advertisement


Ukraine II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big open hearted Britain,

From a classic 70s British racist hangover to serving Tory MPs,

LQWtcYl.jpg

UCFx67z.jpg
 
gavreid said:
Americans expect China to support Russia with both military and financial aid

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-russia-in-ukraine-conflict-us-officials-fear
Click to expand...

The Russian shopping list presented to China apparently includes ammunition and military ration packs. Do we conclude then that the mighty Russians army is already running out of food and ammunition after a limited military operation right on their doorstep which, as they keep telling us, isn't actually a war at all? I imagine the Russian general staff must be s*******g themselves at the prospect of ever going to war with a bigger and technically superior NATO force. And yes I know all about the nuclear issue.....
 
gx502

I afraid the bit about MAD is bollox too. NATOs doctrine is Flexible Response whereby it reserves the right to use any type of force necessary to stop the advance of an invader. Typically such a conflict would start with conventional weapons.
 
"War is a good time to bury scruples. We may hate Vladimir Putin, but one dictator at a time appears all we can handle. So Britain’s Boris Johnson is to make a humiliating dash to plead with Saudi Arabia’s ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to lower the price of oil. What will he offer in return? Will it be a blind eye to the state murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the continued devastation of the Yemenis, or the execution at the weekend of 81 men, some of them political prisoners? Who next is to be appeased, the “oligarchs” of the UAE, or Nicolás Maduro, ruler of oil-rich Venezuela? How kind must Britain suddenly be to China, as the latter equivocates in its attitude to Putin and greedily eyes Taiwan?"

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...pease-equally-repellent-dictators-war-ukraine
 
Spraggons Den said:
gx502

I afraid the bit about MAD is bollox too. NATOs doctrine is Flexible Response whereby it reserves the right to use any type of force necessary to stop the advance of an invader. Typically such a conflict would start with conventional weapons.
Click to expand...
As I understand it MAD only applies to global conflict, ie the exchange of ICBM's between US and Russia's mainland will result in posthumous obliteration from submarine based missiles .
Both NATO and Russia are equipped to fight a 'limited nuclear war' in Europe-in this instance it is NATO's huge deficit in warheads(100 vs up to 10000) that makes an escalation to WW3 more likely in any tactical exchange. First strike is not off the table.
 
gx502 said:
On the nuclear stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

United States
The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict.The US doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010

That's what i understand is the official US posture. (I don't have a citation but I have been alive long enough to hear Bush Snr. and Jnr's position on such military matters.)

EDIT: please note, I did not say US will "Strike First", my understanding is that in cold war era, they knew that first strike was futile, hence MAD. But now the estimation is that we can win via a first strike. Thus this change of position feeds into Russian Federations views on the eastward expansion of NATO.
Click to expand...
You're reading a lot into this that isn't there (as you have also done over, eg 9/11). The US position is one of 'constructive ambiguity', ie, keep your opponent guessing as to whether and when you would go nuclear as doing that makes it less likely your opponent will calculate that he can beat you. Putin is doing exactly the same now.
 
Tony L said:
‘Nazi’ is probably the wrong term as it is precise and relates to one particular early 20th century political movement in Germany. I always get confused where the line between fascism and communism lies once one gets to the dictatorship stage. Slightly different uniforms and flags I guess. There is always an all-powerful elite siphoning the wealth, always nationalism, imprisonment or murder for any dissent or competing political viewpoint, always racism, homophobia, religious bigotry or other tools of scapegoating and division, and always leading to absolute control and mass murder. I’d run from either just as fast as I can’t tell them apart.
Click to expand...
Fascism is essentially a revolt of the lower middle class in times of great political and economic crises. Big business possesses sufficient wealth to weather economic slumps, working class organisation takes the form or trade unions. It’s the small business person, self employed, tradesmen etc who feel caught in the middle and are attracted to ‘the great leader’ and his promise to deliver them from financial ruin. This is why fascism frequently employs radical sounding anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Nazism was peculiar in that it combined a virulent ideological anti-Semitic Aryan supremacy with the more traditional murderous authoritarianism. Fascism is not necessarily predominantly racist in character. It was not a major feature of either Mussolini’s or Franco’s dictatorships.

Classical fascist movements combine an electoral strategy with a street movement that, left unchecked, develops into a paramilitary unit that terrorises and ultimately aims to smash working class resistance-the left, trade unions etc. It frequently seeks a scapegoat, Jews, immigrants, ‘wokeism’ etc.

Fascism is distinguished from other forms of authoritarianism by the ideological commitment of its base. Historic examples demonstrate that the police force can be unreliable and the army prone to mutiny, whilst ideologically intoxicated Storm Troopers are much more reliable. Fascism is a distinct and distinctly dangerous phenomenon. Simply labelling any authoritarian figure (Trump, Putin) as a fascist is unhelpful as it can obscure the emergence of genuine fascism, which must be eliminated at birth.
 
China is in Asia and they would not have expected themselves to be in this position now. They would have expected Russia to have completed the take over of Ukraine and be moving on. Then they would join the party to disrupt the world order. They might be thinking they have joined the wrong side. Only time will tell how this is going to go. Could end up as a proxy war in Ukraine or could go global.
 
Spraggons Den said:
gx502

I afraid the bit about MAD is bollox too. NATOs doctrine is Flexible Response whereby it reserves the right to use any type of force necessary to stop the advance of an invader. Typically such a conflict would start with conventional weapons.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about the current day or back in the Cold War era ?
 
MikeMA said:
The Russian shopping list presented to China apparently includes ammunition and military ration packs. Do we conclude then that the mighty Russians army is already running out of food and ammunition after a limited military operation right on their doorstep which, as they keep telling us, isn't actually a war at all? I imagine the Russian general staff must be s*******g themselves at the prospect of ever going to war with a bigger and technically superior NATO force. And yes I know all about the nuclear issue.....
Click to expand...
There is no moral dilemma in my mind about giving weapons and support to Ukraine when it’s been invaded by a far more powerful neighbour but supplying weapons to the predator who is already killing civilians and destroying homes is unconscionable and Im afraid Britain cannot claim the moral high ground- selling bombs and servicing aircraft useD by Saudi Arabia to destroy Yemen.
anubisgrau said:
Is this for real?

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-...ia-leaves-over-suicide-mission-fears-12566254
Click to expand...
had a read, looks real to me:

8Pa4GCq.jpg
 
anubisgrau said:
Is this for real?
Click to expand...

I would assume so. FWIW any UK person travelling to fight is breaking the law regardless of what grandstanding popularist Tories such a Liz Truss may claim. The featured person clearly shouldn’t have been there, and it is no surprise he found the brutalities of war somewhat unpleasant. I sincerely hope he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law on return as folk from NATO countries fighting in Ukraine clearly presents Putin with a propaganda defence to escalate matters.

PS I see Cooky made the same point far more eloquently than I.
 
Tony L said:
I would assume so. FWIW any UK person travelling to fight is breaking the law regardless of what grandstanding popularist Tories such a Liz Truss may claim. The featured person clearly shouldn’t have been there, and it is no surprise he found the brutalities of war somewhat unpleasant. I sincerely hope he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law on return as folk from NATO countries fighting in Ukraine clearly presents Putin with a propaganda defence to escalate matters.

PS I see Cooky made the same point far more eloquently than I.
Click to expand...
If he doesn't receive the same treatment as Shamima Begum, then the law isn't being applied fairly.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You're reading a lot into this that isn't there (as you have also done over, eg 9/11). The US position is one of 'constructive ambiguity', ie, keep your opponent guessing as to whether and when you would go nuclear as doing that makes it less likely your opponent will calculate that he can beat you. Putin is doing exactly the same now.
Click to expand...

yes perhaps. I am just stating things as I see them. (But I have spent many years and sleepless nights looking into 9/11. In my view there’s a lot there to be concerned about, but this is not the place for that discussion)

also yes I agree the current NATO doctrine is deliberately ambiguous. Also I am not privy to what each parties intelligence tells them about the strategic situation. I am just an external observer. I know that Russia is explicitly stating it’s concerns about NATO expansion, and I know they have stated their concerns for a long time now. Also when their redlines are crossed we can see them take action. Is it all just to protect a gangster state?

But I do think there so much one way traffic in the reporting and discussion on this conflict.

my views are heavily influenced but what I have seen in recent conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Also the earlier Iran/Iraq war which I believe was a proxy war.


So what I would ask is are Russia’s strategic concerns totally null and void ?? Are they just Russian gangsters or deluded fools ?

I’m not buying the overall narrative that Putin is a comic book villain launching an aggressive invasion of the Ukraine. I don’t think its so simple.

The whole colour revolution in Ukraine, back in 2014 was extremely fishy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top Bottom