st of Jan.
I was quoting the prime minister
no one in his club wants the free cash train to end
And it is a shame that our leaders are so reliant on that that they will be unwilling to act decisively to seize Russian financial interests in the UK, the threat of which is one of the greatest disincentives for the current regime to invade.
At least we'll finally find out how good the Russian cyber/electronic infrastructure offensive capabilities are, and how woefully defended we are.
So was I.
So we agree that they could join nato but are unlikely to.
Someone please relate that to pictonroad. Who has a problem understanding the difference between might and might not.
you cant accept my opinion
Your opinion is just Russian propaganda. Nobody accepts it. That's why you stomped off and said you weren't coming back. But then you came back. So, why come back when nothing has changed?
Exactly, nothing has changed. Russia still hasnt invaded and you still cant accept that they are unlikely to.
Forgive me for not blindly following. 🙄
I get your point. Russia - Bad. US/UK alliance - Good.
Next you'll be full on against China. then who knows, Africa maybe ? 😕 Or perhaps more horror to be inflicted on south America, now that bastion of good nato have a foothold in Colombia.
And yes, The Chinese regime is a nasty lot. Just want to get that straight, dont want you twisting any more facts to suit the rhetoric you favour.
Anyway, back to the Rugby. Wales are in front by one point, 6-5
why are you trying to shift the discussion to argue a point I'm not making?
You said, they have nothing to fear. History and their political stance and statements prove otherwise.
Now you're trying to make an argument that it's entirely about whether Finland join Nato.
You know you're right about that, they've stated they're not likely to join in the near future.
However, that's not the point we disagree on, in fact, the article you've quoted makes the same point.
Irrespective of Nato membership, Russian interference in the independent decisions of a neighbouring nation is a threat to their security.
Sorry Pictonroad, you've become tedious.
Russia still hasnt invaded and you still cant accept that they are unlikely to.
Russia have invaded. Have they finished? That’s the big question for people in Ukraine. And, if not, where and when will they finish? That is the question that those in other Eastern European countries are asking themselves.
😂
Your opinion is just Russian propaganda.
It's the only plausible explanation tbh.
Particularly the insertions of "you think this"
Sorry Pictonroad, you’ve become tedious.
So do you see yourself as the pot or the kettle on the tedious issue?
Yes yes.
And 6 months from now the Russians will have redistributed their troops back home, Ukraine will be told privately theres no nato membership coming, the EU will give them a gigantic cheque as compensation, allow them to keep all those new munitions for free, and the Ukrainian government will steal most of the cash.
What kind of person puts the rugby score on a different thread..
SPOILER ALERTS
The Russian shills in US politics are in full swing.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1492306240680038401
Sadly, we have our own here. Including politicians I used to have a lot of time for. The idea seems to be that if we don’t help Eastern European countries to defend themselves, and refuse to stand with them, then Russia won’t be “provoked” into expanding westward. These people seem to want to ignore who is in charge of Russia and its Military. Putin doesn’t need provoking. He just needs to be given the opportunities to grab, and he will if he thinks he can get away with doing so he will.
So it looks like they'll invade on the 21st, then? Seems weirdly specific to me. Do you pop it in the diary next to the shopping list? The whole thing is really surreal
Nothing surreal about a specific date being targeted as 'the day' to invade.
The general populace of 3rd party countries being informed of that date however....
When I heard the Biden, and to a lesser extent Johnson (my spell checker tried to call him nonsense🤣) had ruled out boots on the ground I got the feeling that they had just given up and abandoned Ukraine to it's fate.
Yes, the stakes would be higher if there were US/British/German/French troops there but I get the feeling that might stop it.
By saying we won't do that it's pretty much giving Putin the go ahead, he knows he can't be stopped (whether it will succeed is another matter, I predict another drawn out bloody mess as they fail to subdue it) He will already have factored any sanctions into his thinking, and if China aren't joining in with them they just won't be as effective as needed.
.
Where did you get 21st from Shermer? Ot is very odd to announce a date beforehand
I might be wrong but isn't that date the end of the Olympics?
Putin might not mind slaughtering people but doesn't want to overshadow his best mates little shindig.
I thought it finished the day before
Some of the Russian athletes might be taking part in the invasion being all 'roided up and such, so might need a bit of travel time to the front.
I feel somewhat for Ukraine having been screwed over by Russia, Britain and the United States to de-nuclearize their weapons.
If they still had them, I doubt Russia would be at the border today.
I guess this is why the US, UK and EU are now frantically panicking and they are party to putting Ukraine in a very exposed position.
Looks like the Russians have given Ireland a wake up call as well - whilst planning on playing war games off their coast - the only protection Ireland had was their fishing fleet.
Just shows we have to invest in our defence.
dyls
Free MemberI feel somewhat for Ukraine having been screwed over by Russia, Britain and the United States to de-nuclearize their weapons.
If they still had them, I doubt Russia would be at the border today.
After the first invasion, Ukraine's leaders were pretty adamant that they were happy to have disarmed and wouldn't change a thing.
The thing is, as a non-lunatic country, nuclear weapons are of incredibly little value in these situations. Would ukraine have used nukes against Russia when they annexed the crimea? No. So would it have deterred Russia? Likewise.
Does anyone actually think Russia are going to invade? Seems to me this all being orchestrated to make two weak leaders look stronger in the eyes of their citizens. The US got themselves messily involved in Ukrainian politics and need to extract themselves, and putin is under pressure to support those in the donbas who see themselves as Russian. Seems to me both sides will get what they want.
I don’t think they will invade.
I have a feeling they will just pull out their troops and basically say we told you all along we are not going to invade ( which to be fair they have)
Whether or not the USA or our own illustrious leader will say / do something stupid to wind them up as they are walking away is another matter.
I don’t think they will invade.
Oh ffs dont say that. Thols has it marked in on his planner. 😛 😉
He'll be disappointed otherwise..
Does anyone actually think Russia are going to invade?
Who knows. It really comes down to whether Putin thinks it suits his aims better both short term and long term which has a mix between physical objectives of controlling x vs psychological objectives of "was he going to invade before Truss made him backdown"? The latter of which might make him flip from using a threat to achieve an aim to deciding even achieving that aim is a bad idea longterm.
I think it started as an threat which wasnt meant to become real but as the sage said everyone has a plan until they are punched in the mouth.
The thing is, as a non-lunatic country, nuclear weapons are of incredibly little value in these situations. Would ukraine have used nukes against Russia when they annexed the crimea? No. So would it have deterred Russia? Likewise.
Nuclear weapons work by having just that little bit of uncertainty. Would they have used them? Probably not, but as long as there was enough doubt there to make Russia think twice they will have served their purpose. India and ****stan seem to have stopped having so many wars since they both got them for example.
Flattening Moscow would have been madness, using one to take out the entire Black Sea fleet, maybe not. I don't think they had small enough ones to be viable as a battlefield weapon against massed troops but they might have done by now if they had developed/bought replacements.
They are definitely working for North Korea, we can be pretty sure they would use them if push came to shove, and that's why Iraq was invaded but not NK. That is also why Iran might want some.
andrewh
Free MemberThey are definitely working for North Korea, we can be pretty sure they would use them if push came to shove, and that’s why Iraq was invaded but not NK. That is also why Iran might want some.
Like I say, non-insane. NK, Iraq, Iran, that's a credible risk. India, ****stan, maybe, those guys can be pretty crazy when it comes to their borders (and it's going to get much worse if even a fraction of the predictions of climate change come true). But ukraine? Nope. They know what it's like to get radiated.
(though, even with NK it's not clear that they're working- NK has a massive conventional weapon threat as well)
Flattening Moscow would have been madness, using one to take out the entire Black Sea fleet, maybe not.
But in such a scenario the will not,must not rules concerning the use of nuclear weapons would have been breached and the problem we have then is the Russians might feel a return strike very much in order.
I dont think 'we're going to launch a nuclear attack on you, but you mustn't launch one back' mentality is going to work.
These situations could get very much out of hand and none of us want that.
As such even talking about this stuff should be off the cards 😯
I don’t think they will invade.
I have a feeling they will just pull out their troops and basically say we told you all along we are not going to invade ( which to be fair they have)
Difficult to see Putin backing down after all the fuss he's made about Ukraine. He made demands from NATO, the EU, and US that he knew they would not accept. If he just withdraws his military buildup, it will be perceived as him backing down after NATO called his bluff. Being seen as backing down in the eyes of the Russian public would be a massive blow to him. He cannot afford to back down.
Interesting article.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute
Interesting article.
It's tripe like most of what he writes
Completely ignored that Poland etc were also on the path to EU membership at the same time.
Could NATO refuse membership to a EU member state? No, so it would happen anyway.
His logic is a false narrative that sovereign states joining NATO is an aggression. He makes out that token UK activity is serious aggression, the destroyer running close the the Crimea, it wasn't exactly the Grand Fleet, it was also testing the right to navigate in international waters, like the navy is supposed to do.
As such even talking about this stuff should be off the cards 😯
Gives everyone a huge stiffy and excites their macho warrior genes. There’s barely disguised excitement at the prospect of a new Cold War and confronting Putin. Even the leader of the Labour Party and his apparatchiks are getting frisky. It’s pathetic.
Gives everyone a huge stiffy and excites their macho warrior genes. There’s barely disguised excitement at the prospect of a new Cold War and confronting Putin. Even the leader of the Labour Party and his apparatchiks are getting frisky. It’s pathetic.
I really doubt it
No-one wants to fight Russia that's why any troops diplomats and everyone else is getting out of the way. No-one wants a major conflict in Ukraine to turn into WW3.
The preferred option is to turn it into another China where you hold you nose and continue to buy the gas ignoring the unacceptable plane downings, assassination, cyberwarfare, minor invasions supporting ethnic Russians, territory grabs, fake news, etc etc Just like we do with China.
Part of the policy is good old deterrence, which means looking like you are prepared to inflict pain on Russia and Putin.
The Russians have a history of abhorrent behaviour towards Ukraine, to this day they deny the Holodomor actually happened:
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-holodomor.html
Puti’s claims have no real basis in history anyway.
I really doubt it
I think the only qualification to that is that US hawks will be interested as to how well US defence tech currently in Ukranian hands performs, and what hidden capacity, particularly cyber, the Russians decide to use. Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus.
I'm interested as to whether China sees an opportunity to further its interests because the eyes of the world are elsewhere.
The Russians have a history of abhorrent behaviour towards Ukraine, to this day they deny the Holodomor actually happened:
1932 ?? Under Stalin.
And thats somehow still the fault of Russia a completely different country now under Putin.
What of India under Victoria, for example the Bengal famine of 1943, or the other atrocities committed by we the British while in occupation of Africa, or Australia. .. Are they as relevant today, are we to use those today as a sign Britain is a dangerous aggressive world power bent on the destruction of others for our own gain ?.
No of course they aren't. Britain is a completely different country now than it was in the 1930's.
Therefore completely irrelevant.
@Big and Daft.
You seem quick to dismiss any analysis in any paper which you disagree with, but others you are willing to accept as gospel. Even twitter.
You should really look at all parts of the argument.
" Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus."
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Little pockets of resistance would be quickly wiped out, not doubt in an atrocious manner
I think the only qualification to that is that US hawks will be interested as to how well US defence tech currently in Ukranian hands performs, and what hidden capacity, particularly cyber, the Russians decide to use. Getting Putin sucked into a draining insurgency-style conflict would be a bonus.
The tech gets plenty of use elsewhere, the grownups in the room will know that this is bollox reason which no-one sensible will put forward, a Russian invasion means half of Europe goes cold when the gas gets turned off.
There is no "upside" in a conflict, just dead Ukrainians and Russians and a rise in the cost of living, and more international uncertainty for us
And thats somehow still the fault of Russia a completely different country now under Putin.
Little pockets of resistance would be quickly wiped out, not doubt in an atrocious manner
?
A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Ukraine is the largest country in Eastern Europe, excepting Russia itself. It is more than twice the size of the UK.
There is no “upside” in a conflict
I don't think we are in disagreement, but there will be some out there with a more warped mindset. I don't think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
I learnt a great new quote today:
"Don't argue with stupid people. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
- Mark Twain
It really made me chuckle
This Twain guy sounds great. Is he on Twitter?
You seem quick to dismiss any analysis in any paper which you disagree with
Simon Jenkins is never "analysis"
It's a distorted picture to reflect his views and to attack individual members of the government and Brexit which he hates
As for Twitter what am I picking up off that platform?
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Makes you wonder why they just don't give Putin the keys and let him get on with the takeover.
. I don’t think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
As the people who make these things know, as soon as you reveal your capabilities the other side develops counter measures.
Makes you wonder why they just don’t give Putin the keys and let him get on with the takeover.
I think thats a bit extreme.
I've been going over this thread. Its over 4 weeks old. 4 weeks ago the invasion was days away. Analysis today is it is days away. And thats analysis of the sources you are agreeing with. So who to follow, who to believe, who to spit at or readily dismiss.
– Mark Twain
The slavery apologist.
But call him racist, or call him the man of the times, its only your point of view.
. I don’t think that the capabilities of modern US battlefield tech have been trialled in this kind of conflict.
The U.S. will not supply their cutting edge tech to Ukraine. First, they don't want Russia to get hold of it. Second, it would take months or years to train Ukraine to use it effectively. The U.S. military put huge emphasis on networked technology so that soldiers on the ground can share and access information to and from aircraft, satellites, etc. That requires massive IT infrastructure and training that Ukraine doesn't have. As far as anyone has reported, the aid is limited to things like anti-tank missiles and anti-helicopter missiles, which don't require intensive training. The U.S. already has years of experience using those in combat. Of course, they may have been covertly training Ukrainians to use more advanced radars and missiles, but those haven't been supplied to Ukraine yet. Those wouldn't be supplied until after hostilities broke out and the U.S. already has years or decades of combat experience with them.
Unlikely, given the size of the country and the Russians already living there who feel they are still part of Russia. In Afghanistan the entire population hated the invaders, plus the lack of infrastructure made moving about difficult so insurgents were able to hide.A Ukrainian insurgency would fast run out of places to hide.
Even a quick google tells us that approximately 17% of Ukraine's population is ethnic Russian, they are concentrated in regions already de facto occupied by the Russians, and that a majority of those voted in favour of independence in the referendum. So it is likely that, even if attitudes have hardened, the percentage of Ukraine's population who both view themselves as Russian and would be supportive of Russian intervention is probably in single digits.
The U.S. will not supply their cutting edge tech to Ukraine.
Fair enough.
– Mark Twain
The
slavery apologistadvocate for the abolition of slavery and vice-president of The American Anti-Imperialist League.
FTFY
Some interesting analysis stressing the utter irrelevance of post-Brexit Britain, despite Liz’s photo ops. Nobody gives a flying **** what anyone in London thinks, because everyone knows that this government is funded by dirty Russian money
https://twitter.com/carneross/status/1492783358233001987?s=21
Nobody gives a flying **** what anyone in London thinks,
Good. We’ve got f-all to do with it so best we keep out of it.
Would Putin be posturing to invade Ukraine if Trump was still in office?
Just a thought...
Trump would have organised a tableful of hamberders to welcome him to Kiev.
We will rebuild the iron curtain Russia is going to pay for it
Would Putin be posturing to invade Ukraine if Trump was still in office?
Just a thought…
I actually think that it's Trumps repeated attempts at weakening NATO are one of the things that has encouraged Putin to consider it
I actually think that it’s Trumps repeated attempts at weakening NATO are one of the things that has encouraged Putin to consider it
Wasn't that more to do with the spending budgets, with the US putting in the lions share and Trump believing the rest should put more in than they were. Hence the threat to pull out if they didn't.
The big table up there, Macron refused to do a pcr test in Russia as he didn't want Russia to get his DNA, hence the super large socially distanced table.
The table was so Putin could not pour macrons tea.
1 lump or2
Does Putin have a mole on here?
Joking aside, he doesn't need bots/moles, just a sympathetic ear to then amplify the message.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60292915
he doesn’t need bots/moles, just a sympathetic ear to then amplify the message.
The correct term is "useful idiots".
The correct term is “useful idiots”.
Or maybe some of us are able to see both sides and don't immediately start chest beating like demented apes the minute the opportunity arises to prove our masculinity. In addition to Starmer using it to show the arms industry he's no threat to them you have our defence ministers stoking the fires with talk of appeasement and missiles raining down 'within minutes' (where have we heard that before?).
When Putin marches his troops away from Ukraine with his goal of preventing Ukraine joining NATO in his pocket all the pound-shop warmongers are going to look pretty stupid. The only place war is being hyped up is in the west, and in particular the US and UK.
Or maybe some of us are able to see both sides and don’t immediately start chest beating like demented apes the minute the opportunity arises to prove our masculinity
Just out of interest: how would you define moving 140,000 troops to the border with lots of tanks and planes to deliver lots of explodey things?
As 'chest-beating' goes, that seems quite chest-beaty to me. Not to you though?
*wanders off to move a number of trebuchet to the bottom of Daz's garden*
how would you define moving 140,000 troops to the border
It's a strategic move designed to force Ukraine to give up their reckless ambition to join NATO. And it will almost certainly be successful.
Or are you suggesting that a sovereign state doesn't have the right to move its military within its borders? No one in Kyiv is particular worried about an invasion, no one in Russia is. Stop listening to tory and labour warmongers who are trying to look hard on the news. Best leave the grown up stuff to the Russians and Americans and cease with the pathetic schoolyard posturing.
It is odd though Binners that you arent equating NATO building bases along the border of Russia as a similarly aggressive move.
So nato(North Atlantic Treaty Organization(None of the Eastern European states are bordered by the Atlantic, but never mind, a minor point really eh ? 😉 )Expands and expands right up to the Russian border, building bases, adding missiles and stationing tens of thousands of troops isnt aggressive. But Russia moves 130,000 troops within its own country and you see that as aggressive.
Hmm. me thinks hypocrisy is at work here.
.
Awaits thols for his latest sarcastic comment. Thats a debate winner for sure.
When Putin marches his troops away from Ukraine with his goal of preventing Ukraine joining NATO in his pocket all the pound-shop warmongers are going to look pretty stupid.
Except Putin who will have won by using (the threat of) force to change the foreign policy of another sovereign state. Do we deem that acceptable?
What if he next demands Finland never join, or Estonia leave? When do we say no?
The result is Putin has given his troops a change of scenery. Shaken the cobwebs out the kit, and refocused his military's attention. meanwhile NATO have spent tens of millions.
It’s a strategic move designed to force Ukraine to give up their reckless ambition to join NATO.
Pretty much the definition of chest beating. So, what you're saying is that, if Ukraine doesn't do what Russia demands, it's ok for Russia to invade them? I'm a bit confused about your point here, you make it sound like Russia is trying to bully Ukraine but you don't think anyone should support Ukraine in resisting being bullied.
But Russia moves 130,000 troops within its own country and you see that as aggressive.
Russia invaded Ukraine years ago. This is preparation for a larger scale invasion. NATO has not invaded Russia, Ukraine has not invaded Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, that's the problem.
Given a neighbour with expansionist tendencies which has already invaded part of your country, and a leader who has already said he sees the two countries as one, then I don’t really see wanting to join a defensive alliance as reckless. In fact if you’re the leader of Ukraine it’s arguably more reckless not to join NATO, given the disparity in the size and capability of the armed forces.
The annexation of Crimea ?.Thats disputed between the Ukraine and Russia.
We are neither Russian, or Ukrainian. but you feel we should be siding with the Ukrainians. Why is that ?. What makes the Ukraine- a horribly corrupt country,so important to us.
There are plenty of other disputes going on in the world. None of which we are supporting with military assistance.