Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No it didn't. It was just my assessment of why Russia invaded Ukraine. It placed the blame on both Russia and NATO. NATO eastward expansion is always going to be met with strong Russian resistance. So NATO is partly responsible for Ukraine current predicament. Flirting with Ukraine and then letting it hang dry. Putin is a maniac and ruthless dictator, who reacted in the way everyone thought he would. Russia security concern are not figment of imagination either.
When US bombed Iraq and Afghanistan, did NATO really cared about their sovereign status? Or when Obama was using drones to target "terrorist" inside other countries? Western countries are in no position to lecture anyone on sovereign issues. Point is there is no side which is blameless in this conflict. Only victims who are innocent Ukrainian civilians.
The damage will cost billions to repair. I'm sure the US and EU will help but hopefully after all this is over Russia will have to fork up.
And I have been mentioning that very thing.
I can only assume that if they could, then they would have done. Because it is an obvious target.
There we go again.
The reason the US can 'pull' countries towards it is the despicable crook in the Kremlin. You and other foreign policy experts on here talking about Putin spitting his dummy just want to retain the status quo because Putin sells weapons to India or some nonsense like that.
Which might be fair enough if you don't care for the consequences of your tacit approval of Russia's actions but let's not fecking pretend. A similar case can also be made for Israel and the US but that's for another day.
Strong both sidesing here, good internet point scoring.
This probably the easiest historical blame game in, erm, history. One man is at fault. A single, aging egomaniac.
Your argument is like a rape apologist saying she shouldn't have worn a short skirt.
The first one to get violent gets the blame.
It was the US/UK in 2003, it is Russia now.
May be protected by AA weapons. But not from ground attacks during the night by guerilla type methods.
Roads and buildings will be repaired, but those are people homes, whole lifetimes, savings and memories. And that kind of destruction I can't even imagine the human losses and trauma for those who get through it.
Yep the convoy is protected. What is the range of Bayraktars?
Most likely it's not an immediate threat. They're too tied up trying to keep Russians out of their cities to go on a tangent like that.
Well, I blame the country that invaded another. I have very little time for invasions, indiscriminate bombing or drone strikes so you can leave the whataboutery there. The use of the term flirting in this context is also quite ridiculous. Countries are allowed to ally themselves any way they wish and have free will to enter agreements with others and shouldn't have to worry about being invaded over it.
Are you trying to say that Ukraine pursuing its autonomous goals by holding talks with NATO is just as culpable as Russia in this conflict? If I had Putin on my doorstep I'd join NATO in a second.
Honestly, I don’t give a shit.
If you’re this upset about it, can I suggest you log off and do something else with your time.
"She was pointing at me saying I was going to rape her, she even called the police. Pretty much forced me to act"
You realize countries ask to join NATO, no one is forced to join?
NATO only expands as a result of countries wanting to join because they are wary of Russian aggression. What is NATO supposed to tell countries close to Russia asking to join: ''No you can't join our mutual defence alliance to counter Russian aggression and deter invasion, it might upset and offend the Russians.'' ?
With all the assests that oligarchs have in UK and intelligence data at the disposal of the government, they still can not build up cases against them? Maybe they do not really want to?
The insane thing about this is let’s just assume there is an entire neo-Nazi brigade in Azov and 100% believe the arussian propaganda (ignoring the fact the ‘evidence’ seems to be of a small group of right wing soldiers rather than an entire battalion). How in any way does that support a full scale invasion of Ukraine??
Looks like they got themselves banned anyway.
Temporarily to cool off.
As unlikey as it is, I hope to god there is some sort of movement for any peace settlement! please god!
Kom-pro-mat.
This is why when I said laws and controls in the UK apply to normal people only, it was no joke. For anyone paying attention, you know what I'm talking about.
Separately, I just listened to Lavrov talking about Western partners coming to their senses. Is it a change of tone or is it just the typical abuser dichotomy of abusing and then saying, we should compromise.
I’ve seen people say this but why should it? It’s just a line that’s been pedalled and no one questions.
If you are a former Soviet country and grew up knowing the history you’d had under Russian rule and another country offers you an option that you think is better, you’re essentially saying they shouldn’t get to decide as it might anger Russia? This goes for anywhere in the world and is part of being a free society.
We all know what happened in Iraq was wrong, if anything it makes it that much more obvious that what is happening in Ukraine is wrong. It’s 2022, we should all know better as a species by now.
From Russia’s perspective they don’t want that eastward expansion as future peace can never be guaranteed. The political landscape 50/100 years from now is impossible to imagine.
Sorry for the late reply.
I think you are referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Two
The student didn't get deported in the end, thanks to some tireless campaigning, but the Wiki description shows how other people suffered from the UK state's inability to distinguish terrorist material from an FBI manual.
FOR UK VOTERS ONLY:
Please consider signing this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/609530
Waive visa requirement for Ukrainian refugees
Please consider signing this petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/609530
Waive visa requirement for Ukrainian refugees
Yes and they have no military drones left at present.
Currently waiting for new ones to arrive from Turkey.
That is exactly what they are saying, yes.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/exposing-the-myth-of-western-betrayal-of-russia/
Contentious but both sides seem to have a different interpretation of the treaty and regardless of the facts that's been the narrative for about 30 years now
107k now
107k and counting. Thank you!
That’s not my question, I understand the political side but, again, why are people using it as fact as if it somehow justifies Russia’s actions. (See the post I replied). It’d be like if Europe bombed the UK after Brexit and people were like ‘oh but there’s actually two sides to this…’
Ukriane should be free to join whatever it wants, BRIC, NATO, Russia or just do it’s own thing without the threat of a bloody invasion.
What's the deal with visas? Shouldn't we very quickly just be issuing them to Ukranians?
Therefore Russia is justified and we should let them crack on!
But Putin might be annoyed, you don't understand.
saw this yesterday and had to chuckle
