This war is like dumb and dumber.

The deeper the hole gets the more they want to dig.

Instead of negotiating earlier now Europe is left in a position where we are going to be left paying for the re-construction of western Ukraine and its economy and defence.

They have spent years putting intelligence and security talking heads on TV lying about how weak and close to losing Russia was and now all you hear about is how we can't let Russia win.....no contrition for lying all forgotten like we are goldfish.

If Russia decide to go for Odessa....which is Ukraine's only sea port then Ukraine's ability to make money is even more severely restricted.

This could be the straw that breaks the back and might actually bring in Nato troops.....As the cost of the Ukrainian burden would be much greater without Ukraine being able to export.....god knows what that would bring. We should have never have been in that position.

Essentially Europe's politicians are desperate to look for a way out of probably the most stupid war I've ever experienced in my lifetime. They are caught between a self positioned rock and a hard place.

Group think, follow the leader mindsets don't deserve the pay grade they receive.

The only winners are US energy companies (bye bye pipeline) and weapons manufacturers for Nato....the majority of which are in the US.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Mar 2024 11.12am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yes, it is indeed a US proxy war. I guess designed to slowly weaken Russia whilst enriching the shadowy billionaires in the US. Off the back of normal people in Europe too but not affecting the US whatsoever. So I guess it's good for the US.
However, I don't fully blame them. These proxy wars are like this. Someone fights your rival - you supply them. You enrich yourself and weaken your rival. It seems like standard cold war politics.
That's the main thing that bothers me - we're back to the cold war. And look, how unusual, trouble in the Middle East. Who's behind it - oh, surprise, surprise, the US. Yet, nothing to see here.

Red and Blue Army!

The Times expressed concern amid commenting on the leaked conversation by the German military on how the West is delivering missiles to Kiev: one of the participants in the leaked recording, Air Force inspector Ingo Gerhartz, 'explained how the French send Audi Q7 loaded with SCALP missiles to Ukraine.'

I can't help but think that more is going on here than meets the eye. You could infer that there are elements within...the German military at least...who don't like the mood of continual escalation.

The Times came to the conclusion that it confirmed the presence of the British military in Ukraine, and also provided important details about the deployment of British Storm Shadow missiles there.

I think our government should come clean about our military presence in Ukraine and what they are doing, considering we aren't officially in a state of war with Russia. How many people have we lost in a directed presence there.

We have laws prosecuting British people for travelling aboard to take part in conflicts but it seems this is applied selectively.

Are we at war with Russia or not at war? There needs to be more honesty.

In reality it seems that we are just as comfortable with lying as all the other countries we ourselves accuse of it.

I don't like it....We are in the era of lies, maybe we always have been, but it certainly isn't a good portent for the future.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Mar 2024 6.59am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

No apology needed - we all have lives to live.

You'll need to elaborate on that one.

Irrelevant, it has intresting videos and combat footage. You also neglect that many people on the far left support Russia because 'American bad'. If anything, if your charges of political asymmetry are true. This would make it a very anti Ukrainian space.

Understatement of the year so far! Russia is now much closer to a total autocracy than it was to even a flawed democracy.

Exactly my point! There are consequences for Russia for letting this war drag on despite the near constant denial from anyone pro-russian.

Glad to see you acknowledge this. It is absolutely a worry for Putin. The general feeling in Russia is that people will kind of just sit by and let Putin go full on dictator as long as generally speaking, the cost to them personally is lower than letting him stay on. If you are a country bumpkin, an immigrant or a convict, no one cars about your opinion. If however you start callling up the children of businessmen, lawyers, journalists etc. Now you (Putin) have a problem. The longer this war drags, the harder sell this becomes to the Russians.

It's also true, Zelensky also has this issue. But there are two key differences on this. Firstly it's actually not entirely up to Zelensky on who and how people are called up. As mentioned and sourced previously, the Ukrainian opposition (you know, the ones which we keep getting told are banned / dont exist) in the Ukrainian legislature are not happy with Zelensky's initial proposals. There is back and forth as to how mobalisation will take place. So while the Ukrainian people may become more sceptical and critical of Zelensky, it is a collective decision of the Ukrainian political establishment. Putin does not have this luxury essentially being a dictator with a rubber stamp duma. Putin and Putin alone will be the face of any future mobalisation, the Russian people know this, even if they don't want to admit it at this stage. Secondly, for all the gas lighting out right lying, Russia is fighting a war of agression, even the stupidest of Russian will know deep down that they could just withdraw and the casualties will stop. Ukrainians on the other hand and probably watching Krelim TV clips (in that language they supposedly refuse to speak) in utter terror knowing whats coming if they lose this war. My point here, a total mobilisation for Ukraine is bad, Zelensky will take some heat, but he will likely survive it politically. Putin on the otherhand would find the costs of general mobalisation much higher as you correctly point out.

Respectfully, they are not proven at all. The best that anyone from here has managed to come up with is Tucker misunderstanding an article which literally says the Russian are producing about 20% of what they need to sustain this war. How is that proven?

Can you at least recognise that it's in Russia's interest to lie about how deep its stockpiles are in order to preserve the image of strength?

I feel you are misunderstanding how war works. When country A attacks country B. Country B doesnt just get to say "no thanks - please stop attacking us" and country A just goes "ah okay - soz".

The point I am making is that you have NK which technically is still at war with a Western facing democracy (SK) and Iran which is funding every type of proxy war in the middle east. By getting these countries to funnel their munitions and equipment into Russia who will just waste it. The argument can be made that you are lowering the chance of one of these other countries actually starting an actual war, you know, like how NK did and Iran dreams of. So from your isolationists perspective. Supporting Ukraine actually helps reduce the likelihood of a war and buys future isolationism.

Unlikely, a security gaurantuee from Russia is worth about as much as a Putin promise... i.e. nothing. Armenia has a security gaurantuee from Russia (as doesn Ukraine hilariously). Look how that is going!

The BRICS are an economic trading organisation and totally irrelvant to this conflict.

Exactly, as tucker accidentally highlights, Russia has shown no evidence it can do this making a long war a hard NO to a Kremlin

Again... no they don't. I'm shocked you are so out of the loop on this one.

Russia needs to attack, it doesn't control fully any of the new Oblasts it annexed and will need to push the Ukrainians right back if they are ever to be able to use any of this new land without it getting blown to bits. Ukraine just needs to not lose, if anything i've suggested is even remotely true then Ukraine just needs to outlast Russia. Russia has time and time again shown it's only able to sustain direct wars of agression for so long. Poland, Finland, Afganistan are all 20th century examples. Putin needs to shut down this potential reality fast, hence the narrative "we can do this all day".

If Ukraine opts to try and make this a long war, as you claim, it has nothing to lose, Russia wont stop until Ukraine is gone, its economy is screwed. If this drags of Putin, he faces the prospect of completely derailing his country and collapsing his own country by trying to sustain it.

Man there is so much delicious irony in this answer... anyway - source?

You've somehow topped it Irony wise. NATO, an organisation which is not even (directly) fighting in this war and has no prospect of doing so in the war's current format cannot be trusted (unless it suits the 'free thinkers'), its all a big lie by the elites, the neo cons! The Deepstate! VICTORIA NULAND!!! However a Russian source or a kremlin backed claim delivered to you by some 'subscribe for the truth' type character wandering around a marketplace should be unconditionally accepted and propagated. "oh, you've dared to point out why (insert name of random Larouchian conspiracy theorist) is not actually telling the truth, go back to your mainstream media groupthink session". Dear old auntie!

This is my point, i've literally explained to you time and time again how I draw my conclusions and pointed out how you very much do not practice what you preach and just unconditionally accept what your told by anyone who is 'fighting the deepstate'.

I've literally pointed out the history of where manuy of the conspiracy theories have come from and will do so again later on. Hilariously, most of them pre-date the Ukraine conflict by decades.

Exactly!!!! Look at Oryx and tell me 'everything is going according to plan' for Russia.

It's so marginal it a majority of 1 vote level of marginal!

Ukraine is at it's weakest it's been in years, Russia is Stronk! Russia has ALL the men and equipment it could ever need (apparantly)! They have taken Avdiika - 29km2. Hooray the toughest part of the line has been taken. Since then they have moved 4 miles in about 2 weeks which the NYT calls 'an unsually rapid advance'. Another win for the MSM there! Thats 0.01 MPH which is about a third the speed of a slug.

At this speed it will take Russia about 2 years to get to the Dnipro river at it's closest point.

Finally something we can agree on. Personally I cannot see them capturing ukraine within 5 years. Hope those stockpiles and production lines are as 'proven' as the Russians claim they are!

I assume you mean NATO allowing Ukraine in while it is at war would be irrational right? Ukraine wanting to joint NATO is about the most rational thing it could do right now.

Not the same thing you orignally said so no, you havent been proved correct. You claimed originally that NATO was actually pressing the buttons on western weaponary in Ukraine, in such numbers that this was the only reason Russia wasnt in Kyiv by now. The recent leak by the Germans is hardly suprising. I love how the Russians are like "we've exposed the West's interference" ha haa! Defence secretary literally wrote to Russia in Decemebr 2022 and told them we were giving the Ukrainians storm shadow missles and we'd train them how to use them. The Russian's found a conversation of some random mid rank German airforce claiming we the UK were helping train ukrainians to use the weaponary which the UK had provided and the "We are fighting ALL of NATO" cope line is back on - despite most of the german airforce conversation actually talking about how the Germans wont be assisting the Ukrainians.

[Link]

I think we covered the election point previously, but I will address it again. Firstly, what happened to all the 'make judgements based on practical observations and iron metric' arguement? I can literally provide you poll after poll, literal data on Zelenskys approval rating and Ukrainian war support in general. You cannot provide any form of supporting evidence just an opinion but 'hey you might be inaccurate'. Like... really?

As mentioned previously, we could decide that Zelensky got 89% of the vote and then put some token ballot papers out, like what happened in Vietnan in 1961. Would that satisfy any legitmacy concerns you have for him?

Or we could ask Russia to turn its total war into a Iraq style insurgency for a month so Ukraine could hold elections. Get NATO into to support. Would you kindly ask the Kremlin if they would be up for that?

I also have to really take my hat off to Russia for holding 'elections' also given the Ukrainians are making rapid advances on their way to Moscow and currently control some of Russia's most valuable land. Still we won't ask all those Russian living under Ukrainian occupation what they think, hope that doesnt derail the legitmacy of the election!

I don't mean to sound sarcastically rude so let me clarify here, you just keep insisting Ukraine needs to have these elections, even though they would of be of literally no benefit, no one is asking for them in Ukraine and even if they did, they wouldn't be recognised and would have no value what so ever. How you can you genuinely claim to be neutral and yet put this obsurd requirement on Ukraine, its truly bizarre?

This is a strawman, sorry. I originally pointed out that it's very hard to actually find out what this Russian peace offering was. The only physical 'evidence' that it ever existed is a distance shot of Put briefly waving 'it' (a peace of paper) in the air for about 2 seconds. Thats my point, it might be real, there is no deep level evidence of fake. Putin might have genuinely offered some kind of peace. But you cannot pretend to really know what it is / was (as you claim) because it's literally not recorded anywhere apart from Russian officials (the ones you told me not to trust) saying that 'an offer' was made and that it 'it definitely was very generous and sincere!'

My point is that to base this as a valid 'Ukraine should have done X not Y' criticism when actually, we don't even know that Ukraine could have done X to begin with is an irrational claim to make, espiecally when pushing back again supoosed 'group think mentality'.

Could you tell me what part of the UN Charter of 1945 did Ukraine break? What part of the Helskinki Accords (1975) did Ukraine break? What part of the Budapest Memorandum (1994) did Ukraine violate? What about the 1997 Russian Ukrainian Friendship Treaty? What part of that did Ukraine break?

I could point out what part of each of those Russia broke. Why does everything have to be held in this weird state of BBC 'better not say this in case you upset the other side' parity? Why can't people just look at a history book as you have suggested and say "Yeah Russian lied..."?

I cannot make this point any clearer! It ABSOLUTELY MATTERS ON TRUST. If there is no trust reinforced by consequences, there will never be peace - it really is that simple. Seing as your enemy of my enemy is my friend isolation has blinded you on this, you are unwilling to ever put any consequences on Russia for breaking it's trust. Despite the fact that Britain has a clear as day casus belli for assisting Ukraine which is about as legally and morally justified as possible, you would oppose any attempt to actually bring any form of order enforced peace to the world because it actually what 'the elites want' and thus bad...

I've asked you time and time again how you'd enforce a Russian peace deal. You're 'solution' is a DMZ which is hilariously only enforced in scenarios where there are severe consequences for trying to cross the DMZ. As you are opposed those consequences being enforced on Russia, this solution fails as it gives Russia no reason to honour it. Thus the demand for appeasement of Russia will never work. It really is that depressingly simple.

No one apart from an out of context Macron is suggesting a hot war with Russia. It's simply not necessary to have (at this point anyway). My argument here was about costing. The cost of NATO vs the cost to Russia in the current war configuration which is of course, the west selling / donating arms to Ukraine. It is waaaay more sustainable for the west to just keep supporting Ukraine and just let Russia cook in the sun. This is my whole point. As long as the Ukrainians are happy to pay the price (and i'm yet to year evidence they arent). Russia really doesnt have time on it's side provided the West wants to continue bleeding Russia dry. That's why we have this wierd hybrid war, the 'any day Russia will win' narrative being pumped out by the Kremlin. It needs people, both Russian, Ukrainian and in the West to believe it. Forget reality, believe Russia! Just let Russia win because Russia will.

Assisting Ukraine is not only the right thing to do, its in our direct interests to preverse peace for ourselves. Anyone who isnt a conspiracy theorist and / or political extremist can see that, that is why support for Ukraine amongst so high in the west.

THIS - THIS SO MANY TIMES! It doesnt matter what the price Russia is willing to pay, the higher the better I say, for if Ukraine is willing to pay a higher price for their independence which as mentioned, I think they are. The humiliation for Russia will be even higher and every two bob dictator who thinks they can just start a war because they wrote an essay online completely detached from reality will think twice.

Only if we appease Russia.

Putin might feel this way, I doubt Russian's in general though have as much commitment to 'beat ukraine' as Ukrainians have to 'not be Russian'. So while Russia is ruled by Putin and the war rumbles on in its curren state, sure.. this arguement has some weight. I think we have established however that the war will not be like this forever, things will change and its entirely up to West and Ukraine to drag Putin over the hot coals on this one. Putin know this hence the desperate narrative, 'Russia Strong'. Nah... we dont need evidence of this right? Pro Russian keep saying it! it must be true right?

Put is also 71 years old. He will die! Afganistan outlasted the Russians (and the west), so did Poland. You pointed out the Vietmanese did also (to the Americans). What happens when Putin no longer leads Russia? Will whoever takes over still want to continue this disasterous war? Doubt it...

This wasn't what I asked you. I asked you about what justified a Russian invasion of Ukraine. The answer which you have agree with is nothing. How is this therefore not morally black and white if you agree that Ukraine never deserved to be invaded, that Russia's 'grievance' if you can really even call it that is with the West?

I'm just suprised you aren't accusing me of being a member of the elites. I've always wanted to be one... sounds like you get some pretty decent perks running the word via the deepstate from the comfort of my own home.

So what you are referring to is Colour theory (Maidan and various other protests were coup attempts by the CIA etc etc) which is quite literally made up by a guy called William Engdahl and Michel Chossudovsky. Many of the people you post links to on here quote their work. They both work for the Centre for Research on Globalization, which is funded by Russia...

Also Cuba is a great example as to why Russia really is lying through its teeth. Firstly the US very much lost the Cuban missle crisis in terms of concessions to the USSR. Secondly US aggression to Cuba from a military perspective culminates in bay of pigs (a failed invasion by paid for mercenaries). Russia on the other hand after trying to destablise Ukraine, just full on invaded yet apparently because the US did not full on invade Cuba Russia does get to full on invade Ukraine to make it all fair right? Great logic!

If Russia just wanted to form an economic embargo on Ukraine like the US did to Cuba... be my guest!

Glad to see you havent fully drunk the kool aid. I would also point out that Ukraine had a referendum on independence which Russia constantly discards. Every single region, including Crimea voted for it. Russia ignoring this very much smacks of 'nah... the people didn't know what they were voting for' bulls*** post Brexit, except about 1000x more malicous!

It's cool, they can just have their own racially segregated party in by the beach in Sri lanka!

[Link]

Talk about dreadful reporting by the MSM. I love that despite having 40 Russians for each Ukrainian in Sri Lanka and the night club being Russian owned and run with only Russian preformers. Apparently it's equally Ukraines fault? Brilliant reporting!

Using this as a source.

[Link]

1. avoiding a global war - appeasement will lead to a war, I am certain of that. I think NATO almost done a enough to buy itself a good amount of time, so I dont think this is imminent. I'd still however be in favour of supporting Ukraine and not having a timer on WW3 at all! rather than one which might be years or decades away. You also have to look at this from other axis too, such as China Taiwan etc for other flashpoints.

2. To strengthen the United States’ international position - again I half agree, it would weaken Russia and allow the US to check Chinese authoritarianism. The US retreating into Isolationism would make the US alot weaker, as opposed to 'gained strength' through supporting Ukraine.

3. To improve the image of the United States. Don't really agree with this from a selfish prospective. Russia is in the wrong, its about punishing Russia, not selfie taking saying how great you are for helping Ukraine. Appreciate the arguement still semi makes sense, even if its for the wrong reasons.

Everything else mentioned I either missed or agree with.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Mar 2024 7.36am)

Retiring

Likely an accurate perspective of the Russian plans for Ukraine.
Poland and others taking small parts of western Ukraine is an interesting idea and I think there would have to be an internal civil war in Ukraine for that to happen.

Regardless if this was Russia's idea for its end game it means that there will be no negotiated settlement now....trust on both sides being too low and that this war still has a long way to go.

Personally I don't think Russia will take that much of Ukraine beyond the Dnieper river....though that's a tentative prediction. It obviously wants Odessa and to link up with Transnistria.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Mar 2024 9.54am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)