Are we turning the Ukrainian people into targets?

Subbuteo_171 said:
Ah, so it’s an opinion. Not a fact. Further progress.

Despite several polite requests you still haven’t answered the question. You, me, everyone knows why.

I voted remain in 2016. I didn’t vote Tory.

Maybe if you started with “in my opinion….” you wouldn’t get such a response. But as you do it on so many threads, it’s clearly something you enjoy doing - trying to belittle people because you think they are less intelligent than you because they voted for Brexit. And worse, telling them they are responsible for Putin attacking Ukraine and killing its civilians.

Anyway, I know this won’t change anything. Your point has been destroyed, you’ll claim it hasn’t, you’ll accuse me and others of lying and insulting you. Pointless carrying on, you appear to be incapable of rational debate.
Click to expand...
MPbX6ODh.jpg

An explanation as to why he thinks people who voted Tory and/or brexit are complicit would be nice.
Bearing in mind Putin has been doing what he wants when he wants since he came into power.
 
SmallTown said:
My point hasn't been destroyed. I'm not sure why you think it has? You've tried once, but in that instance you literally made up lies about what I was saying the were entirely unconnected to what I actually said. So a couple of quesitons for you: Why are you asking me to answer to the mind of a dictator? and what relevance has it to what I have said?

To re itirate:

1 Brexit has isolated Britain from the world and especially form the EU
2 Russians interfered in the brexit vote to help with this isolation
3 This has helped embolden Putin as he knows one of the countries that said it would defend Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum is powerless to do so (see 1)

I haven't seen anyone refute these comments at all: You seem to be having a separate conversation and seem to think this answers my above points. It doesn't
Click to expand...
Of course it was a more favourable outcome for Putin if the UK left the EU. That's a no-brainer, for reasons that are too obvious to state.

But to imagine for one minute that Leave voters (I voted remain btw AND am still convinced that it was the right thing to do) have in any way blood on their hands as a result is absolutely laughable as the chances of this pointing at all towards Russia invading Ukraine is at best absolutely microscopic, the rest non-existent.

There's plenty of real reasons he did it, such as there being large deposits of natural gas found under the Black Sea (shortly before him taking Crimea, Hmmm...and taking the south of Ukraine altogether is much more favourable, for all of these reserves AND the only ports Russia could potentially have year round that don't suffer from ice problems in winter) and more recently land-based shale gas in two areas, unsurprisingly in the East, right alongside those two "separate Pro-Russia nations" that Putin's mob not surprisingly recognises and in the west, alongside the border with Moldova where, what a turn up for the books, there's another Pro-Russia faction. Remember that natural gas is a one of the two main incomes for Russia and this would give them, a nation with only a similar GDP to Spain despite having a population 3 times greater, serious competition in the near future. Allied to the fact of course that a large amount of existing supply lines from Russia to Europe run smack bang through Ukraine (built in USSR days) for which they have to pay a heavy amount to the Ukrainians for which would be lessened immeasurably by a new "Pro-Russian government.

Then let's look at the topography of Europe. The easiest way for "The West" to potentially mount a huge land-included assault would be on flat plains and Eastern Europe contains a very large funnel shaped wedge of this, with the narrow part being in central Germany, the wide part in Russia itself, to the Urals and sweeping right across Ukraine. The cold War front gave Russia much more peace of mind in this regard. Now...not so much. And with Ukraine leaning now to the west that would mean a MUCH harder front to potentially defend, with the Ventriloquist's dummy of a nation that is Belarus stuck out into the middle of potential All-Nato countries in the near future and therefore in Putin's mind a sitting duck.

As for why now, as well as the above reasons meaning Russia loses a massive part of their economy in the near future, if Ukraine DID get around to joining Nato, you could guarantee the path would be open for Georgia to do the same, which then cuts Russia off from the middle east a great deal more. But much more than this, the population of Russia is in sharp decline and has been for a few decades. This means that on average with every year that passes there will be fewer and fewer young men of military serving age to call upon. This, along with all the factors above, told Putin that he had to take a huge gamble and start what he ridiculously called a "Special Operation."

Brexit? That's barely even worthy of a footnote, in the grand scheme of things. To use a football analogy given the messageboard we are on, it's about as relevant to Putin's decision to invade as the results of the coin-toss is to a side winning a football match. And how many managers have you ever heard in their interview afterwards start with "Well, we knew we'd have a mountain to climb when it came up 'Heads' before kick off"....?
That's right, absolutely none. And with good reason.
 
Ipad1977 said:
Of course it was a more favourable outcome for Putin if the UK left the EU. That's a no-brainer, for reasons that are too obvious to state.

But to imagine for one minute that Leave voters (I voted remain btw AND am still convinced that it was the right thing to do) have in any way blood on their hands as a result is absolutely laughable as the chances of this pointing at all towards Russia invading Ukraine is at best absolutely microscopic, the rest non-existent.

There's plenty of real reasons he did it, such as there being large deposits of natural gas found under the Black Sea (shortly before him taking Crimea, Hmmm...and taking the south of Ukraine altogether is much more favourable, for all of these reserves AND the only ports Russia could potentially have year round that don't suffer from ice problems in winter) and more recently land-based shale gas in two areas, unsurprisingly in the East, right alongside those two "separate Pro-Russia nations" that Putin's mob not surprisingly recognises and in the west, alongside the border with Moldova where, what a turn up for the books, there's another Pro-Russia faction. Remember that natural gas is a one of the two main incomes for Russia and this would give them, a nation with only a similar GDP to Spain despite having a population 3 times greater, serious competition in the near future. Allied to the fact of course that a large amount of existing supply lines from Russia to Europe run smack bang through Ukraine (built in USSR days) for which they have to pay a heavy amount to the Ukrainians for which would be lessened immeasurably by a new "Pro-Russian government.

Then let's look at the topography of Europe. The easiest way for "The West" to potentially mount a huge land-included assault would be on flat plains and Eastern Europe contains a very large funnel shaped wedge of this, with the narrow part being in central Germany, the wide part in Russia itself, to the Urals and sweeping right across Ukraine. The cold War front gave Russia much more peace of mind in this regard. Now...not so much. And with Ukraine leaning now to the west that would mean a MUCH harder front to potentially defend, with the Ventriloquist's dummy of a nation that is Belarus stuck out into the middle of potential All-Nato countries in the near future and therefore in Putin's mind a sitting duck.

As for why now, as well as the above reasons meaning Russia loses a massive part of their economy in the near future, if Ukraine DID get around to joining Nato, you could guarantee the path would be open for Georgia to do the same, which then cuts Russia off from the middle east a great deal more. But much more than this, the population of Russia is in sharp decline and has been for a few decades. This means that on average with every year that passes there will be fewer and fewer young men of military serving age to call upon. This, along with all the factors above, told Putin that he had to take a huge gamble and start what he ridiculously called a "Special Operation."

Brexit? That's barely even worthy of a footnote, in the grand scheme of things. To use a football analogy given the messageboard we are on, it's about as relevant to Putin's decision to invade as the results of the coin-toss is to a side winning a football match. And how many managers have you ever heard in their interview afterwards start with "Well, we knew we'd have a mountain to climb when it came up 'Heads' before kick off"....?
That's right, absolutely none. And with good reason.
Click to expand...
Brexit genuinely did help Putin though, instability in Europe is a good thing of you’re going to invade it. I imagine that’s why Russians got involved in interfering with that vote.
 
SmallTown said:
Brexit genuinely did help Putin though, instability in Europe is a good thing of you’re going to invade it. I imagine that’s why Russians got involved in interfering with that vote.
Click to expand...
I don't see any split in Europes response to Russia, do you?
 
SmallTown said:
Brexit genuinely did help Putin though, instability in Europe is a good thing of you’re going to invade it. I imagine that’s why Russians got involved in interfering with that vote.
Click to expand...
Yes as I stated it was definitely favourable to Russia. As would be Scotland leaving the UK as any splits between Nato countries is obviously "good" for them.

But it's barely even a ripple in the grand scheme of things that caused them to invade Ukraine.

Kind of similar in cause and effect terms to the likes of Aldi and Lidl being very favourable to the increased prosperity of a man who previously had only had a Waitrose nearby to shop at. But if said man was a multi-millionaire and wrote a book upon how he did it, I very much doubt that these supermarkets opening nearby would get a mention at all, much less a chapter wrote about them.
 
Ipad1977 said:
Yes as I stated it was definitely favourable to Russia. As would be Scotland leaving the UK as any splits between Nato countries is obviously "good" for them.

But it's barely even a ripple in the grand scheme of things that caused them to invade Ukraine.

Kind of similar in cause and effect terms to the likes of Aldi and Lidl being very favourable to the increased prosperity of a man who previously had only had a Waitrose nearby to shop at. But if said man was a multi-millionaire and wrote a book upon how he did it, I very much doubt that these supermarkets opening nearby would get a mention at all, much less a chapter wrote about them.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure thr public don't vote on supermarket openings. This is my point. Even if it's in a really small way, brexit has definitely helped embolden Putin to be more aggressive. And there are still people on here who back the process. Those two facts are irreconcilable to me. Unless all this pro brexit guys on here are Russians, which I doubt!
 
SmallTown said:
I'm pretty sure thr public don't vote on supermarket openings. This is my point. Even if it's in a really small way, brexit has definitely helped embolden Putin to be more aggressive. And there are still people on here who back the process. Those two facts are irreconcilable to me. Unless all this pro brexit guys on here are Russians, which I doubt!
Click to expand...
You genuinely believe Putin gives a toss about little old Britain and it's decimated armed forces and that he relied heavily on brexit to invade Ukraine?
If we were still part of the EU he would still have invaded. Our armed forces are nothing compared to the likes of France for example and he's still gone ahead with military action even after repeated phonecalls with Macron.
 
Randy said:
You genuinely believe Putin gives a toss about little old Britain and it's decimated armed forces and that he relied heavily on brexit to invade Ukraine?
If we were still part of the EU he would still have invaded. Our armed forces are nothing compared to the likes of France for example and he's still gone ahead with military action even after repeated phonecalls with Macron.
Click to expand...
For a decimated force we're still the highest military spender in Europe that money must be going somewhere
 
Randy said:
You genuinely believe Putin gives a toss about little old Britain and it's decimated armed forces and that he relied heavily on brexit to invade Ukraine?
If we were still part of the EU he would still have invaded. Our armed forces are nothing compared to the likes of France for example and he's still gone ahead with military action even after repeated phonecalls with Macron.
Click to expand...
A lot of this really isn't true in regards to the UK armed forces.
 
Mendieta14 said:
For a decimated force we're still the highest military spender in Europe that money must be going somewhere
Click to expand...
I'll let you decide where that's going.....

I was recently up at catterick garrison for a medical procedure and the army buildings look like they are still stuck in the 70's.
 
Randy said:
I'll let you decide where that's going.....

I was recently up at catterick garrison for a medical procedure and the army buildings look like they are still stuck in the 70's.
Click to expand...
A lot of Catterick is newly built or being developed. The old stuff will be gone by 2027.
 
Randy said:
You genuinely believe Putin gives a toss about little old Britain and it's decimated armed forces and that he relied heavily on brexit to invade Ukraine?
If we were still part of the EU he would still have invaded. Our armed forces are nothing compared to the likes of France for example and he's still gone ahead with military action even after repeated phonecalls with Macron.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say relied heavily no: but the facts are a disrupted EU and neutering a country duty bound to defend Ukraine would have helped him. The Russian state wouldn’t have bothered interfering in the vote otherwise.
 
The UK is still a part of NATO. The EU seems to be getting along just fine without the UK.
SmallTown said:
I didn’t say relied heavily no: but the facts are a disrupted EU and neutering a country duty bound to defend Ukraine would have helped him. The Russian state wouldn’t have bothered interfering in the vote otherwise.
Click to expand...
 
Randy said:
The UK is still a part of NATO. The EU seems to be getting along just fine without the UK.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that. In comprising yes, obviously the EU is doing better than the UK. Be ause it isn't the one that decided to isolate itself.

So, why do you think Russia interfered with the brexit vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top