Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)



Zeberdi

Zeberdi

Brighton born & bred
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
4,881
peterward said:
I actually thought that was Implied.

Not.so much an immigration issue, but a non preparedness of Europe issue.

That plus Russias obvious belligerence and determination to destroy both NATO and EU.

That was the wake up call referred to, even though I agree, most can see this clearly.

Scholz is an absolute disaster of dithering and cowardice who cannot see this as it is, nor have the ability to offer any meaningful counter.
Click to expand...
I understood that - and I have been following this thread so agree much can be implied and although I have not read every one of the thousands of posts made on here, I am sure I would be in broad agreement with all that is said.

I would like to think rather than preparing for the influx of 35 million refugees we do far more to support Ukraine to stop that happening.

Speaking largely as a bystander to this thread, I would say my views on most political things including both the war in Ukraine and Gaza are very very much aligned with the majority of NSCers and pretty much middle of the road but I am getting increasingly frustrated the West is dragging its feet in not doing more to help end this conflict nor the one in the ME.🙁
 
Last edited:




E

essbee1

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2014
4,181
Zeberdi said:
I understood that - and I have been following this thread so agree much can be implied and although I have not read every one of the thousands of posts made on here, I am sure I would be in broad agreement with all that is said.

I would like to think rather than preparing for the influx of 35 million refugees we do far more to support Ukraine to stop that happening.

Speaking largely as a bystander to this thread, I would say my views on most political things including both the war in Ukraine and Gaza are very very much aligned with the majority of NSCers and pretty much middle of the road but I am getting increasingly frustrated the West is dragging its feet in not doing more to help end this conflict nor the one in the ME.🙁
Click to expand...
You're not alone on that sentiment at all Zeberdi.
 


Zeberdi

Zeberdi

Brighton born & bred
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
4,881
Eric the meek said:
Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but right at the bottom of that article, is a little bit of good news:

'However, Republicans in Congress have since the turn of the year blocked all new funding -...
The two issues have now been successfully separated, meaning that senators are now able to debate the aid money separately.'

www.bbc.co.uk

Senate advances aid package for Ukraine and Israel

The Senate will begin to consider a $95b package that does not include border security measures.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Please clarify how this is an advantage to Ukraine could you?

From what I have understood (which isn’t much about the Ukraine issue!) - The Republicans have become increasingly resistant to approving funding for Ukraine. The reason it was piggybacked onto the US Borders Bill by the Democrat-majority Senate was to try and offer the stricter border controls as a concession/carrot to the House and made subsequent amendments to further that but the House of Representatives rejected it anyway as any improvement to managing the Mexican border/asylum/immigration basically stole Trump’s election thunder. That leaves funding for Ukraine still to get through a resistant Republican majority House of Representatives which is very un-eager to approve such funding.

I’m not entirely convinced the House will continue to approve funding for Ukraine on the level it has been for several reasons - ‘If the legislation’ (The Ukraine package agreed to proceed to debate on Friday by the Senate) ultimately passes the Senate, it will face an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he could split the aid into separate bills.’

www.bbc.co.uk

Why are some Republicans opposing more aid for Ukraine?

Waning interest in Ukraine and mounting border concerns give the party a potent political weapon.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:


Eric the meek

Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
5,398
Zeberdi said:
Please clarify how this is an advantage to Ukraine could you?

From what I have understood (which isn’t much about the Ukraine issue!) - The Republicans have become increasingly resistant to approving funding for Ukraine. The reason it was piggybacked onto the US Borders Bill by the Democrat-majority Senate was to try and offer the stricter border controls as a concession/carrot to the House and made subsequent amendments to further that but the House of Representatives rejected it anyway as any improvement to managing the Mexican border/asylum/immigration basically stole Trump’s election thunder. That leaves funding for Ukraine still to get through a resistant Republican majority House of Representatives which is very un-eager to approve such funding.

I’m not entirely convinced the House will continue to improve funding for Ukraine on the level it has been for several reasons - ‘If the legislation’ (The Ukraine package agreed to proceed to debate on Friday by the Senate) ultimately passes the Senate, it will face an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he could split the aid into separate bills.’

www.bbc.co.uk

Why are some Republicans opposing more aid for Ukraine?

Waning interest in Ukraine and mounting border concerns give the party a potent political weapon.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I fear you will be disappointed with my reply, as all I would do is quote, or paraphrase, or less usefully, give my own interpretation of the content of the link I provided. I don't have some other, alternative input source.

I confess I am not up to speed with the machinations of US politics. I was however, pleased to see that the funding of $60 billion military aid for Ukraine, and the US borders bill are no longer conflated. I see this as as the first major obstacle removed. There will be other obstacles, not least Republicans toeing the Trump line, but it is progress.

As an aside, and this is the less useful personal view that I alluded to, as a response to US politicking, we may be witnessing the EU filling the void, providing a 50 billion Euro package, and 'persuading' Orban to fall in line at the same time. This is the EU exercising its economic might and waging an economic war. When you consider that Russia's economy is only the size of Italy's, it may in the end, be the one that matters.
 


Cotton Socks

Cotton Socks

Skint Supporter
Feb 20, 2017
1,745
Zeberdi said:
Yes, although that comment outrageous and as indefensible as it is, is referring to NATO members paying more for defence which ironically could help Ukraine in the long run (Trump wasn’t encouraging Russia to attack non-NATO countries like Ukraine). One of the reasons (a small part admittedly) that the West has been stingy in its support of supplying weapons to Ukraine is that Western countries‘ stockpiles of conventional weapons have been getting low and there are signs that the war in the ME is embroiling us into a more broader and direct conflict with Iran-backed forces which puts even more pressure on arms companies to meet the increasing demands of the Biden Administration.

As far as protecting NATO’s borders in Europe, our signatory to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces has limited the degree with which we can amass military deployment along NATO’s borders. Russia unilaterally pulled out of the Cold War made Treaty so the US and other NATO countries are following suit. However, the burden of the cost of NATO still needs to be more equitably divided and it needs increased funding - I don’t think anyone can question that.

The availability of conventional armed forces around Europe, especially the UK are very much depleted. This is where the risk of nuclear war becomes higher, when the options to counter Russian aggression with the limited quantity of conventional weapons at our disposal undermine our ability to do so. This of course also works conversely - If Russia‘s stockpile of conventional weapons becomes depleted to the point of undermining her aggressive invasive agenda in Ukraine, she too may turn to limited nuclear strikes in the region - if Iranian drones, canon fodder and nuclear weapons are all she has left. NATO must be strengthened as a matter of priority for the security of all NATO countries on the border with Ukraine and for the protection of aspiring NATO countries like Ukraine and Georgia on the border with Russia.

I agree though, and have said many times too, that Trump’s rhetoric severely undermines NATO deterrence against Russian expansionist policies - I can only imagine Trump’s narcissistic daydreaming has him imagining himself as a great wartime leader that saves the west - instead the fcuking buffoon is going to trigger an all out conflict with Russia faster than anyone else is closer to doing simply because he is yet again dog whistling to the world’s dictators.

www.voanews.com

US, NATO Follow Russia in Dropping Out of Europe Arms Treaty

White House says 'no option' but to follow Russia's lead in leaving Europe conventional arms treaty
www.voanews.com www.voanews.com
Click to expand...
I can appreciate this is very petty, your posts are very thoughtful and insightful. Please stop using the words 'her or she' when referring to Russia, I have no idea why that has got my back up but putting Russia in a role of Matriarch doesn't sit well with me. Yes I have already said it was petty, I'm not meaning to offend. :smile:
 




pb21

pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,347
Eric the meek said:

Tucker Carlson interview: Russia-Ukraine ties will eventually heal, says Putin​



This might take a while....
Click to expand...

Anyone actually watched the interview, or has an accurate synopsis of it?

I haven't, but it sounds, unsurprisingly, little more than a Putin puff piece. Is that the case, or am I being naïve?
 




beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,338
pb21 said:
Anyone actually watched the interview, or has an accurate synopsis of it?

I haven't, but it sounds, unsurprisingly, little more than a Putin puff piece. Is that the case, or am I being naïve?
Click to expand...
the most interesting part of the interview was in the interview at all, it's Carlson saying about Crimea, that Putin would go nuclear to keep it. that's tell us something about where eventual negotiations will go.
 






P

papachris

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2020
374
Viti, Estonia and Torrevieja, Spain
1000005777.jpg
 




















Nobby Cybergoat

Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,100
Cotton Socks said:
I can appreciate this is very petty, your posts are very thoughtful and insightful. Please stop using the words 'her or she' when referring to Russia, I have no idea why that has got my back up but putting Russia in a role of Matriarch doesn't sit well with me. Yes I have already said it was petty, I'm not meaning to offend. :smile:
Click to expand...
I don't think this is petty.

The term he or she can be applied to something deserving respect, such as a ship or a beloved homeland

I see Russia as more of an "it"
 






Psychobilly freakout

Psychobilly freakout

HellBilly
Feb 23, 2009
23,116
Brighton factually.....
fly high said:
Great to see but how much will Ukraine get? Deserve to most, Israel should get nothing but.........
Click to expand...
Israel should get diddly squat, they should left to hang out to dry at the moment, no money, no protection, no backing....
until they stop the genocide
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here