If pooeything had offered every former member of the USSR a £20 a month pension I'm sure he would be thought of more favourably and have his stooges voted in smartish.
Must be cheaper in the long run.
Watching Putin’s somewhat unhinged ranting on the telly yesterday, first thing that struck me was that his facial appearance suggests he could be on high-dose steroids.
Isn't his somewhat unusual facial appearance due to him having had a lot of 'work' done, a la Berlusconi?
Belarus has no plans to join Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was quoted as saying on Tuesday.
Doesn't want to get chucked out of Eurovision (again).
Some top review trolling of Moscow attractions on Google maps. People publishing grim photos as part of a restaurant review.
Don’t think anyone other than Putin has claimed NATO are the aggressor but plenty of highly qualified and informed people believe NATO expansion has been a mistake.
I can see it's certainly fraught and you might argue it's a hawkish position to take.
Can someone explain how NATO is meant to be the aggressor here? Didn’t people just apply to join?
Quite
If a country wants to join Nato then it's their choice, not Russia's. If Russia didn't want people to join Nato then maybe it should think about not being such a scary basket case
Ultimately what you are arguing is that Russia has a right to an empire in order to protect itself from its perceived enemies. Which probably isn’t what you really think, but that is what it amounts to in reality.
Exactly. Russia's objection to former Soviet countries joining is because it makes it impossible to reassemble the old Russian empire.
not including former Baltic states into NATO
inc. Ukraine, without Russia, was only going to end in one thing: Russian occupation
Which is what I tried to point out, but was shouted down and called all sorts.
In the light of recent events, how does former CCP satellite states joining NATO look to you now? For instance, it's Lithuania that's sponsoring a UN investigations into possible war crimes by RF forces in Ukraine. Do you think that would've happened had that country not has the security that NATO and EU membership affords? Do think Zalensky's signing of a proposal to join the EU and the EU looking to hold an emergency session regarding it will enrage Putin more, should they not do that? Do you think Russia/ Putin's aggression could be contained some other way? and in which way, given that's it's launched an unprovoked war of aggression and expansion into it's near neighbour?
The other side of that, is what could Russia have done to convince these former satellite states to join them, and not NATO?
*invading them is not the answer.
Obviously, the Russians have already taken out some priority targets in the run-up to the invasion.
🤣🤣🤣
They were probably responsible for the incomplete status of Putin's Palace - the golden toilet didn't have a functioning window and the skylight over the pole dancing table wouldn't shut properly.
Our glorious leader, Boris Johnson has just stood up to give a speech in Warsaw and said absolutely nothing.
It looks like he's now just taken the decision to go into direct competition with Instagram Liz to see if they can get the best photo op for the upcoming leadership battle. If we're all still alive by then.
'Global Britain' really is getting more and more embarrassing
I'm assuming that these aircraft the EU are providing will be ex eastern block aircraft which the Ukrainian forces will be familiar with - does anyone know if they will be operating out of EU / Nato countries? and if so, I'm wondering how Putin will react to that given that his forces are operating out of Belarus. Worrying.
See, this is where we disagree. NATO expansion happened in order to stop what we see now actually happening. & funnily enough the country it’s happening to doesn’t have the protection of NATO.
At the risk of getting into personal arguments, which it seems this is now going, ie the blame game
It's not only my observation of it, but has been pointed out, and ignored that political analysts, ex US politicians have also pointed out the cause and effect of nato expansionism.
What I disagree with most strongly, is by having an observation of it, it then puts the observer against the current thinking or narrative and labels them an apologist.
Ultimately what you are arguing is that Russia has a right to an empire in order to protect itself from its perceived enemies. Which probably isn’t what you really think, but that is what it amounts to in reality.
Correct, I dont think Russia has a right to reform its empire, no more than any other individual country in this day and age, or any other for that matter.
But its again not what I personally think, its how Moscow perceives it. And they have perceived it as threatening. They have perceived it as threatening due to their relationship with the west since 1945. I mean does anyone not remember what the Cold War was about ? or who the main players were.
You would need to be extremely short sighted not to have factored that into any equation.
Which is what this is about
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2658073
And this is about
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/ukraine-russia-nato-crisis-liberal-illusions/
If we do something - what are the results of doing it ?
Yes, everyone has the inalienable right to join nato. but as more and more join, what do those unable to join start thinking. And its not 'oh look what a jolly club of friends, they must be having just jolly japes' They're going to become paranoid, and start seeing reds under the bed ironically speaking.
They(the powers that be) have to factor into everything all sides of the coin.
So again. debate the point, not the er.. pointerouter 😕
I’m assuming that these aircraft the EU are providing will be ex eastern block aircraft which the Ukrainian forces will be familiar with
Yeah, Mig 29s reportedly, with Ukrainian pilots apparently already in Poland to collect them.
It is supposedly 28 MiG-29s from Poland, 12 from Slovakia and 16 from Bulgaria, along with 14 Su-25s from Bulgaria.
Source?
No thanks, I prefer my eggs without.
it’s Lithuania that’s sponsoring a UN investigations into possible war crimes by RF forces in Ukraine.
And will Lithuania also be asking the UN to look into possible war crimes by the Ukraine from firing cluster bombs into civilian population centers of the separatist areas since 2014 ?.
I'll take that as a no.
It is supposedly 28 MiG-29s from Poland, 12 from Slovakia and 16 from Bulgaria, along with 14 Su-25s from Bulgaria.
I saw that quote and claims that it come from TASS the Russian news agency and was therefore a bit suspect. I thought only Poland has officially committed MiGs? Happy to be be proved wrong though!
Except that Russia could quite easily have joined NATO. Putin decided not to because he wanted to remain in power for ever, running a corrupt, oppressive and aggressive regime.
So again. debate the point
OK, so now that Putin has revealed that in fact he is totally prepared to launch wars of aggression and expansion along his border and in the past has done so with impunity and no real consequence (see 2nd Chechnya, Georgia, Abkhazia, Transnistria and so on) . 1 How does that square with "fearing" NATO expansion, and 2, if Ukraine had been a NATO or EU member would we be in the state we're in now?
Again it seem to me that the policy of NATO expansion has made no difference to his behaviour other than to dissuade him to invade those countries that have joined
@blokeuptheroad There's a few different places reporting similar. But still, hence the 'supposedly'. I'm not committing to anything, it's amazing how such offers sometimes never materialise for a variety of reasons.
I saw that quote and claims that it come from TASS the Russian news agency and was therefore a bit suspect. I thought only Poland has officially committed MiGs? Happy to be be proved wrong though!
Ive seen similar widely reported on the usual news outlets wrt the M-29 & Su-27/25
I saw that quote and claims that it come from TASS the Russian news agency and was therefore a bit suspect.
I wouldn't hold your breath for the Slovakian/Bulgarian contribution. Some commentators have suggested that the numbers listed is basically their entire air force.
Some media bod got carried away on Twitter and now they're trying to figure out how to fire them as they've given away all their planes.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for the Slovakian/Bulgarian contribution. Some commentators have suggested that the numbers listed is basically their entire air force.
You may find they get a very good deal on replacements from a large NATO ally with a lot of old gen fighters going spare.
And will Lithuania also be asking the UN to look into possible war crimes by the Ukraine
So just what-aboutry then? This isn't going to be much of a debate is it?
Edit: I'd be careful of your use of "the" when speaking about Ukraine if I were you.
nato expansionism.
NATO wasn't expansionist. They didn't coerce or even invite countries to join, those countries applied to join and had to fulfill criteria before they were accepted. Ukraine did not fulfill the criteria despite wishing to join. This is why they are not a member of NATO. The USSR and Russia after that were expansionist. That's why Russia is opposed to former Russian dominated countries joining NATO - it prevents Russia's expansionist dreams from happening.
The Ukraine war has made the options for East European countries crystal clear; either join NATO or be subjugated by Russia. Putin's apologists in the West are saying that letting entire countries be subjugated is preferable to annoying Putin. Public opinion has turned sharply against that view.
They(the powers that be) have to factor into everything all sides of the coin.
Yeah, but it's appeasement and allowing Russia malign influence over sovereign states is the only alternative (see my post on page 61).
I can empathise with how the Russian's might feel, but even with that empathy I would still rather that those sovereign states prospered socially, economically and democratically without oppressive Russian influence. Even if it means that the Russians feel aggrieved.
Some dented pride is unfortunately a price the Russians have to pay for 40 years of oppression, terror and incarceration they imposed on the Eastern European states in the Warsaw Pact.
Easy for US politicians to say that Russians should be appeased when they're nowhere near the oppression!
Watching Putin’s somewhat unhinged ranting on the telly yesterday, first thing that struck me was that his facial appearance suggests he could be on high-dose steroids.
Isn’t his somewhat unusual facial appearance due to him having had a lot of ‘work’ done, a la Berlusconi?
Meh, let's cut out trying to diagnose some weird health issue. No one can really tell and people playing armchair doctor look silly in my (actual doctor) opinion. I may wish my clinical acumen was good enough to diagnose things from a different continent, but it's really not.
Plus, it's never "Oh, Putin's face looks weird, it must be the extra testosterone." It's always some weird condition designed to emasculate. It's no different to any other ad-hominem attack, except that it's trying to shame people for illnesses that are presumably out of their control.
Some commentators have suggested that the numbers listed is basically their entire air force.
If they get to trade them in for some Typhoons or other newer planes plus some cash they might consider it worth it though. Oh and a guarantee of being lent some jets/pilots whilst waiting for the new ones.
It’s no different to any other ad-hominem attack, except that it’s trying to shame people for illnesses that are presumably out of their control.
I can't really apologise for taking any opportunity to shame Putin. Don't care whatever protected body characteristic I'm invoking. He's a genocidal **** and I hope he dies in particularly uncomfortable circumstances.
Thanks for the testosterone suggestion though, doc. Now enjoying the possibility that he might be on TRT after having his prostate whipped out. They should probably lower the dose though, it seems to be causing a slight increase in aggression.
Now Martin, do you have the necessary qualifications to make that determination? Have you done your mandatory 'Genocidal **** Awareness' E-Learning training?
Because until you have, you're not to be casting aspirations on the misunderstood Russian chap.
its how Moscow perceives it. And they have perceived it as threatening. They have perceived it as threatening due to their relationship with the west since 1945.
This is a bit like saying the school bully perceives the wimpy kid taking karate lessons as 'threatening'. Maybe they do. But they're wrong.
My problem with the whole 'NATO is partly to blame' argument - as illustrated by the ForeignPolicy article linked above - is that it often completely ignores the accession countries themselves. In this reading they are pawns of the US, who had no particular interest in joining NATO until they were swallowed up by it. Which clearly isn't the case.
NATO offered protection to small, vulnerable allies. Obviously this is not desirable to a warmongering dictator next door, but we shouldn't pander to his perceptions of what is threatening and what isn't.
That's not to say NATO has handled things perfectly - the EU is pretty flawed but I still voted to remain - but blaming NATO is doing Putin's work for him.
And this, from that Foreign Policy article, is diabolical shit, and they should be ashamed:
But Putin is not solely responsible for the ongoing crisis over Ukraine
along with 14 Su-25s from Bulgaria.
Even if handed over, they’ll probably not leave the ground. They are the Eastern version of the A-10, so not much cop if the skies are still hostile
@doris5000 also membership opens doors in terms of defence procurement/development opportunities I believe, which means you're not reliant on a former master for your kit.
I think this is a thing, but happy to stand corrected.
Again it seems to me that the policy of NATO expansion has made no difference to his behaviour other than to dissuade him to invade those countries that have joined
Totally correct. The large powers dont fight directly, as in this conflict, because it could get seriously out of hand. Which is why we arent sending 50,000 troops to the Ukraine.
FOR EXAMPLE
Belarus is quite a corrupt place, human rights are bad. Could the US, UK,France,Germany invade them to sort things out. Answer No, because they are Russia's allies.This would bring the above nations into direct contact.
Other middle eastern countries arent affiliated to any of the superpowers which made them vulnerable FOR EXAMPLE -Say Iraq was a close ally to Russia. Could operation freedom have taken place. Well no it couldnt, because then the risk there was the US might have to come into direct conflict with Russia.
As it was Iraq wasnt allied to any superpower.
The whole Iraq thing is a completely different set of circumstances. The US supported Saddam for 10 years, so overlooked his evil regime, but thats another question about world geopolitics. Feel free to explore that one at your leisure
Afghanistan wasnt affiliated to the US, so Russia could easily invade, as they werent also affiliated to Moscow, which meant the US could invade.
So proxy wars were fought, to the detriment of those living there.
@mashr still better than nowt I suppose? Although I think the promised ground kit is more in need at the moment.
The point is, you can shame him for his reckless genocidal expansionism. Shaming him because you've (almost certainly incorrectly) virtually diagnosed a hormone problem is silly and undermines whatever other point you may have.
Oh, don't worry, I was just generally wishing him ill. I'm not too bothered about the quality of my diagnosis.
But he does look a bit peaky, doesn't he?
@doris5000
Yeah, we should be one big interlinked world. No conflict. Because eventually theres going to come a time where a ****g big rock is going to be seen in the sky and we're too busy fighting amongst ourselves over petty differences to be able to come together to stop it.
And that as they say will be it.
Ok, he's a murderous tyrant, but he does promote Christian values so let's overlook the other stuff.
https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1496937857839153168
This is the sort of weapon that the Russians are using against civilians in Ukraine:
They are the Eastern version of the A-10, so not much cop if the skies are still hostile
The A-10 was always intended as an infantry close-support aircraft, and for use against armoured vehicles and infrastructure. The US airforce has been trying to get it removed from service due to their obsession with flashy fast jets and ‘stealth’ aircraft, but in a situation like is happening in Ukraine, A-10’s would actually be quite effective, especially when there are armoured convoys along with supply vehicles, including fuel, up to 64km long; a small group of A-10’s, with a full weapon load, flying at low level along the length of such a convoy, would wreak absolute havoc, in the same way that Typhoon, Tempest and Mosquitoes did again Nazi convoys and railways during WW2, and all they carried were under-wing rocket racks and 30/50mm cannon; an A-10 has its huge rotary cannon, along with the ability to carry Hellfire rockets and other large munitions.
It’s a shame there aren’t still some Skyraiders still flying, those could carry an immense weapons load, about the same as a Lancaster.