General News Thread

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Oil prices aside, the real danger for Europe now is that Trump rules out ever helping defend Europe when Putin’s tanks start rolling across Central Europe, Finland, Sweden and the Baltics and his missiles start smashing in the UK. Because realistically, the USA is the only thing that deters him. 

Both the UK and France have nuclear weaponry. 

 

All parties involved know no one wins that conflict once it begins to escalate. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

At least this thread made it to over 500+ pages this time before being locked. 

... is there any particular reason why it might get locked at this point in time?

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Both the UK and France have nuclear weaponry. 

 

All parties involved know no one wins that conflict once it begins to escalate. 

 

 

... is there any particular reason why it might get locked at this point in time?

Subject matter, it's been locked for much less in the past. 

Edited 16 March by Tommy G

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Subject matter, it's been locked for much less in the past. 

The Middle East subject certainly has drawn a lot of heat and subsequent locks in the past, that's true.

 

That being said, that has tended to be because of genuine argument on the topic and on the present part of it there seems to not be much of that - possibly because it's reasonably well accepted that everyone involved is behaving horribly and there's no "good guys" to state a moral high ground with that can then be argued about. 

[st albans fox]

just listening to the man baby and he’s unhappy with Starmer about minesweepers and that the uk won’t commit to sending any to the gulf.

 

why are we not willing to send vessels to enable international shipping from being able to use international waters ?     We did it in the Red Sea. 

[Sampson]

6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

just listening to the man baby and he’s unhappy with Starmer about minesweepers and that the uk won’t commit to sending any to the gulf.

 

why are we not willing to send vessels to enable international shipping from being able to use international waters ?     We did it in the Red Sea. 

Because the reason international shipping has closed down is because of America and Israel’s impulsive war. Why should British men risk their lives for this? Why should British military equipment be risked for this? Why is it our responsibility? Why aren’t America and Israel sending their own ships to be blown up and risk their own men’s lives clearing it? Why didn’t they plan for any of this and let us know beforehand?

 

You don’t just start a war out of the blue and then tell your allies to drop everything and come along, that’s not how alliances should work. Allies should be consulted at all stages and be there to come to your defence, not just start a random war then panic when things don’t go how you thought and demand they come along afterwards. 

Edited 16 March by Sampson

[Lionator]

He’s not of a sound mind, he has some kind of brain damage. 
 

 

[Lionator]

52 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Both the UK and France have nuclear weaponry. 

 

All parties involved know no one wins that conflict once it begins to escalate. 

 

 

... is there any particular reason why it might get locked at this point in time?

Comes back to the same old issue thought would we sacrifice London for Riga or Helsinki, I doubt it. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Comes back to the same old issue thought would we sacrifice London for Riga or Helsinki, I doubt it. 

If it comes to that. 

 

Of course, given their performance trying to subjugate just one European country using conventional weaponry, I'm not convinced that the Russian military is all that tbh. 

 

Edit: the swap would be Moscow and St Petersburg, among others, for London, as well as the cities mentioned. 

Edited 16 March by leicsmac

[worthosoriginals]

59 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Comes back to the same old issue thought would we sacrifice London for Riga or Helsinki, I doubt it. 

I would.

[Fox in the North]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Because the reason international shipping has closed down is because of America and Israel’s impulsive war. Why should British men risk their lives for this? Why should British military equipment be risked for this? Why is it our responsibility? Why aren’t America and Israel sending their own ships to be blown up and risk their own men’s lives clearing it? Why didn’t they plan for any of this and let us know beforehand?

 

You don’t just start a war out of the blue and then tell your allies to drop everything and come along, that’s not how alliances should work. Allies should be consulted at all stages and be there to come to your defence, not just start a random war then panic when things don’t go how you thought and demand they come along afterwards. 

Not especially when you have told said Allies, that they are free loaders, spend more on their military and need to be more responsible for their own problems and area.
 

(Not to mention saying  your focus is actually China, but then attacks Venezuela, want Greenland and then bomb the bejesus out of Iran. With missiles that Europeans have been buying at a premium for the Ukrainians and are now at an even higher premium.)

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

If it comes to that. 

 

Of course, given their performance trying to subjugate just one European country using conventional weaponry, I'm not convinced that the Russian military is all that tbh. 

 

Edit: the swap would be Moscow and St Petersburg, among others, for London, as well as the cities mentioned. 

The answer would be to invade Russia somewhere. Border that big and with troops deployed elsewhere, surely not difficult to set up a beachhead from which to push forward, even without USA help.

 

Then you just say, pull your troops out and we'll do the same.

[DJW1]

I suppose that the immediate strategy of the European and NATO countries is to keep the Russians bogged down in Ukraine for as long as possible. This proxy war is expensive but cheaper than fighting Russia in, say, Poland and involves only Ukranian soldiers

[MPH]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

just listening to the man baby and he’s unhappy with Starmer about minesweepers and that the uk won’t commit to sending any to the gulf.

 

why are we not willing to send vessels to enable international shipping from being able to use international waters ?     We did it in the Red Sea. 

 

well if he didn’t mouth off at Starmer after his initial reluctance  to get involved… I mean.. it’s not really the way to get people on your side..
 

and besides, if Trump was to bomb an oil tanker in international waters, it would be a Trump problem to sort out… and in a similar way, if he’s going to create a problem in the straight of Hormuz, it’s really his problem to sort out..

Edited 16 March by MPH

[Md9]

America really did pick the most mentally unwell and stupid person they could find as president and thought it would be a good idea for a second time 

[Md9]

How anyone can stand there and say they have a smart president and mean it is ridiculous 😂 what ever time line this is we live in i would like to change please this one is full of crazy idiots 

[LCFCCHRIS]

Trump needs reminding, you threaten to invade your friends and call them cowards, they might no longer want to help you.

[Jon the Hat]

10 hours ago, Lionator said:

Oil prices aside, the real danger for Europe now is that Trump rules out ever helping defend Europe when Putin’s tanks start rolling across Central Europe, Finland, Sweden and the Baltics and his missiles start smashing in the UK. Because realistically, the USA is the only thing that deters him. 

The same Russia who are unable to take Ukraine?  If you think they could just roll over Finland or the Baltics I think you are much mistaken.  Not saying he wouldn't try, but he would undoubtedly fail.  The US might not come, but the UK, Poland, France, Germany and other European Nato countries absolutely would, because there would be no doubt then what Putin intended.  I also think we would also be surprised how quickly we could ramp up military production if we stopped making stuff to sell to other countries.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The same Russia who are unable to take Ukraine?  If you think they could just roll over Finland or the Baltics I think you are much mistaken.  Not saying he wouldn't try, but he would undoubtedly fail.  The US might not come, but the UK, Poland, France, Germany and other European Nato countries absolutely would, because there would be no doubt then what Putin intended.  I also think we would also be surprised how quickly we could ramp up military production if we stopped making stuff to sell to other countries.

Additionally, the Chinese might even at least remain neutral or at most take a harder stance towards the Russians, seeing as their biggest market to sell stuff to would be being directly interfered with in a big way. 

Edited 17 March by leicsmac

[SpacedX]

19 hours ago, Lionator said:

Oil prices aside, the real danger for Europe now is that Trump rules out ever helping defend Europe when Putin’s tanks start rolling across Central Europe, Finland, Sweden and the Baltics and his missiles start smashing in the UK. Because realistically, the USA is the only thing that deters him. 

Russia has lost in the region of 1,280,860 troops in Ukraine since the beginning of its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022 and faces significant manpower challenges due to heavy losses, attrition from desertion, and difficulties standardising units in addition to calamitous and inept strategic decisions in the field from Commanders and Generals. Compulsory conscription and ongoing recruitment efforts aim to offset these losses but meanwhile they have faced huge logistical issues and shortfalls in training and equipment. A ground war with NATO would obliterate the Russian Federation in terms of their army and economy. The ruble remains volatile, influenced by sanctions, oil export prices, and the government's need to finance its deficit. If the ruble continues falling, making repayment of foreign currency debt ever harder, there is a risk that Russia's banks go bust and the financial system stops functioning. 

 

The Kremlin's constant nuclear posturing and sabre rattling reveals much about their frustration over ongoing continued Western support for Ukraine and is clearly a direct response to the energy sanctions imposed late last year by the USA. It is a tactic that could eventually backfire on Moscow because buy threatening to renew nuclear testing and boasting of unstoppable weaponry. Putin risks highlighting Russia's inability to project strength via conventional warfare. In other words, the dictators predilection for frequent nuclear blackmail may actually be a sign of weakness and insecurity rather than strength. 

 

Most analysts agree that  if Russia were to use nuclear weapons it would likely be in Ukraine, using short range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons or even tactical/strategic deployment on a city. Russia is thought to have more than 1,000 in reserve. These would have to be taken from storage and either connected to missiles, placed in bombers, or as shell in artillery. Increasingly the rhetoric from Russia suggests nuclear threats are a more direct threat to NATO, not only Ukraine, and could refer to longer range, higher yield nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin obviously doesn’t have that moral barrier to using nuclear weapons - that understanding that it’s a step toward destroying the planet that both Soviet leaders  Khrushchev and Brezhnev had. He certainly doesn’t care how many Ukrainians will die, and how many of them and his own soldiers will perish from radiation sickness later, either. During the Cold War, both Washington and Moscow operated on the principle of mutually assured destruction, the understanding that a nuclear strike from one side would prompt a response in kind, leading to an all-out atomic altercation and mass devastation on a global scale. The leaders of the US and Russia mostly held the view that nuclear weapons offered no real political or military edge against an adversary with secure second-strike capabilities. Beginning with the outbreak of the Ukraine war, Putin shifted this paradigm by wielding nuclear weapons as tools of coercion, aiming to manipulate shared nuclear risks for intimidation and political leverage. In his view, nuclear threats likely serve as instruments of deterrence and psychological warfare, calculated to pressure opponents while avoiding outright use. 

 

 

Edited 17 March by SpacedX

[MPH]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, exiled Kurdish  soldiers from the peshmerga tribe allegedly crossed the border from Iraq into the Iranian region of Kurdistan ( and long seen as the man hub of the possible future Kurdistan state ) last night. Heavily armed by tons of weapons. ( allegedly) supplied by the CIA, they’ve entered a region where the Kurds have long been oppressed and Tortured for their ‘speratist ideology’ as the Iranian regime sees it."

 

im totally on board with their separatist cause of course, I just don’t like how they are being exploited by the Americans/Israelis  for  a different cause..

Edited 17 March by MPH

[filbertway]

19 hours ago, Md9 said:

How anyone can stand there and say they have a smart president and mean it is ridiculous 😂 what ever time line this is we live in i would like to change please this one is full of crazy idiots 

I find it mad that people in these positions throw around childish insults that you'd heard in a play ground. These should be eloquent, intelligent people.

 

[fox_favourite]

Did Trump call it a military operation?! 

 

Now where have we heard something similar....

 

Trump: we have obliterated everything in Iran. Ships, army and missile storage.

 

Everyone else: hmmmm

 

Trump: we need you to clear the way for ships and help us.

 

NATO countries: errrr, no. This is a you issue. 

 

Trump: we don't need NATO never have. 

 

Putin: Hello Trump, I can't be helped notice your ',allies' have abandoned you, want to talk about it?! 

Edited 17 March by fox_favourite

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, fox_favourite said:

Did Trump call it a military operation?! 

 

Now where have we heard something similar....

 

Trump: we have obliterated everything in Iran. Ships, army and missile storage.

 

Everyone else: hmmmm

 

Trump: we need you to clear the way for ships and help us.

 

NATO countries: errrr, no. This is a you issue. 

 

Trump: we don't need NATO never have. 

 

Putin: Hello Trump, I can't be helped notice your ',allies' have abandoned you, want to talk about it?! 

Well, he's clearly wanting to talk to someone about it now, given he's currently ranting about how "allies" won't help him in this particular piece of bloodthirsty foolhardiness.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, filbertway said:

I find it mad that people in these positions throw around childish insults that you'd heard in a play ground. These should be eloquent, intelligent people.

 

 

 

[fox_favourite]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, he's clearly wanting to talk to someone about it now, given he's currently ranting about how "allies" won't help him in this particular piece of bloodthirsty foolhardiness.

Rudkin?