Russia Invades ukraine

[sime42]

[sime42]

I completely get why Trump would blame Ukraine, it was to be expected. What I don't get is why a few people still think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Time to wake up, shake up!

[GarethM]

How about actually reading the article, instead of just trump bashing at a snippet.

 

"Well, you’ve been there for three years, you should have ended it three years. You should have never started it, you could have made a deal.”

 

The whole thing has been running on longer than WW1/2/Vietnam, isn't it now almost aslong as Afghan?.

 

Any longer and it'll turn into the 100 years war, which were all paying to prop up

Edited February 19 by GarethM

[Steven P]

Go on then, how? 

 

So if I read this right (and I did read the article), Trumps idea is that The Ukraine - in the middle of an invasion, an act of aggression against it - wanted them to phone up Russia "you're invading our country, feck off" and a deal is done. I am not sure how such a deal is possible without them rolling over and conceding land losses and setting a precedence for future invasions and land grabs. 

 

So... what would this deal be? How would it work to see Russia withdrawing and returning all the territory grabbed back to their rightful owner?

[GarethM]

4 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Go on then, how? 

 

So if I read this right (and I did read the article), Trumps idea is that The Ukraine - in the middle of an invasion, an act of aggression against it - wanted them to phone up Russia "you're invading our country, feck off" and a deal is done. I am not sure how such a deal is possible without them rolling over and conceding land losses and setting a precedence for future invasions and land grabs. 

 

So... what would this deal be? How would it work to see Russia withdrawing and returning all the territory grabbed back to their rightful owner?

Why not define war Vs an occupation.

 

Let's use Afghanistan as a recent benchmark for you. We went to war and gave it back, within days it returned to pretty much the same condition as before, after what 15-20 years of occupation?.

[tree-fancier123]

14 hours ago, Mark J said:

The mind boggles. That's just shy of 3k per person in the UK. 

 

11 hours ago, Johnsond said:

Try the bit about army housing and you posted the guys views not me 

So defence is a waste of money is it ??

explain what we would do without adequate defence capability please in the event of an attack 🤷‍♂️

Dont say it will never happen 😌look to Ukraine 

so if the £20 billion proposed is £3000 per UK resident and several times that £20 billion have already been spent on Ukraine and they are still retreating in the east, then we have no hope of fighting a war, only of putting down a civil war.

If they gave me the purse strings I would say enough already and tell Russia China, India and US that we are very afraid of being defeated by a bigger concern in the future, so we are putting the country up for auction - if you can't beat them join them.

If we fell out with any of the above countries, or even Germany, there is no way we are winning alone.

Regarding hypersonic nuclear funding - I'd rather learn to speak american, hindi, mandarin or russian than push a nuclear posturing to its logical conclusion

[Steven P]

57 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Why not define war Vs an occupation.

 

Let's use Afghanistan as a recent benchmark for you. We went to war and gave it back, within days it returned to pretty much the same condition as before, after what 15-20 years of occupation?.

 

However with Afghanistan, 'we' didn't cross our borders, walk in there and say "all this is ours now", 'we' went in with a very different mission to the Russians in the Ukraine, so I don't think the 2 are directly comparable.

 

Back to Trumps suggestion that the Ukraine could have done a deal 3 years ago, I am very much interested to know what that deal could have been and could have been acceptable to the victim on the piece. I suspect that Trumps idea of a deal would have been conceding a defeat, and a loss of more territory. I might be wrong but suspect I am not, and such a deal is only giving power to the aggressor.

[GarethM]

3 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

However with Afghanistan, 'we' didn't cross our borders, walk in there and say "all this is ours now", 'we' went in with a very different mission to the Russians in the Ukraine, so I don't think the 2 are directly comparable.

 

Back to Trumps suggestion that the Ukraine could have done a deal 3 years ago, I am very much interested to know what that deal could have been and could have been acceptable to the victim on the piece. I suspect that Trumps idea of a deal would have been conceding a defeat, and a loss of more territory. I might be wrong but suspect I am not, and such a deal is only giving power to the aggressor.

How long has Russia been in the Donbas?.

 

You're coveted EU and NATO are responsible, turning into modern day Anthony Eden's.

[Steven P]

You're distracting yourself from my musings though, what kind of deal would Trump be suggesting that could have been done 3 years ago that would be acceptable to both sides?

 

Let's assume we take out the EU, NATO and Afghanistan (?) from the equation, Ukraine phones up Russia "Lets do a deal, you feck off out of Ukraine and Russia ..... ? " - that last part I am struggling with, a deal acceptable to both sides.

[peds]

I wish you'd learn how to use apostrophes.

 

Anyway, neither the EU nor NATO are responsible for Russia invading any part of Ukraine, at any moment in time. But, in the interests of fostering discussion, lgo ahead and tell us why they are.