I think there is much less love for the UK within NATO than you think - we have power and influence, sadly being eroded by short term thinking, which grants some deference. I'm not so sure some countries would hurry to put themselves in the firing line for us if it came to it - even though that weakens NATO's deterrent value.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
I think there is much less love for the UK within NATO than you think - we have power and influence, sadly being eroded by short term thinking, which grants some deference. I'm not so sure some countries would hurry to put themselves in the firing line for us if it came to it - even though that weakens NATO's deterrent value.
I'm sorry, but i just don't see how NATO would not retaliate if the UK was attacked by Russia. That is pretty implausible.
I get that the post is rhetorical and the point is more to reference the public opinion of appeasement rather than the historical accuracy of it, but. To avoid misinforming, appeasement in the 30's actually worked out great for it's intended purpose, which was to delay the coming war in order for Britain/France to be in a better position to fight it, the idea that Chamberlain/etc had any confidence in it actually stopping Hitler is/was just media drivel. They knew the second they encountered him at Munich that he was Napoleon 2.0 and they immediately began preparations for the coming war.
Interestingly there is something of a similarity with Ukraine/Poroshenko appeasing Putin at Minsk in 2015, they didn't believe him for a second but by agreeing to ceasefires/etc they bought time to prepare, and from what we saw in 2022 they did a much better job of preparing over the following seven years than he did haha.
He's an atheist, virtually all KGB are as it was their job to enforce the USSR's state enforced atheism policy so they got good at spotting if potential recruits were secretly religious (there's been tales that their induction policies even required heretical acts but this has never been confirmed).
Of course, the church in Russia is important/powerful these days, and so Putin is all about the church, whose leaders are all about Putin.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,006
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I tend to think the whole religious aspect of Putin's presentation is just a play to get Russian conservative voters on his side. To that extent he somehow installed one of this old KGB pals Patriarch Kirill as head of the Russian orthodox church, who sports a £20k Réveil du Tsar designer watch despite his otherwise humble appearance as a man of the cloth. Kirill uses his position to prop up support for Putin and his policies by aligning Putin's actions as being the actions supported by God and in turn Putin turns a blind eye to all the money and wealth Kirill has accrued for himself (watches, yachts, apartments in Moscow etc).
"Once you realise the MSM is controlled by the CIA, is all makes sense"
I'm sure some here will be in die hard agreement as well.
There is a part of the world that doesn't want to enter the 21st centuary.
The CIA's budget is more than the UK spends on defense each year, I don't know what that money is spent on but I do know they have strategic goals that justify that amount of expenditure.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Have you seen the Pope's gaff? Or Justin Welby's gaff? What about the head of the C of E, King Charles III? None are eating cold beans on toast living in a damp council house now, are they?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2014
- Posts
- 7,961
- Location
- The Cronx
I'm sure it is and I don't know either, however the ascertation is some of it is used to control the output of all the flavours of main stream media, which is the kind of thing people say when they don't want to believe what's in the news that they don't agree with.
It is a funny one - if Putin was to launch a nuclear attack against say Warsaw right now the hammer would drop so fast it isn't even funny and Putin likely wouldn't see sunrise tomorrow... if the same happened to London though I think we'd see (at least those of us who survive) a lot more talk and a lot less action. Giving up our nuclear capabilities would be one of the biggest mistakes we'd ever make.
Same with disasters, etc. around the world, the UK is one of the first to respond and one of the biggest givers, we'd likely see far less response from other countries if we suffered a major disaster.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,221
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I'm not so sure about that, London is the 4th richest city (in terms of million / billionaires) and one of the most politically influential and significant in the whole world.
Last edited:
Remember that discussion a few years ago, think it was Corbyn - "we'll cancel our Trident programme" and everyone was like "uuuuuuh but jobs mang" and then he was all "ok we'll remove the warheads but keep the programme"
Like having a guard dog with no teeth, I miss those days.
What is this based on? It is difficult to come to that assumption as we haven't really faced any major disasters for ages. We don't get terribly extreme weather, nor earthquakes/volcanos etc and most smaller domestic things arent beyond our means to fix 99.9% of the time.
Because of the clout it has. I think people would find there was much less love there if that was gone.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
This ^^ 1000x
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
You really are a throwback to the 70s aren't you. I'm sure you revel in your conversations with these people sharing the same ideals. The idea that gays are a threat to children was rife back in the 70s after all, of course it turned out to be nonsense unless the gay man was a member of the clergy. How you must be enjoying it as the rabid MAGA style right wing in America is obsessed with "pedos" and anyone that doesn't fit their narrow ideology is one, gays of course a prime target again.
Chris didn't say anything offensive, why the personal attack?
He later said he would keep them but would never use them which is somewhat stupid but it was Corbyn.
Last edited:
Corybn's entire take on the nuclear deterrent question was stupid.
It was one of the reasons I could not vote for him.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Makes sense now.
Even the DE didn't seem to have enough slant to support your views
Finds out hes conspiring with "the enemy" lies machine.
Oh to be so naive to think they are normal ruskies.
There are "normal" ruskies hiding in plain sight on facebook and twitter and the likes as well
- Status