• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Russia invading Ukraine (NEWS/UPDATES)

Status
Not open for further replies.

West_Winger said:
No but a policy of appeasement does. “It’s ok we’ll give Putin what he wants. That’ll stop him! In the meantime I’ll freeze 3 bank accounts and call them wide ranging sanctions while sending Liz truss in to look confused”
Click to expand...
I agree with you in part mate but we can't exactly go to war with him/them can we, he's already today threatened nuclear war if we get directly involved militarily (as Kennedy did with Cuba) - how would you approach the crisis from this point onward or what would you have done differently to the 'appeasement' in order to avoid it reaching this point?
 
Frijj said:
It is. It absolutely is, because so many people have “NATO membership” as the lynchpin of their argument.

If NATO membership alone, is the sole reason why we are not intervening, if it is the sole reason why we would intervene, then it’s relevant.

Loads of people on this thread have said that NATO membership is their threshold for action.

For example, Wrenthorpe said we shouldn’t defend Ukraine, because of the risk of a nuclear retaliation. He did say we should defend Estonia, because they’re in NATO.

Ireland aren’t in NATO. Neither are Finland. If Russia attacked either of those countries, would we sit and do nothing? Would France do nothing? What about the Yanks?

If the answer is they’d do something differently then posters using NATO membership alone as their argument are clearly using other justifications they are not making clear.
Click to expand...
remember that there are other geopolitical issues here

i agree that attacking a NATO member is the red line

but you cant compare Ireland to Finland - for one we dont know what (if any) treaties that these countries might have in place with other nations

(ie, we have a mutual defence pact with Ireland - but i cant find any details of what that entails exactly...i'd also be surprised if the US dont have something similar, and even more secret)

(someone asked upthread if Finland have anything that precludes them joining NATO (I cant find anything, but there are mutterings about secret treaties, etc)

the biggest difference between the 2 countries you have used is that because of geography we absolutely could stop anyone from attacking Ireland (and by 'we', i mean the UK alone, or NATO) while geography dictates we could'nt do the same in case of Finland
 
MonkeyLove said:
The Russian soldiers so far in videos look about 12
Click to expand...
It wouldnt surprise me if he is sacrificing his less abled/experienced soldiers from the eastern areas to get what he wants. Expecting Ukraine to capitulate and keep the stronger armies in case nato gets involved.
 
Last edited:
As horrible as it is for those involved hopefully gone are the days in which we interfere and make things worse. I’d rather we kept neutral unless Britain or a territory is threatened. Maybe there was something in Russia interfering in Brexit? Only military force in the EU now is the French and the yanks seem hesitant to get involved
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top