News Forum - Russia attacks Ukraine from three fronts, explosions in major cities

[Poolie]

5 hours ago, Sandbar said:

Thousands of Russians citizens are walking through the streets in protest against Putin's invasion on Ukraine.

Apparently hundreds have already been arrested as is the case for any protests held in defiance of the regime. 

He also is fixing the election process to ensure he will be leader for many many years to come....something the world and the Russian's themselves can't except. 

So says the Western media, yes. Doubtful about the numbers. I refer to Hong Kong and their numbers there. 'Millions' in a city of 7.4m?

[Freeduhdumb]

3 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Do you mean when NATO 'supported' western Ukraine overthrew the elected President in a violent coup?

Or do you mean when the Eastern parts of Ukraine (including Crimea) declared a civil war on the western Ukraine Govt?

Or do you mean when Russia annexed Crimea?

That all occurred in 2014.  

Ok. I suppose that requires clarification, but really it shouldn't. The coup de tat, regime change operation of unseating a democratically elected Yanukovych was the "invasion" that set all of what is occurring now into motion.

[Tim_Melb]

1 hour ago, CamPat said:

Simply look at History ! Nagasaki and Hiroshima both dropped by US Bombers. Triggerhappy Americans would do it again , i trust my gut feeling. Nobody else ever used Nukes.

What rubbish, the Americans are saying that they will not commit their military to fight in Ukraine for the very reason that they want to avoid any danger of nuclear conflict. Putin has as good as said he will use nukes on anybody that joins the Ukraine to fight against him. 

[f_udf]

So much for "no two countries with McDonald's restaurants have gone to war". Now it's getting serious! 

[Poolie]

6 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

What rubbish, the Americans are saying that they will not commit their military to fight in Ukraine for the very reason that they want to avoid any danger of nuclear conflict. Putin has as good as said he will use nukes on anybody that joins the Ukraine to fight against him. 

Oh crikey Moses. What did he actually say?

[Poolie]

7 minutes ago, f_udf said:

So much for "no two countries with McDonald's restaurants have gone to war". Now it's getting serious! 

Mutually assured diahorrhea.

[Tim_Melb]

4 hours ago, AussieBob said:

There has been a few ignorant statements made by members to anyone like me that dares suggest that they understand the reasons WHY Russia invaded Ukraine - this is another one.  I will answer them all with the same reply:

I understood WHY Russia invade the self-declared independent States - that does not mean I support it.

I never have and never will support Russia invading all of Ukraine - but I do understand WHY.

IMO NATO is the main cause of this occurring.

If you push a Communist Dictator like Putin too hard and too far, it is mainly your fault if he eventually reacts and hits back. My question is - did NATO deliberately force Putin to take this action, or did they think he was only bluffing and would never actually invade despite publicly declaring he would in 2016, if Ukraine and NATO continued down the path they were taking.

Only an idiot would expect Russia to stand by and allow NATO to place missiles in Ukraine on its border and do nothing because it is 'right'. As I said a long time ago - well before the current events - this stand off was like the Bay of Pigs when Kennedy demanded USSR remove its nukes from Cuba or a war would happen. 

Putin has been saying for years that it was totally unacceptable to Russia for Ukraine to join NATO (thereby allowing NATO to place armaments and missiles on its border).  NATO, unlike USSR, did not see reason and back down, and the western Ukrainian Govt pushed ahead full steam. USSR backed down to Kennedy - despite all the complaints and requests from Castro for them to stay and protect Cuba - NATO should have done the same.

That does not excuse Russia invading all of Ukraine IMO.  Coming to the 'rescue' of the self-declared independent States who have been at war with the Ukrainian Govt in western Ukraine was one thing. But to go further and invade all of Ukraine, and threatening anyone interfering with nuclear retaliation, is totally unacceptable IMO.  There is a reason the western powers have not just taken over Nth Korea - Kim would unleash catastrophic responses and nobody wins in a nuclear war.  Pushing Putin as hard and for as long as NATO did, only had one outcome. 

When conflict starts, the first victim is the truth - each side blames the other for it starting - we are mainly getting the western NATO USA EU version of the truth.  Russia's claims and statements are being altered and suppressed - but I have access to Russian news services so I see their lies to.  The truth is always somewhere towards the middle - not either of the extreme ends. 

You show your complete misunderstanding of the situation when refer to Putin as a Communist he is not a Communist in any way. At best he could be called a Fascist dictator. 

[Ben]

21 hours ago, Lyp14 [ctxa] said:

Very sad for the Ucranians, but the Americans and NATO and rest of Europeans need not escalate the response to Russia beyond economic sanctions, or WW3 will happen. 

This is exactly how WWII started. „Let him do…“

[Freeduhdumb]

<content deleted>

Edited February 25, 2022 by KaptainRob
Refer FG's and stay on topic!

[TWS60]

1 hour ago, Pinetree said:

I'm afraid that is a rather false  argument, but for a different reason.  If Russia takes over Ukraine, they will move their short range nuclear weapons into that country, that borders NATO countries.  Ukraine is the buffer, with that gone, NATO is at increased risk.  

Right, and also, as far as I know, NATO, as a primarily defensive, collective political org, has never expressed a desire to invade USSR/Russia. 

My feeling is Putin's operating under the kooky old paranoid commie delusion about the Western/NATO bogyman, using that false rhetoric to justify drastic action against a non-existent threat.  He's Projecting, and hopefully will soon realize the error of his ways, before too much needless loss of life on both sides, and fewer Russians get disappeared for protesting against it.

Not a Brit, no pref in that political arena, but I was moved by Boris Johnson's presentation at Parliament on this matter.  I was inspired and quite envious at how everyone comported themselves, Opposition in particular, which seemed to (mostly) drop the snarky "gotchas" to rally around a right cause in unison.   

Meanwhile, over on the Fox News cartoon network in 'Murica.  

[Tim_Melb]

1 hour ago, Grumpish said:

Trigger happy? Just taking Okinawa resulted in over 300,000 deaths, with half of those deaths being civilians. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the soft options compared to the potential cost of an assault on mainland Japan. 

Truman's use of Nuclear weapons on Japan was not necessary and cannot be justified. He had the option of demonstrating what the US had on an unoccupied island in sight of the Japanese mainland and then demanding their surrender but he chose to make an attack on the largely civilian population of Hiroshima. Then instead of demanding Japan's surrender he waited a few days and bombed the largely civilian population of Nagasaki. Then after seeing what his new toys could do, he asked for Japan's surrender. Truman killed thousands of people innocent Japanese civilians just to punish them and to see what the bombs would do. He was a war criminal. 

Having said that, that does not have any relevance in the current situation. 

[Pinetree]

4 minutes ago, TWS60 said:

Not a Brit, no pref in that political arena, but I was moved by Boris Johnson's presentation at Parliament on this matter.

I am a Brit and we all ignore what that lying buffoon ever says.  Take notice of him. His words mean nothing of substance.   

[Poolie]

22 minutes ago, Freeduhdumb said:

Ithen I would say, those 80 million U.S. voters, the most votes in U.S. history for any U.S. President, can only be seen as absolute buffoons. As they say, birds of feather flock together, Buffoon electorate, gets you a buffoon president. Let us just call the situation as it really is... the Biden Regime's foreign policy has brought us to war... there is no other way to look at it. 

I wondered how it worked. Thanks for the enlightenment.

[think-and-ask]

                  *Your post has been deleted*

Please post in the normal text as used on the Forum & not overemphasised text, as per Forum Guidelines #6

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Faraday
FG 6 - overemphasised bolded text

[vlad]

Ukraine is not running away they are engaging Russian military. Missiles are being intercepted and taken out over Kiev and it appears now a fighter jet was shot down so its not all a walk over like putin would like to think. 

[Poolie]

14 minutes ago, vlad said:

Ukraine is not running away they are engaging Russian military. Missiles are being intercepted and taken out over Kiev and it appears now a fighter jet was shot down so its not all a walk over like putin would like to think. 

Where would they run to?

[Rookiescot]

6 hours ago, AussieBob said:

There has been a few ignorant statements made by members to anyone like me that dares suggest that they understand the reasons WHY Russia invaded Ukraine - this is another one.  I will answer them all with the same reply:

I understood WHY Russia invade the self-declared independent States - that does not mean I support it.

I never have and never will support Russia invading all of Ukraine - but I do understand WHY.

IMO NATO is the main cause of this occurring.

If you push a Communist Dictator like Putin too hard and too far, it is mainly your fault if he eventually reacts and hits back. My question is - did NATO deliberately force Putin to take this action, or did they think he was only bluffing and would never actually invade despite publicly declaring he would in 2016, if Ukraine and NATO continued down the path they were taking.

Only an idiot would expect Russia to stand by and allow NATO to place missiles in Ukraine on its border and do nothing because it is 'right'. As I said a long time ago - well before the current events - this stand off was like the Bay of Pigs when Kennedy demanded USSR remove its nukes from Cuba or a war would happen. 

Putin has been saying for years that it was totally unacceptable to Russia for Ukraine to join NATO (thereby allowing NATO to place armaments and missiles on its border).  NATO, unlike USSR, did not see reason and back down, and the western Ukrainian Govt pushed ahead full steam. USSR backed down to Kennedy - despite all the complaints and requests from Castro for them to stay and protect Cuba - NATO should have done the same.

That does not excuse Russia invading all of Ukraine IMO.  Coming to the 'rescue' of the self-declared independent States who have been at war with the Ukrainian Govt in western Ukraine was one thing. But to go further and invade all of Ukraine, and threatening anyone interfering with nuclear retaliation, is totally unacceptable IMO.  There is a reason the western powers have not just taken over Nth Korea - Kim would unleash catastrophic responses and nobody wins in a nuclear war.  Pushing Putin as hard and for as long as NATO did, only had one outcome. 

When conflict starts, the first victim is the truth - each side blames the other for it starting - we are mainly getting the western NATO USA EU version of the truth.  Russia's claims and statements are being altered and suppressed - but I have access to Russian news services so I see their lies to.  The truth is always somewhere towards the middle - not either of the extreme ends. 

Ukraine is not a member of NATO so no NATO missiles in Ukraine. End of.

Ukraine may want to join the EU and or NATO but neither of those looks even remotely interested in allowing Ukraine entry. 

This nonsense about why Putin has invaded is simply that. Is paranoia about what MIGHT happen in the future a reasonable excuse for invading a country? 

[Noble_Design]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Ukraine is not a member of NATO so no NATO missiles in Ukraine. End of.

Ukraine may want to join the EU and or NATO but neither of those looks even remotely interested in allowing Ukraine entry. 

This nonsense about why Putin has invaded is simply that. Is paranoia about what MIGHT happen in the future a reasonable excuse for invading a country? 

Well the US popularized the term "preemptive strike" when they invaded Iraq back in 2003 claiming it was necessary to intervene to prevent Saddam Hussein from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So what's happening now is not without precedence.

[riclag]

 

<content off-topic & removed>

Edited February 27, 2022 by KaptainRob
Refer Forum Guidelines

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, Noble_Design said:

Well the US popularized the term "preemptive strike" when they invaded Iraq back in 2003 claiming it was necessary to intervene to prevent Saddam Hussein from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So what's happening now is not without precedence.

You will not see me supporting that war either. In my opinion the WMD's were a trumped up lie to excuse it.

The real reason I think is that after the 9/11 attack SOMEONE was going to get invaded by the USA.

[Faraday]

Some of these posts are off topic.

This is the thread topic:

News Forum - Russia attacks Ukraine from three fronts, explosions in major cities.

Please stay on topic.

Thank you

Moderator

[butterfly]

51 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Ukraine may want to join the EU and or NATO but neither of those looks even remotely interested in allowing Ukraine entry. 

the problem is you can't make that claim, you have no idea what's going on behind closed doors on that front. And there has been signs that Ukraine was getting warm and cosy with the EU, and consequently with NATO. Because when you join the EU special zone, you get an accelerated membership to NATO.

From seeing the west reactions, it seems that things were moving nicely along that direction.

[butterfly]

54 minutes ago, Noble_Design said:

Well the US popularized the term "preemptive strike" when they invaded Iraq back in 2003 claiming it was necessary to intervene to prevent Saddam Hussein from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So what's happening now is not without precedence.

indeed, the west lost their moral high ground 20 years ago after 911

and they will get no support from the rest of the world for their anti-Russian sanctions

it will be perceived again as one set of rules for them (aka the elite), and another one for the rest of the world (aka the populace)

[vlad]

Our news this morning reports Special forces troops were helicopter landings were used onto an airstrip on the outskirts in Kyiv. Later in the day Ukrainian troops engaged them and drove them from the airstrip. However, Tanks are heading to the capital. 

[Rookiescot]

13 minutes ago, butterfly said:

the problem is you can't make that claim, you have no idea what's going on behind closed doors on that front. And there has been signs that Ukraine was getting warm and cosy with the EU, and consequently with NATO. Because when you join the EU special zone, you get an accelerated membership to NATO.

From seeing the west reactions, it seems that things were moving nicely along that direction.

Ukraine only became interested in joining NATO after Russia invaded and stole the Crimea from it.

Or was the theft of Crimea also caused by western powers?

So yes I can make that claim. Just because you want to make up foolish theories about secret talks behind closed doors does not mean the rest of us do.