Russia Invades ukraine

[Rich Rule]

2 hours ago, Stubby said:

I don't see it quite like that . The Russians are loosing huge amounts of personnel and hard wear . The losses of men are due to inadequate training , lack of experience and Putins attitude of there is plenty more where they came from . This is not sustainable . The Ukrainians are out numbered something like 10:1 making one Ukraine soldier worth ten Russian soldiers . I agree the west should of provided more early on but , as you say , they ( the west ) are facing the prospect of Russia winning and the west won't let that happen . ( Me thinks )  

Ever thought that the propaganda from either side has ulterior motives?

 

War is good for business.

 

 

[GarethM]

Propaganda is always with an ulterior motive to make your side seem to be doing better.

 

Plus war was so profitable they even made an award to make it a little more palatable.

 

Bit like maxim, made lord of war look like a rank amateur.

[Mike Hill]

47 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Propaganda is always with an ulterior motive to make your side seem to be doing better.

 

Plus war was so profitable they even made an award to make it a little more palatable.

 

Bit like maxim, made lord of war look like a rank amateur.

 

Eh?

 

Care to explain?

[GarethM]

Dynamite= Alfred noble awards

 

Maxim sold machine guns to both sides during a few conflicts including the 1st world war.

 

IBM didn't do too badly from what I remember keeping track of numbers on the trains.

 

And I'm not a cheese eating surrender monkey, but most wars are about territory. WW2 probably being the exception to the rule 

Edited June 7 by GarethM

[Stubby]

Putin now saying he will give missiles to  "enemies " of the west as the west is arming Ukraine . This is a good thing coz I don't think those " enemies " of the west will use them against the west and it will leave him ( Putin ) less to fire at Ukraine . 

[Mick Dempsey]

1 hour ago, GarethM said:

Dynamite= Alfred noble awards

 

Maxim sold machine guns to both sides during a few conflicts including the 1st world war.

 

IBM didn't do too badly from what I remember keeping track of numbers on the trains.

 

And I'm not a cheese eating surrender monkey, but most wars are about territory. WW2 probably being the exception to the rule 

What was WW2 about, if not territory?

[peds]

It was quite literally about territory, living space, lebensraum; and Japan's empire building on the other side of the planet.

Edited June 7 by peds

[GarethM]

2 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

What was WW2 about, if not territory?

Whilst they took lots of territory, it wasn't exactly a secret they planned to invade the UK and you know that whole final solution thing wasn't exactly palatable.

[peds]

Eh?

[GarethM]

Just now, peds said:

Eh?

Oh, you forgot about the Juden.