Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, Turkey should not be a NATO member at all. Instead, it should be disassembled as a country and given the Kurds the right to establish their own state.

You know the Kurds are the largest population up to 45 million people that hasn't got yet its own state.
Kurd | History, Culture, & Language | Britannica
Not a fan of ethno states at all. Firmly in the realm of extreme politics imo .
 
Spot on, double standards all the way inside NATO. What is NATO doing concerning the casus belli Turkey threatens if Greece exercise its legitimate right to expand its EEZ to 12 miles? casus belli is a threat of war for those who dont know. NATO is pretending it hasnt got any clue. What has NATO done when Turkey opened the gates with thousands of refugees storming violently the Greek frontier last year? nothing.

RUSSIA is like a password to all hell break lose over nothing...

Half of Cyprus is illegally occupied by Turkey (a NATO member) at the moment, which would be a legal nightmare in the event of any Greek/ Cypriot attempt to reoccuppy...
 
Half of Cyprus is illegally occupied by Turkey (a NATO member) at the moment, which would be a legal nightmare in the event of any Greek/ Cypriot attempt to reoccuppy...

well the cyprus problem is a quite complex one, cyprus afaik is inhabited by cypriots of greek and turkish speaking population. i cant tell a greek cypriot from a turkish one, so for a greek cypriot to re occupy the northern part is not a solution, how about a withdrawal of the Turkish forces?

Quite similar to the Ukranian problem though, the west demands russians to withdraw from Donbass which is populated by russian speaking population, but Cyprus is divided since 1974! Therefore NATO and their current stance on russia is a fine example of double standards.
 
I have no idea whether this is true or not (too drunk to look it up - my google fu is compromised) but the irony here is that the only country to ever invoke Article 5 is the USA.
Yeah, it's true. A lot of people (I.E @dowie) fall for the myth that article 5 requires NATO members to go to war with anyone who attacks a NATO member, it's not true, as I said they aren't even required to react militarily merely to render whatever support they deem "necessary".

The actual text says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Like I said it was specifically worded this way at the behest of the USA so that they weren't legally required to do more than issue sanctions and send supplies if the USSR ever moved against western Europe without moving against the USA too.
 
Though he seems blasted out his face I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about what he is saying? if China or Russia did suddenly take the "nuclear option" (not necessarily nuclear but a serious escalation) as unlikely as that might be is Joe Biden really the person you want as the fulcrum of any response to that?
 
Anyhow back to Ukraine - it looks like Russia was hoping to kick this off with some kind of situation developing within Ukraine they could paint as persecution/ethnic cleansing of pro-Russia people combined with an attempt to use Russian loyal Ukrainians and special forces in a sequence of focussed attacks to head shot/disrupt government and military leadership, communications and other infrastructure, install their own government, then bring the Russian forces in to "stabilise" the situation, encircle and besiege any cities or active military units holding out cutting off their communications, supplies and reinforcement and use heavy artillery to quickly pummel them into submission. Likely kicking off by around the 10-12th February.

IMO nothing else really makes sense in terms of the cards on the table - it is not a defensive configuration, lack as far as things go so far for a broad offensive against a force capable of fighting back, overplayed for any political manoeuvring.
 
IMO nothing else really makes sense in terms of the cards on the table
TBH nothing about any of this makes logical sense.

One theory that's gaining traction on the web now is that the entire current Ukraine thing is just misdirection so Putin can move tons of troops/equipment into Belarus ready for the "invasion" and then Lukashenko will declare Belarus has re-joined Russia.
 
Yeah, it's true. A lot of people (I.E @dowie) fall for the myth that article 5 requires NATO members to go to war with anyone who attacks a NATO member, it's not true, as I said they aren't even required to react militarily merely to render whatever support they deem "necessary".

Good luck Germany keeping out of such a war when they literally still host UK and US military bases! Read the text though, they're obliged to treat any attack on a member state as an attack on their own territory, the whole point of the alliance was mutual defense as a deterrent towards the Soviet Union, that isn't a myth in this context if Russia invaded/went to war with an alliance member then we'd be at war and there wouldn't be any element of choice for Germany.

Sure if some local power (like Syria) went to war with Turkey then perhaps we'd just be offering support if that was all that were necessary but don't be under any illusion when it comes to Europe and Russia invading.

Back to the topic/context, this was re: Germany not wishing to supply arms to Ukraine, it's kinda moot as they're a NATO member as is Estonia etc.. they're pot committed to going to war regardless - if Russia invaded Estonia or one of the other Baltic states then the UK/US, Poland etc.. would step in and Germany is committed whether it likes it or not.
 
TBH nothing about any of this makes logical sense.

One theory that's gaining traction on the web now is that the entire current Ukraine thing is just misdirection so Putin can move tons of troops/equipment into Belarus ready for the "invasion" and then Lukashenko will declare Belarus has re-joined Russia.

To be honest I don't know much about the intricacies of the Belarus side of the equation here. It is interesting there is a marked up tick in activity around the Baltic especially directed at Sweden as well.
 
It could be worse guys, this guy could have the ear of the POTUS. I'm still not 100% what he's on but I just failed a drug test watching this.


What on earth?

He looks like someone on drugs, with badly fitting dentures trying to do a poor impression of Trump.
 
What on earth?

He looks like someone on drugs, with badly fitting dentures trying to do a poor impression of Trump.

Not sure it is an impression of Trump - he is trying to do the "grand statesman" style of dramatic speech (something Trump often attempted) - I think it is mostly a **** take while drunk or high or both but haven't seen the full context so it might be meant seriously.
 
US taking it very seriously now acting as if it is imminent and inevitable with a wider scope than just Ukraine. Kind of worrying in a way even though I don't really see the grounds for the reaction - though I believe in being prepared.

Anyone in Ukraine as a visitor also need to be aware if things do kick off they likely ain't getting out - the air will be closed to civilian traffic, the borders will be closed - Poland especially will be fully militarised, there will be little any country can do short of fully going to war to get their citizens out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom