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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Colonel_Klinck said:
No I did not and I've said it in numerous threads, numerous times, that Corbyn was the worst thing to happen to Labour as was their move to the left. It made them as electable as they were in the 1980s. So that is that part of your post in the bin.

Roar you talk a good game but its just that. You admire bullies who you consider "Alpha males", cowards admire bullies. You seem terrified of Russia and would throw a nation and its population under the bus so you wouldn't risk getting hurt. Appeasement is cowardly.
Click to expand...

I haven't suggested we appease Putin though.

Let's try a thought experiment, presumably you support all current action the UK is taking. Do you also support the UK becoming directly involved and sending our military into Ukraine? If not, why not?

If you don't, then you can't suggest having concerns around a potential for escalation is being a coward, because presumably you also don't wish to see an escalation.

My position is that I support Ukraine, I believe we should sanction Russia and we should support Ukraine with weaponry and training, but I wouldn't include long range weapons like Storm Shadow, and I wouldn't ever support fighter jets being sent over. I also think that Russia is in danger of collapsing as a state, and that would be terrible for stability across Eastern Europe, and also incredibly risky given the amount of nuclear weapons they have.
 
Roar87 said:
Let's try a thought experiment, presumably you support all current action the UK is taking. Do you also support the UK becoming directly involved and sending our military into Ukraine? If not, why not?

If you don't, then you can't suggest having concerns around a potential for escalation is being a coward, because presumably you also don't wish to see an escalation.
Click to expand...
Lol, I can think of lots of reasons why anyone might not be scared of an escalation but could still see a better use of British troops elsewhere. Try to think fuzzy sets rather than crisp sets. We are, after all, talking about human opinions.
 
Roar87 said:
but I wouldn't include long range weapons like Storm Shadow, and I wouldn't ever support fighter jets being sent over.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity why do you oppose long range weapons? Considering they are used to target only military, be that Logistical nodes, C2 nodes, troop and equipment concentrations and military supporting industry. Also governmental facilities should also be fair game, but only where there is significant military goal to achieve from that (Regional command hubs etc). Not just indiscriminate targeting of any governmental buildings.
NATO are just attempting to level the playing field for Ukraine. Russia's war machine dosnt stop at the border. Ukraine should fairly be given the capability to strike back where it hurts.
 
Last edited:
Tuppy_Glossop said:
Lol, I can think of lots of reasons why anyone might not be scared of an escalation but could still see a better use of British troops elsewhere. Try to think fuzzy sets rather than crisp sets. We are, after all, talking about human opinions.
Click to expand...

Well, what about a full NATO task force? If you don't support that, then I'll say you're simply appeasing Putin. Obviously the reality is you're also happy to support Ukraine to a point, unless you think we should take direct action and bomb Russian troops and send in a joint task force to clear them out of Ukraine.
 
Anybody who thinks constraining the defender's ability to fight will help end a conflict in being naive.

As Steve says, there are targets to hit. They aren't hit to "escalate", they're hit to move towards ending the ability of the attacker to attack.

"What about what about" , you play this statement every time as if you don't know the answer, whilst avoiding supporting your suggestion to hamstring the defenders with any credible justification. That's something reasonable to ask you, as opposed to your unreasonable "kkkk why don't you support starting a world war kkkkk" gibberish.
 
You can say what you like. There are not a finite set of possibilities here. And, if there were, it wouldn't be an arbitrarily small set of your choice. That sort of suit your narrative.
 
Griffo said:
Anybody who thinks constraining the defender's ability to fight will help end a conflict in being naive.

As Steve says, there are targets to hit. They aren't hit to "escalate", they're hit to move towards ending the ability of the attacker to attack.

"What about what about" , you play this statement every time as if you don't know the answer, whilst avoiding supporting your suggestion to hamstring the defenders with any credible justification. That's something reasonable to ask you, as opposed to your unreasonable "kkkk why don't you support starting a world war kkkkk" gibberish.
Click to expand...

If we weren't concerned about escalation then America could probably defeat the Russians inside Ukraine in about a week. Anyone sensible is concerned about escalation, including Joe Biden, he only recently approved other countries sending American made F-16's. It was only a few months back he agreed to send tanks, which probably won't arrive this year.
 
*Russian Defence Ministry Says Ukraine Starts Large-Scale Military Operation - TASS
*Russian Defence Ministry Says Ukraine Forces Unsuccessful in Attempts to Break Through Russian Defences in South Don’ts Direction
*Reuters Could Not Immediately Verify Reports of a Ukraine Offensive with Kyiv
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/17926311
 
Last edited:
You do realise that almost everyone has their own rationale, and they don't all fall into your picture of the broadest brush strokes? People have complicated lives and can arrive at wonderfully different conclusions and positions than yours. Allow it. Celebrate it.

e: typo. too much sun :cool: at a wedding reception today
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
I haven't suggested we appease Putin though.

Let's try a thought experiment, presumably you support all current action the UK is taking. Do you also support the UK becoming directly involved and sending our military into Ukraine? If not, why not?

If you don't, then you can't suggest having concerns around a potential for escalation is being a coward, because presumably you also don't wish to see an escalation.

My position is that I support Ukraine, I believe we should sanction Russia and we should support Ukraine with weaponry and training, but I wouldn't include long range weapons like Storm Shadow, and I wouldn't ever support fighter jets being sent over. I also think that Russia is in danger of collapsing as a state, and that would be terrible for stability across Eastern Europe, and also incredibly risky given the amount of nuclear weapons they have.
Click to expand...

Yes you have on numerous occasions. Russia should get to keep the lands its seized including Crimea and Ukraine never gets to join the EU or NATO. That is appeasement.

No I don't and nice strawman. No one has suggested we put boots on the ground. We are simply supplying Ukraine with the weapons and training they need to drive the invader out of their lands.

Again nice strawman. NATO entering the war would have course be escalating it to a war between NATO and Russia, where as now its a war between Russia and Ukraine, a war that Russia started.

So we should tie Ukraine's hands behind their backs and prolong the war by not giving Ukraine the hardware it needs to win this war. You want to keep the hardware tipping in Russia's favour by not giving Ukraine the same class of weapons that Russia uses all the time. Sorry but I'd give them even longer range weapons, give them long range cruise missiles so they can hit the bomber bases in Russia that they use to launch their cruise missiles. Give them long range anti ship missiles so they can hit the Black Sea fleet that launch cruise missiles. Russia could prevent this happening by simply packing up and going home.

If Russia collapses it collapses. Dictatorships have a habit of doing that. They are stable right up to the minute they aren't, Putin doesn't look long for this world anyway so there is likely have been an event coming in the near future. The world didn't end when the USSR collapsed, there is no reason it should when Putin's regime collapses.
 
Roar87 said:
I believe we should sanction Russia and we should support Ukraine with weaponry and training, but I wouldn't include long range weapons like Storm Shadow
Click to expand...
There is the problematic issue in this that Ukraine had it's own long range weapons and long range weapons production prior to a decade ago, then we (as in the west) convinced them to scrap the weapons/factories/infrastructure so that we could score buddy points with Putin (ironically a plan spearheaded by then US vice President Joe Biden). Obviously Ukraine got something out of the deal, and at the time we thought we were just alleviating Putin's worries about a nation that could rain death down on Moscow becoming pro-EU/NATO, not helping him soften them up for invasion. But considering they would never have been invaded had we not talked them into giving up their long range weapons I would say giving them a few under the condition they cannot be used on targets beyond their borders is the least we could do.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
There is the problematic issue in this that Ukraine had it's own long range weapons and long range weapons production prior to a decade ago, then we (as in the west) convinced them to scrap the weapons/factories/infrastructure so that we could score buddy points with Putin (ironically a plan spearheaded by then US vice President Joe Biden). Obviously Ukraine got something out of the deal, and at the time we thought we were just alleviating Putin's worries about a nation that could rain death down on Moscow becoming pro-EU/NATO, not helping him soften them up for invasion. But considering they would never have been invaded had we not talked them into giving up their long range weapons I would say giving them a few under the condition they cannot be used on targets beyond their borders is the least we could do.
Click to expand...

The very least we can do.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Again nice strawman. NATO entering the war would have course be escalating it to a war between NATO and Russia, where as now its a war between Russia and Ukraine, a war that Russia started.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but NATO sending weapons into Ukraine is escalating, there are levels to escalation. You're happy with one level of escalation, but not happy with NATO directly intervening, which is simply just another level of escalation. Fighting a defensive war on Ukrainian territory is not declaring war on Russia.
 
Roar87 said:
Yeah, but NATO sending weapons into Ukraine is escalating, there are levels to escalation.
Click to expand...
1) A bit like Russia poisoning people on British soil then, with no regard whatsoever for the safety of innocent British citizens.
2) Britain, along with Russia themselves, guaranteed Ukranian security if they gave up their nuclear weapons. The UK has an obligation to help.
3) It is both morally right and likely to prevent further escalation outside of Ukraine if nations take a stance against Russia now, rather than later. No guarantees. It could all go pear shaped of course.
4) NATO is not sending weapons to Ukraine. Independent nations are sending weapons. Some, but not all, of those nations are in NATO.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Yeah, but NATO sending weapons into Ukraine is escalating, there are levels to escalation. You're happy with one level of escalation, but not happy with NATO directly intervening, which is simply just another level of escalation. Fighting a defensive war on Ukrainian territory is not declaring war on Russia.
Click to expand...

Roar only in your head is NATO involved in this war, its a narrative you have created, funnily enough the same narrative Putin has also created, though I get why he has done it. It is not NATO supplying weapons. Its nations that just happen to be in NATO. Just like it isn't the EU supplying weapons. The Netherlands are going to supply F16s, who can blame them, Russia shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 that was full of their citizens. Putin has killed our citizens on our soil with chemical weapons. To beat Russia, Ukraine needs to go on the offensive, to do that they need our weapons and the longer range the better.

And no, the UK entering the war to fight directly against Russian troops would be us at war with Ukraine. No one has suggested that, its just a strawman you are using because your arguments are so weak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom