Ukraine

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, Countryfox said:

Belarus (and Wagner) invade Poland ..  NATO responds ..  against Belarus not Russia ..  Belarus has nuclear weapons ..  ok they belong to Russia but so what Belarus actually fires them from their territory. Putin likes a bit of sabre rattling ..  especially when it’s not his sabre !   All conjecture maybe ..  but those Wagner troops are there for a reason ..  

 

Poland is a complete no go for Russia. I can’t really expand too much but Russia (Putin) has absolutely no desire to engage any NATO nation, even if he could ‘just about’ justify it.

[Countryfox]

2 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

 

Poland is a complete no go for Russia. I can’t really expand too much but Russia (Putin) has absolutely no desire to engage any NATO nation, even if he could ‘just about’ justify it.

Belarus is not Russia. 
Wagner still has a part to play. 
 

[Leeds Fox]

14 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Belarus is not Russia. 
Wagner still has a part to play. 
 

Well… it’ll be a Russian attack by proxy won’t it. Just because anything is initiated by Wagner, outside of Russia, it’ll still be seen as Russian aggression.

 

After Wagners recent ‘antics’, they’ll be acting under the strictest of Putins orders.

 

Nobody is going to engage NATO. It’ll be the start of complete destruction in the way of Russia, Belarus, Wagner or whoever else is linked. 
 

 

Edit: If you think, NATO will simply allow Wagner (who have clear links to Russia) to go next door, attack an member and give Russia a free pass, you’re unfortunately on the wrong path. I see your point but fortunately that’s not how it works. 
 

Edited 24 July 2023 by Leeds Fox

[Countryfox]

32 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Well… it’ll be a Russian attack by proxy won’t it. Just because anything is initiated by Wagner, outside of Russia, it’ll still be seen as Russian aggression.

 

After Wagners recent ‘antics’, they’ll be acting under the strictest of Putins orders.

 

Nobody is going to engage NATO. It’ll be the start of complete destruction in the way of Russia, Belarus, Wagner or whoever else is linked. 
 

 

Edit: If you think, NATO will simply allow Wagner (who have clear links to Russia) to go next door, attack an member and give Russia a free pass, you’re unfortunately on the wrong path. I see your point but fortunately that’s not how it works. 
 

Crikey .. this was all I posted last week .. 

 

Slightly worrying ..  Wagner troops building up in Belarus  ..  Lukashenko saying if needed Wagner will be called upon to help us ..  I think we are one false flag away from another major attack from the north

 

And today I posted an article from the telegraph saying that Poland was moving troops and analysts believed there may be a false flag incident coming  ..  

As I said ..  slightly worrying ..  ..  

[Leeds Fox]

16 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

Crikey .. this was all I posted last week .. 

 

Slightly worrying ..  Wagner troops building up in Belarus  ..  Lukashenko saying if needed Wagner will be called upon to help us ..  I think we are one false flag away from another major attack from the north

 

And today I posted an article from the telegraph saying that Poland was moving troops and analysts believed there may be a false flag incident coming  ..  

As I said ..  slightly worrying ..  ..  

 

You posted this today…  ‘Belarus (and Wagner) invade Poland ..  NATO responds ..  against Belarus not Russia ..  Belarus has nuclear weapons’  To which I replied. I’m sure the post I replied to wasn’t an article from anywhere. I haven’t read nor replied to your post from last week, so I’m unsure how it’s relevant.

 

Your response was ‘Belarus is not Russia’. Which even to the most uneducated on the subject, comes across as slightly patronising. 

Essentially you suggested:

 

1. Wagner attack Poland from Belarus

2. NATO respond.

3. Belarus have Russian owned nuclear weapons which they may use.

4. If they did, Russia wouldn’t be implicated because the Russian nukes were used by Wagner in Belarus.

 

I countered because I wholly disagree with the above series of events ever unfolding.

 

I’m only giving my knowledge on the subject and I understand nobody can guarantee Putin’s next move, although there are solid reasons why certain actions are extremely unlikely.

Usually I wouldn’t bother responding but reading sensationalised scaremongering news articles, giving your opinion that almost reads as a matter of fact (which I think is way off), just leads to further scaremongering.

 

What’s happening over in Ukraine is terrible but it’s a long way off affecting the West directly (as in you or I). With the amount going on in the UK currently, it’s an unnecessary worry for people.

 

 

 

Edited 24 July 2023 by Leeds Fox

[Lionator]

'False flag' is also a redundant term because everyone would know if Russia did something to justify attacking Poland, and Poland aren't going to do that because they're not idiots. We've heard it so often over the past year or so yet unless I'm mistaken there hasn't been a false flag during the war?

[Leeds Fox]

43 minutes ago, Lionator said:

'False flag' is also a redundant term because everyone would know if Russia did something to justify attacking Poland, and Poland aren't going to do that because they're not idiots. We've heard it so often over the past year or so yet unless I'm mistaken there hasn't been a false flag during the war?

It would also be a decision that would be taken almost out of Polish hands and become a NATO matter, making a knee-jerk retaliation even less likely.

 

I suppose there could’ve been ‘false flags’, however if the initial action isn’t followed up by a secondary action, it becomes redundant and almost impossible to prove anyway. It’s a become the go-to phrase for this war, the only reason I can think of is to suggest something is happening while having absolutely no proof. Second guessing every decision as being more sinister than it is.

Edited 24 July 2023 by Leeds Fox

[Dunge]

Russia appear to be in a position of playing mind games recently. The power plant comes to mind, when they were claiming that Ukraine would bomb it on a particular day. False false flags, if you will.

[Lionator]

What are the fundamental differences between the Iraqi invasion and Ukraine? Is it a cultural thing or is Putin genuinely worse than Bush/Blair? (I don't have an opinion as I don't feel confident enough to develop one on this)

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

What are the fundamental differences between the Iraqi invasion and Ukraine? Is it a cultural thing or is Putin genuinely worse than Bush/Blair? (I don't have an opinion as I don't feel confident enough to develop one on this)

The dossier silly …..

there are others too ….

[fox_up_north]

Well, for a start, we weren't actively looking to claim land that was adjacent to our borders. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

What are the fundamental differences between the Iraqi invasion and Ukraine? Is it a cultural thing or is Putin genuinely worse than Bush/Blair? (I don't have an opinion as I don't feel confident enough to develop one on this)

 

i don’t think any of our politicians have ever said that Iraq has no right to exist as a nation and should be wiped off the face of the map and British sovereignty should reign in the land and that Iraq should disappear..

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 

i don’t think any of our politicians have ever said that Iraq has no right to exist as a nation and should be wiped off the face of the map and British sovereignty should reign in the land and that Iraq should disappear..

True but it did hugely weaken the moral standing of the West in such matters. None of which detracts from the needless vandalism and sheer cruelty of what Putin is doing.

[MPH]

53 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

True but it did hugely weaken the moral standing of the West in such matters. None of which detracts from the needless vandalism and sheer cruelty of what Putin is doing.

 

for me, there is a difference between stupidity/ incompetence  ( Blair et all) and outright arrogance & wickedness ( Putin et all)

Edited 28 July 2023 by MPH

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

Well, for a start, we weren't actively looking to claim land that was adjacent to our borders. 

No, just establish a satellite state under a "friendlier" regime in a geopolitically important region by use of force. The level of control over that state would be roughly the same, I'm not sure how much the distance matters.

 

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

i don’t think any of our politicians have ever said that Iraq has no right to exist as a nation and should be wiped off the face of the map and British sovereignty should reign in the land and that Iraq should disappear..

Not at all, more that it should be redesigned to a more "democratic" state that answers to "better" world interests by dint of being totally transformed at the end of a gun barrel.

 

I guess it comes down to whether a person thinks there is a difference regarding loss of identity between absolute transformation and annihilation. Speaking personally, I'm not sure how much of a difference there is.

 

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

for me, there is a difference between stupidity/ incompetence  ( Blair et all) and outright arrogance & wickedness ( Putin et all)

Fair to say, though I would submit that some of the folks behind Bush (Cheney and Wolfowitz come to mind) were very smart, arrogant and highly malicious. They knew exactly what they were doing.

 

55 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

True but it did hugely weaken the moral standing of the West in such matters. None of which detracts from the needless vandalism and sheer cruelty of what Putin is doing.

Honestly, I think that there never was a lot of difference between the big players on matters like this anyway. They all play the same game, by the same rules with the same cruelty and self-interest - it's just some are better at subtlety and have better media manipulation and PR skills in order to appear "better".

[murphy]

22 hours ago, Lionator said:

What are the fundamental differences between the Iraqi invasion and Ukraine? Is it a cultural thing or is Putin genuinely worse than Bush/Blair? (I don't have an opinion as I don't feel confident enough to develop one on this)

Ostensibly we attacked Iraq due to the threat that they posed and their fabled weapons of mass destruction.  You may prefer @leicsmac more cynical view that the US was more interested in regime change and establishing a friendly/compiant bridgehead in the middle east.

 

Putin's war is very different imo.  Putin wants to absorb Ukraine, a sovereign country, into Russia itself.  To impose direct Russian rule along with culture and even language.  To obtain the assets and wealth of Ukraine for themselves and to deny their sovereignty and right to self determination.  Ukraine would cease to exist.  Its a land grab and totally unjustifiable.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, murphy said:

Ostensibly we attacked Iraq due to the threat that they posed and their fabled weapons of mass destruction.  You may prefer @leicsmac more cynical view that the US was more interested in regime change and establishing a friendly/compiant bridgehead in the middle east.

 

Putin's war is very different imo.  Putin wants to absorb Ukraine, a sovereign country, into Russia itself.  To impose direct Russian rule along with culture and even language.  To obtain the assets and wealth of Ukraine for themselves and to deny their sovereignty and right to self determination.  Ukraine would cease to exist.  Its a land grab and totally unjustifiable.

I think that given the reason for going in turned out to be a massive pork pie, my viewpoint here is cynical but also 100% accurate.

 

Fair points in the second paragraph, there is a difference in distinction there, though how much of a difference there is between total transformation of identity (which also did involve resources grabbing and limitations on self-determination) and simple annihilation of it is a matter of debate.

[Sly]

I think it’s always been a land grab hasn’t it? It was rumbling long before even the situation with Crimea occurred.

 

This could rumble on for years yet, we’ll then end up with some sort of border like Korea, where both states are still unofficially at war. 
 

Just reading back a few posts, In my opinion, Iraq and even Afghanistan was always about regime change. Whilst they were largely run my tyrants who caused utter misery for the local inhabitants, you’d argue we destabilised the country’s by not having a proper exit strategy (if one is even probable).
 

Would the war end tomorrow, if Putin, were removed? Most likely not.

 

If history had taught us anything, it’s that we’ll always have power hungry people, that make inhumane decisions to better themselves. Hitler, Atilla the Hun, Wu Zetian, Gengis Khan, Tamerlane, King Leopold, Pol Pot and all are awful people, however if these names didn’t exist, we’d still have those of some other crazy dictator.

 

The UK is a stable and modern thinking society by many means, however you only need to look at Northern Ireland to appreciate how difficult trying to maintain peace is. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Sly said:

I think it’s always been a land grab hasn’t it? It was rumbling long before even the situation with Crimea occurred.

 

This could rumble on for years yet, we’ll then end up with some sort of border like Korea, where both states are still unofficially at war. 
 

Just reading back a few posts, In my opinion, Iraq and even Afghanistan was always about regime change. Whilst they were largely run my tyrants who caused utter misery for the local inhabitants, you’d argue we destabilised the country’s by not having a proper exit strategy (if one is even probable).
 

Would the war end tomorrow, if Putin, were removed? Most likely not.

 

If history had taught us anything, it’s that we’ll always have power hungry people, that make inhumane decisions to better themselves. Hitler, Atilla the Hun, Wu Zetian, Gengis Khan, Tamerlane, King Leopold, Pol Pot and all are awful people, however if these names didn’t exist, we’d still have those of some other crazy dictator.

 

The UK is a stable and modern thinking society by many means, however you only need to look at Northern Ireland to appreciate how difficult trying to maintain peace is. 

 

 

Quite right. The difficult thing is neutralising such people before they can cause much harm, because often they are very smart and current systems allow them access to gain the kind of power they need.

 

It's a problem that will never likely be solved, just a matter of dealing with each head of the hydra as it regenerates.

 

And yes, I think sometimes a lot of folks, myself included, take the stable life we have for granted where (likely) more than half of the worlds population struggles just to get enough to eat or to avoid pissing off whoever the latest powermonger is in their area.

Edited 29 July 2023 by leicsmac

[HighPeakFox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think that given the reason for going in turned out to be a massive pork pie, my viewpoint here is cynical but also 100% accurate.

If your point of view is 100% accurate, by definition it cannot be cynical. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

If your point of view is 100% accurate, by definition it cannot be cynical. 

Ah...it just becomes realistic, then? Fair point.

[murphy]

17 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I think that given the reason for going in turned out to be a massive pork pie, my viewpoint here is cynical but also 100% accurate.

 

Fair points in the second paragraph, there is a difference in distinction there, though how much of a difference there is between total transformation of identity (which also did involve resources grabbing and limitations on self-determination) and simple annihilation of it is a matter of debate.

It wasn't intended as a criticism. 

 

I was careful to use the word 'ostensibly' regarding the official line and that it might take a degree of cynicism to see through that is no bad thing.

 

13 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

If your point of view is 100% accurate, by definition it cannot be cynical. 

 

It is 100% accurate to say that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, but I don't think that anyone can say with certainty whether the US really did believe that there was a genuine threat, ie Dubya's "mushroom cloud over New York", or whether that was simply the disingenuous justification for more sinister motives.   

 

To expand on my original post, another of the key differences between Putin's invasion and the Iraq war was the reaction of the respective local populations... at least in the beginning.

 

[MPH]

On 24/07/2023 at 16:01, Countryfox said:

Belarus is not Russia. 
Wagner still has a part to play. 
 

 

 

 

 

just to throw a spanner in the works….

 

 

i have a strange feeling that once Lukashenko dies, applications will be made by someone  for Belarus to join a ‘ new Russian Union’ which will of course bring uproar amongst some Belarusian people… I don’t think it will ever happen but I think someone will try it…

 

If only Russia could somehow get some troops inside Belarus to ‘ protect’ those seeking to cement the ties. In case of an uprising…

 

 

 

I just don’t think Russian eyes will stop at Ukraine… yet they’ve already tasted what it’s like to try and take a NATO-aligned Country…. And with many countries falling over themselves to join NATO, I think they’ll try and expand their sphere of influence in other ways..

 

Edited 29 July 2023 by MPH

[Captain...]

19 hours ago, Sly said:

I think it’s always been a land grab hasn’t it? It was rumbling long before even the situation with Crimea occurred.

 

This could rumble on for years yet, we’ll then end up with some sort of border like Korea, where both states are still unofficially at war. 
 

Just reading back a few posts, In my opinion, Iraq and even Afghanistan was always about regime change. Whilst they were largely run my tyrants who caused utter misery for the local inhabitants, you’d argue we destabilised the country’s by not having a proper exit strategy (if one is even probable).
 

Would the war end tomorrow, if Putin, were removed? Most likely not.

 

If history had taught us anything, it’s that we’ll always have power hungry people, that make inhumane decisions to better themselves. Hitler, Atilla the Hun, Wu Zetian, Gengis Khan, Tamerlane, King Leopold, Pol Pot and all are awful people, however if these names didn’t exist, we’d still have those of some other crazy dictator.

 

The UK is a stable and modern thinking society by many means, however you only need to look at Northern Ireland to appreciate how difficult trying to maintain peace is. 

 

 

From the Russian PoV this is about regime change. 

[Sly]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

From the Russian PoV this is about regime change. 

Have they acknowledged it’s a war yet? Or is it still a “Special Military Operation”?