Once again we're seeing a build up of pro Russian forces in Belarus, something that seems to happen every few months however it's looking like Belarus may well commit this time, Poland is absolutely spoiling for a fight so I can see both getting involved.

Makes sense for the Russians to take the capital & wipe out Ukr leadership.

Russians are pushing hard to take Bakhmut whilst Ukrainian advances have slowed a bit which is understandable considering how much territory the Russians have conceded recently, Ukrainian's will need to resupply the front.
I expect they will take Kherson soon, it's gonna be a blood bath though as Kherson is Norfolk levels of flat with less cover.

The mountains are calling & I must go.

No-one at all questions the commitment made by Nato members, which is co-ordinated by Nato itself, to support Ukraine in its resistance to Russian aggression. It's all there, clearly and openly expressed in yesterday's statement:-

[Link]

That though is completely different to Nato being directly involved, which is what you repeatedly claim. They aren't. They are providing support. We don't direct the war. We may provide advice on the best way to direct the war.

We support Palace. Sky provide much of the funding. Neither though manage the team, determine the tactics or employ the players. We share the joy of victories and pain of defeats. The division between support and management is though very clear.

The situation in Ukraine is little different, despite Putin's attempts to portray it otherwise. Those who parrot his claims should feel ashamed of themselves.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

It just isn't!

I don't doubt for a moment that it's true, but training people isn't direct involvement. Only if and when they are directly engaged in the fighting does it become that.

If Palace employed a coach on secondment from Barcelona to teach Ayew how to shoot, that doesn't mean that Barcelona will be on the pitch against Leicester.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Obviously NATO must have a decent level of involvement. Although I'd be surprised if they were running the show. Contributing and providing strategic as well as material support, sure. As much as Ukraine need that support I don't think it's realistic that Zelenskyy is taking orders without question or having a strategy and mind of his own.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

I'm interested to know what your definition of direct involvement is if having boots on the ground training & overseeing raids on Russian assets is not it?

The mountains are calling & I must go.

I enjoyed reading that analogy but unfortunately I do not consider it appropriate.

You can't claim to have no involvement in a war if you're training and equipping an army where there is no expectance or obligation for you to do so. You're clearly backing a horse there and providing as much support as possible to see it triumph. In any case, you either presume Russia is trying to take on the world, which makes no sense, and is just using any excuse to do so or you see it as them threatening that action should their plans for Ukraine be disrupted. I strongly think it is the latter. We either get involved as we have and play (the very apt) 'Russian Roulette' with them or don't, see Ukraine fall and brace for any furtherment of this Russian expansion and it's consequences.

A more appropriate analogy would be to say 'it's like Stirling and Wisbech finally having their PPV boxing match. Nicholas91 is claiming he's not involved but has provided Stirling with knuckle duster fitted gloves and trained him with all his pugilistic knowledge and experience (wouldn't take long)'.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!