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

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









Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
8,576
Gazprom lost $13.1 billion in 2024.

This may be the key to stopping Russia in the longer term. It's the sanctions. If they haven't got the money to fund their war chest (to pay for weapons, troops, bot farms etc), then their war effort will grind to a halt. This is why they are keen for sanctions to be lifted.

I like the Ukrainian method of sanctioning Russia at arms' length. It's low risk, low cost and high reward. Cripple Russia's ability to extract, refine and transport it's natural resource wealth. This is why Putin wants a ceasefire in the skies on the energy sector.

Focus on what Russia is complaining about. Whip the engine out. Take it apart, piece by piece.
Why are they against Ukraine joining Nato? Why are they demanding Ukraine be de-militarised? Why are they demanding no more weapons aid for Ukraine?

The answers can be summed up thus: they are complaining about the things stopping them continuing with their war.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
22,525
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I’m not trying to be a smarty pants but I’ve said from the start, this is going to end up with European troops on the ground fighting a war with Russia.

Everything I’m seeing is pointing towards this.

Within 18 months Europe will be at war with Russia.
I don’t think such a fight will last very long. In a conventional war, I firmly believe Europe would kick Russia’s arse, certainly out of European territories if required.
 
Last edited:






raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,471
Wiltshire
Interesting interview with Joe Walsh, ex Republican Senator (not the rock guitarist). It's his view on US politics at the moment:
- is Trump being played by Putin (no, he's doing what Putin wants because he admires Putin - there is no trickery)
- will Rubio stay loyal to Trump (probably, because he wants relevance in the Republican party, not because he agrees with Trump)
- will Trump and Musk stay best buddies (probably not)
- and , why and how the Democrats are in such a mess and don't do anything about it (because they truly don't recognize this moment, it's importance, and they don't understand how they need to change if they want to win the next election)
 
Last edited:








Scappa

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2017
1,843


images-1.jpeg
images.jpeg
e9ddf40_b84bcdffa60b49528538ea4d7cba6f8d-b84bcdffa60b49528538ea4d7cba6f8d-0.jpg

8m9hxdd8fis11.jpg
images-2.jpeg
 
Last edited:








raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,471
Wiltshire
Sorry if already posted but...Jake Broe explains why Trump wants to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power stations.

It's because Putin told him to. And why...

because if you have domestic nuclear power you can then develop plutonium nuclear weapons...

and what did Ukraine (sensibly) say a few weeks back?...

it's either NATO membership or nuclear weapons

And what did pussy Rutte ("I'm out of my depth!") say a week or so ago? "No NATO membership for Ukraine"
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,434
Sorry if already posted but...Jake Broe explains why Trump wants to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power stations.

It's because Putin told him to. And why...

because if you have domestic nuclear power you can then develop plutonium nuclear weapons...

and what did Ukraine (sensibly) say a few weeks back?...

it's either NATO membership or nuclear weapons

And what did pussy Rutte ("I'm out of my depth!") say a week or so ago? "No NATO membership for Ukraine"
did Trump actually say he wanted to control all the nuclear plants, or was it just about Zaporizhzhia? because a few days ago it was about the energy for mineral extraction, which didn't make sense, now theory crafters want a new angle to twist.
 








SouthSaxon

Stand or fall
NSC Patron
Jan 25, 2025
887
Sorry if already posted but...Jake Broe explains why Trump wants to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power stations.

It's because Putin told him to. And why...

because if you have domestic nuclear power you can then develop plutonium nuclear weapons...

and what did Ukraine (sensibly) say a few weeks back?...

it's either NATO membership or nuclear weapons

And what did pussy Rutte ("I'm out of my depth!") say a week or so ago? "No NATO membership for Ukraine"
did Trump actually say he wanted to control all the nuclear plants, or was it just about Zaporizhzhia? because a few days ago it was about the energy for mineral extraction, which didn't make sense, now theory crafters want a new angle to twist.
That theory was from Paul Warburg. I appreciate both of their channels, but on this one who knows?
 








Commander

Arrogant Prat
NSC Patron
Apr 28, 2004
14,123
London
The smart thing to do would be to put troops in Ukraine now.

Show that fucker we’re not messing around.

Give the baldy **** something to chew on.

I’d have Chinook’s shaking the tiles on the Kremlin roof by sundown .
We should have done that right at the start. Had NATO immediately come to Ukraine's defence, Putin would have backed down. No doubt.
 


SouthSaxon

Stand or fall
NSC Patron
Jan 25, 2025
887
As per the FT and BBC it's all nuclear power plants https://www.ft.com/content/06d9949f-3cd8-42c2-873f-af2acdee0f42
If it’s only the nuclear plants, does that give more weight to Jake Broe’s theory? Conversely, if it’s nuclear+hydro, maybe that leans things towards the Paul Warburg theory?

Or Trump was just spitballing and none of it is true. Zelenskyy did say later that they hadn’t discussed ownership at all.

I don’t know, it’s all so messed up :(
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here