Ukraine

[MPH]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

i think you'll find that the russians and chinese don't see it like you do

NATO exercises in ukraine and finland were seen as provocative. ukraine wanting to join NATO was seen as unacceptable. you may believe that its certain the west had no intention of any type of regime change in russia.   but if you're a russian who looks back at the soviet era with affection, then you may think differently. 

 

its fairly easy for the russian and chinese govts to play this as western aggression and russia protecting their interests.

 

 

but that’s the problem. Why? Since when has NATO ever taken an action that was seen as an offensive military move? They haven’t invaded  Russia  and have shown no signs of doing so, and are primarily a defensive strategy.

[fox_favourite]

I think I might understand. We’re too noisy on the world stage. Maybe they see us at the irritating bee that won’t leave you alone. 
 

Johnson thanked for backing Nordic nations' Nato bids

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

but that’s the problem. Why? Since when has NATO ever taken an action that was seen as an offensive military move? They haven’t invaded  Russia  and have shown no signs of doing so, and are primarily a defensive strategy.

Not that I agree with the argument, but I've seen folks liken it to Russia persuading Mexico and central America to join a strategic military alliance with it.

 

Of course Russia hasn't been invaded, but from their point of view they're being surrounded by parties who are allied with an oppositional geopolitical power. The US nearly invaded Cuba on several occasions simply because it was allied with the USSR and nearby, after all.

 

Like I said, I don't agree, but from their point of view it's aggressive containment, not defensive.

[MPH]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not that I agree with the argument, but I've seen folks liken it to Russia persuading Mexico and central America to join a strategic military alliance with it.

 

Of course Russia hasn't been invaded, but from their point of view they're being surrounded by parties who are allied with an oppositional geopolitical power. The US nearly invaded Cuba on several occasions simply because it was allied with the USSR and nearby, after all.

 

Like I said, I don't agree, but from their point of view it's aggressive containment, not defensive.

 

i see the  point but I don’t think the intention is to have American owned nuclear missiles in any country that neighbors Russia.. and Cuba doesn’t have a land border with the US of course who I think Russias true gripe is with.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, MPH said:

i see the  point but I don’t think the intention is to have American owned nuclear missiles in any country that neighbors Russia.. and Cuba doesn’t have a land border with the US of course who I think Russias true gripe is with.

ukraine would v likely not have US controlled nuclear weapons stationed there unless they were in nato 

 

to allow ukraine to join nato takes that possibility within one step. Russia’s approach is to keep the possibility two steps away. China sympathises with this, 

 

the irony of the entire situation is that Finland will now end up in NATO. However, I’m sure that Russia is convinced that Finland would never allow nuclear weapons on its soil. 
 

I'm not in any way excising putin’s war - just trying to play devils advocate and illustrate that there are parts of the world where the west is viewed with great suspicion. 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

28 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

ukraine would v likely not have US controlled nuclear weapons stationed there unless they were in nato 

 

to allow ukraine to join nato takes that possibility within one step. Russia’s approach is to keep the possibility two steps away. China sympathises with this, 

 

the irony of the entire situation is that Finland will now end up in NATO. However, I’m sure that Russia is convinced that Finland would never allow nuclear weapons on its soil. 
 

I'm not in any way excising putin’s war - just trying to play devils advocate and illustrate that there are parts of the world where the west is viewed with great suspicion. 

 

You do realise that nuclear weapons do not need to be launched from territory next door to the target? The argument that this is about Russia being threatened is nonsense as proved by Putin’s own Peter the Great speech. 

[Countryfox]

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not that I agree with the argument, but I've seen folks liken it to Russia persuading Mexico and central America to join a strategic military alliance with it.

 

I see you don’t agree with it but I can’t help thinking you think it’s a fair point.  Are Mexico and Central America about to be invaded by a larger country controlled by a power mad dictator …. no way.  Claptrap. 
 

 

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Of course Russia hasn't been invaded, but from their point of view they're being surrounded by parties who are allied with an oppositional geopolitical power. 

They are surrounded by countries that don’t want a power mad dictator to invade them ..  so they are sticking together.  NATO would NEVER invade any country and that is cast in stone ..  and don’t forget that NATO would take forever to agree on what colour curtains they would like in HQ whereas mad Vlad could decide to invade Poland on a complete whim in a nano second.    Could you ever see NATO marching into a country with all guns blazing, killing soldiers and civilians alike, raping torturing and massacring anyone that got in their way ..  that is what they are doing ..  and they are doing it right now as we speak.  Stop trying to think of reasons to justify what that nut job is doing ..  he is the second coming of Hitler and at some point he will have to be stopped. 

[Countryfox]

42 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

I'm not in any way excising putin’s war - just trying to play devils advocate and illustrate that there are parts of the world where the west is viewed with great suspicion. 

 

Thanks Mr Chamberlain …. I’ll certainly sleep better tonight ..  

[bovril]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

Of course Russia hasn't been invaded, but from their point of view they're being surrounded by parties who are allied with an oppositional geopolitical power. The US nearly invaded Cuba on several occasions simply because it was allied with the USSR and nearby, after all.

 

"From their point of view"

 

[Smudge]

 

 

8 minutes ago, bovril said:

"From their point of view"

 

I was thinking the same. More countries he invades the more NATO countries he'll encounter.

Edited 29 June 2022 by Smudge

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

You do realise that nuclear weapons do not need to be launched from territory next door to the target? The argument that this is about Russia being threatened is nonsense as proved by Putin’s own Peter the Great speech. 

do you think the public of this country would care if the irish made a defence pact with the russians and accepted russian controlled nuclear weapons to be homed there ? 

 

mad vlad will say whatever he thinks is appropriate for his audience at the time. 

 

my comments are informed by conversations that i've had with russians and chinese.  i don't agree with them but its relevant to appreciate their standpoint/opinions in order to win the war.

[Salisbury Fox]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

do you think the public of this country would care if the irish made a defence pact with the russians and accepted russian controlled nuclear weapons to be homed there ? 

 

mad vlad will say whatever he thinks is appropriate for his audience at the time. 

 

my comments are informed by conversations that i've had with russians and chinese.  i don't agree with them but its relevant to appreciate their standpoint/opinions in order to win the war.

No one is even suggesting that they will move nuclear weapons into Ukraine so it’s irrelevant.  
 

Of course, but there are consistencies if you look for them.  Yesterday’s and today’s RUSI conference provided some expert analysis on this that is worth a look.

 

I don’t doubt that people who have lived under tightly controlled media will have a very different viewpoint to those in the West. 

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Not that I agree with the argument, but I've seen folks liken it to Russia persuading Mexico and central America to join a strategic military alliance with it.

 

Of course Russia hasn't been invaded, but from their point of view they're being surrounded by parties who are allied with an oppositional geopolitical power. The US nearly invaded Cuba on several occasions simply because it was allied with the USSR and nearby, after all.

 

Like I said, I don't agree, but from their point of view it's aggressive containment, not defensive.

Why don’t you agree? It’s exactly the same and would not be tolerated.

[LCFCCHRIS]

3 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Why don’t you agree? It’s exactly the same and would not be tolerated.

Trying to work out if you're justifying Russia's actions here.

 

In this day and age, the existence of ICBMs with long range (worldwide) capacity and an almost guaranteed mutually assured destruction render any justification of invading a country (based on their military alignment with another nuclear power) almost entirely irrelevant. Sure we've done this for WMDs but that's talking about new, unpredictable and emerging nuclear threats.

 

Cuban missile crisis isn't the best comparison because we were reaching new ground back then, the first time it being so close to home for the US. Now we've been living with the current nuclear powers for so long that all sides have become more and more desensitized. 

 

Russia was a NATO "partner for peace" if I'm not mistaken until it's invasions of Crimea and now all of Ukraine. Now they've been relabeled as the biggest threat to NATO security. You'll notice that NATO doesn't constantly try and directly imply nuclear attacks when they have their feelings hurt. NATO, and us as the west, try to play down the use of nukes and avoid escalation, the complete opposite of Putin and Russia. They can't even call this a war for god's sake, special military operation? They've lost almost 35,000 men, a special military operation would be sending a small squadron, not the majority of professional soldiers. 

 

Ireland, and probably even Mexico for the American side of this would never host russian nukes anyway, it would be like a suicide note economically, and in case you'd forgotten , we live in democratic societies where the public can elect someone else if they choose. The first mention of Ireland hosting russian nukes and the citizens would riot and eventually elect someone else. In Russia you'd be locked up for holding a sign against the Ukraine invasion.

 

We aren't perfect as the collective west, but even trying to view this as objectively as possible would lead to most sane people siding with Ukraine.

Edited 29 June 2022 by LCFCCHRIS

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MPH said:

 

i see the  point but I don’t think the intention is to have American owned nuclear missiles in any country that neighbors Russia.. and Cuba doesn’t have a land border with the US of course who I think Russias true gripe is with.

Right, however they can use the US Monroe Doctrine as an excuse to say that the Americans are hypocrites, messing about in their backyard while allowing no one to mess in theirs.

 

It would be apples and oranges, but try telling them that.\

 

8 hours ago, Countryfox said:

I see you don’t agree with it but I can’t help thinking you think it’s a fair point.  Are Mexico and Central America about to be invaded by a larger country controlled by a power mad dictator …. no way.  Claptrap. 
 

 

They are surrounded by countries that don’t want a power mad dictator to invade them ..  so they are sticking together.  NATO would NEVER invade any country and that is cast in stone ..  and don’t forget that NATO would take forever to agree on what colour curtains they would like in HQ whereas mad Vlad could decide to invade Poland on a complete whim in a nano second.    Could you ever see NATO marching into a country with all guns blazing, killing soldiers and civilians alike, raping torturing and massacring anyone that got in their way ..  that is what they are doing ..  and they are doing it right now as we speak.  Stop trying to think of reasons to justify what that nut job is doing ..  he is the second coming of Hitler and at some point he will have to be stopped. 

You can think as you like.

 

Personally, I thought the disclaimer at the start of the post was definitive enough and pardon me for presenting what the "other side" (bullshit realpolitik again) thinks (erroneous as it is) rather than just spouting "Vlad is a pillock"/other jingoistic rhetoric for the 4646411316464th time on this thread (when it really is patently obvious that he is and doesn't need much more emphasis).

 

 

7 hours ago, bovril said:

"From their point of view"

 

As per above, I stated that is was simply a point of view that seemingly a lot of people buy into.

 

It's erroneous, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or damaging - look at the damage misinformation in other areas does. I'd rather not ignore it and at least acknowledge it exists so it can be countered.

 

5 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

Why don’t you agree? It’s exactly the same and would not be tolerated.

There are some crucial differences, as the poster above me elaborated upon.

[Heathrow fox]

21 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Trying to work out if you're justifying Russia's actions here.

 

In this day and age, the existence of ICBMs with long range (worldwide) capacity and an almost guaranteed mutually assured destruction render any justification of invading a country (based on their military alignment with another nuclear power) almost entirely irrelevant. 

 

Russia was a NATO "partner for peace" if I'm not mistaken until it's invasions of Crimea and now all of Ukraine. Now they've been relabeled as the biggest threat to NATO security. You'll notice that NATO doesn't constantly try and directly imply nuclear attacks when they have their feelings hurt. NATO, and us as the west, try to play down the use of nukes and avoid escalation, the complete opposite of Putin and Russia. They can't even call this a war for god's sake, special military operation? They've lost almost 35,000 men, a special military operation would be sending a small squadron, not the majority of professional soldiers. 

 

Ireland, and probably even Mexico for the American side of this would never host russian nukes anyway, it would be like a suicide note, and in case you'd forgotten , we live in democratic societies where the public can elect someone else if they choose. The first mention of Ireland hosting russian nukes and the citizens would riot and eventually elect someone else. In Russia you'd be locked up for holding a sign against the Ukraine invasion.

 

We aren't perfect as the collective west, but even trying to view this as objectively as possible would lead to most sane people siding with Ukraine.

You argue that the existence of ICBMs make military alliances irrelevant,then use Ireland and Mexico hosting nukes as an example of causing national suicide.Thanks for making my point for me.

I won’t condemn Russia because that would make me a hypocrite.Besides I wouldn’t have started from this spot.Certainly don’t want to die for Ukraine.I think the sanctions stink and we have fkwits as leader’s.Also getting pretty pissed off with our media’s pathetic attempts at propaganda.

[fox_favourite]

4 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

You argue that the existence of ICBMs make military alliances irrelevant,then use Ireland and Mexico hosting nukes as an example of causing national suicide.Thanks for making my point for me.

I won’t condemn Russia because that would make me a hypocrite.Besides I wouldn’t have started from this spot.Certainly don’t want to die for Ukraine.I think the sanctions stink and we have fkwits as leader’s.Also getting pretty pissed off with our media’s pathetic attempts at propaganda.

But one thing you have to agree on is that what is happening in Ukraine is unacceptable? Civilians dying in high numbers. Cities reduced to ruin in some cases, restricting grain flowing to countries that really need it? This whole ‘ special operation’ has changed the face of the world, and hasn’t made it any safer. A country constantly threatening nuclear war on everyone is irresponsible. 
 

NATO isn’t flawless in all this and I fully understand this and accept it. I understand there will be reasons for Russia’s view point. But there needs to be a solution as most people around the world from every corner won’t what ww3!! 
 

The one comment I have held for a while, especially in this country is one you mentioned is that we have fwits as leaders. There are more in the world than not. 
 

Interested to hear what your solution would be to the current state? And your opinions on the sanctions, which certainly haven’t had the effects they expected and hits every day Russians. 
 

 

[adam]

Another Billion quid to Ukraine. The magic money tree continues. Should we keep sending them money or should we use it on the people who need it in this country? Controversial start to the day 😆 

[taupe]

I'm not sure that controversial is the word I'd use. 

 

Besides the fact that no opinion (or decision) starts out as controversial (it becomes such after disagreement) I think there are other words that better fit your suggestion.

 

Do we now have a semantic controversy?

[fox_up_north]

Unfortunately, we will have to support and fund Ukraine if we want to keep this war at arm's length and prevent Russia from moving further. 

[LCFCCHRIS]

5 hours ago, Heathrow fox said:

You argue that the existence of ICBMs make military alliances irrelevant,then use Ireland and Mexico hosting nukes as an example of causing national suicide.Thanks for making my point for me.

I won’t condemn Russia because that would make me a hypocrite.Besides I wouldn’t have started from this spot.Certainly don’t want to die for Ukraine.I think the sanctions stink and we have fkwits as leader’s.Also getting pretty pissed off with our media’s pathetic attempts at propaganda.

No I didn't, I said invasion based on potential military alliances to traditional nuclear powers is not justifiable. Military alliances are still very effective. If Ukraine had been in NATO I very much doubt Russia would have invaded. Doubt russian sanctions would hit that hard if imposed, or could be dealt with easier, their GDP was the size of a much smaller country before the war.

Edited 30 June 2022 by LCFCCHRIS

[gerblod]

17 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Why can’t Russia see this?! They are the cause. 

"Russia" isn't a conscious entity. Politicians, commentators and historians et al use the term to denote a complexity of factors (culture, laws, customs) which differentiate one state from another.

"They" (the majority of people) aren't the cause - a small number of politicians and militarists (Putin being  chief amongst them) decided, without consulting the people, to initiate an attack on the state of Ukraine. That's what happens when 'the people' entrust their well-being to sociopaths.

NATO is anathema to autocracies - just like the EU is anathema to the so-called Brexiteers - because it places another level of decision and responsibility on a government. Countries agree to act concertedly - the one good thing to come out of this shitshow.

Russia, as a state, belongs to another era - where rulers decided it was beneficial to them to get richer and more powerful by taking land and enslaving other peoples. When the German state was defeated in 1945 the Allies decided to help rebuild it, rather than seeking reparations - thus recognising that the majority of German people had suffered at the hands of its Nazi government. The same should happen in Russia - a recognition that the majority of Russian people have suffered by the actions of Putin and co. Unfortunately it won't. Invading Russia usually ends up in tears. Sanctions are the better choice - but the people still end up suffering.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, adam said:

Another Billion quid to Ukraine. The magic money tree continues. Should we keep sending them money or should we use it on the people who need it in this country? Controversial start to the day 😆 

I'd rather we borrowed many billions to give to Ukraine in the form of weapons than have to have an actual war with out troops to defend Nato countries which come next.

[The Fox Covert]

15 hours ago, bovril said:

"From their point of view"

 

Why is Crimea marked in green ie Russian territory? Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 but this has not been recognised and legally Crimea still belongs to Ukraine.

 

[fox_up_north]

Haven't got the link but have just seen that Bernie Ecclestone interview where he calls Putin a first class and sensible person who's just made a bit of a mistake. 

 

These are the people who Putin has surrounded himself with.