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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corbyn was unelectable for very good reasons. He would have pandered to Putin like Trump did but just for very different reasons, the result would have been the same though.

I voted for Labour when Corbyn was leader, but that was pre-brexit and in "peacetime" (I don't recall war in Europe looking likely in 2017 and 2019)

But I've said on here before I'm glad he wasn't Prime minister when Putin invaded Ukraine.
 
I voted for Labour when Corbyn was leader, but that was pre-brexit and in "peacetime" (I don't recall war in Europe looking likely in 2017 and 2019)

But I've said on here before I'm glad he wasn't Prime minister when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Although I wanted the Tories to lose I just couldn't vote for Corbyn because I thought he would be a weak leader in the face of a major crisis. The whole idea of an executive is they can act quickly when faced with something like Ukraine. Corbyn would have procrastinated for months and been dragged kicking and screaming into helping Ukraine.
 
With the war in a very attritional phase I wonder if Ukraines reluctance to surrender Bakhmut is partly tied to their preparations for a counter offensive which could be coming soon. Russian forces seem to have absorbed so many assets into capturing this location that it must have left them stretched in other areas whereas Ukraine presumably has been able to defend with less resources. Is Bakhmut just a convenient distraction trap that the disparate Russian forces have fallen into. It may be wishful thinking and overly influenced by western media but the Bakhmut obsession looks like internal Russian folly.
 
My dad would just keep repeating he’s an honourable man when it came to Corbyn, which in comparison to his peers was probably accurate.
Well Corbyn may be an idiot but at least he would do what he says he would do and not say things he has no intention of doing like the Tories.

Honest politicians are rarer than hens teeth..
 
Funny how old trends come round again.

3k5abl.jpg

Are those real?
 
Are those real?
Outtake from edited March of Time story "Peace by Adolf Hitler".

USHMM historians suspect that the protest march has been staged for the March of Time camera. People appear to pose for the camera, speeding up to get into the frame and practicing. There were quite a number of anti-interventionist groups on the left and the right at the time. However, the only references to the "American Union for Organization Against War" relate to this film, and the "organization" does not show up in any of the literature of isolationist groups from the period.
Film Source: United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Motion Picture Reference
 
Funny how old trends come round again.

3k5abl.jpg




Biden also rejected it, so of course right wing media is spinning this as 'WE COULD HAVE HAD PEACE BUT BIDEN RUINED IT!' Not a word of the fact that Putin didn't accept it either.

:rolleyes:

Hitler didn't have thermonuclear weapons, this isn't the same thing. If Putin didn't have nukes I'd be happy for NATO to defend Russia with ground forces.
 
Last edited:
Hitler didn't have thermonuclear weapons, this isn't the same thing. If Putin didn't have nukes I'd be happy for NATO to defend Russia with ground forces.

NATO could send every tank, soldier, plane, gun, artillery unit, ration pack, and sleeping bag in their army into Ukraine and Russia still wouldn't drop nukes. I know ol' Poots likes to flop out his nuclear missile out of his pants at every opportunity but it's all bark no bite; he only does it because he thinks there are enough in the West who will back down at the mere threat. The reality is very different. Nukes will be launched at nothing short of a full scale invasion of Russia.

That's the by-the-by though, really, the collective West have made very clear that they'd rather watch Russia atrocity its way across Ukraine than actually get involved.
 
Hitler didn't have thermonuclear weapons, this isn't the same thing. If Putin didn't have nukes I'd be happy for NATO to defend Russia with ground forces.

But NATO isn't even offering to do that, and nobody's asking for it. Even if they did, do you really believe Putin would use nuclear weapons against NATO forces? That would be the end of Russia. Moscow would be nothing but a smoking crater and a faint memory within 15 minutes.

If you're not keen on the West supporting Ukraine, what's your proposal for ending the war?
 
Last edited:
*Putin: We Have to Use Combat Experience Gained in Ukraine for Strengthening Our National Security
*Putin: FSB Should Stop Penetration of Sabotage Groups Though Border Between Russia and Ukraine
*Putin: Has Instructed The FSB To Exercise Special Control Over The Russian-Ukrainian Border
*Putin: We Need to Strengthen Counter Intelligence
*Putin Tells FSB to Work to Strengthen Security in Four Ukrainian Regions He Has Claimed For Moscow
*Putin Tells FSB to Keep Close Eye on Key Infrastructure Objects
*Putin: Calls for a Curb on the Use of the Internet and Social Media to Lure Young People Into Extremist Activities
*Putin: The Growing Terrorist Threat in Russia Is Linked to the Actions of Ukraine and the West, Which Is Using Its “Old Friends”
*Putin: FSB Does Not Have A Secondary Task And Needs To Devote Itself Wholeheartedly
*Putin: Russian Cyberspace And Citizens' Personal Data Must Be Reliably Protected

*Blinken: Having an Ongoing Discussion With Central Asian Countries on Sanctions Compliance and Economic Spillover Effect of Ukraine War
*Blinken: Sanctions Are Designed to Halt Russia’s Aggression
*Blinken: We Are Watching Compliance With Sanctions Very Closely
*Blinken: We Will Not Hesitate to Target Chinese Companies and Individuals Who Violate Our Sanctions on Russia
*Blinken: If China Provides Lethal Aid to Russia It Will Be a Serious Problem for China’s Relationship With Countries Around The World
*Blinken: China Can’t Have It Both Ways on Ukraine, It Can’t Be Putting Peace Proposals Forward While Feeding the Flames Of the Fire
*Blinken: Xi, Putin ‘No Limits’ Partnership Is a ‘Real Concern’
 
NATO could send every tank, soldier, plane, gun, artillery unit, ration pack, and sleeping bag in their army into Ukraine and Russia still wouldn't drop nukes. I know ol' Poots likes to flop out his nuclear missile out of his pants at every opportunity but it's all bark no bite; he only does it because he thinks there are enough in the West who will back down at the mere threat. The reality is very different. Nukes will be launched at nothing short of a full scale invasion of Russia.

That's the by-the-by though, really, the collective West have made very clear that they'd rather watch Russia atrocity its way across Ukraine than actually get involved.

Imagine being arrogant enough to feel confident that you can assure everyone there's no chance of a nuclear war, given the consequences of being wrong. The fact you're so sure is why I would never listen to someone like you. I'm not saying Putin would use nuclear weapons, but I'm not stupid enough to say there's zero chance, and I wouldn't bet the lives of a billion people on something that isn't certain. This is why NATO Generals have been so cautious, yet a bunch of people in the media and on the internet seem to be frothing at the mouth to give whatever Ukraine needs, despite Russian warnings. The suggestions at the start of the conflict to set up a "no-fly zone" would be ******* hilarious based on how stupid of an idea it was if the consequences weren't deadly serious.
 
Last edited:
But NATO isn't even offering to do that, and nobody's asking for it. Even if they did, do you really believe Putin would use nuclear weapons against NATO forces? That would be the end of Russia. Moscow would be nothing but a smoking crater and a faint memory within 15 minutes.

If you're not keen on the West supporting Ukraine, what's your proposal for ending the war?

You do realise Russia could deploy tactical nuclear weapons and use them against ground forces and that we wouldn't just nuke Moscow in return? Why would you think we'd do that? That would mean every major city in North America and Western Europe would be destroyed within the hour as well. The consequences for a tactical nuclear being used on the battlefield aren't even clear. We could do the same in return, but would we? I doubt it actually.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom