• 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

Unlike Putin, can we try and keep it civil on here lads. If arguments escalate then the thread will just be closed.
 
Johnny75 said:
There's some bullshit on this thread.

The only person responsible for the invasion of the Ukraine is Putin. He's the aggressor and anybody thinking NATO is the aggressor is drinking the Russian Koolaid.

People blaming the West are frankly stupid.
Click to expand...
Your first contribution to this thread.

And here you are crying when someone calls you out. You consistently talk down to people, are rude to other posters, act like you are superior in every way to other people on this forum. Don't like it when someone calls you out? Hard luck snowflake, you reap what you sow...
 
Johnny75 said:
Absolutely it's apologist bullshit from Jenkins. He's saying NATO forced Putin into Ukraine.

This just isn't true. The big reason the Baltic States wanted to be in NATO was because they feared Russian reprisal in the future. Now they're in a strong defensive bloc they have safety in numbers.

Trump was impeached for withdrawing support from Ukraine and was derisory to NATO, even considering withdrawal. We now know he's Putin's puppet (to the tune of $100m) and that Putin is using people like him, Corbyn, Farage, Bolsonaro and the idiot in Hungary to divide Europe to make his conquest easier.

People are getting sucked into his propaganda machine.
Click to expand...
If Putin were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, I don't believe them being in NATO would make much of difference in all honesty.

The West isn't going to engage in a full scale nuclear war, which is what it'd be, for the sake of those three is it? Which raises the question, why were the Western powers so keen to expand eastwards in the first place?

Also you never answered my question on if the situation were reversed, and the Soviet Union had expanded their alliance right next door and Wales wanted to join, so Soviet missiles, tanks and soldiers within spitting distance of England, would you accept their assurances that it was only a defensive alliance? Just imagine it for a second!
 
WolfMan said:
If Putin were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, I don't believe them being in NATO would make much of difference in all honesty.

The West isn't going to engage in a full scale nuclear war, which is what it'd be, for the sake of those three is it? Which raises the question, why were the Western powers so keen to expand eastwards in the first place?

Also you never answered my question on if the situation were reversed, and the Soviet Union had expanded their alliance right next door and Wales wanted to join, so Soviet missiles, tanks and soldiers within spitting distance of England, would you accept their assurances that it was only a defensive alliance? Just imagine it for a second!
Click to expand...
I think there would be a full scale war if that happened.

To answer your second question, as NATO was set up as a defensive treaty I wouldn't be bothered. It has no history of attacking anybody at any point.

The Soviet Union is dead and if it were me at the helm of Russia (democratically elected of course) I would look to building a strong relationship with Europe where they would not be able to exist without a strong Russia (energy, resource, skills). Much like the Saudi's have done (but without the human rights abuses).

But Putin had gone full megalomaniac as you posted earlier in the thread.
 
Johnny75 said:
I think there would be a full scale war if that happened.
Click to expand...
You think the West would launch a Nuclear strike against Russia and Russia would retaliate, bringing about the end of human civilization as we know it, over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?
 
WolfMan said:
You think the West would launch a Nuclear strike against Russia and Russia would retaliate, bringing about the end of human civilization as we know it, over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?
Click to expand...
No I don't think there would be nuclear war but there would be war.

I think Putin would be removed by his own generals if nuclear strikes were on the table.
 
Dire Wolf said:
Excuse me? He started calling people stupid and saying posts were bullshit as I recall? But I guess because he goes to the games with mods he can say what he likes and not get challenged? I see how it is...
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Bear posted and asked for it to stop, you posted again, so I asked you.
 
Johnny75 said:
No I don't think there would be nuclear war but there would be war.

I think Putin would be removed by his own generals if nuclear strikes were on the table.
Click to expand...

I don't see how there could be a conventional war between Russia and the Western nations due to the Nuclear issue.

Surely any direct war between Russia/China and the West would be over in a couple of minutes.
 
WolfMan said:
I don't see how there could be a conventional war between Russia and the Western nations due to the Nuclear issue.

Surely any direct war between Russia/China and the West would be over in a couple of minutes.
Click to expand...
Equally NATO wouldn't accept invasion in those countries as NATO would shatter.

NATO was set up precisely for the defence of its members.
 
I can see the logic around the NATO expansion argument. Seems similar to when the USA parked missiles in Eastern Europe during the Cold War then had a fit when Russia did the same in Cuba.

Edit. Not saying that's the reason for the current invasion
 
Last edited:
Johnny75 said:
Equally NATO wouldn't accept invasion in those countries as NATO would shatter.

NATO was set up precisely for the defence of its members.
Click to expand...

I don't think NATO would have a choice, the leaders of France, USA or UK aren't going to be starting a direct war with Russia over these countries. I certainly wouldn't support a potential nuclear war in that basis and I don't think anyone else would.

This is kind of my point, why have a defensive alliance when the will really isn't there to properly enforce it.

Russia since the Soviet Union collapsed has posed zero threat to us militarily, apart from their nuclear weapons, they hardly even have a navy. The idea we need NATO that far East as some kind of bulwark against a potential Russian invasion just isn't right and creates more problems than it solves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top