What is really happening in the Ukraine Conflict?

[Nick]

What you talking about? America have had decades of invading countries and now there is an UN inquiry on US war crimes in Syria. And ask Vietnam what they think of Cluster bombs and indiscriminate killing. When the Western leaders asked Putin what he thought of Bucha, his response was what they thought about Raqqa. The truth is there isn't much difference between this invasion compared to Iraq, Syria, Libya except geographical location.

The USA dropped about 3 million tons of bombs 💣 on Cambodia chasing the VC and the country wasn't at war with the USA!! A 4 year old boy was blown up by a landline whilst I was there last month. None of the above has anything to do with what Putin is doing though. 

[Nick]

I didn't realise at first, but you really are an expert from sh*t to rhubarb.


I was watching a "Sharpe" episode one time when he was asked to drink a toast to "Death to the French". Richard Sharpe refused as he believed all soldiers were worthy of respect. Hoping for anyone to have a slow and painful death is a cruel thing in my opinion.

Obviously Bernard Cornwell had morals.

If you had any military experience you would know the Russian military S.O.P and how their armies operate. Any soldier that thinks it is acceptable to rape young girls and shoot civilians in their homes doesn't deserve any respect, they should be slaughtered like dogs. 

[Sampanviking]

Video of a Russian column advancing through the Kharkov region and being greeted by locals.

https://twitter.com/PelmeniPusha/status/1517389441123471360

[B0ycey]

So two wrongs make a right do they?

Did I write that? No. I was pointing out you were wrong about there being only one invading nation.

[B0ycey]

No what are you talking about,the fact that Bush Bliar et al were rsouls is some get out clause for sputum is nonsense.

I never said it was a 'Get Out' clause. My point was it isn't just Russia who are going around invading and killing people. If the argument is that Russia cannot be trusted to justify Finland and Sweden membership of NATO, then why is NATO not a threat to Russia when its biggest backer is also the nation who has been involved in most of the major invasions in the last 50 years? Same argument but in reverse. But in any case I think people are getting confused between a threat in terms of immediate danger and a threat is the sense of a potential risk. NATO isn't an immediate threat to Russia and nobody has claimed otherwise. It is however a potential risk when its existence was to counter Russia. And should Russia arm the Baltics as a reaction to NATO membership, can I ask do you consider that a risk to Finland or Sweden when the arms are within Russian territory? The answer of course is obvious but under what you and Good Old write you should say 'not at all as Russia is a sovereign nation who has the right to decide its own security decisions'.

[T00ts]

What you talking about? America have had decades of invading countries and now there is an UN inquiry on US war crimes in Syria. And ask Vietnam what they think of Cluster bombs and indiscriminate killing. When the Western leaders asked Putin what he thought of Bucha, his response was what they thought about Raqqa. The truth is there isn't much difference between this invasion compared to Iraq, Syria, Libya except geographical location.

So two wrongs make a right do they? 

[cromwell]

What you talking about? America have had decades of invading countries and now there is an UN inquiry on US war crimes in Syria. And ask Vietnam what they think of Cluster bombs and indiscriminate killing. When the Western leaders asked Putin what he thought of Bucha, his response was what they thought about Raqqa. The truth is there isn't much difference between this invasion compared to Iraq, Syria, Libya except geographical location.

No what are you talking about,the fact that Bush Bliar et al were rsouls is some get out clause for sputum is nonsense. 

[B0ycey]

There is only one country threatening and only one country invading another and killing everyone that they can.

What you talking about? America have had decades of invading countries and now there is an UN inquiry on US war crimes in Syria. And ask Vietnam what they think of Cluster bombs and indiscriminate killing. When the Western leaders asked Putin what he thought of Bucha, his response was what they thought about Raqqa. The truth is there isn't much difference between this invasion compared to Iraq, Syria, Libya except geographical location.

[Good old]

You keep mentioning risk. Risk of what? Finland joins NATO so Russia becomes a risk of attack. Yet you justify this.

He wants a new world order, so the risk is , just how far will he go to get it. 

[T00ts]

I am not justifying anything. I am explaining things that are happening. You can make the reverse argument by the way in saying what risk does Russia have to Finland and Sweden. The truth is NATO is a risk to Russia given its existence is to counter the Warsaw Pact. It might not be an imminent risk in the sense that it is going to declare war on Russia anytime soon but it is a threat in the sense it could be deployed against Russia if friction happening in the future. The very reason Finland and Sweden want to join NATO it should be said is that Russia isn't an imminent threat but could be in the future. Same argument being made here but yet you cannot see it in reverse. Funny. But in any case it doesn't matter. Russia isn't going to stop Finland nor Sweden joining NATO. There isn't going to be the same reaction with Ukraine as to them the risks involved are not the same. But they still perceive NATO enlargement as a threat and as such will act. They have already explained what they will do if both Finland and Sweden join so it isn't like they don't know what NATO membership will also entail.

There is only one country threatening and only one country invading another and killing everyone that they can. 

[B0ycey]

You keep mentioning risk. Risk of what? Finland joins NATO so Russia becomes a risk of attack. Yet you justify this.

I am not justifying anything. I am explaining things that are happening. You can make the reverse argument by the way in saying what risk does Russia have to Finland and Sweden. The truth is NATO is a risk to Russia given its existence is to counter the Warsaw Pact. It might not be an imminent risk in the sense that it is going to declare war on Russia anytime soon but it is a threat in the sense it could be deployed against Russia if friction happening in the future. The very reason Finland and Sweden want to join NATO it should be said is that Russia isn't an imminent threat but could be in the future. Same argument being made here but yet you cannot see it in reverse. Funny. But in any case it doesn't matter. Russia isn't going to stop Finland nor Sweden joining NATO. There isn't going to be the same reaction with Ukraine as to them the risks involved are not the same. But they still perceive NATO enlargement as a threat and as such will act. They have already explained what they will do if both Finland and Sweden join so it isn't like they don't know what NATO membership will also entail.

[Good old]

It is a amazing that you can see the merits of Finland and Sweden being part of NATO for defence but can't see why it could be a threat to Russia even though you can see the reverse and threat to Finland. Are you aware of why NATO exists as a pact I wonder?

Even so, Sweden and Finland can do what they like. Russia has said they don't see it as a existential threat like Ukraine given its proximity to Moscow and as such the reaction isn't going to be the same. But there will be a counter measure. More troops and offensive weapons on the Finnish border. That is all Russia have done, explained what will happen if they join NATO. And now Finland and a lesser extent Sweden will have to make their minds up if this perceived "security" is worth 

https://www.dw.com/en/what-is-nato-and-why-was-it-created/a-60688639

The imagined threat to Russia, I think you mean . No body has threatened Russia, Russia, is the only one that is threatening and enacting threats. The amazing thing is that virtually every state that was ever under the Soviet yoke has either joined NATO or is now seriously considering doing so. NATO, was a pact to maintain peace, so what's your point? Who is actually breaking the peace? Take  a look at the long list of NATO countries, and ask yourself who do you think it is they might need help fending off. And then consider Putin is busy right now proving who. The only way NATO threatens Putin, is it will not let him tread on its members without him getting his fingers burned. That's his real beef. 

[T00ts]

It is a amazing that you can see the merits of Finland and Sweden being part of NATO for defence but can't see why it could be a threat to Russia even though you can see the reverse and threat to Finland. Are you aware of why NATO exists as a pact I wonder?

Even so, Sweden and Finland can do what they like. Russia has said they don't see it as a existential threat like Ukraine given its proximity to Moscow and as such the reaction isn't going to be the same. But there will be a counter measure. More troops and offensive weapons on the Finnish border. That is all Russia have done, explained what will happen if they join NATO. And now Finland and a lesser extent Sweden will have to make their minds up if this perceived "security" is worth the additional risk.

You keep mentioning risk. Risk of what? Finland joins NATO so Russia becomes a risk of attack. Yet you justify this.

[B0ycey]

So why should Finland , or Sweden , think twice if no actual threat exists.? Feel safe ?Finland , is not safe whether she feels safe or not. After all Putin, is only engaged right now in letting his defensive forces , cross into neighbouring  territory, and go very offensive , as that's his version of defence. So you think there is no threat?  Tell that to Ukraine.  As ever he says he is threatened,  no, only he makes the threats. Only he has stupidly waved nuks, only he tells European nations , do it my way or my defensive capabilities will be attacking you , if only to teach you a lesson. NATO, says nothing about attacking him. He says everything about attacking anyone that even thinks of getting help in defying him. 
He has gained little or nothing, with his over reactions , other than facilitating the deaths of thousands of combatants ,and worst of all innocents of all age groups, and that remains the case as Ukraine , will not repeat unless he actually wants a full on confrontation with enemies that can give him a real headache .

It is a amazing that you can see the merits of Finland and Sweden being part of NATO for defence but can't see why it could be a threat to Russia even though you can see the reverse and threat to Finland. Are you aware of why NATO exists as a pact I wonder?

Even so, Sweden and Finland can do what they like. Russia has said they don't see it as a existential threat like Ukraine given its proximity to Moscow and as such the reaction isn't going to be the same. But there will be a counter measure. More troops and offensive weapons on the Finnish border. That is all Russia have done, explained what will happen if they join NATO. And now Finland and a lesser extent Sweden will have to make their minds up if this perceived "security" is worth the additional risk.

[Good old]

All Russia have done is explained what will happen if Finland and Sweden join NATO Good Old. They haven't threatened anyone. They have just explained that more military and defensive capacity will be stationed on the Finnish border which should be expected. So if the objective for both nations is to feal more "safe" they can't be said they weren't warned what the price of "safety" means in real terms.

So why should Finland , or Sweden , think twice if no actual threat exists.? Feel safe ?Finland , is not safe whether she feels safe or not. After all Putin, is only engaged right now in letting his defensive forces , cross into neighbouring  territory, and go very offensive , as that's his version of defence. So you think there is no threat?  Tell that to Ukraine.  As ever he says he is threatened,  no, only he makes the threats. Only he has stupidly waved nuks, only he tells European nations , do it my way or my defensive capabilities will be attacking you , if only to teach you a lesson. NATO, says nothing about attacking him. He says everything about attacking anyone that even thinks of getting help in defying him.  
He has gained little or nothing, with his over reactions , other than facilitating the deaths of thousands of combatants ,and worst of all innocents of all age groups, and that remains the case as Ukraine , will not repeat unless he actually wants a full on confrontation with enemies that can give him a real headache .