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.
Thanks Elon.
Thank the US government. It bought them.
Would you? I think I would…
Could swear they've tried to exchange this dude several times already, for the British POW's at least? Could it be that he's not as important as we thought?
So she could call it a special sexual operation that she conducted out of pity afterwards? No thanks.
Last edited:
Why are French, German, and Italian politicians trying to wheel and deal land and ceasefires in Ukraine as if it’s their choice?
Why are we discussing what land should the Ukrainians give to Russia to end this war?
Only Ukrainians should decide. The rest of us should just support them, like the US and UK do. It is better for the world if the invaders lose this war. It may teach other potential invaders that they will pay a high price for their foolishness. If Russia gets Crimea, or Donbass, or anything at all, it will only teach other dictators that an unprovoked invasion wins you land. If Russia loses badly, and pays reparations, then there is the hope that for a long time in the future we will have almost no wars because no one else will dare invade anyone.
So, again, why do some EU politicians try so hard to find a way to please Putin? We should not care about finding a way out for Putin. Putin already has a very easy way out of this by simply declaring win, saying that they killed all the nazis in Ukraine, and withdrawing all his forces from Ukraine (including Crimea). Ordinary Russians will believe all that bullshit because they already believe all these lies of their TV, or at least they pretend to (which is the same thing in practice). We should not give a damn about what Putin and the Russians want or desire, they have zero justification for all the destruction of lives and properties that they have caused.
Why are we discussing what land should the Ukrainians give to Russia to end this war?
Only Ukrainians should decide. The rest of us should just support them, like the US and UK do. It is better for the world if the invaders lose this war. It may teach other potential invaders that they will pay a high price for their foolishness. If Russia gets Crimea, or Donbass, or anything at all, it will only teach other dictators that an unprovoked invasion wins you land. If Russia loses badly, and pays reparations, then there is the hope that for a long time in the future we will have almost no wars because no one else will dare invade anyone.
So, again, why do some EU politicians try so hard to find a way to please Putin? We should not care about finding a way out for Putin. Putin already has a very easy way out of this by simply declaring win, saying that they killed all the nazis in Ukraine, and withdrawing all his forces from Ukraine (including Crimea). Ordinary Russians will believe all that bullshit because they already believe all these lies of their TV, or at least they pretend to (which is the same thing in practice). We should not give a damn about what Putin and the Russians want or desire, they have zero justification for all the destruction of lives and properties that they have caused.
Yet another failed attempt by the Russians to cross that same river:
River crossings under fire are among the hardest things a military can do. Russia might lose an entire brigade trying to cross that thing.
Russia is having a 1905 moment, it seems.
They should let them just enough to cross the river and then cut off from behind and destroy every unit that spills over. I am talking shit of course with all my RTS gaming experiences.
Letting Russians believe that they still have offensive capability where they are shit at could still be the best thing for Ukrainians. It might be more difficult for them when Russian troops start fortifying their defence on the other side of the river instead.
Letting Russians believe that they still have offensive capability where they are shit at could still be the best thing for Ukrainians. It might be more difficult for them when Russian troops start fortifying their defence on the other side of the river instead.
What politicians are you talking about?
Even so, there comes a time when an offensive is about the only way to make the cracks even more evident on the opponent's side. When the North Vietnamese led the Tet Offensive in 1968, that showed the cracks in the US support for South Vietnam and pushed the latter two more or less on the defensive afterwards. South Vietnam became a nation in turmoil both during and in the aftermath of the offensive as the following years became a slow death for the government. That could well be the case in the Donbas and in Luhansk should the Ukrainians attack and push their way through, so much that it shows locals that Russia CANNOT defend the enclaves properly.
The demise of Russia is something I am very much looking forward to in the coming years.
Will be sweet, sweet justice.
Will be sweet, sweet justice.
I just think Ukrainians need a bit more time before they can do significant counterattacks with more new weapons coming in and more troops getting trained.
Someone from Britain has suggested that move or maybe it has appeared in Daily Mail or something… but, surprisingly, Ukraine’s main priority is not rescuing British POW.
Although whenever Putin will go for that exchange (1900+ people for 1) is another matter. Maybe if they add some of POW that were captured by Ukraine?
Exactly. The Ukranian commandment want to avoid heavy loss of lives, thus full-scale counter-attack is not considered at this stage. Long-range artillery seems to be the best option available for now. Wonder if more Russian ships will be targeted to make sure that the rushists are not allowed to build fortresses supported by their navy.
Is the general consensus that this is what’s happening though? I.e. is Ukraine both absorbing their current losses AND getting stronger as the summer goes on? I hope that this is the case, I’m just not sure.
Depends on how likely it is for her to shit the bed.
Scholz, Macron, Draghi.
"These calls are idiotic and damaging..."
https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-macron-asked-ukraine-concession-help-putin-save-face/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italys-draghi-calls-urgent-ceasefire-ukraine-2022-05-19/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...erating-frances-macron-over-putin-2022-04-04/
<<"One should not negotiate with criminals, one should fight them...Nobody negotiated with Hitler. Would you negotiate with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot?" he added.>>
Catheter
Even the lads put their heads down as she started talking about a special operation
It doesn't necessarily matter of course. What matters is whether they are getting relatively stronger than the Russians, and judging by the scale of alleged problems on the Russian side then they will be.
Yeah that’s true, and basically the definition of an attritional war. But yes i guess my question remains. Is Ukraine currently getting stronger relative to Russia? Lots of variables and not an easy question to answer.
Well if the info we're fed is true then yes, definitely. I do tend to take Twitter et al with a pinch of salt though.
I remember (much) earlier in this thread advocating for this kind of hard line approach, only to be accused of being a warmonger by various on here. It remains the case though - Putin and Russia only respect strength. Talk of concessions and ceasefires - hell, pretty much any kind of talk - will be seen as weakness.
Next time Lavrov or whoever starts talking about nukes, they should be reminded that other countries also have nukes, and that unlike Russia, their arsenals are probably full maintained and ready to go.
The problem is, an immediate ceasefire would stop civilian deaths in the short term, and I fully understand how important that is. No ceasefire inevitably means more innocent women and children will die.
However there are longer term factors here. A significant degradation of the Russian army means they won’t be able to do this again any time soon. And regardless of the spin coming out of Russia there are going to be lots of high up people in the army and military who will remember this like the US remembers Vietnam. A significant and overt defeat of Russia could ensure that we have a generation of relative peace in Eastern Europe, by which time European reliance on Russian fossil fuels will be taken out of the equation.
Putin’s objective of keeping NATO from Russia’s borders has backfired big time as Sweden and Finland will now join NATO and ,if he takes the whole of Ukraine, again he will have more countries who are members. Conclusion, he did this out of vanity to play the hard man especially if the rumours about his failing health are true. I hope someone in the Kremlin will see sense and usurp Putin.
The US Secretary of Defense called for a ceasefire just last week as well. Just to give some context before it's all exclusively on the usual suspects again (plus Italy this time).
(As @NotThatSoph has been pointing out before.)
I think there are valid criticisms of Germany for their lack of support relative to their wealth and the rest of the west’s contributions, but I don’t particularly think calling for a ceasefire should be included in that criticism.