Russia Invades ukraine

[Mark J]

4 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Well it's pretty obvious I say yes a deal should have been done.

 

And as usual you're just stuck to your moral high ground of Russia should go home, stomp feet they're bad waffle waffle waffle.

 

So what's your solution, they aren't going home so...........

Why do you think Trump hasn't told Putin to withdraw his army? Surely that would be the quickest way to end the war...

[Steven P]

Not on a moral high ground, looking pragmatically, 3 years ago if the deal was "Ukraine give Russia the Donbas region and they will stop fighting for now" as you suggest... would that deal actually have been agreed and signed off?

 

No moral high ground to say at the time that would not happen, not a deal that would ever be given credibility.

 

If that deal was not possible - at the time - and I think we all know that The Ukraine would never have agreed to that - then with all of Trumps superior world political knowledge - what was the deal he is thinking that could have been done.

[GarethM]

What did I say about the river ?.

 

As usual zero solutions, just political waffle and grandstanding expecting Putin to just go home.

[Mark J]

9 minutes ago, GarethM said:

What did I say about the river ?.

 

As usual zero solutions, just political waffle and grandstanding expecting Putin to just go home.

Aye, but he invaded a Sovereign country, why is Putin even there in the first place?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, GarethM.

Edited Wednesday at 16:40 by Mark J

[GarethM]

Ok, as a compromise for you and the Ukrainian leader.

 

Fight aslong as you wish, but from today all armour and supplies are provided on a lend lease agreement like WW2.

 

See how long it takes for a agreement to be reached shall we, instead of grifting his way around the world.

[GarethM]

33 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Aye, but he invaded a Sovereign country, why is Putin even there in the first place?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, GarethM.

Because it's a former soviet block country would be the general assumption.

 

Whilst it was a democratically elected and governed country kinda, they were never part of NATO.

 

Even then I don't think that means much today as we've not had a test of that recently, whilst a poor example is Bosnia, we pretty much left to kick each other for a good while.

 

No koolaid required, it's just reality.

Compromise and DMZ the river as we can't keep giving them money for it to become a forever war of billions of pounds for nothing.

[Mark J]

4 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Because it's a former soviet block country would be the general assumption.

 

Whilst it was a democratically elected and governed country kinda, they were never part of NATO.

 

Even then I don't think that means much today as we've not had a test of that recently, whilst a poor example is Bosnia, we pretty much left to kick each other for a good while.

 

No koolaid required, it's just reality.

Compromise and DMZ the river as we can't keep giving them money for it to become a forever war of billions of pounds for nothing.

Yet the Ruskies have already stated that they won't have NATO\EU forces on their border as part of any 'deal'. 

How does that play out in reality?

Edited Wednesday at 17:25 by Mark J

[GarethM]

From what I remember it was more about having for example scud missiles than NATO.

 

I would have thought having a post WW2 germany style force on the border, wouldn't be bad.

 

Start moving long range missiles or nukes and yeah he'll kick off.

 

Ukraine had nukes what 15/20 years back!.

Edited Wednesday at 17:37 by GarethM

[Mark Bolam]

[peds]