Russia v Ukraine

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

No it's not what I was saying. I was replying to Rico saying "if" Russia pulled out of Ukraine all this would be over, which it would be over, he's right. I was making the point that the  "if" word in his assumption could prove problematic.

If Russia pulls out of the war they started in Ukraine to end the war in Ukraine it could be problematic, hmm.

How?

[Gnasher]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

If Russia pulls out of the war they started in Ukraine to end the war in Ukraine it could be problematic, hmm.

How?

Because Putin won't pull out of Ukraine. Thats why the "if" word is doing heavy lifting. Its not going to happen imo.

[TheHowieLama]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Because Putin won't pull out of Ukraine. Thats why the "if" word is doing heavy lifting. Its not going to happen imo.

I think you are probably right. That's why there is a concerted effort to drive him out of Ukraine. 

Cuz, otherwise, he is, erm, in Ukraine. Which has proven to be problematic.

[Rico1304]

Maybe if we hadn’t been so fucking weak when the Russians used a nerve agent on U.K. soil we wouldn’t be in this position.  
 

Same people being apologists from memory. 

[Gnasher]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

I think you are probably right. That's why there is a concerted effort to drive him out of Ukraine. 

Cuz, otherwise, he is, erm, in Ukraine. Which has proven to be problematic.

Well the other way is to make some sort of peace deal. Otherwise its a limited win or lose outcome. If Russia does face the prospect of losing it probably increases the likelihood of Putin using nuclear weapons, so the victory party might be followed with one almighty hangover.

[TheHowieLama]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Otherwise its a limited win or lose outcome. 

No it is not. Driving Russia out of Ukraine is hardly a limited win for Ukraine and I have to tell you - Putin will not be the guy in charge once that happens.

[Rico1304]

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Well the other way is to make some sort of peace deal. Otherwise its a limited win or lose outcome. If Russia does face the prospect of losing it probably increases the likelihood of Putin using nuclear weapons, so the victory party might be followed with one almighty hangover.

So we give him what he wants and create the conditions for him to do it again.  

[TheHowieLama]

TBH there is more of a chance that some rogue terrorists crack off a nuke than it going through the Russian chain of command. 

IMO of course.

[Gnasher]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

No it is not. Driving Russia out of Ukraine is hardly a limited win for Ukraine and I have to tell you - Putin will not be the guy in charge once that happens.

I didn't say it was a "limited" win for Ukraine, you're putting words in my mouth. I said if Russia lose it could increase the prospect of Putin using nuclear weapons.

 

Good to know you're probably one of the only person on the planet who knows how this is going to pan out. I hate to tell you that if you are right and Putin "ain't going to be the guy in charge" then the days surrounding his demise will be very nervous ones for the whole world. Who knows (bar for you of course) how that'll pan out?

[Guest]

Putin has been given a tractor for his birthday. Looks like I picked the wrong time to stop sniffing glue.

[Gnasher]

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

So we give him what he wants and create the conditions for him to do it again.  

Russia is in no position of strength to do fuck all again, they wouldn't get as far as Poland. They have got nukes though and that's where the worry is.

[TheHowieLama]

Just now, Gnasher said:

 I said if Russia lose it could increase the prospect of Putin using nuclear weapons.

 

Good to know you're probably one of the only person on the planet who knows how this is going to pan out. I hate to tell you that if you are right and Putin "ain't going to be the guy in charge" then the days surrounding his demise will be very nervous ones for the whole world. Who knows (bar for you of course) how that'll pan out?

If Russia uses a nuke they would surley be winning then - otherwise it seems a bit preposterous. Unless you are suggesting Putin would rather commit suicide than "lose".

 

As for the part in bold @Paulie Dangerously posts it on the Members Forum.

[Gnasher]

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

If Russia uses a nuke they would surley be winning then - otherwise it seems a bit preposterous. Unless you are suggesting Putin would rather commit suicide than "lose".

 

As for the part in bold @Paulie Dangerously posts it on the Members Forum.

That's what I'm thinking to be honest. You hit it there. I think it's possible Putin is so mad he'd rather use nuclear weapons than be humiliated. 

 

I believe the old saying in war is "always give the loser a golden bridge to go back across".. 

[Rico1304]

8 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Russia is in no position of strength to do fuck all again, they wouldn't get as far as Poland. They have got nukes though and that's where the worry is.

Why would they need to go to Poland?  

[TheHowieLama]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

That's what I'm thinking to be honest. You hit it there. I think it's possible Putin is so mad he'd rather use nuclear weapons than be humiliated. 

 

I do not think a scenario where the Russians are beaten back on the battlefield and Putin gets a few tactical "fuck you" nukes off while leaving is plausible. For a number of reasons.

I think it is even less likely that he fires an "offensive" nuke to gain or regain territory.

 

Will give you this as well - I don't think Joe Biden could get a nuke fired if he wanted to.

[TheHowieLama]

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Why would they need to go to Poland?  

Because Ukraine will be glowing in radiation by then.

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I do not think a scenario where the Russians are beaten back on the battlefield and Putin gets a few tactical "fuck you" nukes off while leaving is plausible. For a number of reasons.

I think it is even less likely that he fires an "offensive" nuke to gain or regain territory.

 

Will give you this as well - I don't think Joe Biden could get a nuke fired if he wanted to.

Yeah maybe. I think you're definitely right about Biden being under others control. Putes is a bit more difficult to predict, some of his latest ramblings (about Catherine the Great etc) are unhinged.

[Gnasher]

10 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Why would they need to go to Poland?  

Becuse the two countries hate each other? Anyway don't worry Rico, you're safe, the Russians will be stopped before Salford. 

 

The only threat to you and me are Russias nukes, their conventional army couldn't whip the skin off custard.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Becuse the two countries hate each other? Anyway don't worry Rico, you're safe, the Russians will be stopped before Salford. 

 

The only threat to you and me are Russias nukes, their conventional army couldn't whip the skin off custard.

They’ve already said Finland is next.  Why are you talking about a country they’d have to invade others to get to?  

[Gnasher]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They’ve already said Finland is next.  Why are you talking about a country they’d have to invade others to get to?  

Have they? OK, I suppose it makes sense 

 

The point i was trying to make is Russia pose no threat at all to western Europe. I thinking when at the start of the invasion into Ukraine some people were saying Russia could turn into another world war 2 Germany and storm right across Europe. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Have they? OK, I suppose it makes sense 

 

The point i was trying to make is Russia pose no threat at all to western Europe. I thinking when at the start of the invasion into Ukraine some people were saying Russia could turn into another world war 2 Germany and storm right across Europe. 

No one has made that point at all.  They have made the point Russia may try and reclaim old territories as it’s doing now. 
 

It’s almost like your arguments are just complete nonsense.  

[TheHowieLama]

The other preemptive, peaceful option would be to just give Putin maybe 3 or 4% of every country around him.

 

He has nukes FFS, think of the children.

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The other preemptive, peaceful option would be to just give Putin maybe 3 or 4% of every country around him.

 

He has nukes FFS, think of the children.

It would be unfair to stop there, maybe 4% pa until we are all shitting in buckets like most of Russia. 

[Gnasher]

25 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

The other preemptive, peaceful option would be to just give Putin maybe 3 or 4% of every country around him.

 

He has nukes FFS, think of the children.

But he hasn't invaded any other countries and isn't likely to so you're talking hypothetical nonsense.

[Gnasher]

28 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No one has made that point at all.  They have made the point Russia may try and reclaim old territories as it’s doing now. 
 

It’s almost like your arguments are just complete nonsense.  

Oh I think they did. Their were a lot of comparisons to Nazi Germany and world war 2. All proved to be hysterical clap trap of course.