Every cloud has its silver lining then. England has been blamed for nearly everything and our current record whichever party it is, Blair and Boris are our recent efforts. It's probably best UK sit out the next 500 years and let someone else try and get the blame.
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.
Every cloud has its silver lining then. England has been blamed for nearly everything and our current record whichever party it is, Blair and Boris are our recent efforts. It's probably best UK sit out the next 500 years and let someone else try and get the blame.
Urgh, such a depressingly dump concept. Willing to risk a "limited nuclear war" to get the upper hand in negotiations. If their Ukraine operation is anything to go by, the Russians don't exactly have a brilliant grasp on how Western governments behave.
Funny how you haven't mentioned Putin's huge role. "I can't justify Putin invading Russia...but it's mainly the wests fault" right...
If you were thinking about putting a headguard on, can I punch you in the face before you do and say you had a huge role in my actions?
The assembled research by specialists for Greenpeace International concludes that the safety of Zaporizhzhia is severely compromised by the war. In a worst-case scenario, where explosions destroy the reactor containment and cooling systems, the potential release of radioactivity from both the reactor core and the spent fuel pool into the atmosphere could create a disaster far worse even than the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe of 2011, with areas of land hundreds of kilometres from the reactor site potentially becoming inhospitable for decades. Even without direct damage to the plant, the reactor’s rely heavily on the electric grid for operating cooling systems, on the availability of nuclear technicians and personnel and access to heavy equipment and logistics.
Three reactors are currently operating and three have been shut down since the start of the war.
edit:
Russia’s aggression has already damaged two radioactive waste disposal sites at Kharkiv and Kyiv. So they are not exactly... careful!!
It should also be pointed out that Putin isn't demanding Eastern Europe turn into variations of Switzerland. He actively wants to extend the Russian State's influence and re-create that Warsaw Pact.
Dude, just go research the subject. Feck. I'm no nuclear physicist. My memory is too bad. I can't even remember the point I was trying to make.
You're underestimating the power of nuclear warheads. But anyway, I will gladly agree to disagree. That's my way of saying I'm outta here, 'cause I have stuff to do
Was NATO the only solution to those countries becoming a part of the 'West'?
You know what I am saying.
Yes. Easily.
Depends on the wind direction, but likely they just want to control the light switches.
Both organizations have standards and requirements for membership. The worst we can say is that perhaps these are too strict and there should be a function to relax requirements and instead prescribe solutions that can be implemented post membership but the suggestion that working toward NATO or EU membership for any former Soviet Republic or Warsaw Pact member is detrimental is ridiculous and diminishes their intellectual standing in my opinion.
This isn't a time to throw out contrarian arguments for the sake of appearing balanced.
They live in a different reality to the rest of us.
Mate, we're repeating Neville Chamberlain's mistake here. We know that outcome of that. 10s of millions died.
Who is going to come in and be more hardline than Putin? The likelihood that one of his opponents that he wasn't able to kill with Polonium would step in is higher than somene who is actually more dangerous than Putin even existing in Russia and taking over post Vlad.
To put it in terms of risk, appeasing Putin and allowing him to stay in power is a straight loss scenario. Ukraine will lose their independence and possibly Moldova as well. Him being removed from power at least offers the world a chance of gain.
First, Russia does not have the second largest army in the world. It only has the 5th at best in terms of active personnel (professionals). I think we all have seen how poorly an army can be run with a majority of those involved being conscripts, and that's before I go on with the odds of a repeat of the 1917 mutinies that led to the Tsar's downfall.
Speaking of nukes, where do they come in the equation if there's a change of government in the Kremlin? I know people feared this or that during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the nuclear arsenal remained locked or later dismantled in an extent with respect to the START treaty.
I actually somewhat agree with that, regarding the level of western hypocrisy there. Especially when you see the whole world is supporting Ukraine now, which is good, but in contrast to how no one cares about Iraq people during Iraq invasion back then, it was just so fecked up. A lot of civilians died in that war for no reasons, over 100,000, and up to a million in total. Which proves most people are fecking hyprocrites.
But back to Ukraine war, I don''t believe Ukraine wanting to join NATO is the main reason why Putin Russia is invading Ukraine now, it just doesn't make sense for all that, I mean, Putin/Russian themselves wants to join NATO several times over past decades too didn't they? He is definitely on something else this time for sure, something out of greed or insanity.
It isn't for the sake of balance. We left them massively exposed and we can say but yeah we're not that bad guy here but that doesn't change anything.
If you enter into talks with NATO you should be under NATO protection. They wouldn't have been invaded had we done so.
The way to get these former Warsaw Pact countries to 'join the west' is not to make NATO any kind of condition.
In fact the goal should be to eventually disband the need for NATO.
As a lawyer, I'm used to, well, bending the truth a little bit every now and then. But if I had to say shit like this, I couldn't sleep at night. What a cnut.
No.
It's my understanding that Putin's perspective (saying it was 'Russia's' was perhaps my mistake so I apologize for that) is that Ukraine is a part of Russia and shouldn't be separated from the wider Russian sphere. My point was, what actually is Putin offering the Ukraine that makes this sustainable in the long run?
Every powerful nation needs an ideology to prop it up whether it's the liberty, communism, capitalism, Islamic/Christian fundamentalism etc. Putin's ultra nationalistic, anti-west outlook is not really anything to hang your hat on-it kind of looks ideologically bankrupt to me.
still doesn’t answer my question, do you realize how many lives will be lost in the process before we can even get to the point you’re suggesting. who is going to be responsible for the lives lost?
The key powers in the world remain UK, US, France and Germany (NATO wise and EU)
You mean apart from the millions who demonstrated against the war around the world? And the major countries who opposed it (incl. Germany and France)? It is a myth that nobody cared about the Iraq, but clearly a popular myth.
Key powers in NATO and EU for sure; the US obviously also in the world. These other 3 do not matter that much on a global scale, honestly.
Was it a condition? These countries wanted the security that NATO provides to their independence after living under the Russian boot for 70 years.
Russia joining the NATO would have meant to create a new common security architecture in Europe. The decision against that made clear to Russia that NATO exists to oppose the Russians.
Putin wants to restore the Russian empire as it existed before the SU. Ukraine was wrestled away from Russia in WW1
People conveniently forget about Iraq which is actually worse because that war was totally for a made up reason.
Putin/Russia want their 'sphere of influence'.
The only way to avoid what happened and more such events is build trust.
You can do that even with your' traditional enemy'.
Goal? Mutual survival.
Of course. But to suggest the UK is irrelevant in the European context is wrong
Didn't see anyone claiming that'd be the case, though.
NATO was always the goal even if it may not have been spelt out.
I remember 1997 when it almost happened.
Must look it up.
To be fair, there was huge opposition to the Iraq war - France and Germany were against it, and there was the huge march in London. But when the PM has a 100+ majority, there’s not much can be done. Also, Ukraine is our Eastern border (”our” meaning Europe/ UK) and the aggressor has been our historic antagonist and so it’s only natural there is greater scrutiny because there is more at stake compared to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. There is undoubtedly double standards in terms of how we react to the refugees compared with non-white countries but that’s a topic for the other thread.
Lying prick. He knows exactly what he’s doing. Blowing up the Haulocaust Memorial the Ukraine built for them sure showed those Nazi’s eh? Murdering bastard.
The fact you’re grading these things is worrying. One worse than the other.
Yes. it seems as if some want to run with a sweeping generalisation that no one in west cares about what goes on in the ME or other parts of the world. Totally wrong and misleading.
It is hard to forget. It has been brought up about a hundred times in this thread.
Putin is against the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) and The Treaty of Rapallo (1922).