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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roar87 said:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.
Click to expand...

They cannot be a global trading partner whilst they annex neighbouring countries.

The whole idea that the west did the dirty on Russia after 1990 is crap. Those countries that wanted to join NATO and the EU did so because it was overwhelmingly in their economic and security interests to do so. They were the ones pushing for it.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.
Click to expand...

What the heck do you think was happening before this war. We've seen what having them as a close trading partner has done. Given them free reign to take Crimea with no consequences and ultimately enabled the war today.

You're just a blatant troll or incredibly stupid, which is it?
 
Stumble Bum said:
What the heck do you think was happening before this war. We've seen what having them as a close trading partner has done. Given them free reign to take Crimea with no consequences and ultimately enabled the war today.

You're just a blatant troll or incredibly stupid, which is it?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's a troll. I think he's at least partly bought into the Russia victim narative.

It's not the wests fault Russia is failed state propped up by oil and gas. The idea that any another country would find it desirable to be within the Russia sphere of influence is preposterous. It would only happen through fear of threats and coercion, which isn't how the world works. You have to offer something positive.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Sure if your goal is to weaken Russia, it would also be better to have them as a trading partner rather than an global political adversary. That's what should have happened after the USSR collapsed.
Click to expand...

I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
The whole idea that the west did the dirty on Russia after 1990 is crap. Those countries that wanted to join NATO and the EU did so because it was overwhelmingly in their economic and security interests to do so. They were the ones pushing for it.
Click to expand...

The West did fail on Russia in the 90s; but not in the way Tankies claim. Compare the level of engagement in Poland, say, with the level of engagement in Russia. That failure to support Russia helped lead to its decay into a failing kleptostate. Without that, Putin isn't leading a war against Ukraine or engaging in cyberwarfare against the west for years.

Russia needed help after the collapse of the USSR as much as Poland and Lithuania. It didn't get it.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.
Click to expand...

His EU-phobia trumps all
 
Mr Jack said:
The West did fail on Russia in the 90s; but not in the way Tankies claim. Compare the level of engagement in Poland, say, with the level of engagement in Russia. That failure to support Russia helped lead to its decay into a failing kleptostate. Without that, Putin isn't leading a war against Ukraine or engaging in cyberwarfare against the west for years.
Click to expand...

It's easy to say that in retrospect. It unravelled very quickly in Russia and there would have been an unwillingness to accept the terms of support that were on the most part enthusiastically accepted in former eastern bloc states.
 
Stretch said:
I don't think he's a troll. I think he's at least partly bought into the Russia victim narative.

It's not the wests fault Russia is failed state propped up by oil and gas. The idea that any another country would find it desirable to be within the Russia sphere of influence is preposterous. It would only happen through fear of threats and coercion, which isn't how the world works. You have to offer something positive.
Click to expand...

I haven't bought into any narrative, I actually read things and form my own opinion while trying to remain objective.
 
Stu999 said:
The BBC article reckons 3 years to train on the type and a year to train ground crew: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65897919

They also mention the problem of Russia targeting the air bases where the F-16s are stationed. I wonder if that problem and the ground maintenance problem would just be solved by them flying out of Poland or another friendly air base?
Click to expand...
I can't see how Russia targeting air bases is problem, it's been a 18 months now and so far they haven't shown any capability of being able to neutralise Ukrainian airfields with missile strikes. I can't see how adding F-16's into the mix is going to change that.
 
It's impossible to stop an airfield from being used unless you're firing thousands of missiles per week just to stop repairs that takes hours at most, realistically only a sizable nuke can cripple an airfield.
 
Freakbro said:
I find your stance on this very odd, as here you are saying we should have Russia as a trading partner (we did) but multiple times you have criticised Germany (citing the US's warnings) for buying Russia's oil because it was funding their military.

So which is it, trade with them (which will fund their military) or don't trade with them?

As at the minute it seems like you argue different ends of the spectrum when it suits you. And that they are a global political adversary to the Western world is down to them and their actions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand your point, fundamentally though that warning was made in 2016 or later. The ship had already sailed by that point. We were both gearing up and spending money on defense against a possible Russian invasion while also being one of their biggest trading partners. Mid 90's to early 2000's there was time for a shift in Western policy. Putin wasn't always hostile to the West, a lot of things happened. I'd rather not spend the rest of my afternoon making the same points though.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom