Bring back Tank Tops from the 70’s, I think they look so cool like Frank Spencer from Some mother’s do ‘av em!
The late Pope told Zelensky to surrender, to allow Russia to keep the territory they have already gained including Crimea and the strategic port, this port is used to export grain and wheat from the Ukraine to the rest of the world then there’s the military perspective of naval ships, fuel, and cargo ships.
Shhh dont bring common sense into it he just claims he dosent understand.
Btw wha is the logo on the cap
The Cold War was never based on winning or any winner.Mutually Assured Destruction means what it says.We knew that.
An implied threat at this point would mean changing NATO’s nuke launch protocols to nuke response to a ‘conventional’ attack but also preemptive use.
The doorman analogy doesn’t really fit the strategy of mutually assured destruction and chicken against a nuke armed peer adversary and his mates.
No one is going home from this argument.
The Russians backed down in 1962 (Cuban missile crisis) and 1969 (Soviet/Sino war) when they were threatened with nuclear attack. Putin was smart with his words when he was threatening western nations early in the war. He was careful to assert that an “existential” threat to Russia could escalate the conflict. The west blinked (especially Biden) and he (Putin) continued with the aggression. If Biden had provided the necessary equipment Ukraine would have been able to force the Russians out of the areas they had captured and Putin would be sunbathing on a deserted island. If Trump really wants to stop the war (and get his hands on some if not most of Ukraine’s minerals) then he should threaten to arm them to the teeth. The Russian army appears to be running on vapour. Their military staff know that they cannot continue to take the losses they are being subjected to and the Politburo will step into action against Putin. All just my opinion of course, based on historical precedence and my (albeit limited) experience of working in senior military staffs.
He certainly put that forward as the reason and he probably had a valid point. He tested the water with the move on Crimea and when he was “accommodated” by the west and a fairly favourable government in Kyiv he waited until the dust had settled before going for the big prize. Ironically the nation that was the main driver in the Ukraine NATO move is now the one that is allowing Ukraine to be bombed at will. It’s time for Trump to put aside his personal antipathy towards Zelensky and do the right thing, arm Ukraine and stop Putin in his tracks.
Tbf that does make sense.
But Trump appears to be a bit pi55ed , especially with the US policing Europe, while simultaneously Euro govts are cutting back vastly on defence,.especially the UK.
A Falklands type task force today could not be done with our lack of miliyary power…surely you as an ex military man can both see that and empathise with the US pov.
He has or rather the US has spent billions already, to very little avail except continuing a bloody war.
Like I said I aint qualified to give an answer, to a dodgy and delicate situation…but neither am I going to knock someone for attempting to START and sort it.
Who cares…wtf had it to do with the pope anyway, or any 'kin religious official?
He should (or should have) stuck to what he is supposed to do…religion.
I totally understand the Yanks getting annoyed with the lethargic attitude towards defence that has prevailed here in Europe. I just think that Trump’s approach to the solution is the proverbial sledge hammer to crack a nut. Cracking the shell at the expense of the nut inside is stupid. Were there any other way(s) to get Europe to step up? Hard to see, but cosying up to Putin was certainly not one of them.
The corruption in Ukraine before Zelensky was evident but the US did nothing about it. They probably contributed to it with whatever Hunter Biden was up to. Did Biden Jr’s participation in this handicap his father? Difficult to argue that it didn’t. Did the US see the addition of Ukraine to NATO as a means of maintaining the peace in Europe or did they use it as a stick to poke the bear? Again, difficult to argue that it wasn’t part of the mind games that the east and west have played against each other since 1945. Why did Russia feel seriously threatened by Ukraine becoming a member of NATO when it already had a number of former soviet states on its borders that were members? Too many questions, too few answers.
Putin’s reasons for both annexing Crimea and launching his “special military operation” are to the ordinary layman (and woman, got to keep the post in line with the PC brigade) baffling but despite what people may think of him, he is not an absolute ruler - certainly not in the Kim Jong Un sense. These actions were signed of by the men in the shadows. How far they are prepared to go if the tide turns against them will determine if and when this war comes to an end. As I’ve said I don’t believe that they would see the obliteration of Russia for the sake of Putin as a reasonable solution. I could of course be way off the mark here. Maybe my rationale is flawed and the subjugation of Ukraine is the only answer to bringing the current conflict to an end. This happens and who knows what comes next. If we can learn anything from history, it will not be favourable for either Europe or the US. Europe will come under increasing pressure from a resurgent and emboldened Russia and the US will lose its position as the leader of the free world.
Again, all just my opinion.
If Argentina had waited for another year the Falkland islanders would be speaking Spanish now. They were panicked into launching the invasion when they did by events at home. Thatcher was lucky that the Royal Navy had advance intelligence (courtesy of the captain of HMS Endurance) and the availability of planning staffs that contained senior officers who had served in WW2. A few years later and these officers would all have retired. Fortunately, John Nott’s lack of interest in a strong navy probably allowed the admirals to prepare for this war without his interference. The putting together of this size of task force containing a large number of STUFT (ships taken up from trade) in such a short period of time looked good in the press. In reality it was being prepared for well in advance of the Argentine landings. I have no doubts that, if Nott had been on top of his brief, he would have blocked it. Fortunately he was hopeless in the role.
Europe has been cutting back on defence for years. True enough.
And before we had Putain in charge was that such a bad idea? From where we are now we can say “Yes we should have kept spending up”, but not many were saying that in the 90’s and 2000’s. We called it the peace bonus.
It wasn’t a big cut but more a tailing off.
After '89 Russia as a country seemed OK for Ukraine to go it’s own way but not now.
I don’t see that Russia is keen to get Ukraine, but that Putain is definitely after it.
He has got his feet well under the table. He may not be in an invulnerable position but it would take a concerted effort by a brave group to risk outing him.
Piutain’s actions have provoked events entirely against his stated aims.
By invading Ukraine, now Finland, Sweden are members. Previously they had been seen as long time independents.
His actions pushed them to NATO because they see him for the aggressor he is.
Trump is not coming to a new problem.
The tactic of supplying Ukraine and pushing on Russia economically was and still is working. Not quickly, not well, but it was doing some good. It enabled Ukraine,who most thought would be overrun in days, to survive for years.
I think give Ukraine more aid, let them use the arms how they wish, not with one arm tied behind their back, and keep the economic pressure on Russia. More of the same rather ease off on Russia as Trump was talking of.
The rush of soviet states to detach themselves from Kremlin control then was overwhelming. What is not easily understood is why Putin sees Ukraine as such a threat to Russia. Not to my eyes anyway. Did he see them as an easy target, without the NATO umbrella to protect them, unlike the Baltic states. Was Obama seen as a soft touch, hence the annexation of Crimea? Why was the apparently rampant corruption in Ukraine at that time a threat to Russia?
Who knows anything??
All good points…and no good answers from me.
Putain says Ukriane is a threat, but is that true? or an excuse for his land grab?
Did he see Obama as an easy touch? Maybe so.
Trump did nowt to show he was tougher in his first term.
Ukraine was not a great place re corruption…but that is true of very many countries in the world.
I doubt that anything Hunter Biden did was serious in the grand scheme of things. But don’t forget that Trump was peed off when Ukraine refused to “dish the dirt” if there was any dirt to aid candidate Trump ion his dirty tricks campaign.
Lots of pots and kettles shouting “black” around all over the place.
And wasn’t there was an agreement in the early 90’s that when Ukraine gave up it’s nukes that it would be defended by the west? Has that been forgotten?
Russia has got a common “folk memory” of being invaded but Piutain is using that as an excuse for aggression.
Hmmm cue Netanyahu.
Hunter Biden first. Biden Snr’s hesitation to deny Ukraine the right to use American weapons to defend themselves by directly attacking Russia flies in the face of common sense. If they were not to be used against Russia then who the hell were they destined to be used against, Moldova? Was this clause apparent when they sold the arms in the first place? I’m not a big fan of coincidences. Hunter Biden was up to his neck in deals with a corrupt country. It’s not too much a stretch of the imagination to come to the conclusion that he was a beneficiary of this corruption. Conjecture on my part of course but the subsequent actions (or lack of them) do Biden Jr’s case no favours.
Trump’s hostility towards Zelensky is almost certainly down to his refusal to help him in the run up to the 2020 election. His actions at this start of this term of office seem to have been in revenge. However maybe he’s finally realised, or his aides have made him see the facts of, Putin playing him like an old fiddle makes him look weak and foolish. Trump might think he’s the “master of the deal” but doing a business deal and dealing in the murky world of politics is so far apart you’d need the Hubble telescope to see them. His suggestion that Putin might have been “tapping him” is an extraordinary one for him to make. I don’t believe that he could have come to this conclusion on his own - his hubris is there for all to see. Perhaps there are some people in the Republican movement and his government that can actually see what has been happening and are now no longer afraid to speak out towards him - in private if not in public at least.
The 90’s agreement. Yes, I think there is/was such an agreement in place but seeing as the world stood by in 2014 why would we expect anything else in 2022.
what a load of codswallop
putin has been the russian president since 7/5/2000 the defence cuts in the uk have been happening since the mid 80’s when thatcher sold off the bases 15-20 years before putin came to be president. and as to 90’s and 2000’s being a time of peace you have a very selective memory what about the iraq wars afghanistan kosovo etc etc of course you dont count them because its when your first love was in power.. by the way how did blair react when he was jilted for starmer.
There was no tailing off of funding it was a crash steeper than the north face of the eiger.
wrong again…
The confrontation between the government of Ukraine and Crimea deteriorated between 1992 and 1995. In May 1992 the regional parliament declared an independent “Crimean republic.”[71] In June 1992, the parties reached a compromise, that Crimea would have considerable autonomy but remain part of Ukraine.[72] Yuri Meshkov, a leader of the Russian movement was elected President of Crimea in 1994 and his party won a majority in the regional
During the 1990s, the dispute over control of the Black Sea Fleet and Crimean naval facilities were source of tensions between Russia and Ukraine. In 1992, Vladimir Lukin, then chairman of the Russian Duma’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, suggested that in order to pressure Ukraine to give up its claim to the Black Sea Fleet, Russia should question Ukrainian control over Crimea.[73] In 1998 the Partition Treaty divided the fleet and gave Russia a naval base in Sevastopol, and the Treaty of Friendship recognized the inviolability of existing borders. However, in 2003 Tuzla Island conflict issues over maritime border resurfaced.
On 24 August 2009, anti-Ukrainian demonstrations were held in Crimea by ethnic Russian residents. Sergei Tsekov (of the Russian Bloc[75] and then deputy speaker of the Crimean parliament[76]) said then that he hoped that Russia would treat Crimea the same way as it had treated South Ossetia and Abkhazia.[77] Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.
wrong again… finland hasnt been invaded by russia since 1939 and sweden since 1808.
and that is why putin invaded the crimera. thank you for repeating what i said months ago.
He didn’t say that Finland was invaded. You omitted the important part of that sentence whether on purpose or for the purposes of your comment is not clear.
So, why is Crimea not an independent country if that was their wish.
To be honest, there is a problem with the ownership of Crimea, it was Russian for many years before Kruschev, for reasons of his own, ‘gave’ it to Ukraine. That may be why the West was reluctant to get involved at the time. Similarly the Eastern Provinces have a sizeable Russian content and maybe it would have been wise to offer referendums in both of them, binding as long as cast iron guarantees (membership of Nato?) were given whichever way they went.
This might have prevented Putin’s general invasion of the whole country and, as Nato is almost certain never to attack Russia, only defend itself, then Russia could have felt secure in its own security. But the fragility of Ukrainian governments, before Zelensky, and Putin’s failure to see the wider picture (Finland and Sweden pushed by him into Nato) upset the applecart. Of course Putin, like Trump, is not blessed with sufficient intelligence and thus launched on what may well turn out to be a disaster for him personally.
Link to the World Bank Military expenditure (% of GDP) - United Kingdom | Data
And note that although I may not have been explicit (my fault) it is tyhe whople of Europe that my ahve dropped defence spending to far.
When we had glasnost and perestroika it seemed reasonable that the cold war armies could be decreased. That does not mean that all armies could be done away with though.
I think that Putain has been in a bubble for too long. Some of the failure of the invasion of Ukraine is said to have been the unpreparedness of the Russian military.
The equipment was not in good nick. Decades old tyres blowing out etc. Was that corruption where funds were syphoned off rather than beimng spent on maintenance? Did the military tell him what he wanted to hear? Through fear?
Leaders with lots of power often surround themselves with yes-men. And even if those remaining try to be honest will they tell the boss the kit is rubbish if they know there o=wn lives are on the line? Or cross fingers and hope all goes well?
Trump has surrounded himself with idiots this term. Last time he had some who knew a lot and may have been curbing him a bit. It looks like this time he has employed some pure idiots. Hegseth springs to mind at the moment.
Caught red handed doing what the MAGA crowd accused Hilary Clinton of doing, he first said “No I didn’t, it’s fake news” He just denied obvious and provable facts. Plain stupid.
Now he has been caught again and looks like he is for the chop.
I just wonder who will replace Hegseth? Suggestions?
Elmer Fudd ? He has his own gun.