Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's just Putin pushing out his chest as this plays well with "patriots" inside Russia and obviously Trump has a bit of a crush on any bloke who presents as politically macho. In reality there isn't going to be a war between Western Europe and Russia and Putin's and Trump's posturings are inadvertently strengthening the EU against the interests of both Russia and the US. " Genuinely interested, can you please explain your rationale behind the last statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuinely interested, can you please explain your rationale behind the last statement." The EU (mostly but not exclusively led by Macron) recognize that they can no longer rely on Russia for energy nor the US for security. So they are slowly weaning themselves off of Russian energy and increasing defence spending. Obviously the less energy that the EU buys from Russia the more it hurts Russia but Trump, when pushing for increased NATO defence spending, probably assumed that the extra cash would flow into US arms company coffers but I suspect this is not going to happen as the EU doesn't want to be completely dependent on US weapons technology. I think there's also a major realignment in EU and NATO thinking about the reliability of the US as an ally with threats against Canada and Greenland not helping matters. Things could reset once Trump is no longer POTUS but the future is uncertain. In summary the power of the US and Russia to control the EU will likely reduce over time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Putin is bluffing. He once had the second largest armoured force in the world. Now reduced to salvaging 1950s era T-54/55 tanks from storage. His airforce has proven itself to be far less effective than NATO originally estimated and he has to rely on munitions from North Korea and drones from Iran because his own defence industry isn't up to the job. The fighting quality of the majority of the Army is also suspect and probably not up for the job. Mr Putin is living in his own Stalinist fantasy world which uis sadly be panded to by the tangerine buffoon." Russia at its weakest then Should European nato members take them on. Polish, French and British air forces second to none. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Should European nato members take them on. Polish, French and British air forces second to none. " Not at the moment. I think the situation in the Ukraine has been going on too long to get involved now and is not going to bring their dead back. If Russia directly attacks a NATO member, then yes. Seems terrible that we are even having this discussion, but such is the stupidity of mankind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Russia at its weakest then Should European nato members take them on. Polish, French and British air forces second to none. " That would probably be the smartest play in the long term; someone in 100 years will probably look back and say "why didn't they just...". However, there is (with good reason) no appetite to spark a war with Russia. There's the nuclear deterrent (the biggest issue) and the inevitability of mass casualties. Putin knows what he's doing and how far he can push without devastation. Georgia, Ukraine, getting slightly bolder each time. Until Europe starts thinking like Russia (a chilling thought), there will be no war. Now, if warmongers want to engage, there would need to be a casus belli. That could be engineered, or opportunistically seized (Putin is testing resolve around Poland all the time). But Europe won't engage without a mad leader or a significantly miscalculated provocation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Putin is bluffing. He once had the second largest armoured force in the world. Now reduced to salvaging 1950s era T-54/55 tanks from storage. His airforce has proven itself to be far less effective than NATO originally estimated and he has to rely on munitions from North Korea and drones from Iran because his own defence industry isn't up to the job. The fighting quality of the majority of the Army is also suspect and probably not up for the job. Mr Putin is living in his own Stalinist fantasy world which uis sadly be panded to by the tangerine buffoon. Russia at its weakest then Should European nato members take them on. Polish, French and British air forces second to none. " No they shouldn't.. Not only is an invasion a total none starter, an offensive war with them and the inevitable use of albeit 'low grade theatre nukes' is too risky cos then we are all fucked.. Yes they are re arming after what has happened in Ukraine and the huge issues it has highlighted with their kit but they also know if article 5 is triggered then that has the same consequences.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia couldn’t even conquer Ukraine… there’s no way they take on NATO and win." Ukraine is holding out against all odds but the US has fallen without a bullet fired | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU (mostly but not exclusively led by Macron) recognize that they can no longer rely on Russia for energy nor the US for security. So they are slowly weaning themselves off of Russian energy and increasing defence spending. Obviously the less energy that the EU buys from Russia the more it hurts Russia but Trump, when pushing for increased NATO defence spending, probably assumed that the extra cash would flow into US arms company coffers but I suspect this is not going to happen as the EU doesn't want to be completely dependent on US weapons technology. I think there's also a major realignment in EU and NATO thinking about the reliability of the US as an ally with threats against Canada and Greenland not helping matters. Things could reset once Trump is no longer POTUS but the future is uncertain. In summary the power of the US and Russia to control the EU will likely reduce over time." I agree with all of the above. Canada's request to join the EU's ReArm scheme shows what they are looking to make defence partnerships outside of the US. Sadly I suspect that the US will elect someone reasonable after Trump, and everything will slowly go back to the way it was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But animals are at their most dangerous when backed into a corner and he's just crazy enough to lash out with a tactical strike to prove a point." He might be, but it's the men and women of his armed forces that have the actual ability to launch stuff, and they are less crazy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia has spent four years trying to beat a country less well armed, smaller, which it should have beaten within a year. Instead its forces if not beaten has had huge casualties Only advanced a few miles and prone to equipment failures. The combined forces of Europe even without the USA which can no longer be considered an ally woukd be utterly destroyed in a conventional war. If it goes nuclear then its game over fkr everyone." Im not advocating this but why has Russia not just carpet bombed Ukraine into submission, the way the carpet bombed syria and the way America did in Iraq? Also I thought Putins statement on being ready for war with Nato was in response to Nato saying they might consider preemptive strikes on Russian | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im not advocating this but why has Russia not just carpet bombed Ukraine into submission, the way the carpet bombed syria and the way America did in Iraq?" Because that would quite definitely bring the rest of the world in against Russia. They'd be defeated quite quickly. Putin is an expert at judging how much resolve his opponent has, and then pushing the aggression right up to the limits, taking as much as possible without pushing the opponent into actual retaliation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im not advocating this but why has Russia not just carpet bombed Ukraine into submission, the way the carpet bombed syria and the way America did in Iraq? Because that would quite definitely bring the rest of the world in against Russia. They'd be defeated quite quickly. Putin is an expert at judging how much resolve his opponent has, and then pushing the aggression right up to the limits, taking as much as possible without pushing the opponent into actual retaliation." Why would he assume the world would help Ukraine if he carpet bombed them. No one helped the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Palestinians more recently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im not advocating this but why has Russia not just carpet bombed Ukraine into submission, the way the carpet bombed syria and the way America did in Iraq? Because that would quite definitely bring the rest of the world in against Russia. They'd be defeated quite quickly. Putin is an expert at judging how much resolve his opponent has, and then pushing the aggression right up to the limits, taking as much as possible without pushing the opponent into actual retaliation. Why would he assume the world would help Ukraine if he carpet bombed them. No one helped the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Palestinians more recently." Location and allied interests. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why would he assume the world would help Ukraine if he carpet bombed them. No one helped the Iraqis or the Syrians or the Palestinians more recently." Because carpet bombing Ukraine would be an attack on a European country, right on the doorstep of the EU, and neighbouring a NATO member. The threat to the rest of the world would be very apparent. Mass destruction in the Middle East doesn't pose the same immediate threat to the Western countries, so there's less political pressure to do anything about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Russia has spent four years trying to beat a country less well armed, smaller, which it should have beaten within a year. Instead its forces if not beaten has had huge casualties Only advanced a few miles and prone to equipment failures. The combined forces of Europe even without the USA which can no longer be considered an ally woukd be utterly destroyed in a conventional war. If it goes nuclear then its game over fkr everyone. Im not advocating this but why has Russia not just carpet bombed Ukraine into submission, the way the carpet bombed syria and the way America did in Iraq? Also I thought Putins statement on being ready for war with Nato was in response to Nato saying they might consider preemptive strikes on Russian " The air defence systems in Iraq and Syria had been effectively nullified prior to the bombing campaigns. Putin did not learn the lesson and the performance of his airforce in the early stages of the war in Ukraine was very poor. This is especially embarrassing as the Ukrainian air defence structure was still largely based on the old Soviet model. Ukraine demonstrated an ability to quickly modify its defence position while the Russians did not. What should have been a relatively straightforward task for the Russians quickly became a nightmare. They have fallen back on brute force and numbers rather than benefitting from their original technical superiority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When a leader of a country says they are ready for war it means the leader hasn't got long to live and they don't care if their country gets bombed to smithereens. Putin I'm guessing has prostate cancer from all the Vodka and failing bladder and kidneys. He knows he is responsible for the novichok poisionings and death. He can't hide from the fact. He can only kid himself for so long before his conscience eats away at his soul and mind. He'll be dead soon, and good riddance to him, he's a little shit and he's realised he is. " do t know ic this is sarcasm,wishful thinking or you actually believe this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When a leader of a country says they are ready for war it means the leader hasn't got long to live and they don't care if their country gets bombed to smithereens. Putin I'm guessing has prostate cancer from all the Vodka and failing bladder and kidneys. He knows he is responsible for the novichok poisionings and death. He can't hide from the fact. He can only kid himself for so long before his conscience eats away at his soul and mind. He'll be dead soon, and good riddance to him, he's a little shit and he's realised he is. " Putin has had 20 years of speculations that he is about to die. Strokes, paralysis, liver disease, kidney disease, Parkinson’s, even leprosy. It’s often used as an excuse to continue funding conflict. Of course if you keep saying it, one day you might be correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem Russia has is any build up of forces on the border would result in them being bombed into oblivion. US air power alone would crush them." your under the impression the united states would be stepping in,it's America first now they really ain't that bothered about Europe anymore,most of maga don't want to fund Ukraine or Israel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem Russia has is any build up of forces on the border would result in them being bombed into oblivion. US air power alone would crush them.your under the impression the united states would be stepping in,it's America first now they really ain't that bothered about Europe anymore,most of maga don't want to fund Ukraine or Israel " meanwhile elsewhere,article 5.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem Russia has is any build up of forces on the border would result in them being bombed into oblivion. US air power alone would crush them.your under the impression the united states would be stepping in,it's America first now they really ain't that bothered about Europe anymore,most of maga don't want to fund Ukraine or Israel meanwhile elsewhere,article 5...." Neither Israel or the Ukraine are NATO member states. Article 5 doesn’t apply. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump and his narcissistic narrow-mindedness isn't always going to be around, sooner or later clearer more level head's will prevail and the US will realise that Russia needs to be kept in check to avoid history repeating itself and a full scale invasion of Europe starts. Because an out of control Russia is a threat to world peace not just the countries who border it. " 1) What makes you think Russia has the resources or the motivation to attempt a full scale invasion of Europe? If our media is to be believed they can barely support the actions in the Ukraine. 2) America may see a conflict between Euro and BRICScoin nations as beneficial to dollar interests. 3) The conflict secures American oil and gas sales with Europe at premium prices we can’t refuse. They were struggling to sell it before the conflict because of its inefficiencies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe one of the eastern European countries should have taken over Kaliningrad. Just like Russia invaded and annexed Crimea. Give Putin a taste of his own medicine. Lithuania and Poland could have had half each. I know it'll probably never happen, but what if it did?" once russia have funished in ukraine dint be surprised if poland and romania start demanding back the parts of ukraine that were taken from them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When a leader of a country says they are ready for war it means the leader hasn't got long to live and they don't care if their country gets bombed to smithereens. Putin I'm guessing has prostate cancer from all the Vodka and failing bladder and kidneys. He knows he is responsible for the novichok poisionings and death. He can't hide from the fact. He can only kid himself for so long before his conscience eats away at his soul and mind. He'll be dead soon, and good riddance to him, he's a little shit and he's realised he is. Putin has had 20 years of speculations that he is about to die. Strokes, paralysis, liver disease, kidney disease, Parkinson’s, even leprosy. It’s often used as an excuse to continue funding conflict. Of course if you keep saying it, one day you might be correct. " A bit like my broken clock. It's right twice a day.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I know this forum, besides one or two other contributors, is an echo chamber that's just parroting what our leaders and our mainstram media are constantly telling us. (I know, but please stay calm and at least hear me out.) And I know that I will be labelled as falling for Russian Propaganda or whatever nonsense. Anyone who disagrees with this single, one sided narrative is always labelled as such. 😅 Ironically they label people this while not seeing the power of our own Western fed Propaganda machine, and how it constantly distorts the truth from us here in the West. Just ask Jullian Assage, Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden about how our Western Governments truly operate under the veil of these so called "Western democratic values". It's a joke and a big con job, these elites are playing us all. Can we all just at least agree that with military bases in over 80 countries, and with it constantly at war, it's the United States who are the biggest aggressors on the Planet! It's the USA who poses the biggest threat to peace and stability throughout the World. It doesn't matter which President (Democrat or Republican) is "in charge" the US war machine never stops. Always endless Wars. There are forces more powerful than whichever President is currently in charge. That is largely made up of the Military Industrial Complex, AIPAC, Major US Corporations and Banks. (Outside of petty 'culture war issues' that our media and politicians have us so distracted with), they set the main policies for Government. Our elected officials main job is to just vote & sign off on bills made by these "lobbies" and to enact them or to put them into law. They pay off our elected officials through "corporate lobbying" -legalised curruption is a more accurate description. It's pretty much the same in Europe. Ever wonder how the politicians get jobs on the board of Goldman Sachs or the World Bank after they quit politics? Or why they were previously Hedge Fund Managers (like Richi Sunak) It's the elites looking after eachother. Not after us, the people they are supposed to represent. They do not represent us at all, and with most of our warmongering elected leaders on dismal approval ratings here in Europe (averaging at less than 20%) they are not even popular with the electorate. The USA has been and is involved not just in endless wars but also in countless coups and overthrowing democratically elected governments throughout the World, and replaceing the leaders usually with military dictators (or Juntas) friendly to US Political & Corporate interests. So much for America being the "beacon for freedom and democracy". Yet another lie that has been fed to us for so long. And anyone who thinks that the CIA have not been meddling in Ukraine doesn't know how the CIA operate, they don't like to advertise what they are doing. Tell me what country the CIA are not currently operating in would be a much shorter response?😅 From South and Central America through the Middle East and Europe, the USA has been doing this for many decades. Solely for the benefit of its own elites. A fair few of them are almost certainly on the Epstein files! Have we all just collectively forgotten our own countries wars of aggression?. Countries that were far less of a threat to us than a NATO backed Ukraine could ever be to Russia. We went to War against Iraq & Afghanistan with far lesser justifiable reasons than Russia had to go to War. Did we forget about all the lies we were told about those wars? All the fear mongering about dirty bombs and WMDs? Weren't we told Saddam was the next Hitler too😂 Saddam, a once CIA backed asset, just like what became Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Have we all forgotten that the USA (along with much of Europe) funded and continues to arm and support a Genocide in Gaza?. The UK is selling weapons being used for Genocide in Sudan. Where's the outrage?!! The US is murdering people in boats off Venezuela right now, using double tap operations on survivors, which constitutes War Crimes, committing acts of Piracy through stealing oil tankers. Israel did similar when it committed piracy in the meddetarian sea by hijacking boats containing baby formula and food being sent to a starving, under seige people. They hijacked the crew, beat and tortured these brave people, our people, Western people. They are lucky these kidn*pped people were not Palestinians. Their treatment is far, far, far worse. Yet where was/is the outrage in our media and with our politicians??!! ...Besides just the usual soundbites and token empty gestures?! Imagine if Russia or Iran were commiting the appalling acts that the USA and Israel have been doing? And then kidn*pped and tortured around 60 odd Western aid givers in open seas? They would be up in arms, instead Israel is not sanctioned, they can't even be kicked out of a poxy song contest for crimes against humanity. Starving and murdering 20,000 plus children does not even get you kicked out of Eurovision or UEFA, let alone kicked out of trading with us. Again, where is the outrage from our leaders or mainstream media over such barbarism and inhumanity??! I can't be the only one who can see the double standards here ...can I? If the West cared about Ukraine, they would not have been pushing them closer and closer towards a conflict with their larger nuclear armed neighbour Russia. With Ukraine having a sizeable ethnic Russian minority itself in the East of the country. Say whatever you like, but the USA or Britian would not have stood for the same thing happening on it's border either. If the west cared about Ukraine, they would not have convinced Ukraine to walk away from peace talks with Russia in 2022, if they truly cared about Ukraine and the lives of Ukrainians. The West knew that War with Russia was unwinnable, that Russia would always have the men and the industrial capacity to outperform and eventually turn the tide in its favour. As history has already shown us. Over 1 million Ukrainian lives would have been saved if they didn't listen to these warmongering fools like Boris Johnson. All these people who don't want to accept peace, and who instead want to prolong the war by talking tough and talking of arming Ukrainians to go off and die should be ashamed. This war is lost and nothing the west does is going to change that. It was clearly already lost when the last Ukrainian winter counter offensive failed. America has woken up to this reality, our leaders need to wake up to it too. But our leaders have too much invested in it. They dont want to tell their voters that this war with all the billions of tax payer money spent, the energy crisis & inflation it caused and which resulted in a stagnating economy was all a folly. That instead, negotiation and meaningful dialogue was the better option for Europe to take with Russia over War with it. I still believe that this war would never have started in the first place, had the West listened seriously to Russias genuine security concerns. Again, tables turned, the USA would have the same security concerns as Russia. Instead, the West, led by the US went in with the thinking, 'We are the biggest Power, and the World is our backyard, we are in 80 countries and we can do whatever we like'! As had been the thinking since 1991. If peace talks break up as many European leaders are strongly pushing for. Then many, many more thousands will die and Russia will eventually achieve all its aims on the battlefield anyway. And there wont be anything much we can do about it. We dont have the industrial capacity or the money to keep supporting this War. It will break our economies before it breaks Russias, whose economy has pivoted Eastwards and are doing pretty okay despite the heavy Western Sanctions, so much for all the confident talk of "Breaking Russias Economy". Ukrainians want peace, they want this war to end through a negotiated settlement. A recent gallop poll has shown this. They fought hard but their frontlines are collapsing, and they are dying in big numbers, much bigger than the Russians. They can't keep going much longer and Western Weapons wont change that. At best, it will only delay it a bit, at the cost of more lives and billions lost. (-or billions gained if you represent the arms industry) They won't get the same deal that they could have got in 2022, but thats to be expected. When has the victor or apparent victor never set the main terms of a peace deal? Never. It's always set by the victor through negotiations. And Russia is not going to accept a Ukrainian army of 600,000 NATO armed and trained men as Europe is demanding. That's over twice as much as they had before this war started. Never going to happen. And Europe has no power and little say in the matter. Like it or not. This will eventually be between the USA and Russia to work out a permanent peace settlement. If not, Russia will eventually achieve its aims on the battlefield and America ain't gonna be there to fight Europes wars. And without America NATO is nothing. Certainly NATO, without the USA can never hope to take on Russia, whose battle hardened military and capacity to produce weapons far outstrips ours. So all that "coalition of the willing" is just a load of hot air. The best Europe will get is using our public taxes, or public debt to buy weapons from the States. But it still wont change the eventual outcome. And will probably bankrupt our own economies in doing so. Do more people really have to die to prove this? Am I the only one who feels this way? And please I know all the Establishment pro-war arguments and well worn narratives. I used to buy into all that crap too. I, along with everyone was/is constantly fed that from every direction. So I understand the reasons for your perspective. Hey, I'm just a guy with his dick in his hand, like most of us here😅 But if this resonated with anyone, even just one single person. And if you wish to hear a different perspective than the same one we have been fed with. Then there are people who are far more knowledgeable and smarter than me or anyone else in this forum. So I would urge you to check out independent news media outlets on YTube and listen to experts like Danny Haiphong, Scott Ritter, Professor Jeffery Sachs, Dialogue Works, Judge Napolitano, John Mearsheimer, Ben Norton, Double Down News, the Grayzone and Jimmy Dore to name a few. They are pro peace, anti war, anti imperialism and bi-partisan outlets. I'm sure some people will jump in and say that they are pro Russian blah blah blah without having ever watched any of them for any period of time. So I am not talking to those people, I know they will never change their minds or be open to a different perspective, I accept that. To the people who have an open mind and who are open to hearing different perspectives, go there and at least listen for an extended period of time. You have probably heard hundreds of hours from only one single perspective, because that is all that is out there if you don't know where to look. ...then afterwards you can call me a brainwashed, Russian controlled commie, who loves Putin and would have supported Hitler😂😂😂" FFS, that was too long and too deep for most people to engage in. Wind it in a bit mate and just get to the point. It's called brevity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" FFS, that was too long and too deep for most people to engage in. Wind it in a bit mate and just get to the point. It's called brevity." But most people can't see the wood for the trees, We have been fed the same propaganda bullshit for years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" FFS, that was too long and too deep for most people to engage in. Wind it in a bit mate and just get to the point. It's called brevity. But most people can't see the wood for the trees, We have been fed the same propaganda bullshit for years " True- but in some ways it's people's own fault for only caring about headlines and punchlines and not reading the full article that's lead to a rise in Rage Bait and Decline Porn in the media instead of impartial, responsible reporting. __ I would add Peter Hitchens to the list of authors mentioned in the long post above for interesting and alternative views on the Ukraine crisis. Effectively NATO have been poking the Russian Bear with a stick since the end of the Cold War and are now wondering why it's being aggressive | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK Gov are over trumpeting the threat from Russia. Given the fact they led us into Iraq, I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say or any of their opinions on anything tbh. I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO. You might get a bit of low grade ‘accidental’ prodding & probing but I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO in an unambiguous, clear cut manner at all. It’s funny, because the hawkish & bullish ones during the early days of this conflict were going on about Russia running out of rusty Soviet missiles & military vehicles with flat tires. So why then, when Putin isn’t exactly over running Ukraine after approaching 4 years of inch by inch bloody conflict, would he decide to spread Russian forces even more thinly? It’s fearmongering BS. " Agreed. 👍🏼 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK Gov are over trumpeting the threat from Russia. Given the fact they led us into Iraq, I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say or any of their opinions on anything tbh. I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO. You might get a bit of low grade ‘accidental’ prodding & probing but I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO in an unambiguous, clear cut manner at all. It’s funny, because the hawkish & bullish ones during the early days of this conflict were going on about Russia running out of rusty Soviet missiles & military vehicles with flat tires. So why then, when Putin isn’t exactly over running Ukraine after approaching 4 years of inch by inch bloody conflict, would he decide to spread Russian forces even more thinly? It’s fearmongering BS. " No. It's a very real threat. They will test NATO in the next few years with a small incursion into the baltics. Your optimism is actually naivety I'm afraid. They want pro Russia governments in the west and they want to conquer every bit of land they lost. Their goals are transparent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK Gov are over trumpeting the threat from Russia. Given the fact they led us into Iraq, I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say or any of their opinions on anything tbh. I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO. You might get a bit of low grade ‘accidental’ prodding & probing but I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO in an unambiguous, clear cut manner at all. It’s funny, because the hawkish & bullish ones during the early days of this conflict were going on about Russia running out of rusty Soviet missiles & military vehicles with flat tires. So why then, when Putin isn’t exactly over running Ukraine after approaching 4 years of inch by inch bloody conflict, would he decide to spread Russian forces even more thinly? It’s fearmongering BS. No. It's a very real threat. They will test NATO in the next few years with a small incursion into the baltics. Your optimism is actually naivety I'm afraid. They want pro Russia governments in the west and they want to conquer every bit of land they lost. Their goals are transparent." So where do they conjure up the money, manpower & equipment from then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK Gov are over trumpeting the threat from Russia. Given the fact they led us into Iraq, I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say or any of their opinions on anything tbh. I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO. You might get a bit of low grade ‘accidental’ prodding & probing but I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO in an unambiguous, clear cut manner at all. It’s funny, because the hawkish & bullish ones during the early days of this conflict were going on about Russia running out of rusty Soviet missiles & military vehicles with flat tires. So why then, when Putin isn’t exactly over running Ukraine after approaching 4 years of inch by inch bloody conflict, would he decide to spread Russian forces even more thinly? It’s fearmongering BS. " The Russian army is bigger now than before the invasion. Putin's biggest threat to his power is all those men returning home with arms and a chip on their shoulder. Putin needs this war to continue for his very survival. Too many people viewing this through a western lense with little to no understanding of the Russian perspective. Ukraine's size is a big factor in why it can't be overrun.No such problem with smaller European countries though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The UK Gov are over trumpeting the threat from Russia. Given the fact they led us into Iraq, I wouldn’t believe anything they have to say or any of their opinions on anything tbh. I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO. You might get a bit of low grade ‘accidental’ prodding & probing but I really don’t see Putin attacking NATO in an unambiguous, clear cut manner at all. It’s funny, because the hawkish & bullish ones during the early days of this conflict were going on about Russia running out of rusty Soviet missiles & military vehicles with flat tires. So why then, when Putin isn’t exactly over running Ukraine after approaching 4 years of inch by inch bloody conflict, would he decide to spread Russian forces even more thinly? It’s fearmongering BS. The Russian army is bigger now than before the invasion. Putin's biggest threat to his power is all those men returning home with arms and a chip on their shoulder. Putin needs this war to continue for his very survival. Too many people viewing this through a western lense with little to no understanding of the Russian perspective. Ukraine's size is a big factor in why it can't be overrun.No such problem with smaller European countries though." But the population of NATO countries is many times that of Russia. Military expenditure in the EU was $343 billion in 2024, Russia, even on its war footing could only manage $149 billion. Putin attacking NATO would be suicide for him, unless of course he goes nuclear, but in that case why even bother with a conventional war? Just fire off a couple of tactical nukes here & there to lay down a marker to NATO: ‘This far & no further’. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for the (mainly) polite engagement to my post which I know was long,.. very long.😅 And thank you anyone who took the time to read it in full, even if you didn't agree with me. It's very hard to try to explain such a conflict in short soundbites or "headlines" as one commenter mentioned. It is heartening to see that I am not the only one who doesn't feed into this well worn Russiaphobic, West good Russia bad, black and white narrative. " I have trimmed the post to prevent the length of the post becoming too long. I find it hard to believe you think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had shown no signs of wanting to join Nato, what is your rationale for such a statement? I'm not sure what you know about Venezuela, but we could start with rigged elections and go from there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for the (mainly) polite engagement to my post which I know was long,.. very long.😅 And thank you anyone who took the time to read it in full, even if you didn't agree with me. It's very hard to try to explain such a conflict in short soundbites or "headlines" as one commenter mentioned. It is heartening to see that I am not the only one who doesn't feed into this well worn Russiaphobic, West good Russia bad, black and white narrative. I have trimmed the post to prevent the length of the post becoming too long. I find it hard to believe you think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had shown no signs of wanting to join Nato, what is your rationale for such a statement? I'm not sure what you know about Venezuela, but we could start with rigged elections and go from there." The rationale might be that Putin has said over and over, “Don’t move NATO closer to Russia’s boarders, not one inch was the agreement” and a condition of Ukraines independence declaration in 1990 was that it must never join NATO or any other military pact. It had to remain independent. Putin told the world what he would be forced to do if that was made possible. Can you explain your rationale that he would invade Europe? The media said so is not a rationale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for the (mainly) polite engagement to my post which I know was long,.. very long.😅 And thank you anyone who took the time to read it in full, even if you didn't agree with me. It's very hard to try to explain such a conflict in short soundbites or "headlines" as one commenter mentioned. It is heartening to see that I am not the only one who doesn't feed into this well worn Russiaphobic, West good Russia bad, black and white narrative. I have trimmed the post to prevent the length of the post becoming too long. I find it hard to believe you think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had shown no signs of wanting to join Nato, what is your rationale for such a statement? I'm not sure what you know about Venezuela, but we could start with rigged elections and go from there. The rationale might be that Putin has said over and over, “Don’t move NATO closer to Russia’s boarders, not one inch was the agreement” and a condition of Ukraines independence declaration in 1990 was that it must never join NATO or any other military pact. It had to remain independent. Putin told the world what he would be forced to do if that was made possible. Can you explain your rationale that he would invade Europe? The media said so is not a rationale. " That is not quite right. There was no formal agreement to not expand Nato after the fall of the Berlin wall, he said she said doesn't count.. Ukraine were actually blocked from joining Nato by France and Germany. Putin invaded Crimea when Ukraine was not in or had chance of joining NATO so that argument is weak. Not sure why you think I mentioned anything about Putin invading Europe, you might have me mixed up with someone else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Thank you for the (mainly) polite engagement to my post which I know was long,.. very long.😅 And thank you anyone who took the time to read it in full, even if you didn't agree with me. It's very hard to try to explain such a conflict in short soundbites or "headlines" as one commenter mentioned. It is heartening to see that I am not the only one who doesn't feed into this well worn Russiaphobic, West good Russia bad, black and white narrative. I have trimmed the post to prevent the length of the post becoming too long. I find it hard to believe you think Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had shown no signs of wanting to join Nato, what is your rationale for such a statement? I'm not sure what you know about Venezuela, but we could start with rigged elections and go from there." Before Western meddling in Ukraines affairs Russia and Ukraine had close ties, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. There are many Ukrainians with Russian families and quite a number of Russians with Ukrainian ties. The East of Ukraine is largely Russian speaking too. Without Western meddling and NATO expansion, what reason would Russia have for invading Ukraine? Russia wanted closer ties to Europe, it was good for business, through the Nord stream pipeline they were able to sell their cheap gas to Europe. America and certain NeoCons were never happy with this arrangement. Russia even cautioned Europe not to allow the US to dictate European foreign policy. So did Russia risk economic ruin and risk destabilising its own country just for a laugh? The cost of this war has been great for Russia too you know. Do you think they are that stupid? Or do you just have a picture in your head of Putin stroking a cat with a maniacal laugh, staring intently at a globe?😂 As for Venezuela, I am far from an expert, but having visited Caracas many years ago and following events there. I can tell you that when the Jimmy Carter foundation previously declared elections to be free and fair, the US administration rejected those claims. So I really don't know how free and fair the last elections were TBH. What I can say though is, your claims, even if true are no justification whatsoever to invade Venezuela or to overthrow it's Government. The US has been attempting to topple the Boliverian Revolution ever since Chavez came to power in free and fair elections over 25 years ago. It has imposed crippling sanctions on the country, plunging the country into extreme poverty and hyperinflation and a mass exodus, in an attempt to turn the population against the Government. Despite all this, the Government remains popular amongst the poor, who make up the majority of the country. With the government providing them with housing, healthcare, education and a higher standard of living than before the Revolution. If the Government were so unpopular then it wouldn't be a great idea to address your people in plain view in front of many thousands without bulletproof glass. Nor to hand out millions of weapons to the public if you were hated so much by your people. That horrible woman whose name I forget, but she won a Nobel Peace Prize, which is a joke in itself as they have a thing for handing out these peace prizes to warmongers. But anyway, the US want her installed there, WITHOUT any free or fair elections. She's not even popular among the opposition, let alone the populationat large. Yet she has publicly called for the US to bomb her own country. And she has publicly stated that when in power she will sell off her countries public assets and resources to US Corporations like Chevon and Exxon Mobile. She and her cronies will get a %age from the sale, but the population will get nothing. She is an deciple of the likes of Neo Cons like Ann Rand. A vile woman if you know anything about her, who makes Margret Thatcher seem like a semi compassionate person to the poor in comparison. Oh and the US couped almost every country in Central and South America, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with right wing military dictators who murdered their own people in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. -See Guatemala or Chile and Pinocet to name just two countries. Really, look into it for yourself to see what just what America and the CIA got up to in Central and South America alone. The dead bodies are piled sky high! It's utterly disgusting, so really, how can anyone say that America & the West are a "Beacon for Democracy" or care about "democracy"?. If anything the opposite is true. And lastly, if the US says its about cracking down on drug dealers from Venezuela, then why did Trump free the Former Narco President who was serving decades for drug trafficking in the United States just last week. I've explained more than enough, if people still want to believe what we we are fed daily as fact then that's up to them, I'm sure I will never change their minds. Anyone who wishes to learn more about how power truly operates without the filtering of our mainstream media, then find those experts I mentioned in a previous post. You could certainly add Christopher Hichins to that list😉 ...also off hand, Katie Halper, Declassified UK and Novara Media as well.😘😘 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" FFS, that was too long and too deep for most people to engage in. Wind it in a bit mate and just get to the point. It's called brevity." It is a bit long, yes... but it’s basically a very roundabout way of saying power and wealth are captured at the top and ordinary people pay the price. I'd personally shorten it to “tax the billionaires” myself. Even if the post never quite gets there, as it mixes solid points with some conspiratorial and dated geopolitics. Length alone isn’t really an argument though. If you disagree, say why and back it up lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
