Ukraine

[David Hankey]

The rhetoric being espoused by Putin & Lavrov should not be listened to. They are nothing more than liars.

 

Amassing all these troops on the Ukrainian border and telling us for weeks Putin will not invade was all hogwash.

 

If he wants peace why does he have a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction?

 

Nothing would be better than Joe Biden's statement "Go get him" come to fruition.

 

 

[whoareyaaa]

9 minutes ago, casablancas said:

Ok. So they are pursuing nuclear plants … that’s ****ing terrifying. Let’s hope they’re sensible enough to actually think but they’ve been known to attack sewage and chemical plants in Syria. 
 

and secondly which now feels less important. 
 

 

they really have United the world. 

Awesome work

[Guest Col city fan]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Didn’t realise you had such an interest in Nazi history Col

 

You don’t have a back room like this I hope 

 

 

The reality was that the Nazi’s (in purely economic terms) were hugely successful. National Socialism was seen for years as a very productive paradigm.

Of course, it’s only when you realise that this was only true for its followers and no-one else that one’s eyes become opened. If you weren’t a Nazi (or couldn’t become one) you were forced to leave Germany, imprisoned, or shot

Which of course doesn’t quite work does it.

[ARTY_FOX]

19 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

1929… cheers.. and you’re spot on 

From how he became associated with the party to his eventual tyrany is a bonkers story really. 

[Guest Col city fan]

Just now, ARTY_FOX said:

From how he became associated with the party to his eventual tyrany is a bonkers story really. 

It is indeed

Hitler must have lost the plot. He invaded Austria, Czech and even France and could have left it there. There was little to no opposition.

The Germans had achieved libensraum and it was almost accepted. 
But like any tyrant, he wasn’t satisfied and wanted more. It was the Americans getting involved (and they didn’t want to be involved right up until the last minute) and trying to defeat the Russians in their own back yard that lost Hitler WW2

By fighting on two fronts simultaneously, the Nazi’s became just outnumbered and the rest is history

If Adolf would have moved from France to invade the UK, he’d have been successful by the way. We’d have lost.

Its why we have so much to thank the Americans for. Them getting involved made the difference 

[David Hankey]

Lavrov stating now that Ukraine should demilitarise, what about Russia doing the same?!!

[RoboFox]

 

[ARTY_FOX]

18 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

It is indeed

Hitler must have lost the plot. He invaded Austria, Czech and even France and could have left it there. There was little to no opposition.

The Germans had achieved libensraum and it was almost accepted. 
But like any tyrant, he wasn’t satisfied and wanted more. It was the Americans getting involved (and they didn’t want to be involved right up until the last minute) and trying to defeat the Russians in their own back yard that lost Hitler WW2

By fighting on two fronts simultaneously, the Nazi’s became just outnumbered and the rest is history

If Adolf would have moved from France to invade the UK, he’d have been successful by the way. We’d have lost.

Its why we have so much to thank the Americans for. Them getting involved made the difference 

Indeed. Trying to do too much too quickly. The unbelievably effective nature of the never before seen blitzkrieg probably is what saved us. It was almost too efficient and he believed he could do it all. 

 

I also found it fascinating and confusing that he managed to rally support and units from some of the conquered countries to help him fight his war. 

Edited 2 March 2022 by ARTY_FOX

[yorkie1999]

42 minutes ago, casablancas said:

Ok. So they are pursuing nuclear plants … that’s ****ing terrifying. Let’s hope they’re sensible enough to actually think but they’ve been known to attack sewage and chemical plants in Syria. 
 

and secondly which now feels less important. 
 

 

they really have United the world. 

They hacked into a gas refinery in russia last week and turned the pressures right up, someone there had to shut it down before it exploded. 

[casablancas]

Just been for walk with the mrs. Lovely drizzle of rain and the bits a singing. I actually feel bad enjoying it. 

[BKLFox]

10 hours ago, simFox said:

This is very strange and I can't quite get my head around it.  No one since napoleon has advanced in column, especially with heavy armour, so why have they done it? Putin isn't stupid. 

 

Heavy casualties could legitimise a strong retaliation. So just hitting thy front and rear and paralysing it is all the need to do. 

 

But putin does appear to have presented a target for some reason. 

Must have been schooled by Saddam as he sent his convey up the Highway of Death (Highway 80 aka Basra Road)

[Zear0]

Watching the Russian ambassador to the UN is extraordinary.  He's just staring at a piece of paper trotting out all sorts of crap.  Does make you wonder if they are believers or if they just have a proverbial gun to their head to deliver this tripe.

[LiberalFox]

49 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Mearsheimer's views are fairly well known. He is of the 'NATO is to blame for everything' school - ie, he believes that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to determine its own political direction and security arrangements, and should instead primarily concern itself with not upsetting Russia. Personally I favour the right of Ukraine to choose its own future rather than be forced to permanently genuflect to a violent, autocratic, thuggish neighbour, and I find it disturbing how many apparent liberals in the west seem so happy to throw Ukraine under a bus. But hey - that's just me...

I don't think Mearshemier is a liberal, at least not in any modern definition of the word.

 

I decided to listen to it as enough people keep posting it, he came out with this gem:

 

"What they're doing is not trying to conquer Ukraine there are many people who say the Russians are going to go on a rampage, they're going to try and re-establish the Soviet Union or Greater Russia. That's not going to happen. Putin is much to smart for that... If you really want to wreck Russia what you want to do is encourage them to try and conquer Ukraine." 

 

Apparently he still blames the West: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

 

 

 

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I don't think Mearshemier is a liberal, at least not in any modern definition of the word.

 

I decided to listen to it as enough people keep posting it, he came out with this gem:

 

"What they're doing is not trying to conquer Ukraine there are many people who say the Russians are going to go on a rampage, they're going to try and re-establish the Soviet Union or Greater Russia. That's not going to happen. Putin is much to smart for that... If you really want to wreck Russia what you want to do is encourage them to try and conquer Ukraine." 

 

Apparently he still blames the West: https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

 

 

 

 

I had to give up on the video.  It's the geopolitical equivalent of blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively.  

Edited 2 March 2022 by Zear0

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Mearsheimer's views are fairly well known. He is of the 'NATO is to blame for everything' school - ie, he believes that Ukraine shouldn't be allowed to determine its own political direction and security arrangements, and should instead primarily concern itself with not upsetting Russia. Personally I favour the right of Ukraine to choose its own future rather than be forced to permanently genuflect to a violent, autocratic, thuggish neighbour, and I find it disturbing how many apparent liberals in the west seem so happy to throw Ukraine under a bus. But hey - that's just me...

This might be true, I don't know anything about him, but surely what matters is the substance and plausibility of his arguments, not his propensity for putting forward this or that argument or lean in one direction as opposed to another. His breakdown of demographics in Ukraine, as well as how this affects voting behaviour and correlates with opinions on NATO & EU membership & the country's relationship with Russia is true or false regardless of who says it. Saying that you "favour the right of Ukraine" to do anything doesn't really make too much sense in light of the clear split in the country which that lecture outlines very clearly. You may deny that such a split exists, or challenge the polling data that he relies on, or disagree with the claim that this demographic split has any material affect in the region, but the fact that Mearsheimer tends to fall on one side of the debate than the other isn't relevant. 

[Mike Oxlong]

So, Putin is a misunderstood principled anti-fascist trying to rid Europe of neo-nazis …… unless it’s Marine Le Pen 

 

 

[blabyboy]

3 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

We used to dream of having 3 channels! We had 2 channels in black and white, and our telly would only show white.

We used to dream of Black and White TV's with a one channel. We had to make do with wax tablets. 😉

 

[Tommy Fresh]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

It is indeed

Hitler must have lost the plot. He invaded Austria, Czech and even France and could have left it there. There was little to no opposition.

The Germans had achieved libensraum and it was almost accepted. 
But like any tyrant, he wasn’t satisfied and wanted more. It was the Americans getting involved (and they didn’t want to be involved right up until the last minute) and trying to defeat the Russians in their own back yard that lost Hitler WW2

By fighting on two fronts simultaneously, the Nazi’s became just outnumbered and the rest is history

If Adolf would have moved from France to invade the UK, he’d have been successful by the way. We’d have lost.

Its why we have so much to thank the Americans for. Them getting involved made the difference 

I don't think it's as simple as "we'd of lost" isn't it well reported they'd of struggled as they didn't control the skies. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

I had to give up on the video.  It's the geopolitical equivalent of blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively.  

This is genuinely one of the most baffling and disturbing things I have read on here, and I've been reading our match day threads for quite a long time now. I can't even figure out who is who here; there aren't enough parties in your analogy to map onto the situation we're discussing. His argument in 2015 was that Western countries (particularly the US) seriously considering inviting Ukraine into NATO, agitating for regime change and trying to align the country with the great European powers was likely to destabilise the region and antagonise Russia and that it would be Ukraine who ended up paying the price, which unfortunately is exactly what is happening now. I wish I could twist your analogy to fit that set of facts but I'm struggling.

[worthosoriginals]

8 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

We used to dream of Black and White TV's with a one channel. We had to make do with wax tablets. 😉

 

We used to dream of wax tablets, we used to make small sculptures out of earwax, then just stare at them in the corner of the room. 

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, Col city fan said:

It is indeed

Hitler must have lost the plot. He invaded Austria, Czech and even France and could have left it there. There was little to no opposition.

The Germans had achieved libensraum and it was almost accepted. 
But like any tyrant, he wasn’t satisfied and wanted more. It was the Americans getting involved (and they didn’t want to be involved right up until the last minute) and trying to defeat the Russians in their own back yard that lost Hitler WW2

By fighting on two fronts simultaneously, the Nazi’s became just outnumbered and the rest is history

If Adolf would have moved from France to invade the UK, he’d have been successful by the way. We’d have lost.

Its why we have so much to thank the Americans for. Them getting involved made the difference 

We have a lot to thank the Yanks for in ww2. Don't forget though Hitler did lose the Battle of Britain. Could not invade with defeating the RAF or Royal Navy for that matter. John Simpson of BBC draws comparison with Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. Much bigger force than the Finns but got a bloody nose. 

[LiberalFox]

29 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This might be true, I don't know anything about him, but surely what matters is the substance and plausibility of his arguments, not his propensity for putting forward this or that argument or lean in one direction as opposed to another. His breakdown of demographics in Ukraine, as well as how this affects voting behaviour and correlates with opinions on NATO & EU membership & the country's relationship with Russia is true or false regardless of who says it. Saying that you "favour the right of Ukraine" to do anything doesn't really make too much sense in light of the clear split in the country which that lecture outlines very clearly. You may deny that such a split exists, or challenge the polling data that he relies on, or disagree with the claim that this demographic split has any material affect in the region, but the fact that Mearsheimer tends to fall on one side of the debate than the other isn't relevant. 

Regardless of what he says, the argument that what Russia/Putin choose to do is the fault of the US or other "western" nations cannot be true. 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

9 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

This is genuinely one of the most baffling and disturbing things I have read on here, and I've been reading our match day threads for quite a long time now. I can't even figure out who is who here; there aren't enough parties in your analogy to map onto the situation we're discussing. His argument in 2015 was that Western countries (particularly the US) seriously considering inviting Ukraine into NATO, agitating for regime change and trying to align the country with the great European powers was likely to destabilise the region and antagonise Russia and that it would be Ukraine who ended up paying the price, which unfortunately is exactly what is happening now. I wish I could twist your analogy to fit that set of facts but I'm struggling.

I'll give you a hint: the smaller nation with only defensive weaponry who are being invaded is the victim. 

[blabyboy]

2 hours ago, casablancas said:

Ok. So they are pursuing nuclear plants … that’s ****ing terrifying. Let’s hope they’re sensible enough to actually think but they’ve been known to attack sewage and chemical plants in Syria. 
 

and secondly which now feels less important. 
 

 

they really have United the world. 

Depends on what they've shutdown.. if it's just the websites then yeah, nothing to see here. However, if they've got in proper then access to certain satellites would be useful along with gps guidance for their missile systems. Unintended bystanders might be the ISS russian modules. Unless we know more it's hard to say.

 

Its important to understand how this network might be connected to others..sometimes hitting a softer side target can bring greater rewards.

 

Edited 2 March 2022 by blabyboy