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.
Exactly, if anything he convinced the West that Ukraine was worth backing. And in doing so, he made us realise where our interests lay.
If the US doesn't help Europe with Ukraine, then there won't be any European Patriot systems - or anything else - being sent to help the US protect Taiwan. You can be certain of that.
I think the point seems to be (at least decoding what Macron is saying) is that we can't box ourselves in with red lines, when Putin does not. By creating uncertainty about what the West might/might not do, we make it harder for Putin.
And the other thing is, if we do genuinely believe that Putin's winning Ukraine increases the chance of direct conflict with NATO in future, then shouldn't NATO bite the bullet and draw the line now?
I'm not saying we should do these things, but surely these are some of the calculations.
At least it looks as though Ukraine is going to get the weapons it needs again, which is a relief, although hopefully it's not too late. Finally people in the US seem to be waking up.
iirc there was a depot that was bombed in Czech in 2014 as well.
This was a couple of days ago:
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...xplosion-its-welsh-munitions-site-2024-04-17/
The prospects are that whilst Ukraine is willing to 'bleed' and to continue the struggle, taking the hits etc. it becomes (if unofficially) NATO's front line and for the rest of Europe (if not a Trump led USA) a cause that it has to defend absolutely.
Reports suggest Russia is already on a war footing, economically as well as militarily and eventually the rest of Europe will become the same. Whether the UK is officially part of the EU or not won't matter, we will all be in the same boat, paddling like mad to keep our heads above water, in a war of attrition.
Everything else likely to shrink in the minds of our leaders, national debt, net zero, etc. all will retreat into the distance even further, as a war driven economy emerges and reality sets in.
Get your tin-hats now, stock up with carrots (see in the dark etc.) a dose of reality is coming Europe's way. Once any would be asylum seekers (real or imagined) realise they will get called up to the armed forces (once domiciled here) the answer to the small boats problem may be found... at last!
Rishi take note, ditch the Rwanda deal... now!
You might have dementia.
Really? Then the only thing to look forward to is I will forget everything in due course and wonder what the feck is going on around me.
Really? Then the only thing to look forward to is I will forget everything in due course and wonder what the feck is going on around me.
Sounds like my day at work!
You won't find more competent person on what's going on in Ukraine than professor Snyder:
I guess the whole hearing would be useful to watch:
I guess the whole hearing would be useful to watch:
The problem is not Patriot Batteries themselves. The problem is PAC-3's. Seven, as was the forementioned number of batteries proposed to be sent to Ukraine, requires 448 Pac-3's for just 2 full volleys. PAC-3's are the bottleneck, not batteries. USA can churn the batteries out like plastic toys.
Second of all, I'm not exactly sure what Europe could contribute to a Pacific War outside of the two UK CSG's and some Naval escorts.
That said, I'm not suggesting at all that the USA should not give weapons to Ukraine, just that it must not compromise the Pacific presence.
Correct. I am sure he wouldn't spend a second of his time on people like her if he had that choice. Unfortunately he didn't.
She's the derp to end all other derps in US politics.
NATO, money, sanctions, AKUS, intelligence. Not a game changer, Europe mostly doesn''t have the assets in the region, but I don't see how the US takes on China (god forbid) with all the diplomatic and economic wreckage that would cause, without all its allies on side.
Last edited:
I see it as the other way around.
China will have to hit Taiwan and then make a decision. Do you hit Taiwan and then hope the US doesn't get involved, because if they do you've lost the strategic initiative (First strike basically).
This gives China options:
1) Hit Taiwan. Pray USA don't get involved. If they do, LRASM, TLAM and JASSM-ER Spam will cripple their fleet.
2) Hit Taiwan. Hit Guam (though that's very difficult because Guam air defense density is insane, even if you lobbed a couple hundred IRBM's at it). Hit any straggler escort ships and CSG's in the region (provided they have the intelligence). Then you're left with the problem of USAF operating with absolute impunity from bases in Okinawa, Philippines, South Korea and Mainland Japan.
3) Hit Taiwan. Hit Guam, Marshall Islands, Philippines, Okinawa, South Korea, Japan Mainland. You'll do a lot of destruction in the first strike, but now you're outmatched navally because you've picked a fight with every one of your neighbours in the region.
All three options are not ideal for China.
It could go in more than one thread. This is the result of the vote on the aid package.
316 for, 94 against.
316 for, 94 against.
yes votes were 165 Dems and 151 Rs. I doesn't get much more bipartisan that that these days.
Predictably, most of the no votes were from the nutjob caucus and the squad / progressives.
It’s going to be an interesting weekend
He was told the discharge petition was going through, nothing else.
This is all performative.
Actually, he got briefings that changed his mind. Ukraine will finally get its massive stockpile of weapons which should alter the course of the current Russian momentum.
You do you, I'm certainly not going to believe he suddenly woke up, after half a year of straight up sabotage.
Wild story.
Reminds me of that Malcolm Caldwell,big time Pol Pot-supporter, went for a visit back in the days, and then was killed not long after.
These people did it to themselves, so whatever.
It feels too late to make much of a real difference anyway, Russia has gained the upper hand, the aid sent now is 6 months too late.
Why does NATO insists on torturing Ukraine? Either commit, or tell Ukraine that it is over.
But then, keeping Russia to the east of Dnipro seems to be the goal, not much more than that, so everything is going to plan, in that regard.
Why does NATO insists on torturing Ukraine? Either commit, or tell Ukraine that it is over.
But then, keeping Russia to the east of Dnipro seems to be the goal, not much more than that, so everything is going to plan, in that regard.
Would be the cue de grau of the post WW2 generation of the UK sending their children into WW3. Amazing to think you'd have grand parents and grand children connected by a common fight for survival, whilst the in-between generation go down in history as selfish degenerates that failed to build the world their parents fought for. Instead they just took us full circle.
Also, I imagine people who are desperate enough to sacrifice everything they have and risk death just to make it to the UK would probably jump at the chance to fight for the UK if we guaranteed them citizenship afterwards.
Then again, they might not belive that promise considering how we've abandoned many of those that fought along side us in our recent expeditions.
The actual text of the "Ukraine aid" portion of the bill (anyone here actually read it?) is farcical. Among other open admissions that it's nothing more than one final act of wealth transfer from taxpayers to the military industrial complex, there's a "stipulation" (with zero conseqences for ignoring it, as the Biden Admin will) that Biden has to produce an actual strategy for their Ukrainian project within 45 days of the bill being passed.
Here are some observations and questions that nobody in the media class will ever put to Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin or Joe Biden about this "stipulation" (for which, again, there are no consequences for ignoring - once they get the money, that's it, they have it):
1) Implicit in this '45 day' rule is that so far you haven't actually presented any strategy. Isn't it kind of insane that you're being given the money before you've presented a plan, rather than after it? Given that you're now 26 months into a war that you claim is existential for you?
2) Why 45 days and not 45 minutes? Is this again an admission that, despite what you say, you so far don't actually have a strategy? Why a month and a half to cobble something together? Is it because you know that 45 days from now everyone will have forgotten about this stipulation in the bill?
3) For 6 months now you've been chastising the "MAGA Republicans" for "sitting on this bill". But they told you from the outset that presenting a coherent strategy for your Ukrainian policy was a condition for getting the money. Why haven't you been working on this for the last half a year? You've been guilt-tripping "the MAGA Republicans" into passing the bill with fairytales of Putin marching through Europe if the 61 billion isn't handed over, but why haven't you been doing your job in the meantime by crafting the strategy they told you they needed? April 19th 2024 and you still don't have a clue what your strategy is, beyond funnelling more and more billions to your donors at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
It's always worth remembering that in Eisenhower's original prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex ("In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. - Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961), he used the term "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the US Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. His warning has come to pass. Nobody with even a modicum of understanding about this war believes that this "61 billion for Ukraine" (it's nowhere close to that if you read the actual bill) is going to change the outcome for Ukraine. It's one last payday for the uniparty's sponsors. Here's Lloyd Austin just this last week stuttering through a basic question about what Ukrainian victory looks like before all but admitting Ukraine's entry into NATO is a pipe dream they've been stringing the Ukrainians along with:
The guy above asked why "NATO" (it's not NATO, it's the US and the UK) are "torturing Ukraine" like this. Money. That's why. Money. The transfer of poor people's taxes to rich people's bank accounts under the guise of "protecting their freedom". It's a tedious game they've played many times before. A few US shareholders are about to get a whole lot richer in the coming days and a lot of Ukrainians will continue to get a whole lot deader. Chuck Schumer said unequivocally in February, and I'm quoting, "If Ukraine gets this supplemental funding, they will win the war". Today, visibly delighted with his latest payday, he said, and I'm quoting, "Come the end of this fiscal year Ukraine is going to need more of our support". Numbers quoted are already another hundred billion locked in before the election. At this point, they're not even bothering to hide their bullshit.
Here are some observations and questions that nobody in the media class will ever put to Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin or Joe Biden about this "stipulation" (for which, again, there are no consequences for ignoring - once they get the money, that's it, they have it):
1) Implicit in this '45 day' rule is that so far you haven't actually presented any strategy. Isn't it kind of insane that you're being given the money before you've presented a plan, rather than after it? Given that you're now 26 months into a war that you claim is existential for you?
2) Why 45 days and not 45 minutes? Is this again an admission that, despite what you say, you so far don't actually have a strategy? Why a month and a half to cobble something together? Is it because you know that 45 days from now everyone will have forgotten about this stipulation in the bill?
3) For 6 months now you've been chastising the "MAGA Republicans" for "sitting on this bill". But they told you from the outset that presenting a coherent strategy for your Ukrainian policy was a condition for getting the money. Why haven't you been working on this for the last half a year? You've been guilt-tripping "the MAGA Republicans" into passing the bill with fairytales of Putin marching through Europe if the 61 billion isn't handed over, but why haven't you been doing your job in the meantime by crafting the strategy they told you they needed? April 19th 2024 and you still don't have a clue what your strategy is, beyond funnelling more and more billions to your donors at Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
It's always worth remembering that in Eisenhower's original prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex ("In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. - Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961), he used the term "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the role that the US Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. His warning has come to pass. Nobody with even a modicum of understanding about this war believes that this "61 billion for Ukraine" (it's nowhere close to that if you read the actual bill) is going to change the outcome for Ukraine. It's one last payday for the uniparty's sponsors. Here's Lloyd Austin just this last week stuttering through a basic question about what Ukrainian victory looks like before all but admitting Ukraine's entry into NATO is a pipe dream they've been stringing the Ukrainians along with:
The guy above asked why "NATO" (it's not NATO, it's the US and the UK) are "torturing Ukraine" like this. Money. That's why. Money. The transfer of poor people's taxes to rich people's bank accounts under the guise of "protecting their freedom". It's a tedious game they've played many times before. A few US shareholders are about to get a whole lot richer in the coming days and a lot of Ukrainians will continue to get a whole lot deader. Chuck Schumer said unequivocally in February, and I'm quoting, "If Ukraine gets this supplemental funding, they will win the war". Today, visibly delighted with his latest payday, he said, and I'm quoting, "Come the end of this fiscal year Ukraine is going to need more of our support". Numbers quoted are already another hundred billion locked in before the election. At this point, they're not even bothering to hide their bullshit.
Last edited:
Can this guy be thread-banned?
He always post the same nonsense and when he gets thoroughly debunked he does absolutely nothing to respond to them. He is not interested in debate, just interested in pushing forward a blatantly false rhetoric.
A very long winded and repetative way of saying the money will go to defence contractors. No shit. The US doesn't have nationalised arms manufacturers. It's not some grand conspiracy.
I said it a few times. I dont think the US had been honest with Ukraine. I think that the goal was not saving Ukraine but bleeding out russia as much as possible without spilling US soldiers blood
At the same time FIFO the military stock and enrich themselves. It worked out. Now is a meh situation and too much of a comitment to revert the situation
May as well be a perma-ban since he only post in this thread
Don't be to hard on the guy, he's just doing his job.
Two posts in threads other than this.
A Navalny thread and... an Everton thread?
127/129 in this thread.
Everyone knows war is about winning the information battle in the 21st century. If you can convince Manchester United supports that Russia is the good guy, it’s plain sailing from there.Two posts in threads other than this.
A Navalny thread and... an Everton thread?
127/129 in this thread.
Maybe it's Andrei Kanchelskis.
I think it was more that US wants to maintain strategic stability. They don't want a collapsed Russia to deal with, they didn't want the risk of NATO getting pulled in hence the caution. Unfortunately that approach has prolonged the war, which played to Russian strengths and has given a chance for Russia to influence its friends in the US government.
Although happily this phase seems to be coming to and end (which must be absolutely crushing for Russian morale) and hopefully Ukraine can go finish this thing quickly now.
Bleeding out Russia is a win for the West but I don't think it was our goal, other than as a step to towards victory.
Yes, history repeating itself, it had happened previously in between the early to mid part of the 20th century.
Relief in 1918 after WW1 ending; then followed by Spanish Flue (pandemic 1918-1920), followed by further global conflict WW2 1939-45. The rise of Dictators in Europe (Hitler & Mussolini) by subsequently invading other countries, creating war conditions, etc.
The latter part of the 20th century bringing in the relief at the end of the 'Cold war', with the emergence in Russia of Gorbachev (with 'Perestroika' and 'Glasnost'). Generating the so called 'peace dividend' ...seemingly having been squandered (if it really did exist!).
Early part of 21st Century, similarities abound now; with the Covid (pandemic), and by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, etc....for the West (mainly US and Europe) with it suddenly finding it needs to re-arm.
It does seem that we really do not learn anything from history
They would only be subject to conscription to the armed forces, once they were domiciled here, i.e. citizens of the UK (or perhaps more correctly, subjects of the Crown).