Poo tin... Put@in...
Comments
-
People always make the mistake of thinking it is the good guys against the bad guys. It's usually the case that both sides can do both. For example, insisting a women walks to the border because she is black or refusing to allow a foreign male to leave the country is not a good look.surrey_commuter said:Interesting to see Ukraine releasing videos of bashed up POWs saying how sorry they are.
I am sure that is illegal.0 -
So listening to a Syrian on the radio at the moment.
What's the implication there, if Russia is suffocated by sanctions and can't prop up Assad?0 -
Again, not disagreeing with your take on Putin and dictators generally. I would point out that it is not as if he never had nukes in the last 25 years, so the threat of nuclear war was always there if NATO had taken on Russia directly in that period.sungod said:
if it weren't for nuclear risk, i'm sure there'd be less reluctance to take more direct military action, in the current situation it wouldn't need boots on the ground to cause severe damage to the invading forcesStevo_666 said:
I agree, although the reply was in the context of what Rick said - the hypothetical 'if it wasn't for the nukes' scenario.sungod said:
problem is that in putin's worldview the only thing that matters is russia (under his control, not a free democratic russia)Stevo_666 said:
Probably - having seen how bad the Russian forces have been I'm sure NATO would fancy its chances.rick_chasey said:
I suspect if it was not for the nukes NATO would have got stuck inTheBigBean said:Feels like a war. "If you're Russian you're unemployed."
this goes back a long time, it's clearly not an act, it's how he is, he makes stalin look easygoing
to putin, the rest of the world is not needed, there's no downside to going nuclear if he faces defeat, he's dead either way, it's a final act of revenge for the massive chip on his shoulder
it's really a matter of whether or not the military command is willing to refuse launch, rebel and depose him, or, better, save a lot of time and lives, and kill him now
but action was needed 25+ years ago, he's gone further each time and never once faced adequate response
plenty of would-be/petty tyrants praised him for his 'values' (trump, farage, berlusconi, le pen, bolsonaro, orban, xi, modi, lukashenko, etc. etc.)
most of the rest, who should have known better, turned a blind eye or made meaningless gestures with soft sanctions, putin laughed at them
leads direct to where we are today
consistent lesson of human history: don't allow tyrants to gain power, kill them before they kill the rest of us
The other point (which could be a spot of optimism) is that as far as I am aware, Putin has had the good sense not to have a pop at a NATO territory in his time (I could be proved wrong there by one of the forum historians) - which would indicate some degree of rational thought and appreciation of the consequences. What is a concern is whether there is something that has changed here (maybe related to his physical or mental health) which has changed his approach."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Was it on here or elsewhere that someone said he can't attack every nuclear power at once, but they can all attack him at once.0
-
Does that mean petrol prices are coming down?0
-
I thought Russian capability could indeed attack every power at once?shirley_basso said:Was it on here or elsewhere that someone said he can't attack every nuclear power at once, but they can all attack him at once.
0 -
The bargepole appears to be well and truly out.rick_chasey said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope. It just means that the world does not have access to a large supply.shirley_basso said:Does that mean petrol prices are coming down?
Same demand with less supply means higher prices.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Well quite. We are planning for a scenario where our local Russian operation effectively does not trade for some time - and not because it is illegal to supply them with our kit, which is not on the sanctions list.rick_chasey said:Who needs to sanction them when the market won’t buy from them anyway
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you can irreparably damage the planet by attacking one part of it, and being attacked yourself, does it actually matter? If they dropped several of the big boys on the north pole we'd all be fairly fckued.rick_chasey said:
I thought Russian capability could indeed attack every power at once?shirley_basso said:Was it on here or elsewhere that someone said he can't attack every nuclear power at once, but they can all attack him at once.
0 -
Surely even Putin wouldn't kill SantaFirst.Aspect said:
If you can irreparably damage the planet by attacking one part of it, and being attacked yourself, does it actually matter? If they dropped several of the big boys on the north pole we'd all be fairly fckued.rick_chasey said:
I thought Russian capability could indeed attack every power at once?shirley_basso said:Was it on here or elsewhere that someone said he can't attack every nuclear power at once, but they can all attack him at once.
0 -
btw...MattFalle said:
yup.sungod said:...
johnson protecting his oligarch brexit funders, otherwise he won't get any more free holidays in their castlespblakeney said:BJ simply dodging the question about why 18 months delay for sanctions during PMQ. Absolutely despicable.
and i also wonder how many business ties Sunak and Reese Mogg have to Russia?
Especially Sunak given his wife's background.
#Tories:thepartyofscum
https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2022/03/02/intercepted-radio-messages-show-russian-troops-in-complete-disarray/
yes certainlyStevo_666 said:
Again, not disagreeing with your take on Putin and dictators generally. I would point out that it is not as if he never had nukes in the last 25 years, so the threat of nuclear war was always there if NATO had taken on Russia directly in that period.sungod said:
if it weren't for nuclear risk, i'm sure there'd be less reluctance to take more direct military action, in the current situation it wouldn't need boots on the ground to cause severe damage to the invading forcesStevo_666 said:
I agree, although the reply was in the context of what Rick said - the hypothetical 'if it wasn't for the nukes' scenario.sungod said:
problem is that in putin's worldview the only thing that matters is russia (under his control, not a free democratic russia)Stevo_666 said:
Probably - having seen how bad the Russian forces have been I'm sure NATO would fancy its chances.rick_chasey said:
I suspect if it was not for the nukes NATO would have got stuck inTheBigBean said:Feels like a war. "If you're Russian you're unemployed."
this goes back a long time, it's clearly not an act, it's how he is, he makes stalin look easygoing
to putin, the rest of the world is not needed, there's no downside to going nuclear if he faces defeat, he's dead either way, it's a final act of revenge for the massive chip on his shoulder
it's really a matter of whether or not the military command is willing to refuse launch, rebel and depose him, or, better, save a lot of time and lives, and kill him now
but action was needed 25+ years ago, he's gone further each time and never once faced adequate response
plenty of would-be/petty tyrants praised him for his 'values' (trump, farage, berlusconi, le pen, bolsonaro, orban, xi, modi, lukashenko, etc. etc.)
most of the rest, who should have known better, turned a blind eye or made meaningless gestures with soft sanctions, putin laughed at them
leads direct to where we are today
consistent lesson of human history: don't allow tyrants to gain power, kill them before they kill the rest of us
...
my point was really that by not responding early, we gave him the freedom to consolidate power, eliminate free press, opposition
russia was economically backward and corrupt, but essentially democratic, it's unlikely there'd be the willingness to invade let along threaten to nuke people
through the rest of world's negligence, he's been able to convert it into an effectively one-party state under his personal control, opponents have been exiled/jailed/assassinated, protest is suppressed, no free press, parliament is there to rubber stamp what he says
it's still corrupt, he didn't change that
no idea why there's extra quote stuff at the top!my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Putin has already been quoted as saying he doesn't care.First.Aspect said:
If you can irreparably damage the planet by attacking one part of it, and being attacked yourself, does it actually matter? If they dropped several of the big boys on the north pole we'd all be fairly fckued.rick_chasey said:
I thought Russian capability could indeed attack every power at once?shirley_basso said:Was it on here or elsewhere that someone said he can't attack every nuclear power at once, but they can all attack him at once.
No Russia, no World. Words to that effect.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
BBC reporting that the Russian defence ministry have given figures of casualties sustained.......498 soldiers killed, 1597 wounded. The Ukrainians have said 10x that figure of Russian soldiers have been killed so the truth is probably somewhere between the two.0
-
Interesting voting on the UN resolution
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Thanks for sharing, that’s interesting to see.
The most interesting vote there was China abstaining and not voting against the resolution.
A few other countries there are going to need to think mightily carefully about how they move forwards. India and South Africa spring to mind.0 -
India Kashmir Pakistan
China Tibet Taiwan0 -
Just been told we can't take leave to go and have a scrap in the Ukraine, can only go on work time.
Its like they think we'll get ourselves in a bit of bother or something.
Oh well, Italy for hols it is again..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Georgia have applied to join the EU.
That'll calm Putin right down.0 -
Top trolling.First.Aspect said:Georgia have applied to join the EU.
That'll calm Putin right down.0 -
Just in that Abramovic has confirmed he is selling Chelsea, writing off the loans to the club and says net proceeds will go to victims of the war in Ukraine.
https://theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/02/chelsea-swiss-billionaire-hansjorg-wyss-says-offered-chance-buy-club-roman-abramovich"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Will that asset be seized by the time he has a buyer?Stevo_666 said:Just in that Abramovic has confirmed he is selling Chelsea, writing off the loans to the club and says net proceeds will go to victims of the war in Ukraine.
https://theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/02/chelsea-swiss-billionaire-hansjorg-wyss-says-offered-chance-buy-club-roman-abramovich0 -
Well not really, given there is a loonie with access to a big red button who is already losing an expansionist war. It is just a question if timing.rick_chasey said:
Top trolling.First.Aspect said:Georgia have applied to join the EU.
That'll calm Putin right down.0 -
“Net proceeds” lad is selling it in a firesale. There won’t be any net proceeds.
He could give back all billions he stole of the Russian state to them if he’s suddenly come over all conscious, scheming little sh!t0 -
No idea, although the cynic in me thinks that the bit about proceeds going to war victims might be an attempt to let the sale go through.First.Aspect said:
Will that asset be seized by the time he has a buyer?Stevo_666 said:Just in that Abramovic has confirmed he is selling Chelsea, writing off the loans to the club and says net proceeds will go to victims of the war in Ukraine.
https://theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/02/chelsea-swiss-billionaire-hansjorg-wyss-says-offered-chance-buy-club-roman-abramovich"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oligarchs either keep their money and loyalty or they end up getting a sudden urge to jump out of their penthouse and impale themselves on the gate below.
That’s the deal.0 -
I'm extremely cynical.
I wonder if he hasn't already set up his own charitable foundation ready to recieve those 'net proceeds' if, as Rick says, there are any.
Also re: the supposed writing off of loans, the company value will be adjusted for debt, so it's meaningless.0
