that’s even more worrying
Really? So a man chooses to invade a country from 3 sides with nearly all he’s got and there are no similarities to a certain someone doing it in ‘39?
I guess the Ukrainian journalist who asked Boris the other day was taking the piss too.
Really? So a man chooses to invade a country from 3 sides with nearly all he’s got and there are no similarities to a certain someone doing it in ‘39?
I guess the Ukrainian journalist who asked Boris the other day was taking the piss too.
As stated before , we invaded Iraq without justification , what's the difference besides our views of their respective leaders at the time ?
Nobody said Blair and Bush were like Hitler
As stated before , we invaded Iraq without justification , what's the difference besides our views of their respective leaders at the time ?
Nobody said Blair and Bush were like Hitler
They killed over 1 million people
The difference being Putin has openly said he doesn’t recognise Ukraine as a legitimate state.
The difference being Putin has openly said he doesn’t recognise Ukraine as a legitimate state.
this is the point. Blair was seduced by a desire to go to war and saw it as a strengthening his reputation. His sickening pictures of shaking hands with troops and then condemning them to death was nauseating
The US saw it as a strategic measure. The notion of Putin rolling through Germany and France and crossing the channel is for the birds
rather like Mr Adams and Mr Mcguiness then
OK there are similarities if you believe putin has invaded Ukraine so that he can then push on to the west and take it ... like Hitler did with Poland to invade Russia
Or perhaps when he annexed the Sudetenland so he could dismantle Czechoslovakia later. Do I think Putin has designs on all Europe no-but he clearly would like to restore the ex Soviet states to Russian control.
You're the one accusing civilian people of appeasement so I'm asking when you're going to get involved?
Don't call the Russian army incompetent or someone will rant on about "500,000" soldiersVery interesting on 5Live this morning. I think it was a former army general and military expert they had on, and it was a very interesting take on things.
He wasn't saying this is exactly what is going to happen, or has happened etc, but what was likely and what could be done to stop Putin.
Can't be arsed to type it all up, but bullet point wise he said....
Russia does use soldiers as cannon fodder and it's army is indeed mainly formed of conscripts.
That they are an incompetent army, because of the above.
That the attack on Kharkiv is probably just a warning. Devastate Kharkiv as a warning that this is what will happen to Kyiv.
That people in his inner circle will say to Putin if they disagree, but that he probably will not listen.
That the only one who could stop this war was President Xi of China. He said there is a dislike between the two countries and that they are very antagonistic towards each other, but that they have a marriage if convenience and they need each other.
This general said that if Xi phone Putin and told him to stop, he would.
He also said that Putin can take Ukraine, but he will not be able to hold it. It's a country of 44m people and it would take 1m Russian troops/police to control it and keep order. He said Putin only has 200,000 troops and therefore that is an impossibility.
It was a very interesting listen.
He doesn’t and he doesn’t have the resources to do it. It’s laughable the so called left on here are calling for military conflict which will cause death and destruction beyond a scale any of us could imagine as well as economic destruction - it seems “we love a good war” applies more to the Islington pretenders than anyone else
this is the point. Blair was seduced by a desire to go to war
Don't call the Russian army incompetent or someone will rant on about "500,000" soldiers
We had a treaty with Poland.Was there any other way to deal with a madman in 1939 than go to war with him?
So do you think he won't use them if we call his bluff, put NATO planes in the area, and bomb his ground forces?So there’s no point to maintaining a nuclear defence then? It serves no job as it’s not a deterrent? Or rather we should rebuild the empire because we’ve got nukes and therefore can do what we like?
He’s either going to use them or he’s not. You’re giving him free reign to invade anywhere he wants. What does somewhere being NATO matter he’d just nuke us then too?
If we’ve got a madman who will end the world that horse has already bolted, you’re just putting off the inevitable.
We had a treaty with Poland.
He doesn’t and he doesn’t have the resources to do it. It’s laughable the so called left on here are calling for military conflict which will cause death and destruction beyond a scale any of us could imagine as well as economic destruction - it seems “we love a good war” applies more to the Islington pretenders than anyone else
We have a treaty with Ukraine.We had a treaty with Poland.
He'd already marched into Czechoslovakia. We ignored that.So if we didn’t we’d sit and wait for him to invade somewhere we had a treaty?
Just on the no-fly zone, an interesting opinion expressed on Radio 4 (aka Radio War) today.
Didn't catch the name, but suspect it was the Defence Minister, saying that a no fly zone wouldn't be in Ukraine's best interests at the moment anyway.
The theory is that in daytime at least, Ukraine hand held air defences are stopping Russia getting air superiority, and costing them aircraft and pilots, whilst Ukrainian drones are inflicting losses on Russian forces. (In a no fly zone, no Russian planes, but also no Ukrainian drones).
Additionally, no fly zones won't stop missiles or artillery, which is primarily what's being used against cities.
I don't know, it made some sense but then the fact that Ukraine is calling for a no fly zone perhaps gives the lie to it...
Sorry, treaty perhaps the wrong word then? We guaranteed Poland's protection then.We have a treaty with Ukraine.
Yes it was Ben Wallace and the reasons given are correct but the main reason for not enforcing a no fly zone is it would start WW3 in the same way as if NATO started helping Ukraine
If Ben Wallace is the Minister you are referring to I have to say that he does come across as very unusual, inasmuch as he seems to be a competent and intelligent Government Minister. How he can work with Liz Truss I can't fathom.Just on the no-fly zone, an interesting opinion expressed on Radio 4 (aka Radio War) today.
Didn't catch the name, but suspect it was the Defence Minister, saying that a no fly zone wouldn't be in Ukraine's best interests at the moment anyway.
The theory is that in daytime at least, Ukraine hand held air defences are stopping Russia getting air superiority, and costing them aircraft and pilots, whilst Ukrainian drones are inflicting losses on Russian forces. (In a no fly zone, no Russian planes, but also no Ukrainian drones).
Additionally, no fly zones won't stop missiles or artillery, which is primarily what's being used against cities.
I don't know, it made some sense but then the fact that Ukraine is calling for a no fly zone perhaps gives the lie to it...
If Ben Wallace is the Minister you are referring to I have to say that he does come across as very unusual, inasmuch as he seems to be a competent and intelligent Government Minister. How he can work with Liz Truss I can't fathom.
I suppose that given he served in the army he has some background, experience and knowledge relevant to his role, rather than given any old job regardless of suitability like the rest of the cabinet (eg a foreign secretary who can't read a map or a culture Secretary who doesn't know what youtube is)
Once again, the parallels with Hitler are uncanny.News here has been that he has shut himself away in some hideout in the Urals for much of the past 12 months surrounded by a large bodyguard unit. Other unconfirmed intelligence reports are that he is turning on those closest to him and throwing his toys out the pram (that's a paraphrase) because things aren't going to plan.
We did, but much of that was actually down to Germany.Also using dramatic analogues is rather childish. We defeated Hitler partly as we sucked ionti a brutal dictator who slaughtered millions of his own oriole did we not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?