USSR invades Ukraine. (121 Viewers)

tisza

Well-Known Member
the Ukraine coup of 2014, which helped give power to several ultra far-right nationalist groups who now hold a substantial level of power in Ukraine's government and military.
Not sure this is right. There are extreme right wing groups in several East European countries - here in Hungary in particular. But Ukrainian Leadership and Parliament basically central liberal. These far right groups got about 5% in an open election. Extreme far right groups would be looking more towards Moscow than they would the EU & NATO - which is where the current regime was trending. Far right groups in Eastern European countries tend to hate the EU for its "wokeness" and liberalism.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Nope I’m saying putin is not the only person to blame for the situation that his attack on a sovereign nation has led to. Or that’s what my friends comment said and I wondered what friends on here thought
I think any excuse for invading Ukraine is just a cover for him wishing to expand Russian influence.

UN and other agencies went into Dombass etc and found no evidence of genocide.
Is there anyone (outside Russia) that believes NATO would invade Russia?

There are a load of his speeches and writings being broadcast and discussed here now (a nominally pro--Putin leadership) that has him clearly wanting a return to the days of the old Soviet "sphere of influence". He's said often that these countries belong to Russia and biggest disaster in Russian history (that needs to be put right) was letting them leave.
There was no NATO build up. Trump spent all that time whinging that European members of NATO weren't spending enough on their military. There were only 7-8000 NATO troops in Poland and the Baltic states combined and those mainly went in 2014 because he annexed the Crimea.

Russia signed the Budapest agreement that in exchange for Belarus and Ukraine removing nuclear weapons Russia would not invade them. Putin's argument is that was with another Govt (pro-moscow) in power. So do all international treaties become void when a new Govt is elected?

If Putin says his territorial ambitions end with Ukraine is anyone going to believe him? The feeling inside those countries that Putin has his eyes is one of disbelief that his territorial desires begin and end with Ukraine.
 

Marty

Well-Known Member
4 planes in formation just flew over my house.Anybody else see them?

I did see 2 typhoons going over Chaplefields area yesterday morning around 6. Flying fairly low, but relatively slow. Thought I was seeing things or was something else, but this kinda confirmed it was what I thought it was.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Not sure this is right. There are extreme right wing groups in several East European countries - here in Hungary in particular. But Ukrainian Leadership and Parliament basically central liberal. These far right groups got about 5% in an open election. Extreme far right groups would be looking more towards Moscow than they would the EU & NATO - which is where the current regime was trending. Far right groups in Eastern European countries tend to hate the EU for its "wokeness" and liberalism.
Isn’t the Ukrainian leader Jewish?
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
When even Sweden start sending weapons to Ukraine may be the global picture is more serious than we thought. Their PM " "My conclusion is now that our security is best served by us supporting Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia,"
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
I also see some of the global oil giants are now dumping Russian interests.....

...that might actually learn 'em.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
Where did I say that? + 100s of millions won't die if no-one has nukes, Russians would cowar and surrender as soon as they seen NATO marching in.
You really don't have a clue about anything.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The USA could invade a middle Eastern country tomorrow morning and face ZERO sanctions and have nowhere near the amount of anger thrown at them ... is the point ..

It's correct, neither are right ofcourse

I’m not going into the finer points of the interventions the West has made… but there’s a few significant distinctions and general points to be made between our interventions then and the intervention Russia is making in the Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is a democratic country, Iraq and Afghanistan were governed by horrible regimes

2. Russia has systematically undermined Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty by supporting the separatist groups in 3 regimes. The West’s stated aim was to promote democracy by force (with ulterior motives)

3. this is a 19th century style land grab by Russia because they do not respect Ukraine’s right to nationhood

4. this isn’t about NATO, the reason Ukraine has accelerated its NATO application is because of Russian aggression

5. Putin has deliberately undermined Europe’s (particularly Germany’s) reliance on Russian oil and gas and to use this as leverage as he pursues this war

6. Russia is testing the west over Ukraine to cause splits in NATO as part of a wider geopolitical push to restore regimes/territory that was once part of the USSR. Putin is on record as saying the USSR’s collapse was ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.’ Scarily, War games indicate that Russia always beats NATO in the Baltic states.

The West’s interventions in the Middle East have been problematic and ultimately misguided. However, that does not mean what Russia is doing is ok. Russia needs to be stopped here or the aggression will continue and risk a real confrontation between Russia and NATO.
 

Alan Dugdales Moustache

Well-Known Member
No I don't, but I don't claim I do :), unlike you you're a expert on football, COVID and now war.
Like you say, you don't know much.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Ukraine should say yes if Russia agree to

Immediately withdraw everything
Pay reparations for all damage and loss of life
Renounce claims to Crimea and disputed eastern regions

In return Ukraine and NATO can agree that it will never become a member

Ukraine cannot possibly make that promise. The Budapest Memorandum ’guaranteed’ Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity if it agreed to give up nuclear weapons following the collapse of the USSR. Before this, Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear stockpiles - think Russia would be invading if this was still the case?

20 years later, Russia de facto invaded in the Crimean war and supported two further breakaway regions. Followed by a full scale invasion with 60% of their available forces about 8 years after then.

This isn’t about Ukraine joining NATO.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ukraine cannot possibly make that promise. The Budapest Memorandum ’guaranteed’ Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity if it agreed to give up nuclear weapons following the collapse of the USSR. Before this, Ukraine had the 3rd largest nuclear stockpiles - think Russia would be invading if this was still the case?

20 years later, Russia de facto invaded in the Crimean war and supported two further breakaway regions. Followed by a full scale invasion with 60% of their available forces about 8 years after then.

This isn’t about Ukraine joining NATO.

I know it isn't. My rationale is to remove any slight possible casus belli for a future Russian madman.
 

jimmyhillsfanclub

Well-Known Member
Just saw on the news the EU is buying €450 million euro of weapons for Ukraine.

...its a bloody good job that France and Germany aren't the 3rd and 4th largest exporters of arms in the world respectively....doh!

...I bet the Poles are made up with that "EU" decision eh?

War...huh.....what is it good for?
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
I know it isn't. My rationale is to remove any slight possible casus belli for a future Russian madman.

Ultimately, the best way to deter Putin, China and other adversaries is by through strength. Which is why the NATO countries need to increase defence spending

It’s not just Ukraine at stake here if Putin succeeds.

The West is starting to see the risks associated with our complacency towards authoritarian strong men.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Ultimately, the best way to deter Putin, China and other adversaries is by through strength. Which is why the NATO countries need to increase defence spending

It’s not just Ukraine at stake here if Putin succeeds.

The West is starting to see the risks associated with our complacency towards authoritarian strong men.

Odd then that the US finds itself allied with approximately 3/4 of the world's dictators
 

skybluegod

Well-Known Member
I did see 2 typhoons going over Chaplefields area yesterday morning around 6. Flying fairly low, but relatively slow. Thought I was seeing things or was something else, but this kinda confirmed it was what I thought it was.

Just for info, these are just standard training packages, it's an exercise we run same time every year. Nothing special probably just more noticeable given everything that is going on for people.
 

tisza

Well-Known Member
Ultimately, the best way to deter Putin, China and other adversaries is by through strength. Which is why the NATO countries need to increase defence spending

It’s not just Ukraine at stake here if Putin succeeds.

The West is starting to see the risks associated with our complacency towards authoritarian strong men.
That's going to be the debate/discussion if Russia loses/withdraws.
There will be increased military spending but it will probably be the sanctions that bring about any Russia defeat. Military strength isn't going to built up enough in time to deal with this crisis whilst it stays confined to the Ukraine. Expands past the Ukraine and then it'll be military force of probably catastrophic proportions.
So the lessons learnt could be more along the lines react quicker to early signs of aggression. Would we be here if all these sanctions had been used when he first annexed the Crimea?
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
I’m not going into the finer points of the interventions the West has made… but there’s a few significant distinctions and general points to be made between our interventions then and the intervention Russia is making in the Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is a democratic country, Iraq and Afghanistan were governed by horrible regimes

2. Russia has systematically undermined Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty by supporting the separatist groups in 3 regimes. The West’s stated aim was to promote democracy by force (with ulterior motives)

3. this is a 19th century style land grab by Russia because they do not respect Ukraine’s right to nationhood

4. this isn’t about NATO, the reason Ukraine has accelerated its NATO application is because of Russian aggression

5. Putin has deliberately undermined Europe’s (particularly Germany’s) reliance on Russian oil and gas and to use this as leverage as he pursues this war

6. Russia is testing the west over Ukraine to cause splits in NATO as part of a wider geopolitical push to restore regimes/territory that was once part of the USSR. Putin is on record as saying the USSR’s collapse was ‘the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.’ Scarily, War games indicate that Russia always beats NATO in the Baltic states.

The West’s interventions in the Middle East have been problematic and ultimately misguided. However, that does not mean what Russia is doing is ok. Russia needs to be stopped here or the aggression will continue and risk a real confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Iraq was invaded illegally btw , doesn't matter what we think of the regime at the time , it was based on lies

There are several other countries that have been invaded/bombed to shit besides the two mentioned
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
It has its fingers in many, many pies.

Of course they do, it’s no different from all major powers in global politics. That fact clearly does not justify the actions of Russia and China taking actions to antagonise their smaller neighbours.

Its very obvious that China is watching developments closely given they are training for an invasion of Taiwan.

Iraq was invaded illegally btw , doesn't matter what we think of the regime at the time , it was based on lies

There are several other countries that have been invaded/bombed to shit besides the two mentioned

Yes it was an illegal invasion.

What relevance does that have to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
Of course they do, it’s no different from all major powers in global politics. That fact clearly does not justify the actions of Russia and China taking actions to antagonise their smaller neighbours.

Its very obvious that China is watching developments closely given they are training for an invasion of Taiwan.



Yes it was an illegal invasion.

What relevance does that have to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

It's also illegal
 
Last edited:

SBT

Well-Known Member
I know it isn't. My rationale is to remove any slight possible casus belli for a future Russian madman.

If the Russian casus belli is NATO troops on Europe’s eastern borders (as you believe it is), and a Russian invasion of eastern Europe subsequently results in red lines being drawn on NATO expansion in Europe for the first time, surely that’s a huge win for Putin? Not to mention a strong incentive to try it again with the next country he wants to keep NATO troops away from?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
If the Russian casus belli is NATO troops on Europe’s eastern borders (as you believe it is), and a Russian invasion of eastern Europe subsequently results in red lines being drawn on NATO expansion in Europe for the first time, surely that’s a huge win for Putin? Not to mention a strong incentive to try it again with the next country he wants to keep NATO troops away from?

I don’t believe it’s genuine, just the official propaganda message.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top