Poo tin... Put@in...

1…8485878990…219

Comments

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,159
    The South Park guys summed it up quite well in Team America:

    Kim Jong Il: Hans, ya-breakin' my balls here, Hans, ya breakin' my balls!
    Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the U.N. must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else.
    Kim Jong Il: Or erse what?
    Hans Blix: Or else - we will be very, very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,318
    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.
    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.
  • skyblueamateur
    skyblueamateur Posts: 1,498
    pblakeney said:


    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.
    He’s basically saying there is no red line so Putin now has carte blanche to do as he pleases in Ukraine including bio and chemical weapons.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,318
    edited March 2022
    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.

    He’s basically saying there is no red line so Putin now has carte blanche to do as he pleases in Ukraine including bio and chemical weapons.



    All the leaders said last week that they wouldn't intervene as that would cause WWIII.
    This is why all the non-NATO members are now desperate for membership.
    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.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,725
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Exactly. Why was he ever let near the club?

    $$$$$$$
    skyblueamateur said:

    pblakeney said:


    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.
    He’s basically saying there is no red line so Putin now has carte blanche to do as he pleases in Ukraine including bio and chemical weapons.

    All the leaders said last week that they wouldn't intervene as that would cause WWIII.
    This is why all the non-NATO members are now desperate for membership.
    That sounds a lot like the response that caused the last world war.

    Anyhow my point was: If that is the case, why announce it at all, when it can only lead to escalation from the sole protagonist?
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • crescent
    crescent Posts: 1,201
    blazing_saddles said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Exactly. Why was he ever let near the club?

    $$$$$$$
    skyblueamateur said:

    pblakeney said:


    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.
    He’s basically saying there is no red line so Putin now has carte blanche to do as he pleases in Ukraine including bio and chemical weapons.

    All the leaders said last week that they wouldn't intervene as that would cause WWIII.
    This is why all the non-NATO members are now desperate for membership.
    That sounds a lot like the response that caused the last world war.

    Anyhow my point was: If that is the case, why announce it at all, when it can only lead to escalation from the sole protagonist?
    I think they are sending a message that they won't allow Putin to draw them into a war, if that is what he is trying to do. It does have a familiar feel to it unfortunately. I wrote many essays during O level history about the failure of appeasement and the weakness of the League of Nations with regards to Hitler's campaign in Europe. Both initiatives were generally seen as abject failures in hindsight.

    Bianchi ImpulsoBMC Teammachine SLR02 01Trek Domane AL3“When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. “ ~H.G. Wells Edit - "Unless it's a BMX"
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,318
    blazing_saddles said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Exactly. Why was he ever let near the club?

    $$$$$$$
    skyblueamateur said:

    pblakeney said:


    skyblueamateur said:

    blazing_saddles said:

    Biden proving to be the expected waste of space when it comes to Ukraine.
    He may be fraught over US military involvement, but does he really need to tell Putin that he's free to do as he pleases without fear of repercussion?

    I thought that earlier. He’s basically said there’s no way we’ll defend Ukraine regardless of any chemical weapons or even, presumably nuclear. Mental.

    I thought that was clear at some point last week. Ukraine is on it's own, albeit with supplied weapons. And maybe some things we will never read about.
    He’s basically saying there is no red line so Putin now has carte blanche to do as he pleases in Ukraine including bio and chemical weapons.

    All the leaders said last week that they wouldn't intervene as that would cause WWIII.
    This is why all the non-NATO members are now desperate for membership.
    That sounds a lot like the response that caused the last world war.

    Anyhow my point was: If that is the case, why announce it at all, when it can only lead to escalation from the sole protagonist?
    Oh, I agree!

    PS - Stupid formatting. I give up trying to fix it.
    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.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Things I didn’t expect

    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661


    Hmmm
    _
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,557
    rick_chasey said:



    Hmmm
    Keep up at the back Chasey. That info was posted on BR yesterday evening.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Ok
    _
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    🤞🤞
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    I think this might be false. Lots of pictures and reports this morning of a completely flattened Volnovakha in the hands of the Russians. The images are tragic.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    There’s also video footage of the Russians starting to use phosphorus in Ukraine. They’re utter cnuts.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    Interesting analysis from a chap at St Andrews University on the radio yesterday morning. Number crunching suggests that the Russians have a max month before they need to completely replace the initial invasion force. To do that would massively deplete the country’s armed forces and can they afford to restock due to sanctions? I doubt it.

    Also - if Belarus were to come into the fight to bolster numbers could NATO hit them and would Putin do anything to help Lukashenko? I’m not sure he would.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Doesn't feel like there will be anything left of Ukraine in a month

    If Russia do win, it will be hard to carry out humanitarian relief in Ukraine without the Russians syphoning off everything.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807


    Taking off from Syria right now. First flight of cannon fodder?
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,104
    I imagine foreign fighters make sense -
    thegreatdivide said:

    Interesting analysis from a chap at St Andrews University on the radio yesterday morning. Number crunching suggests that the Russians have a max month before they need to completely replace the initial invasion force. To do that would massively deplete the country’s armed forces and can they afford to restock due to sanctions? I doubt it.

    Also - if Belarus were to come into the fight to bolster numbers could NATO hit them and would Putin do anything to help Lukashenko? I’m not sure he would.


    Yes difficult to know but I would guess that doubt will be enough to stop NATO taking the chance.

    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    K’in hell. Chap on R4 at the moment. More number crunching…Putin would need at the very least 600k troops to contain and subjugate Ukraine. He’s essentially fighting a battle he can’t win.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I do get the feeling that UK commentators are sometimes a bit to pro-west.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,159
    shirley_basso said:

    I do get the feeling that UK commentators are sometimes a bit to pro-west.

    Yes, yes they should be more pro Russian.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,812
    thegreatdivide said:

    K’in hell. Chap on R4 at the moment. More number crunching…Putin would need at the very least 600k troops to contain and subjugate Ukraine. He’s essentially fighting a battle he can’t win.

    Not claiming any sort of knowledge or expertise, but wouldn't that be more that it's a battle he can't win conventionally? Which puts a more worrying spin on it.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,329
    First.Aspect said:

    shirley_basso said:

    I do get the feeling that UK commentators are sometimes a bit to pro-west.

    Yes, yes they should be more pro Russian.

    I was wondering how that post would have read had the adversary been Hitler... not well, I guess. And the parallels are strong.

    I'm no more 'pro-war' than most people, but I can't see what the alternative is, and hoping that the aggressor gets solidly thrashed.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,605
    veronese68 said:

    thegreatdivide said:

    K’in hell. Chap on R4 at the moment. More number crunching…Putin would need at the very least 600k troops to contain and subjugate Ukraine. He’s essentially fighting a battle he can’t win.

    Not claiming any sort of knowledge or expertise, but wouldn't that be more that it's a battle he can't win conventionally? Which puts a more worrying spin on it.
    I'd have thought that even the Russian propaganda machine would struggle to argue that the best way to save people from a fascist regime was just to destroy the whole country.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    First.Aspect said:

    shirley_basso said:

    I do get the feeling that UK commentators are sometimes a bit to pro-west.

    Yes, yes they should be more pro Russian.
    Sorry I meant more about the likelihood of Russian success. I can't see ukraine lasting 1 month and with the use of phosphorus and chemical weapons life will get a lot easier for the Russians and a lot worse for the Ukrainians.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,329
    Jezyboy said:

    veronese68 said:

    thegreatdivide said:

    K’in hell. Chap on R4 at the moment. More number crunching…Putin would need at the very least 600k troops to contain and subjugate Ukraine. He’s essentially fighting a battle he can’t win.

    Not claiming any sort of knowledge or expertise, but wouldn't that be more that it's a battle he can't win conventionally? Which puts a more worrying spin on it.
    I'd have thought that even the Russian propaganda machine would struggle to argue that the best way to save people from a fascist regime was just to destroy the whole country.

    I'm sure a desperate Putin can find a way to spin in. He might even claim that Ukrainians are destroying their own country out of spite as they leave.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • mrb123
    mrb123 Posts: 4,815
    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    shirley_basso said:

    I do get the feeling that UK commentators are sometimes a bit to pro-west.

    Yes, yes they should be more pro Russian.

    I was wondering how that post would have read had the adversary been Hitler... not well, I guess. And the parallels are strong.

    I'm no more 'pro-war' than most people, but I can't see what the alternative is, and hoping that the aggressor gets solidly thrashed.
    I assumed he was joking.
  • mully79
    mully79 Posts: 904
    I do know someone who still 100% believes that Putin is fully justified to invade Ukraine and they will discover the chemical/biological weapons that the US is hiding there.

    The eventual blaming of the Ukranians for the upcoming chemical/biological attack surely is the end game for a war that cant be won.
    Our only hope for the truth is if someone topples Putin.

Categories