Ukraine [merged]

Monkey241:

Carryfast:

robroy:
Do you reckon he’s come to the conclusion that he’s bitten off more than he can chew, and that he realises that he has seriously underestimated the actions and bravery of the Ukraine forces, and their last minute conscripts from the equally brave Ukraine civilian public.

I think (also from an amateurish pov) that he just expected to march in with little opposition, then use his ‘liberation from Naziism’ propaganda b/s to come across as the hero…(badly thought out btw as at least 2 of the Ukraine govt are reported to be of Jewish origin.)

All this b/s he’s spouting about NATO using threatening language,.and his veiled threat of using nuclear weapons could be a mixture of a smokescreen and damage limitation to save face and take the focus off his misjudgment.

When the unexpected amount of Russian troops arrive home in body bags to their families, .surely the Russisn populace will turn against him.

You’re betting ( our farm ) on some suicidally wide of the mark assumptions about what and who you’re dealing with
If Russia nukes anyone they won’t be stupid enough to drop one on Ukraine.
The reference to putting their nuke ‘deterrent’ at our equivalent of DEFCON 2 means their long range strategic nukes not dropping a tactical nuke in their own back yard.
He’s now qualified that with the reference to Liz big mouth Truss.So now we know the target.Thats not a veiled threat that’s all too clear.
As for this stunt it was obviously a deliberately restrained operation meant to give NATO a way out.Which it’s been stupid enough to ignore.
You’d best hope that I’m wrong but if I’m not luckily I live close enough to a ground zero for it to be quick and the US controls our launch codes not zb Truss because the US isn’t going to trade NYC and LA in retaliation for London.
While Putin stopped being in charge of events from the point of the order to move.He just signs the orders that his generals and Politburo give him to sign.
For someone who lived through the Cold War you should know better.
Effectively Putin is the equivalent of JFK but with less power than Curtis Le May had and Russia sees it as their Cuban missile crisis with Ukraine and Poland etc being the equivalent of Cuba.
Unfortunately Biden, Bozo let alone Truss combined haven’t got the intelligence of Kruschev.
Ironically Threads almost got it right but even Barrry Hine wouldn’t have been able to envisage this stupid scenario of us wanting to move NATO into Poland let alone into Ukraine.

As for the US controlling our launch codes?
Absolute brain dead bull

By implication you’re saying that the US would be prepared to lose the US homeland to a mutually assured destruction strategic nuke exchange in retaliation for the UK being taken out.
That’s what I call brain dead bull.
That’s why France maintains its own nuke deterrent not Polaris or Trident.It has rightly never trusted the US in that regard.Yet more reason why Russia would target the UK specifically.Playing off France and US at that point.
Ironically the US wanted the conventional containment strategy stupidly thinking that it would reduce the risk of nuclear war and Russia would meet that strategy on the US’ terms.
Big mistake.Potentially catastrophic for us.
My bet is that the US would prefer to take out France than allow France to retaliate for being hit by the fallout from the UK strikes.
As for our Trident force not being under US control dream on.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-amer … r-weapons/

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Monkey241:
No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Bearing in mind that Russia has clearly placed it’s bets in that regard and Bozo and Truss clearly didn’t want to point out the ( UK’s ) supposed nuclear deterrent to Russia’s
( diplomatic representatives ) in reply.
The truth is the US was never going to submit the US homeland to a mutually assured destruction exchange in retaliation for this small Island being taken out.Get real.

Monkey241:
No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

We’re supposed to believe that the common stockpile of US and UK Trident missiles uses the PAL system for US but not for UK.

The truth is the US isn’t going to take a strike at home in escalation for us and there’s no way that the UK government would be prepared to compromise its position by stating that.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

Carryfast:

Monkey241:

Carryfast:

robroy:
Do you reckon he’s come to the conclusion that he’s bitten off more than he can chew, and that he realises that he has seriously underestimated the actions and bravery of the Ukraine forces, and their last minute conscripts from the equally brave Ukraine civilian public.

I think (also from an amateurish pov) that he just expected to march in with little opposition, then use his ‘liberation from Naziism’ propaganda b/s to come across as the hero…(badly thought out btw as at least 2 of the Ukraine govt are reported to be of Jewish origin.)

All this b/s he’s spouting about NATO using threatening language,.and his veiled threat of using nuclear weapons could be a mixture of a smokescreen and damage limitation to save face and take the focus off his misjudgment.

When the unexpected amount of Russian troops arrive home in body bags to their families, .surely the Russisn populace will turn against him.

You’re betting ( our farm ) on some suicidally wide of the mark assumptions about what and who you’re dealing with
If Russia nukes anyone they won’t be stupid enough to drop one on Ukraine.
The reference to putting their nuke ‘deterrent’ at our equivalent of DEFCON 2 means their long range strategic nukes not dropping a tactical nuke in their own back yard.
He’s now qualified that with the reference to Liz big mouth Truss.So now we know the target.Thats not a veiled threat that’s all too clear.
As for this stunt it was obviously a deliberately restrained operation meant to give NATO a way out.Which it’s been stupid enough to ignore.
You’d best hope that I’m wrong but if I’m not luckily I live close enough to a ground zero for it to be quick and the US controls our launch codes not zb Truss because the US isn’t going to trade NYC and LA in retaliation for London.
While Putin stopped being in charge of events from the point of the order to move.He just signs the orders that his generals and Politburo give him to sign.
For someone who lived through the Cold War you should know better.
Effectively Putin is the equivalent of JFK but with less power than Curtis Le May had and Russia sees it as their Cuban missile crisis with Ukraine and Poland etc being the equivalent of Cuba.
Unfortunately Biden, Bozo let alone Truss combined haven’t got the intelligence of Kruschev.
Ironically Threads almost got it right but even Barrry Hine wouldn’t have been able to envisage this stupid scenario of us wanting to move NATO into Poland let alone into Ukraine.

As for the US controlling our launch codes?
Absolute brain dead bull

By implication you’re saying that the US would be prepared to lose the US homeland to a mutually assured destruction strategic nuke exchange in retaliation for the UK being taken out.
That’s what I call brain dead bull.
That’s why France maintains its own nuke deterrent not Polaris or Trident.It has rightly never trusted the US in that regard.Yet more reason why Russia would target the UK specifically.Playing off France and US at that point.
Ironically the US wanted the conventional containment strategy stupidly thinking that it would reduce the risk of nuclear war and Russia would meet that strategy on the US’ terms.
Big mistake.Potentially catastrophic for us.
My bet is that the US would prefer to take out France than allow France to retaliate for being hit by the fallout from the UK strikes.
As for our Trident force not being under US control dream on.

It’s a very simple fact that the UK deterrent is independent. What evidence have you to suggest it isn’t?

What is the point of investing in a weapon that makes you a target in sine scenarios - if you can’t use it?

That’s the reality of why Ukraine gave up is nukes - it hosted the weapons but had NO operational control.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

As for your suggestions as to what I implied, the brain dead bull rears its head again: I implied nothing, you inferred what you think I’m saying.
The whole NATO ethos on nukes hinges on MAD.

If UK were hit, would US strike back? Policy says Yes…but would they?
Strong arguments in both directions.
Would Russia ignore doctrine and take out only UK? For me that’s a little too far fetched - Russian doctrine also mandates localised tactical nukes on the battlefield but they haven’t used them in Ukraine. Why is that, despite obvious reverses in the invasion plan?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

France maintains its own independent nuclear deterrent - true.

It’s independent in two ways - controlled by France. And not committed to the NATO order of battle.

The UK arsenal is also independent as per point 1 - it is however committed to NATO.

It’s only recent that France became a fully fledged member of NATO as regards ground troops. That they weren’t is largely a relic of heavily left leaning French politics in the 50s, 60s and 70s

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Monkey241:
As for your suggestions as to what I implied, the brain dead bull rears its head again: I implied nothing, you inferred what you think I’m saying.
The whole NATO ethos on nukes hinges on MAD.

If UK were hit, would US strike back? Policy says Yes…but would they?
Strong arguments in both directions.
Would Russia ignore doctrine and take out only UK? For me that’s a little too far fetched - Russian doctrine also mandates localised tactical nukes on the battlefield but they haven’t used them in Ukraine. Why is that, despite obvious reverses in the invasion plan?

Firstly it was actually NATO doctrine to resort to tactical nukes first because it knew that our conventional forces couldn’t hold back an all out Russian conventional assault.
What possible ‘strong argument’ could there be for US wanting to enter into a mutually assured destruction exchange thereby losing the US homeland in retaliation for just the UK being taken out.
Also why would Russia want to enter into such an exchange itself when it could get everything it wants by just taking out the UK and survive doing it. At which point logic says the US would seek terms rather than committ suicide by throwing the US after UK.
The fact is Boris didn’t and couldn’t meet Russia’s clear strategic nuke attack threat in kind that tells us all we need to know.
As for Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine even they have enough radiation fallout to put
much of Ukraine beyond use including its food resources.Why would it want to chuck nukes around in its own back yard rather than just take out the UK with a devastating strategic first strike.
The truth is the US is NATOs weak link because it’s unwilling to expose the US homeland to a mutually assured destruction exchange and certainly not in retaliation for us.

Monkey241:
France maintains its own independent nuclear deterrent - true.

It’s independent in two ways - controlled by France. And not committed to the NATO order of battle.

The UK arsenal is also independent as per point 1 - it is however committed to NATO.

It’s only recent that France became a fully fledged member of NATO as regards ground troops. That they weren’t is largely a relic of heavily left leaning French politics in the 50s, 60s and 70s

DeGaull wasn’t exactly a raving Commy.
He actually withdrew France’s nukes from NATO control on the basis of the question would the US trade NY for Paris ?.

strifeblog.org/2020/05/01/7577/

Carryfast:

Monkey241:
As for your suggestions as to what I implied, the brain dead bull rears its head again: I implied nothing, you inferred what you think I’m saying.
The whole NATO ethos on nukes hinges on MAD.

If UK were hit, would US strike back? Policy says Yes…but would they?
Strong arguments in both directions.
Would Russia ignore doctrine and take out only UK? For me that’s a little too far fetched - Russian doctrine also mandates localised tactical nukes on the battlefield but they haven’t used them in Ukraine. Why is that, despite obvious reverses in the invasion plan?

Firstly it was actually NATO doctrine to resort to tactical nukes first because it knew that our conventional forces couldn’t hold back an all out Russian conventional assault.
What possible ‘strong argument’ could there be for US wanting to enter into a mutually assured destruction exchange thereby losing the US homeland in retaliation for just the UK being taken out.
Also why would Russia want to enter into such an exchange itself when it could get everything it wants by just taking out the UK and survive doing it. At which point logic says the US would seek terms rather than committ suicide by throwing the US after UK.
The fact is Boris didn’t and couldn’t meet Russia’s clear strategic nuke attack threat in kind that tells us all we need to know.
As for Russia using tactical nukes in Ukraine even they have enough radiation fallout to put
much of Ukraine beyond use including its food resources.Why would it want to chuck nukes around in its own back yard rather than just take out the UK with a devastating strategic first strike.
The truth is the US is NATOs weak link because it’s unwilling to expose the US homeland to a mutually assured destruction exchange and certainly not in retaliation for us.

Do you know anything about railway timetables and how they effectively guaranteed world war 1?

Imagine that speeded up… and you’ll see how a strike on the UK could quite possibly guarantee a strike by the USA

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Carryfast:

Monkey241:
France maintains its own independent nuclear deterrent - true.

It’s independent in two ways - controlled by France. And not committed to the NATO order of battle.

The UK arsenal is also independent as per point 1 - it is however committed to NATO.

It’s only recent that France became a fully fledged member of NATO as regards ground troops. That they weren’t is largely a relic of heavily left leaning French politics in the 50s, 60s and 70s

DeGaull wasn’t exactly a raving Commy.
He actually withdrew France’s nukes from NATO control on the basis of the question would the US trade NY for Paris ?.

strifeblog.org/2020/05/01/7577/

He wasn’t a raving Commie- but I suggest you look at the broader French political landscape in that time

As for Boris NOT meeting the nuclear threat, can you clarify what exactly you mean and what you expected?

It’s interesting that you appear to think the UK deterrent would make a Russian strike a price worth paying

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Monkey241:
Do you know anything about railway timetables and how they effectively guaranteed world war 1?

Imagine that speeded up… and you’ll see how a strike on the UK could quite possibly guarantee a strike by the UK

WW1 and by implication WW2 were totally the result of the failure of the UK government in not backing Germany both militarily and diplomatically against Russia in 1914.
Rail transport obviously added to the logistical support behind the murderous mechanised warfare introduced in the late 19th early 20th century.
Fast forward to early 21st century we’ve now got a similarly catastrophic wrong call in the form of NATOs conventional containment strategy of Russia.
Based on the deluded perception of that reducing the risk of a mutually assured destruction exchange involving the US homeland.
By definition that means US control of the UK nuclear deterrent or it would defeat the object when Russia all too predictably takes the strategic nuke option against UK to circumvent and break the effective NATO seige of Russia’s borders.

Monkey241:

Carryfast:

Monkey241:
France maintains its own independent nuclear deterrent - true.

It’s independent in two ways - controlled by France. And not committed to the NATO order of battle.

The UK arsenal is also independent as per point 1 - it is however committed to NATO.

It’s only recent that France became a fully fledged member of NATO as regards ground troops. That they weren’t is largely a relic of heavily left leaning French politics in the 50s, 60s and 70s

DeGaull wasn’t exactly a raving Commy.
He actually withdrew France’s nukes from NATO control on the basis of the question would the US trade NY for Paris ?.

strifeblog.org/2020/05/01/7577/

He wasn’t a raving Commie- but I suggest you look at the broader French political landscape in that time

As for Boris NOT meeting the nuclear threat, can you clarify what exactly you mean and what you expected?

It’s interesting that you appear to think the UK deterrent would make a Russian strike a price worth paying

I actually ‘think’ that Boris’ clear failure, in not invoking the threat of a UK strategic nuke attack on Russia, in response to Russian threats in that regard, not only just confirms that the UK isn’t actually in control of launching its Trident capability.
But also that failure by implication emboldens Russia to bet that it would face no retaliation for a strategic nuke strike on UK specifically.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Putin.html

Why didn’t the Muppet and Bozo and Biden do that before it all kicked off also throw in demilitarisation of all the other buffer states.
Instead of which Ukraine gets trashed, loads of casualties on both sides and Russia on the brink of nuking us.
All for what zb gain to us at the end of the day.

Carryfast:

Monkey241:
Do you know anything about railway timetables and how they effectively guaranteed world war 1?

Imagine that speeded up… and you’ll see how a strike on the UK could quite possibly guarantee a strike by the UK

WW1 and by implication WW2 were totally the result of the failure of the UK government in not backing Germany both militarily and diplomatically against Russia in 1914.
Rail transport obviously added to the logistical support behind the murderous mechanised warfare introduced in the late 19th early 20th century.
Fast forward to early 21st century we’ve now got a similarly catastrophic wrong call in the form of NATOs conventional containment strategy of Russia.
Based on the deluded perception of that reducing the risk of a mutually assured destruction exchange involving the US homeland.
By definition that means US control of the UK nuclear deterrent or it would defeat the object when Russia all too predictably takes the strategic nuke option against UK to circumvent and break the effective NATO seige of Russia’s borders.

Not surprising that you didn’t grasp the reference to railway timetables and the cause of WW1.

The rest is largely historically illiterate.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

I’ll repeat again…the USA does NOT have control of the UK deterrent.

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

Monkey241:
[‘‘Carryfast’’]

WW1 and by implication WW2 were totally the result of the failure of the UK government in not backing Germany both militarily and diplomatically against Russia in 1914.
Rail transport obviously added to the logistical support behind the murderous mechanised warfare introduced in the late 19th early 20th century.
Fast forward to early 21st century we’ve now got a similarly catastrophic wrong call in the form of NATOs conventional containment strategy of Russia.
Based on the deluded perception of that reducing the risk of a mutually assured destruction exchange involving the US homeland.
By definition that means US control of the UK nuclear deterrent or it would defeat the object when Russia all too predictably takes the strategic nuke option against UK to circumvent and break the effective NATO seige of Russia’s borders.

Not surprising that you didn’t grasp the reference to railway timetables and the cause of WW1.

The rest is largely historically illiterate.
[/quote]
Which part of,
Russia mobilised against Germany we joined France on the side of Russia.Thereby forcing Germany into an unwanted war on two fronts resulting in loads of lives lost on all sides,
WW2 directly resulted from the surrender terms imposed by France on Germany,
was historically illiterate.
What did train times have to do with that.

So much for the Ruble being turned into Rubble…

As of today, the Ruble has recovered 100% of it’s drop following the invasion of Ukraine now over a month ago.

This means that any remarks describing the Ruble in any way “permanently devalued” because of the “War” - is a complete and utter LIE.

As a Market Watcher, I’d say both the Chinese and Indians have been buying up Rubles - which of course are necessary to sanction-bust with, i.e. buy Russian gas and oil, temporarily at a cheaper-than-normal price because of what turned out to be the temporary devaluation of the Ruble in the end…

Even the Pound - didn’t recover after the Brexit vote, and still has yet to recover now that Brexit is supposedly “done and dusted”, which of course it most certainlly is NOT… Just ask anyone in SouthEast Kent if they think we have weaned ourselves off massive imported-from-EU goods as of yet…

The solution to all this, should have been in place by this point: Re-sourcing all our food so we don’t have to buy it from across the channel AT ALL.
We’re already paying through the nose already after all, and “keeping food affordable” was supposed to be the main reason we kept on BUYING it from the bloody EU in the first place!

Ukraine, also exports food - or at least it did. There are a lot of farms in the very area under siege, as Russia now appears to have entered an ongoing civil war, rather than merely “invaded”.

Ukraine are actually in a civil war against these “Asov Batallions” (and have been for nearly a decade by this point!) which it appears Putin has vastly underestimated in numbers around the country. There are well into six figures of these home-grown “neo nazis” in the country, moving around with the red cross, and other official convoys, behaving themselves whilst IN those convoys, and then wreaking their own kind of “revenge attacks” against both Russian military foolish enough to surrender to them, and of course local Ukrainians who are deemed “not anti-russian enough” who might be mistreated in any fashion from being tied to lamp posts, or made to lie down to be the next “cadaver” then photographed and put out there as “Russians slay innocent civilians” propaganda.

Make no mistake - these Asovs are well equipped, albeit with antiquated “surplus” kit left over from the cold war. This would include Cluster Bombs, Flame Throwers, Phospherous Grenades, Basic Artillery, and of course BUK missile Systems, which may well have been used to down flight MH17 - another atrocity 100% blamed on the Russians, with no one even allowed to suggest on mainstream media that “Putin had nothing to gain and everything to lose” from such “false-flag throwdown” political theatre… :angry: :imp:

Ukraines REAL enemy.jpg

youtu.be/mIZ6zrKkhk0

So after a number of weeks now of “Russia Russia Russia”, it now seems that all the money the Western goverments handed over to the Ukrainian National Socialists, and fancy weaponry on top - was clearly mis-spent.

Putin’s Russia - despite all the world opposition, no matter how strongly conspired - has abjectly FAILED to stop this, but merely instead - prolong the war and suffering on both sides.

The Russian Ruble, initially tanked on the forex markets by intense, concerted Western Bank action (aggressively shorting, usuing Hedge Funds for “front” I suggest)
This has done nothing but shift the entire Eastern Hemisphere on a path that devolves them from the US dollar as “World Reserve Currency”, and has done more to spark western inflation now than even the huge amount of wasted money that was mis-spent during the lockdown.

Here’s the Ruble chart, showing clearly that the Ruble - far from being “Rubble” like the last western comment on it would have us believe - has not only recovered from the massive short selling spree, but has gone stronger still against ALL western currencies, including the Dollar, itself having a rally of it’s own, due to re-patriation of foreign-placed assets for the now cash-strapped American hemisphere, of which we, in this country - are of course, part.

I predict from here, that some hedge funds will shortly go bust, having lost their shirts shorting the Ruble when they should have been BUYING it, but were powerless to act otherwise, as their governments told them that “Putin must be sanctioned”.

I predict that somehow, these huge currency market “losses” made via hedge funds - will be connected to our PENSIONS - so that in the end - the average Western Citizen - will foot the bill for such “Speculations gone wrong”.

I predict that the same will happen to UK energy firms, - to be bailed out at UK taxpayer expense, and NO significant, lasting, drop in energy prices ever being passed onto the UK consumer. The cost of Gas has come right back down,
but we are still being told it is rising again this coming Autumn…


Write to your MP to ask the awkward question - WHY?

Policy failure, lying, money wasted, more lying, national failure, even more lying, country on it’s knees, legal crackdown on anyone telling the truth, western civilization on it’s knees, war, Armagdeddon, West is neither the “Good” side, nor the winning one.