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.
Are we maybe getting a bit too obsessed about fires in Russia? Not talking about those at oil depots close to the border, or ones at weapons design bureaus. But at a mall? Fires happen all the time.
Ukraine: Facing the Russian Army on the front line in Donbas:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61217528
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61217528
Well, there was a story about a litter bin that caught fire in Yakutsk ... but I decided to ignore that one.
The SAS-trained saboteurs at work again, no doubt.
CE Forum Nazi of the Year, maybe? Could amend it for 2022 to Colonialist of the Year depending on who wins.
Insightful and well worth watching:
This is a very disturbing video, from someone who seems to be very knowledgeable.
It essentially says that Putin has no real plan but is simply acting in escalation mode (in gambling fashion, believing that things to his advantage will somehow simply fall into his lap from the chaos), that Putin sees this as primarily a war with the West (and only secondarily with Ukraine), that he is ready to use nuclear weapons, starting with a tactical nuke, and that the target will not be Ukraine but somewhere in a NATO country - probably a non-civilian, military target.
It essentially says that Putin has no real plan but is simply acting in escalation mode (in gambling fashion, believing that things to his advantage will somehow simply fall into his lap from the chaos), that Putin sees this as primarily a war with the West (and only secondarily with Ukraine), that he is ready to use nuclear weapons, starting with a tactical nuke, and that the target will not be Ukraine but somewhere in a NATO country - probably a non-civilian, military target.
Last edited:
From the same guy:
The risk of MAD has been hanging over the US/NATO and Russia for more than half a century. New ICBMs don't change that.
Russia sent another diplomatic note to the US demanding an end to weapons shipments, and Lavrov is talking more about WWIII. I interpret this as more signs that things aren't going well in Donbas and that the risk of things falling apart for Russia is going up.
Let's hope so. The US/UK/French approach of not mentioning nukes and ignoring Russian posturing must be winding the Kremlin up something fierce.
If anything, Russian performance in the war thus far would suggest most of their missiles would fail if they ever launched them. Maybe not all of us would die then.
At best a new missile means that NATO isn't going to attack Russia. Something which they weren't going to do anyway. It doesn't provide any leverage or power.
I guess we will agree to disagree. For me it was a diplomatic success putting germany in the crosshairs to pressure them to do tge right thing
And definitely an insult to germans as you said
Scholz is/was already facing pressure from within his own government coalition even. Melnyk didn't create that, he's actually alleviating it, by steering things off-topic.
It was a diplomatic failure as it actually fuels existing skepticism against Ukraine.
Nonetheless it looks like things are (still very slowly) moving in the right direction: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...iefern-a-c53fa755-c0d1-4b59-b8a6-7d2dbaaebd74
Germany seems to prepare a delivery of Gepard air defence tanks (armament is a radar controlled twin 35mm autocannon). It should be quite effective against low flying targets, and it is an interesting choice as this is really one of the more complicated systems - so even if it should be delivered quite fast, it won't appear on the battlefield immediately.
I don't think he does because I don't think there's a tangible benefit. If he drops a Nuke, what does he gain? Does he even stop the flow of weapons into Ukraine? Probably not, maybe only a Nuke on the border to stop supply lines would make any sense in terms of tangible benefit. But even then it seems like mass overkill.
Most of his moves gives him or Russia tangible benefits. Taking Crimea gives him access to the massive amount of gas and oil reserves in the black sea. Taking a land bridge and more costal sites makes it much easier for Russia to run Crimea while giving even greater access to the oil and gas reserves.
The same content maker claims Putin is obsessed with how quickly NATO could send a Nuke to Moscow. If he is that obssessed with it, it means he won't want to risk it. His attitude to covid shows he is paranoid about risks that could damage his health. Putin tends to calculate what he can get away with to a large extent.
Thank You for the shedloads of content you post on here btw. Do you have a background or career that helps you come across all this content or is it just an interest?
UK refugee scheme designed to fail
Is anyone even slightly surprised by this? I have to say, withholding the visa of one child in the family is a level of nefariousness I didn't expect them to stoop to but it's genius.
Not even sure it plays that well with their base in this instance though.
Is anyone even slightly surprised by this? I have to say, withholding the visa of one child in the family is a level of nefariousness I didn't expect them to stoop to but it's genius.
Not even sure it plays that well with their base in this instance though.
The U.K. system is word play to say we did our part. But as far as I understand from people who have tried to go through it, it’s designed to put you off
All our visa policies are essentially. For example, the financial requirement for a foreign spouse to join their UK national partner is explicitly designed to keep families apart and reduce net migration.
Russia is starting to look and sound more and more like North Korea. "Look at me!! I have bombs!! I will hurt you if you don't do what I say!!"
Can't decide whether it is all going to kick off around Transnistria, and whether these are all Russian/Transnistrian false flag events or someone else is behind them. A desperate move from Russia to try and sandwich Odesa? You'd think it would play into Ukrainian and Moldovan hands medium term.
It’s inevitable that Russia will launch a tactical nuke. It’s the only way they think they can gain credence.
They are exactly like North Korea as long as Putin is in power.
They've got everything available thrown in Ukraine, they're not really in a position to open another front in Moldova right now, let alone speak about WW3.
Transnistrian soldiers will be annihilated if they cross the border. There's only 1500 of them and they are apparently very poorly trained.
Moldova should also be prepared to move in once they vacate.
Moldova should also be prepared to move in once they vacate.
I can't see what they will be able to achieve with a single tactical - the Ukrainians are not amassing armour or manpower in one spot . They are doing much more decentralised operations. So it's either a barrage of nukes on the front , a land that they will have to move through and occupy later. Or its a nuke over a city which is genocide effectively. At that point nato is in. Or if not the whole nato, some members definitely are.
I just very much want to see Ukraine survive and see it as vital for freedom and democracy going forward. Most of the content comes from a few Twitter feeds and a few YouTube channels. However, it's been hugely distracting me from getting on with a big work-related project, so I need to start disciplining myself to switch back to that.
I hope you're right about the nukes. However, the video-maker we're discussing sees Putin as a gambler who is stuck in escalation mode and obsessed with a sense of historic mission concerning "Greater Russia". The gambler aspect could mean that Putin doesn't think the West will risk responding with their own nuke if he uses a tactical nuke in, say, Estonia, or at least is willing to gamble that they won't.
You don't have to post all his YouTube videos, if people like one they can check his others out.
If Putin is really thinking about setting off a nuke to see if things fall more favorably for him afterwards then there isn't much we can do about that.
It would be a huge mistake, worse than the decision to invade in the first place.
It’s for supremacy in the minds rather than battlefield. Genacide is occurring already they don’t really care do they.
NATO will never go into Ukraine if Russia nuke a Ukrainian city. Weapons delivery may intensify though.
Agree. If does that then even the countries that have not condemned Russia would take a step further away from him. Cannot see Beijing not coming out against nukes being used, however limited the payload is.
What does gaining credence get them though? If he uses nukes, what incentive will NATO / the west have to not go all in? What's keeping us out is the risk of nuclear escalation.
If nukes are used in Ukraine, especially in the West, I think NATO will close the sky.
We would have to repsond with a nuke, but we could basically let off a nuclear firework rather than respond in kind, IE something that is a matching response but non escalatory. If such madness is even possible.
Yeah I'd rather not respond with another nuke if possible. The only time I'd do that is if an ICBM is fired, or if they fired shit tons of small nukes everywhere.
But we should definitely close the sky and possibly move peacekeepers in.
Last edited: