A new trial forum for political discussions. Largely unmoderated, so whilst discussing politics is fine, personal abuse isn't. So please keep it civil.
As with other forums the posts to do not reflect the view of the FLYER team.
  • 1
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 207
User avatar
By Flintstone
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1911596
Sooty25 wrote:I'll openly admit I'm not a big fan of Ukraine, it wasn't that long ago it was being touted as the destination for all the stolen Rotax 91x engines.


I was told it was the Turks what done it. My source even claimed that you could track the number of engines being nicked as it coincided with them releasing a new model drone.
OCB, Kittyhawk liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1911698
Wow.

We should give Mikhail a medal!! Even in the west we haven’t heard it laid out so well since before the invasion, when Ben Wallace assured the world the Ukrainians absolutely would fight!

In other news apparently Turkey will oppose Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO. Personally it’s not at all clear to me that Sweden’s accession would strengthen the alliance? They seem to wish to be semi detached? Though to be honest I already see Article 5 as very flakey!
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1911704
Very clear-eyed and without saying it he's asking if Russian professional soldiers (never mind the conscripts or the parents, wives and lovers tuning in) are prepared to die for their motherland. Maybe his next speech is about the real danger Ukraine presents to the Motherland, or not.
User avatar
By kanga
#1911708
A4 Pacific wrote:.. it’s not at all clear to me that Sweden’s accession would strengthen the alliance? They seem to wish to be semi detached? ..


As I read it, the change has been in that of the largest Party in the Swedish Parliament, part of the governing coalition, which has thus effectively become government policy. That Party still has some reservations of details of membership, eg no basing of others' nuclear weapons, a reservation already in place among some existing NATO countries. Meanwhile, as neutrals, Sweden has for decades been actively engaged bilaterally and multilaterally with several other NATO countries (including UK) on many military matters, including joint exercising, some overtly and some more discreetly. The change doesn't seem 'semi-detached' to me.

Obviously, NATO membership would mean acceptance (both ways) of rights and obligations under Article 5. There has been, AFAIK, only 1 political leader of 1 NATO member in its history who has appeared to have a 'flakey' attitude to Art 5: that was the last US President :roll:
Dusty_B liked this
By A4 Pacific
#1911733
kanga

If the last US president was so flakey, I confess to finding it ‘interesting’ that Putin waited for the arrival of the current cognitively challenged incumbent of the White House before launching his murderous assault upon a neighbouring European country. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised however. Biden was VP in the administration that drew a ‘line in the sand’ over the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Then forgot where they’d drawn it, and clammed up! Biden was also the incompetent Commander in Chief who created the shambolic and ultimately humiliating US timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, making it look like they’d been kicked out.. He also gave Putin the green light for invasion of Ukraine when he said the US response would depend on what ‘kind’ of invasion Russia had in mind! All the previous incumbent wished to encourage was NATO members to spend the 2% GDP on defence that is agreed in the charter. A number still do not.

As for Sweden, you are correct to state that they have conducted joint exercises with individual countries and NATO for some time. Indeed they are involved in one now. However in 2015 they spent circa 0.9% GDP on defence and aren’t forecast to spend 2% until 2028 at the earliest. Unlike Finland, Sweden have no border with Russia and are highly unlikely to have their borders disrespected unless Ivan comes through Finland, Norway or amphibious landings on the Baltic coastline. So one has to ask: What do they imagine they are gaining?

I suspect Putin’s nuclear sabre rattling has got many countries who previously enjoyed the dividends of being neutral scratching their heads. It’s crystal clear to me that Sweden want the luxury of the nuclear deterrent umbrella without actually paying for it, nor dirtying their hands by having the ‘odious’ weapons or even NATO bases in their country. That’s fine and who can fault them for that if they get away with it?

All the previous incumbent of the White House wanted was for all members of the NATO alliance to commit in a meaningful financial way, to what is let’s face it for most countries, the protection of the US military which is funded by US taxpayers.

I strongly suspect that Putin believes NATO is a charade. A paper tiger that will wriggle out of it’s commitments should some of it’s eastern members have the odd missile, or incursion thrown at them. Should nuclear weapons become involved in Europe, I strongly suspect you will see Biden do exactly the same as he did in Syria over the use of chemical weapons. He’ll run for the hills. He has form you see.

Which is precisely why I am glad the UK retains it’s own independent nuclear deterrent. I just hope it’s all it’s cracked up to be. Because there is a distinct possibility that will be all we can rely upon to deter an attack.

I may disagree with Erdogan’s rationale, but I largely agree with his opposition to the accession of Sweden.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1911742
A4 Pacific wrote:...I am glad the UK retains it’s own independent nuclear deterrent. I just hope it’s all it’s cracked up to be. Because there is a distinct possibility that will be all we can rely upon to deter an attack.

Me too. Tell me have you heard much from the anti nuclear activists of late? :wink:
User avatar
By kanga
#1911756
A4 Pacific wrote:kanga

If the last US president was so flakey,...


once again, detailed refutation would be likely to breach the 'no politics' rule. My observation was merely that he alone had implied that he might not fulfil his nation's obligations under Art 5 if it were ever invoked.

[That is fact. But yes, I too support the UK independent deterrent, a support reinforced by actions and statements that rather than of the current President; but this is merely my opinion with no claim of any authority]
#1911757
Bill McCarthy wrote:The SNP you mean ?

Them, CND (are they still around), Greenpeace, those on the forum who have strongly argued against the nuclear deterrent over the years. :D

Personally I see the invasion of Ukraine as a wake up call to the importance of a nuclear deterrent....sadly. :(
T6Harvard, Nick, riverrock liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1911762
Miscellaneous wrote:
Bill McCarthy wrote:The SNP you mean ?

Personally I see the invasion of Ukraine as a wake up call to the importance of a nuclear deterrent....sadly. :(


If only Ukraine had had a nuclear deterrent.

Oh...!
OCB liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1911764
Tomorrow, Wednesday 18 May, 1415, BBC Radio 4:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017cgw

"Red Lines

Drama

Craig Oliver and Anthony Seldon's behind the scenes drama: How Cameron and Obama failed to enforce the "Red Line" against chemical weapons use by
Syria's Assad, backed by Putin."

A preview in Saturday's Times notes that it was written partly by a member of the then UK PM's staff, and suggests that this appears to have distorted the narrative offered!
User avatar
By OCB
#1911773
@A4 Pacific - wrt the last POTUS, think like a Russian, not a Westerner.

One hypothesis is that Donald T was so utterly unpredictable, that he didn’t fit into any scenario they had - so they didn’t take the risk.

I’m more inclined to think Putin was banking on Donald getting a 2nd term, he’d wait for an opportune moment when the world was distracted (cf Georgia et al) and take Kiev in 72 hours…just my own personal pet theory.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1911781
OCB wrote:@A4 Pacific - wrt the last POTUS, think like a Russian, not a Westerner.

One hypothesis is that Donald T was so utterly unpredictable, that he didn’t fit into any scenario they had - so they didn’t take the risk.

I’m more inclined to think Putin was banking on Donald getting a 2nd term, he’d wait for an opportune moment when the world was distracted (cf Georgia et al) and take Kiev in 72 hours…just my own personal pet theory.


Your memory might be better than mine but I thought that it was Parliament that 'prevented' UK intervention in Syria when Cameron put it to a (legally unnecessary) MP's vote thanks to the furore Blair caused with invading Iraq on a flimsy (ie completely invented) pretext, leaving the door wide open to Putin to set up shop in the Mediterranean and ME.

Sow the seeds...


Generally, and without being political, I dont' recall Trump causing or joining any wars during his term, and did pretty much what he said he was going to do, which makes him almost unique among US presidents. Maybe the political world should have more hotel room kompromat. ;)
  • 1
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 207