TeaCider
Well-known member
Just in case certain posters try and pretend there's any legitimacy to these "referendums".
I think you are completely wrong.Well, it’s not really .
He won’t launch there first because they have nukes , for fear they will get them back . He won’t here either , as we have nukes. We will also fire back ( wouldn’t if corbyn was pm but that’s another topic for another thread)
If nukes are used , it’s on Ukraine . But then , Russia will become truly isolated if they did . China and India would drop them like a bad habit if they used nukes
Even on Ukraine , it wouldn’t achieve anything . West Ukraine he hits and fallout could hit nato and drag nato into Ukraine as they would view it as a declaration of war. East Ukraine the fallout could go into Russia. Launching a nuke isn’t going to change the course of the war for Putin
I think you are completely wrong.
Putin was prepared to invade another country, smash it to bits and displace 10 million innocent people.
He is toying with NATO.
He is a complete maniac, he doesn’t care about the lives of people and certainly not his own soldiers.
Why would he draw the line at nukes?
We live in very dangerous times, let’s hope Biden can keep a lid on things.
I am amazed they are even asking people…
Just in case certain posters try and pretend there's any legitimacy to these "referendums".
I am amazed they are even asking people…
We don't have a presidency so it's irrelevant. If Corbyn was in power, he would be tested by the Tory opposition in the HoC about his stance on launching as a retaliation. If he said "I would never ever launch" or gave a lily livered approach under the circumstances of the current world, he would be subject to a vote of no confidence and removed in 48 hours. Someone in labour would then be put forward in the interim to state the opposite of what Corbyn said. That's the reality. Corbyn would know this and likely state, "of course I would launch in retaliation".Well, it isn’t , because :
- he refused to answer if he would retaliate in an actual interview . I did watch it .
- he’s made it well known he’s anti nuclear weapons
There is no room to dodge the question . Failure to answer yes to retaliating is a massive red flag in itself
that's pretty much it, promise them you'll get an undefined thing done, then double down on both getting it done and not defining what 'it' is. Fools fall for that kind of thing.There's also Brexit though. A famously charismatic PM whose chief slogan was Get Brexit Done was always going to appeal to Brexit-voting towns.
He is a complete maniac, he doesn’t care about the lives of people and certainly not his own soldiers.
Why would he draw the line at nukes?
Putin is an evil ****. But he isn’t insane . He wants people in the west thinking he is though, because he believes it’s more likely going to get him what he wants
Nah, I respect you and Boroboyyo’s alternative views and I do understand them but I think to oversee what has gone on in the Ukraine shows he is a mass murdering complete nutter.Yes, I agree and it’s worked before. The truth is no one bar his inner circle know what he’s really like, but it suits his propaganda to be seen as an unpredictable strongman.
Nah, I respect you and Boroboyyo’s alternative views and I do understand them but I think to oversee what has gone on in the Ukraine shows he is a mass murdering complete nutter.
Biden has been outstanding by refusing to let NATO be sucked (so far) into all out war because that is what Putin is itching for.
There is no strategic thinking or grand plan he just wants a fight with the west and he’s not bothered how many civilians get killed in the process or where it ends.
He‘s very very dangerous.
I have to disagree, respectfully of course.
He is a mass murderer and willing to risk Russian and other lives to achieve his goals. But that’s the point, he has goals which are more than just anarchy and death.
It’s true that he stokes unrest in countries he wants to dominate, such as Ukraine, Baltics, Caucuses etc, and countries he sees as rivals such the US (election interference) and the UK (Salisbury, etc) as part of a wider hybrid war against the west. He told us what he believes in his Munich speech in 2007 - he believes in a return to a form of imperialism where major countries control smaller countries.
How does this impact today? - Putin absolutely sees Belarus and Ukraine as countries that Russia should dominate, the same goes for the Stans and Caucuses, hence troops in Central Asia, threats against Kazakhstan and territorial annexations in Georgia. If a military operation and subsequent political overhaul had been successful against Ukraine, I have no doubt he would soon have started ramping up pressure in the Baltic states. This is more dangerous as it’s poking NATO and the EU, but by testing their resolve he would discover whether he could move there. This is what he wants - absolute dominion over what he sees as the Russian spheres of influence, whilst using hybrid warfare to keep rivals and future conquests divided and unstable.
Not the actions of an unhinged madman, but a very cold and calculating (and yes, murdering) dangerous individual with defined goals and aims. He doesn’t want a direct conflict with NATO, especially as he’s seen his own military weaknesses against NATO weapons and tactics, if it stays kinetic he loses, if it goes nuclear everyone loses.
But your final point is very true - he is very dangerous.