Explosions In Ukraine.....

[Poolie]

7 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Obvious Nonsense. Putin is entirely responsible . NATO reacting defensively . Doing their job.
So Satellite Imagery of Putins invasion force does now lie  and is hardly “numbers / posturing by America / Biden “? Only “thick” people pay attention to satellite data and numerous independent western intelligence reports ….. and tyrant buddy Putin ( & Xi) can do no wrong, just being charitable……right, got it

 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, BigHewer said:

Agreed. We (the broader “we”) will know why future sanctions will have been imposed.… the locals in Russia will be spoon fed a load of old tosh though and blame America. So no bad ending for the Grand Thug. 

Not so sure Big H. Yes that will be the line thrown out by the state owned media but Russians have a lot of access to the interwebnet. 

I genuinely dont see how Putin comes out of this without being weakened. And thats pretty much all he cares about. How to keep himself in power until he reaches the point where no-one can come after him after he leaves. 

I think hes in trouble. Which of course means a lot of trouble for everyone else. Overplayed his hand mate. He did not expect this reaction from the west. Usually he does a bit of posturing and gets what he wants.

But of course the west is also on shaky ground after the debacle in Afghanistan. And its got its eyes on China over Taiwan. So backing down is not an option. 

Lot of plates spinning at the same time.

[Faraday]

9 minutes ago, KRLMRX said:

it is in the basic form of government that the crux of the matter lies.  this (basic form) is the same in Russia and in the West.  the differences are in the shape and length of the ears.  in Russia, these ears are more similar to those of a donkey, in the West they are noticeably less.  but those are donkey ears.  and yet the main question - in whose interests is this war?  and when you think and honestly answer this question, you will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that this war is definitely not in the interests of the peoples of Russia, Ukraine, Europe and America.

In whose interests then?

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Dedinbed said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Dedinbed said:

Churchill was well aware of Russian intentions of not withdrawing at the end of the conflict during the final weeks of WW2 and his foreboding of what was likely to happen became a source of irritation to the by then ailing President Roosevelt who wanted not to upset Stalin in bringing the war to a close and to bring many U S service people back from Europe .. Churchill then silently asked his military planners to put together a plan known as Operation Unthinkable for effectively trying to boot Russia out of the part of Germany they were occupying and Poland early summer 1945 .. the planners essentially told him to forget it with the size of the Russian armies encamped there and further south in around Austria and Czechoslovakia that could be drawn in had it ever came to conflict .. there are numerous other strands of impracticality and a desire on the West's side not to get drawn into another conflict that put paid to the idea at the time ( not least that it would have required considerable U S input which would not have been an easy sell to the U S ) but within a 12 mth the U S then under Harry Truman had begun to arrive at the same conclusions as Churchill and began to develop their own plan called Operation Pincher .. 

I think that's a fair summary. I'd just like to add, that as early as 1942 Churchill was making proposals to Stalin, how Europe would be carved up after WWII. Stalin played him agreeing to whatever Churchill proposed.

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, JohninDublin said:

I think that's a fair summary. I'd just like to add, that as early as 1942 Churchill was making proposals to Stalin, how Europe would be carved up after WWII. Stalin played him agreeing to whatever Churchill proposed.

The Yalta summit was the undoing of Churchill. Roosevelt and Stalin were making agreements behind the UK's back. Basically they decided the former European global powers should be done away with.

[KRLMRX]

9 minutes ago, Faraday said:

In whose interests then?

Those who will benefit from the blood spilled by ordinary people.  

You don’t seriously think that Putin, Biden or handsome Johnson make decisions?  

"Provide 10 percent, and capital is ready for any use, at 20 percent it becomes lively, at 50 percent it is positively ready to break its head, at 100 percent it defies all human laws, at 300 percent there is no crime that it would not risk  , at least on pain of the gallows" (Thomas Joseph Dunning)

[Lyp14 [ctxa]]

20 minutes ago, Faraday said:

In whose interests then?

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Mikoyan, Almaz, etc etc

[Guest1]

11 hours ago, snapdragon said:

The US don't want Europe to get Russia's natural riches.

Can't have European countries leaning towards Russia.

Since WW2, at least since a possible "attack first, die second" nuke-war, Europe is chosen  to be the war area for a clash between USA (Nato) and Russia (USSR). Since there are tactical Nukes, even more! Cause all wars "of the USA" have been far far away from there country and that since there Civil war. Why change that, now?

[BigHewer]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

Not so sure Big H. Yes that will be the line thrown out by the state owned media but Russians have a lot of access to the interwebnet. 

I genuinely dont see how Putin comes out of this without being weakened. And thats pretty much all he cares about. How to keep himself in power until he reaches the point where no-one can come after him after he leaves. 

I think hes in trouble. Which of course means a lot of trouble for everyone else. Overplayed his hand mate. He did not expect this reaction from the west. Usually he does a bit of posturing and gets what he wants.

We are on the same page in many respects because what you think is aligned with what I ‘hope’. In any event, we have ‘common ground’. 

VP (the GT) loves a good chance to paint mother Russia as the victim of these ‘nasty western aggressors’. Stoke a bit of nationalism. Poke the bear a bit. 

Conversely, the potential sanctions aren’t such a bad thing for his approval ratings either. They’ll rocket up the minute the first sanctions are announced.

Putin’s worst nightmare is this:

”The world is stable and growing economically. Things are good. Prosperity and contentment have been achieved. But hey wait… life here is still sh*te. What gives? Maybe that other chap in jail was right..”

Just play the role of geopolitical spoiler, give people an external scapegoat and paint yourself as the patriotic defender.

[butterfly]

Putin is doing the right thing,

it's us Europeans siding with the wrong people, NATO and Biden with their "hawk" Generals looking for a new conflict, after spending 20 years losing 2 wars

Edited February 19, 2022 by butterfly

[AussieBob]

16 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

I don't think I've ever disagreed with any of your posts, but this time I think you've got it seriously wrong.

There is only one NATO member bordering on Russia that has Nukes: Turkey https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-u-s-nuclear-weapons-in-europe/ and they've been there since 1961.

As for the claim that people of Eastern Ukraine are "Russians by descent", it should be noted that Russia invaded Ukraine in 1917, and fought a 4 year with Ukrainians before conquering them in 1921. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Ukrainian_War These "Russians by descent" are no different from the Germans who were given land in Poland under Hitler's Lebensraum policy during WWII. If you  know anything about the way Russia administered the various territories of the old Russian Empire, you would know that the titular head of each territory was always ethnically from that region, but the real power was the No 2 man, who was always a Russian.

Given those circumstances, I think it's fair to say that those "Russians" should either be bound by the democratic will of the majority, or move to Russia, or fight for their own independence. Russia should not be aiding and abetting these people in a proxy war.

As for Crimea, there are echoes of 1938 when Hitler marched into the Sudetenland to purportedly protect ethnic Germans. That was the same excuse given by Putin to invade the Crimea. Russia then organised a referendum 24 days later under armed Russian Military supervision. I think most of us know how crooked Russian elections are as far as that goes, notwithstanding the fact that the international community declared the referendum to be illegal.

There is always a first time for everything    

In response I must say that some of your points have substance - but that is because there are issues and faults with both sides.  Firstly, it is not nukes - it is missiles - and it is the ones that NATO does not declare - but yes Russia does the same.   I think the core of the issues and why it is mainly NATO's fault is in this piece by The Guardian back in December:

 

“We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” he said. “The United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep. Is it an excessive requirement not to install shock systems at our house? How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?” He once again expressed anger over NATO’s expansion since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, an issue that has become central to his growing antagonism with the west. “Sometimes it seems we are living in different worlds,” he said. “They said they wouldn’t expand, but they are expanding.”

 

Putin accuses west of ‘coming with its missiles to our doorstep’ | Vladimir Putin | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/23/putin-accuses-west-coming-with-missiles-doorstep

NATO stated that it would not expand towards Russia - but it has been expanding.  Remember it is not about free countries joining a free trade agreement or the EU. NATO is a Treaty that is based on military protection and cooperation (and the placement of strategic armaments). NATO has been getting away with expansion of its military reach and power - it is a direct threat to Russia.  Forget about the reasons Russia may invade Ukraine and all the other sideline matters - the issue is NATO expanding far beyond the boundaries that Russia agreed to after 1991 - and Russia is saying they will no longer sit back and accept it - that is the root cause of the matter. 

If NATO backs away, then Putin is saying Russia will not take their threatened actions and support the separatists in Ukraine that have been at war with the Ukraine Govt since 'their' President was ousted in a military coup in 2014 by a very pro-NATO President who wants Ukraine to join NATO. That triggered the revolt in Crimea and the Russian annexation of that territory.  Here are some other key moments:

In January 2016, Ukraine under the new President joined with the EU as a trading partner' but not a full member.

In February 2019 the Ukrainian President signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to becoming a member of NATO and the European Union.

In June June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's 'enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program' which means they became a 'mate' - not a member of NATO but a close friend.

That last one was the 'last straw' for Russia - they have had enough. As far as Russia is concerned NATO is preparing for a war with Russia - they have been 'taking over' all the 'buffer' countries that were agreed to be left in place between NATO and Russia after the USSR was disbanded in 1991.  What NATO has been doing aint about economic development and trade or political freedoms - it has been all about expanding their military power and reach - that is the cause of the matter. 

Now dont get me wrong. If war breaks out then I would support NATO over Russia.  But the cause of the War is clearly NATO - that is my issue - blaming Russia for it starting is total hypocrisy and a lie by NATO.   

[Marc26]

9 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

There is always a first time for everything    

In response I must say that some of your points have substance - but that is because there are issues and faults with both sides.  Firstly, it is not nukes - it is missiles - and it is the ones that NATO does not declare - but yes Russia does the same.   I think the core of the issues and why it is mainly NATO's fault is in this piece by The Guardian back in December:

“We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” he said. “The United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep. Is it an excessive requirement not to install shock systems at our house? How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?” He once again expressed anger over NATO’s expansion since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, an issue that has become central to his growing antagonism with the west. “Sometimes it seems we are living in different worlds,” he said. “They said they wouldn’t expand, but they are expanding.”

Putin accuses west of ‘coming with its missiles to our doorstep’ | Vladimir Putin | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/23/putin-accuses-west-coming-with-missiles-doorstep

NATO stated that it would not expand towards Russia - but it has been expanding.  Remember it is not about free countries joining a free trade agreement or the EU. NATO is a Treaty that is based on military protection and cooperation (and the placement of strategic armaments). NATO has been getting away with expansion of its military reach and power - it is a direct threat to Russia.  Forget about the reasons Russia may invade Ukraine and all the other sideline matters - the issue is NATO expanding far beyond the boundaries that Russia agreed to after 1991 - and Russia is saying they will no longer sit back and accept it - that is the root cause of the matter. 

If NATO backs away, then Putin is saying Russia will not take their threatened actions and support the separatists in Ukraine that have been at war with the Ukraine Govt since 'their' President was ousted in a military coup in 2014 by a very pro-NATO President who wants Ukraine to join NATO. That triggered the revolt in Crimea and the Russian annexation of that territory.  Here are some other key moments:

In January 2016, Ukraine under the new President joined with the EU as a trading partner' but not a full member.

In February 2019 the Ukrainian President signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to becoming a member of NATO and the European Union.

In June June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's 'enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program' which means they became a 'mate' - not a member of NATO but a close friend.

That last one was the 'last straw' for Russia - they have had enough. As far as Russia is concerned NATO is preparing for a war with Russia - they have been 'taking over' all the 'buffer' countries that were agreed to be left in place between NATO and Russia after the USSR was disbanded in 1991.  What NATO has been doing aint about economic development and trade or political freedoms - it has been all about expanding their military power and reach - that is the cause of the matter. 

Now dont get me wrong. If war breaks out then I would support NATO over Russia.  But the cause of the War is clearly NATO - that is my issue - blaming Russia for it starting is total hypocrisy and a lie by NATO.   

I'm not well versed in any of this

 

All the posts have very interactive and informative 

[ThailandBob]

On 2/19/2022 at 12:02 PM, oldschooler said:

Regretably, Putin will invade any day now. HE should back down but tyrants can’t do that without appearing weak and losing power …..Saddam etc.

Putin has multiple exercises going on in regions that are closely monitored by many people. A small miscue will give him the necessary green light to invade in order to "defend" Russia. I think he's counting on that. However, if Ukraine doesn't take the bait, Russian troops and equipment may end up staying up on the front lines permanently. Supporting forward deployments of that size and scope will end up costing Russia dearly.

[Fester]

1 hour ago, ThailandBob said:

Putin has multiple exercises going on in regions that are closely monitored by many people. A small miscue will give him the necessary green light to invade in order to "defend" Russia. I think he's counting on that. However, if Ukraine doesn't take the bait, Russian troops and equipment may end up staying up on the front lines permanently. Supporting forward deployments of that size and scope will end up costing Russia dearly.

These "front lines" and "forward deployments" are still mainly on Russian territory, with many having been there or thereabout, for years. If Russia intends to maintain the size of its armed forces, the location of them may not necessarily mean much extra cost. With so many forces close to the Ukraine, even without invasion, then that threat will help keep oil and gas prices up, which will suit Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin more than anyone else.

[Mudshark]

On 2/19/2022 at 11:16 AM, AussieBob said:

Unless NATO backs down and agrees to withdraw ballistic missile sites in the bordering NATO countries to Russia, then Russia will invade and destroy them itself. 

150 American B-61 nuclear gravity bombs are stationed in five countries; Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. No mention about ballistic missiles. If Russia invades and destroys them. It is not far fetched to assume a wider war will result. I thought this was about Putin wanting to control the Ukraine & putting the screws to Euro land during the winter with his gas exports.

How little did I know. 

[AussieBob]

Now that is funny and I thought it should be shown here too - thanks @Marble-eye 

 

 

 

[Poolie]

Its the 'if' that lacks any conviction for me. Today, tomorrow, next week. How Biden can keep a straight face through all the hubris puzzles me.

[oldschooler]

2 hours ago, ThailandBob said:

Putin has multiple exercises going on in regions that are closely monitored by many people. A small miscue will give him the necessary green light to invade in order to "defend" Russia. I think he's counting on that. However, if Ukraine doesn't take the bait, Russian troops and equipment may end up staying up on the front lines permanently. Supporting forward deployments of that size and scope will end up costing Russia dearly.

US exposed the Putin invasion playbook in four stages. Putin will still follow it though …… maybe it starts tomorrow. No nation can hold those invasion positions much longer. They are not “ exercises”but invasion maneuvers. NATO ain’t stupid.

[Fester]

31 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

US exposed the Putin invasion playbook in four stages. Putin will still follow it though …… maybe it starts tomorrow. No nation can hold those invasion positions much longer. They are not “ exercises”but invasion maneuvers. NATO ain’t stupid.

165511

[JohninDublin]

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

There is always a first time for everything    

In response I must say that some of your points have substance - but that is because there are issues and faults with both sides.  Firstly, it is not nukes - it is missiles - and it is the ones that NATO does not declare - but yes Russia does the same.   I think the core of the issues and why it is mainly NATO's fault is in this piece by The Guardian back in December:

“We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” he said. “The United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep. Is it an excessive requirement not to install shock systems at our house? How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?” He once again expressed anger over NATO’s expansion since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, an issue that has become central to his growing antagonism with the west. “Sometimes it seems we are living in different worlds,” he said. “They said they wouldn’t expand, but they are expanding.”

Putin accuses west of ‘coming with its missiles to our doorstep’ | Vladimir Putin | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/23/putin-accuses-west-coming-with-missiles-doorstep

NATO stated that it would not expand towards Russia - but it has been expanding.  Remember it is not about free countries joining a free trade agreement or the EU. NATO is a Treaty that is based on military protection and cooperation (and the placement of strategic armaments). NATO has been getting away with expansion of its military reach and power - it is a direct threat to Russia.  Forget about the reasons Russia may invade Ukraine and all the other sideline matters - the issue is NATO expanding far beyond the boundaries that Russia agreed to after 1991 - and Russia is saying they will no longer sit back and accept it - that is the root cause of the matter. 

If NATO backs away, then Putin is saying Russia will not take their threatened actions and support the separatists in Ukraine that have been at war with the Ukraine Govt since 'their' President was ousted in a military coup in 2014 by a very pro-NATO President who wants Ukraine to join NATO. That triggered the revolt in Crimea and the Russian annexation of that territory.  Here are some other key moments:

In January 2016, Ukraine under the new President joined with the EU as a trading partner' but not a full member.

In February 2019 the Ukrainian President signed a constitutional amendment committing the country to becoming a member of NATO and the European Union.

In June June 2020, Ukraine joined NATO's 'enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program' which means they became a 'mate' - not a member of NATO but a close friend.

That last one was the 'last straw' for Russia - they have had enough. As far as Russia is concerned NATO is preparing for a war with Russia - they have been 'taking over' all the 'buffer' countries that were agreed to be left in place between NATO and Russia after the USSR was disbanded in 1991.  What NATO has been doing aint about economic development and trade or political freedoms - it has been all about expanding their military power and reach - that is the cause of the matter. 

Now dont get me wrong. If war breaks out then I would support NATO over Russia.  But the cause of the War is clearly NATO - that is my issue - blaming Russia for it starting is total hypocrisy and a lie by NATO.   

Thanks for that. Just to make one vey important point. The missiles in Turkey are nukes.

I can see your point, but in all the circumstances, I think Ukraine are quite right to want to join NATO. In 2004, there was the "mysterious poisoning", of the then Ukrainian Pres, Yushchenko, who was pro-West. That has all the hallmarks of Putin. I think if Putin is ordering the assassination of a country's Pres, they have every right to want to join NATO. 

In 2008, Russia invades Georgia in a Sudetenland land excused raid to protect Ethnic Russians from two autonomous regions of the country. Same excuse for Crimea. And though they have denied any involvement in "Donbass" including supplying the missile which brought down flight MH17, they express their "angst" over Russians being victimised. Wherever I look, I see Russian rapaciousness.

I don't say that's why NATO has changed it's stance on Ukraine, but since Putin came to power, he has persistently indulged in asymmetric warfare against the west and that includes interfering in elections. Neither NATO or Russia are the problem: The problem is Putin.

[butterfly]

I think they should let Russia join NATO as a partner along with Ukraine, problem solved :p

 

 

[butterfly]

1 minute ago, JohninDublin said:

Neither NATO or Russia are the problem: The problem is Putin.

you seem a bit obsessed with Putin here,

1 minute ago, JohninDublin said:

In 2004, there was the "mysterious poisoning", of the then Ukrainian Pres, Yushchenko, who was pro-West.

That's hardly a justification to join NATO

[SnapDragon]

Then there are the Skripals. Hidden away somewhere by MI6 in England.

Can't blame it on Putin; as much as some might want use to.

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, butterfly said:

you seem a bit obsessed with Putin here,

That's hardly a justification to join NATO

You only get one chance to make a first impression. You wasted yours.

[Santa]

We were led to believe 3-4 days ago that Russia was definitely going to invade last Wednesday. So why haven't they?