• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Ukraine

Amazing how socialists are so one eyed and thin skinned.

The same clothes as Johnson, Patel and assorted other wankers who can't see another point of view.

The world would be a far better place without all on the far right and far left.
 
Dennisons Wrong Foot said:
Unfortunately no. Not all change is good, but without those on the fringes pushing for change, we would still have prehistoric values.
Click to expand...
So you think Hitler was good along with Putin, Mao and other despots?
 
Last edited:
Johnny75 said:
Amazing how socialists are so one eyed and thin skinned.

The same clothes as Johnson, Patel and assorted other wankers who can't see another point of view.

The world would be a far better place without all on the far right and far left.
Click to expand...
If only there was a final solution eh? 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
The Saturday Boy said:
Calling people wankers who can’t see another point of view while also calling people apologists for having another point of view. Hmmm.
Click to expand...
If the company you keep is the likes of Hitchens, Bannon, Golloway et al then maybe that’s not a good thing?

There’s a reason these folks are vilified for having unpalatable views.
 
Johnny75 said:
If the company you keep is the likes of Hitchens, Bannon, Golloway et al then maybe that’s not a good thing?

There’s a reason these folks are vilified for having unpalatable views.
Click to expand...
You must see it's not necessarily a good thing to dismiss everything a particular person or group of people say based on who they are rather than what they are saying?

How are we ever going to move forwards if arguments aren't given a fair hearing based on the peope making them? A broken clock is still right twice a day.

FWIW I actually find your brusque style quite entertaining and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's usually far right or left wing people that are most intolerant of opinions that don't match their own, but in your case it's someone who represents themselves as a centrist, could just imagine you as an enthusiastic beige guard in a future Centrist Union!
 
You should have been here before he calmed down, used to fight everyone.
 
Johnny75 said:
If the company you keep is the likes of Hitchens, Bannon, Golloway et al then maybe that’s not a good thing?

There’s a reason these folks are vilified for having unpalatable views.
Click to expand...
I have sat down and talked with people who have unpalatable views, they have expressed themselves well and behaved respectfully. They still have unpalatable views when we are done.

You have very palatable views but on here you do not always behave in a respectful way to other posters. You still have very palatable views even if some I don’t fully agree with. It is why there isn’t much point debating with you. You don’t discriminate when it comes to being disrespectful.

There is legitimate debate to be had about NATO, any criticism may be deserved or not, but it should be up for debate. To be labelled as an apologist for trying to have that debate on here seems to be an attempt by you to be intolerant of other opinions that do not match your own. Challenge the opinion not the poster and we might all learn a little more even if it doesn’t change our opinion In the end.
 
It's a bit sad to see such an emotive thread dealing with a serious subject resort to the same petty squabbles we see across the forum.

This is a plea for all posters to at least try to respect the views of others. If you're unable to do so, I suggest you either put certain posters on ignore, or log off for the day.

Honestly, I've not been posting much here of late because some threads are becoming unreadable due to these childish arguments that derail the threads. This really does need to stop - posters are turning away from TWF because of shit like this.

Now please can we get back to discussing the topic in question? No 'last words' from anyone on the derailing of the threads, please - just back on topic.
 
The reports coming out of Ukraine are getting more desperate and sad by the hour.
I understand absolutely Nato stance on boots on the ground and a no fly zone but it feels very much like we are just abandoning people to their fate, 2000 civilians already dead.
A chilling interview this morning on R4 with a general who was a deputy chief of staff with NATO a few years ago, suggesting it's too late to do much for Ukraine, we are just writing them off and have to concentrate on building up our military capabilities in a line from the Baltic to Romania. Sounded to me like he thought it was just a matter of time before we are drawn into defending NATO countries.....maybe I'm reading too much into it.
 
I do wonder the merits of Ukranian resistance in the face of the massive superiority of the Russian military. I understand the desire to defend your homeland but in the absence of any additional military (boots on the ground, planes in the sky) support they are delaying the inevitable but at a massive cost.

Let Russia take with relative ease to avoid the inevitable bloodshed and then sanction the fuck out of them economically, socially and culturally. I think any negotiated settlement now ends up with a partitioned Ukraine - the east ending up in Russian hands down to Crimea and the West staying independent...until they tried to join Nato.

I don't see Putin suddenly saying he made a mistake and withdrawing so any outcome now is going to be far from perfect.
 
I don't think he'll stop at Ukraine, and will soon invade a NATO member. That said, I'm not not sure even then there'd be a full military defence. I suspect some members are less NATO than others, if defending results in nuclear war
 
I’ve said on this thread before, if he continues westward, there’s a place called Transnistra, breakaway republic from Moldova, only Russia recognises it, they use roubles so there’s another piece of land grab.
Nato wise, there’s a railway from Russia, through Belarus, Lithuania into Kaliningrad that Russia leases from Lithuania, if he wanted to he could claim his infrastructure is threatened and go in to protect it, there’s two nato allies cut off, one cut in half, another one has the Russians 20 miles from its border.
A lot of the northern Baltic coast of Estonia from Maardu through to Narva is majority Russian speaking, Narva has the Russian border at the end of its main street, that’s why a couple of hundred British troops and tanks are there
 
The only hope for the Ukraine is a desperate war, to make the taking of the cities that costly that even Putin recoils from it. It is a bloody and horrible route to take though.

I think it was Chechnya where the Russian tanks were absolutely devastated when trying to take a town. It can never be a military win in the traditional sense, but they could hope to make it that uncomfortable an occupation that it becomes unpopular with the Russian population.
 
I just don't see Putin giving up on Ukraine.
There are too many reasons for him to keep going now.

A) a load of gas and oil under Ukraine
- would make Ukraine a direct competitor to Russia if Ukraine ever stabilised
B) Crimea and sevasterpol
C) as keef said a springboard into other russia friendly areas and possibly Moldova
D) puts a nice big chunk of land between NATO and Russia. Russia seem to think NATO are an agressor, NATO have assimilated some of the old USSR republics.

Reasons to stop

A) Sanctions - I doubt they affect the people they really need to
B) military losses - I think Putin saw zap brannigans tactics and would copy them in a heartbeat
C) uprising in Russia - propoganda seems to be doing its thing so doubtful
D) NATO intervention - not happening due to nuke threats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top