That's an interesting question that's getting asked more and more. I think the Russians know the US is watching every inch of Ukrainian airspace and they don't want to show what their air force is/isn't capable of. They also don't want to indiscriminately bomb Ukraine and risk Nato getting involved, there are only so many legitimate targets you can find without ground forces directing you.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
That's an interesting question that's getting asked more and more. I think the Russians know the US is watching every inch of Ukrainian airspace and they don't want to show what their air force is/isn't capable of. They also don't want to indiscriminately bomb Ukraine and risk Nato getting involved, there are only so many legitimate targets you can find without ground forces directing you.
Who says the southern hemisphere will be spared from attacks, though? Australia, the American bases in the pacific ocean, are all obvious targets. That's before we even consider if other countries in South America, Africa and/or Asia will get involved some way or some how.
Also, radiation in the air is one thing, but the ensuing ice age as well as crops and drinking water severly polluted all over the world, is a different aspect that will have lethal consequences for years, if not decades.
Probably because whilst it is important, and unacceptable, it’s not as important as what’s going on in the war zone? That’s not ignoring it.
Women and children being murdered with missiles and other war crimes being reported. Putin threatening a world war.
It’s not hard to understand why.
They already are NATO. Finland looks like it's about to be as well, so is Sweden. NATO is about to become another word for Europe, as only couple of countries won't be in it. They have literally accomplished the opposite.
Belarus tried 2 years ago to elect western politician, had riots due to rigged elections and massive crackdowns, with Russia eventually coming in and sorting it out.
If his position is Novorossiya (Kharkiv to Odessa) but not the rest of the country then he will still run into the same problem. Kharkiv and Odessa are the #2 and 3 size cities and would spawn massive insurgencies.
I don't think some random cities in South America will get targeted, would seem very spiteful as there's nothing of great military value to any of the NATO powers there.
Evertons owned Moshiri is Usmanovs business partner, by the way.
I don't think random cities will be targeted either, hence the "getting involved"-part of my post.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
I think its you who is spreading propaganda
By the stage nukes are getting traded, any South American country with military ties to Russia will be nuked by NATO. Likewise the other way around.
That’s some blue sky thinking. What do you think will happen to the foreign national men women and children if they’re not allowed to leave the country?
If there's ever a time to not get involved in international affairs, it's when nukes are being lobbed
Listen to Putin when he announced the invasion. That is not the reasoning he gave.
No doubt they will and the west would probably send arms and munitions to those regions to fuel guerilla wars. Putin however will try to stamp on it. It's pure conjuncture on my part, but it's obvious that he wants to control the whole sea and Ukraine's biggest cities on the west - including Kharkiv and Odessa.
I doubt he will try to capture the whole of Ukraine, as that would leave no room for negotiations with the west and NATO.
Thats from before Christmas
It’s The Guardian
Its Putin, he lies/changes his mind
He asked why it’s not being discussed more and I explained why?
Not sure how that’s blue sky thinking. It’s just how it is currently?
It really wouldn't have mattered. The guy just wants the old empire back, most likely feels aggrieved. The amount of excuses for this war he/his ambassadors have come out with is just ridiculous. None of them are the 'reason' for it. We all know the real reason because it's staring at us in the face. Problem is because of our liberal ways we tend to question what we could have done better, why it may have been our fault, what we did wrong?
Do you think Putin is wondering "I wonder why these countries want to join into Nato? What are we doing wrong on our side?" Nah. He'd rather just roll through with his army.
Good lord. Maybe get them badges too? It's so easy to see how the world just makes the same mistakes over and over.
yes ... being pragmatic as well the river does form a somewhat clear line north to south... that said keeping control of a population as large as ukraines is going to be difficult.... i would suspect that as part of any settlement there would be an allowance that people had a period of time to move either west / east of the river
the coast presents a very difficult logistical route to hold as i would presume they would just want a strip of coast line in order to claim any oil and gas reserves off shore... logically it may be easier to not take the land but demand the rights in part of a settlement
If there's ever a time to not get involved in international affairs, it's when nukes are being lobbed
They're already involved, though. Not necessarily in the conflict directly, but through other ties/affiliations. Venezuela and Cuba with Russia. Brazil to some extent as of late with Bolsonaro. French Guyana with NATO by default. In Asia you have South Korea and Japan with heavy American military ties. Taiwan. China. North Korea. Israel. Iran. All of Sovjetistan. American bases in the pacific. Australia. New Zealand. Ecuador.
To think a nuclear outcome will just stay in Europe and North America is very naive at best.
Last edited:
So were the old ones tbf. Chenobyl took monumental mismanagement for it to happen, and Fukushima a natural disaster.
I mean, it's absolutely rational to have a closer look at some individuals in that case, but you're talking about...camps? For people of a certain nationality?
This thread has gone south for quite a while imo, but there's new levels of low hit every day by the minute it seems
He claimed his goal was to protect people subjected to bullying and genocide and aim for the "demilitarisation and de-Nazification" of Ukraine. Thats just his crazy way of saying he wants Nato out if Ukraine. There is a lot of talk and a lot of reasons. But what I said still stands. Dont make out Im spreading Russian propaganda when its a fact.
And in fact Ukraine does or at least had far right extremist problems - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY
Exactly. And that is what I said yesterday. He threatened to use nukes if he does not take over a country the sovereignity of which he does not recognize. And it worked. Now he is playing the nukes card again to lift sanction, because his own position in Russia will get really shaky.
Please say would, not will
I'll even rephrase to "could"!
His English-language translation unfortunately missed out time of 19:00 for weekday protests.
It’s comedy, we have only said that yesterday that this would happen. It has taken only one day to prove us correct.
We have to respond swiftly now by defending Ukraine.Blimey i know we had someone saying it's fair game to remove aid to innocents yesterday but even then i didn't expect we'd have people supporting internment camps for civilians.
Quite scary.
Tbf didn't Ukraine oust a president because the people wanted to join the EU? Not long after that Russia got involved.
Must be awkward between Moshiri and Usmanov now.
Yeah, in the case of Fukushima it's boiling water reactors, it needs the water for coolant but the reaction does not cease if the water goes away. Why they then put the backup generators for the pumps in a basement when the site is next to the coast is beyond me! But that's not the case with the Ukrainian reactors, they're of a different design.
Nuclear gets unfair bad press in my eyes, things are pedalled by people who have no clue what they are on about just "Nuclear = bad"
Last edited:
Best case scenario for Russia - yes, but very difficult to negotiate.
For sure controlling that vast territory will be costly and would require constant military presence.
Depends on when it does end as well, but I would imagine crossing the imaginary border would be pretty much controlled for a long time and there will be plenty of migration from East to the West.
He is joking. I think...
Any thoughts on the below? Seems convincing, but no idea how realistic it is. People seem to think Russia might just seize and nationalise planes though. Surely most modern plans can't just be seized though due to the electronics?
In personal news, Ryanair just cancelled our flights to Lviv on 15th April. Thought they'd drag it out longer than that!
In personal news, Ryanair just cancelled our flights to Lviv on 15th April. Thought they'd drag it out longer than that!
Exactly mate. The fecker is taking a piss.It’s comedy, we have only said that yesterday that this would happen. It has taken only one day to prove us correct.
In shiny rosie world I would agree with you but sadly I think we are much closer to worldwide conflict which could be disastrous.
Just a few counter arguments.
1. Ukraine is sovereign democtratic conuntry but we are pushing that because it fits us because that mean they are leaning to west - EU and Nato. We can't overlook their geopolitical influence. They can say we want in EU in Nato but we also could say no we can't do that because it's not in out interest. What we can do to stabilize situation is to work on solution how based on their geopolitical status we can fit their best interest which will align with best interest of the west and Russia. Just imagine if USA would give the same talk about democracy and free will if Cuba decided to military aling with Russia.
2. I don't think that a fact that Putin can't withstand sanctions for long is a good thing. He won't backed down so only other way possible it's global crisis if things start to go to bad for him.
3. Third point is also terrible because it will just meant more people suffering and larger and larger destruction. Russia will suffer but Ukraine will suffer twice as much. And this couldn't be in the best interest of Ukraine.
Going through the thread I saw this video bellow posted before but never had watched it untill now and now when I watched it I can't believe how many points he made I agree on and how well he predicted the way things will go.
If I have to take away one point from that video is that Ukraine is security problem to Russia and no economic problems will prevail to not deal with their security interest.
…..and anarchy, conflict as countries battle to become next superpower…….
They are, they recognised Crimea as Russia's in 2014, they align on pretty much everything. Putin wiped off 90% of the debt owed to them by Cuba. So your argument doesn't work. No one in the West is suggesting an invasion of Cuba.