As are the Hamas leaders also indited by the ICC. Both sides guilty of multiple crimes....and you can bet neither side will see the inside of a courtroom for them
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
As are the Hamas leaders also indited by the ICC. Both sides guilty of multiple crimes....and you can bet neither side will see the inside of a courtroom for them
Are t the Hamas leaders already dead? And the next few generations of them as well….
So Putin responds to the reckless and pointless escalation by the US and UK by firing a ballistic missile at Dnipro. Zelensky demands a further response by his allies. **** off.
Firing missiles at russian military targets isn't escalation ffs.
Firing an ICBM at a city of 1M people is.
Stop buying this russian propaganda ffs
This week the Kremlin accused the “collective West” of escalating the war in Ukraine.
But nearly three years of war in Ukraine have shown that it is Vladimir Putin who embraces escalation as a means to achieving his goals - in this case, control over Ukraine or at the very least peace on Russia’s terms.
Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, his decision to declare four Ukrainian territories part of Russia, his deployment of North Korean troops to Kursk region, his decision on Thursday to target the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile, followed up by threats to strike the West - all of these represent moments of escalation in this conflict.
Biden and Starmer sanctioning the use of US and UK missiles against targets in Russia was plainly an escalation and an unnecessary one with Trump about to take office in January. Putin's response was a further escalation. Now Zelensky wants us to go even further again. It's madness and fast heading for nuclear war.
For all those nailing their colours on this ask yourselves this. What is the constructive third way to respond? And then the secondary question. Would your answer be different if we were talking about Adolf Hitler and not Vladimir Putin. For rest assured, it is only a matter of time before one or more of the nuclear powers behaves the way that Hitler's regime did. For me, appeasement did not work then. Why would it now?
He just wants us to send military aid. We've barely sent anything. US promised loads but sent 10% of it.
It won't end up in a nuclear war. That's just want russia want you to believe.
Should Putin continue with his reckless escalation can I just remind you that we are full here
Ok, so let's imagine (even though it's likely) that putin doesn't stop at Ukraine. He keeps on moving westwards, takes over the Baltics and attacks Poland. Do we intervene then? Or just let him continue because we're scared?
Ukraine is holding the line, if we send them weapons they will kick the russians out and stop their army for a few years at least. The russian economy is falling apart, they're spending a huge amount of their GDP on military equipment, they're not going to stop anytime soon.
Ukraine is holding the line, if we send them weapons they will kick the russians out and stop their army for a few years at least. The russian economy is falling apart, they're spending a huge amount of their GDP on military equipment, they're not going to stop anytime soon.
If Putin attacks a NATO member - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are all members - we are committed to respond. An attack on one is an attack on all. Ukraine is not a NATO member and the war between Russia and Ukraine will either end with a peace deal or it will escalate into WW3, which will probably be nuclear. The actions by Biden and Starmer have made WW3 more likely and it was pure recklessness to take this action now.
Trump will seek to broker a peace deal in January and in my opinion we should all hope that he succeeds.
Why would a war with NATO not be nuclear?
If you trust Trump to do anything then you're really really not thinking straight. He's a russian stooge and completely mad.
If you think handing over Ukraine to putin is a good idea, then fine, but it's not going to end well. Ukraine have held out for 3 years despite the West pandering to putin, give Ukraine the proper means to fight back and russia go home.
A war between Russia and NATO would almost certainly end with nuclear weapons, that's my point. Hopefully, Putin is not quite mad enough to attack a NATO member for this reason, but we can't be sure about that. We certainly shouldn't be provoking him into considering it though, as we have with our recent escalation.
A peace deal wouldn't involve handing all of Ukraine to Russia, but it might involve allowing Putin to keep control over the Russian-speaking areas of Crimea and Donbas. Better that than the alternative, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Do you know why they're 'russian speaking'? Ukrainian was banned as a language during the USSR, most Ukrainians over a certain age speak russian. The reason they're now more russian is the fact they've moved 10ks of russians there, promising cheap/free property because they either killed or chased away/deported the locals.
If you give in to putin he'll take it as a sign of weakness. He must be loving everyone being so scared of his nukes.
Why would anyone not be scared of Putin's nukes? A homicidal maniac with weapons of mass destruction? As I've said, if he attacks a NATO country, the rest of NATO is committed to respond - which is fine, it's how NATO should work - but it would most likely end in a nuclear conflagration. That's scary, isn't it? Why would we knowingly provoke that possibility?
Making a deal is not giving in, it's pragmatism.
Last edited:
........So with such a Trump deal Putin gets to keep all that Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and Eastern Donbas , that he has illegally taken (stolen) over the past 10 years! Such a ceasation to hostilities should not be internationally tolerated. I realize that Ukraine is not yet a full NATO partner, as Sweden and Finland recently became, but NATO countries should do everything within their powers to assist Ukraine in defeating Putin's Russia.
I've been holding off in stating this, but a few "friends" on here really appear to be a bunch of weak kneed mamby-pambies. Good thing we had Churchill leading us heading into WWII, as opposed to appeasement specialist, Neville Chamberlain, waving "peace in our time" documents.