Ukraine Crisis 2014
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing its better than MRE's and uniforms, I do hope you got Merkel and Obama's permission first, or did you cut out the middle man and just asked Putin
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'm guessing its better than MRE's and uniforms
The Ukrainians are getting screwed from all sides.....
This whole sorry saga has the insidious malodour of appeasement. We haven't seen the paper waving and 'peace in out time' sound bites but that doesn't mean we aren't adopting the same flawed policy that set the conditions for WW2....
Not saying this is the start of WW3 by any stretch, but I am genuinely quite worried about the state of the world right now and the perilous state of not just our armed forces but those of most of our allies!
The significant difference between now and 1938 is that Chamberlain used appeasement to successfully delay the onset of war and provide much needed time to rearm and prepare his nation for war. I wonder what the outcome of the next SDSR will be...?
Not saying this is the start of WW3 by any stretch, but I am genuinely quite worried about the state of the world right now and the perilous state of not just our armed forces but those of most of our allies!
The significant difference between now and 1938 is that Chamberlain used appeasement to successfully delay the onset of war and provide much needed time to rearm and prepare his nation for war. I wonder what the outcome of the next SDSR will be...?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from experience, those Saxons are utter death traps. Poor visibility, an engine mounted on one side so giving a tendency to drift over under braking, and no real armour capability, if this is a signal of our intent, and considering the implications of this conflict, I too am genuinely worried.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
That'll be the A-10 that everyman and his dog have tried to withdraw from service in the US as no longer relevant in the modern world.....
Just goes to prove they cannot do with out them, no matter what some of the politicians and higher military echelons think.
Just goes to prove they cannot do with out them, no matter what some of the politicians and higher military echelons think.
Last edited by NutLoose; 14th Feb 2015 at 11:09.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They got rid of them because they were useless, the "armour" won't stop a Kalashnikov bullet, let alone heavy machine gun fire or shell splinters.
The Ukrainians are getting screwed from all sides.....
This whole sorry saga has the insidious malodour of appeasement.
Not saying this is the start of WW3 by any stretch, but I am genuinely quite worried about the state of the world right now and the perilous state of not just our armed forces but those of most of our allies!
Despite peace talks, Ukraine teeters on the brink of a bigger war
As expected all the major players are moving into position.
Just goes to prove they cannot do with out them, no matter what some of the politians and higher military echelon think.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Tom Dannatt?
General Sir Richard Dannatt condemns armoured vehicle transfer to Ukraine - Telegraph
Conservatives have had his pants down here IMHO. He repeatedly spoke out against a Labour Govt. over their mishandling of the Iraq War, and Afghan debacle. But as soon as he was demobbed,jumped into the sack with Cameron et al to help get them elected. Now expresses surprise at the news that the present Govt. has effectively turned a blind eye to an inferior weapon supply.
At least he is speaking out against it, I will give him that. But he was used.
Cameron, as UK PM is absolutely desperate for this crisis to go away, because he knows he should be helping to lead with the European response against it. But he cant do anything, because (a) we are small and now surprisingly undefended-we no longer have credible defence forces and (b) the Government know the public do not want to antagonise Russia, or be any part of the potential fight on behalf of the Ukraine, because they now recognise point (a) themselves, and only want to be left in peace. My 2 bob opinion spent.
Conservatives have had his pants down here IMHO. He repeatedly spoke out against a Labour Govt. over their mishandling of the Iraq War, and Afghan debacle. But as soon as he was demobbed,jumped into the sack with Cameron et al to help get them elected. Now expresses surprise at the news that the present Govt. has effectively turned a blind eye to an inferior weapon supply.
At least he is speaking out against it, I will give him that. But he was used.
Cameron, as UK PM is absolutely desperate for this crisis to go away, because he knows he should be helping to lead with the European response against it. But he cant do anything, because (a) we are small and now surprisingly undefended-we no longer have credible defence forces and (b) the Government know the public do not want to antagonise Russia, or be any part of the potential fight on behalf of the Ukraine, because they now recognise point (a) themselves, and only want to be left in peace. My 2 bob opinion spent.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"he knows he should be helping to lead with the European response against it"
Why?
it's actually quite nice to see some other Europeans leading the charge this time with us holding their coats rather than the usual charge from Downing Street
Why?
it's actually quite nice to see some other Europeans leading the charge this time with us holding their coats rather than the usual charge from Downing Street
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't Ukraine hand back to Russia its original nuclear weapons on the promise that Putin wouldn't be naughty and try to invade them?
I suspect that they are now regretting it.
I suspect that they are now regretting it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
On the understanding the UK and US would defend them against any hostile threat.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's actually quite nice to see some other Europeans leading the charge this time with us holding their coats rather than the usual charge from Downing Street
Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Ukraine tweeted recent satellite images that he said showed Russian artillery near Debaltseve.
eoffrey Pyatt also said on Twitter that Russian units along the border were preparing a large shipment of supplies to separatist fighters.
He said that the rebels were now better armed than some Nato countries.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,963
Received 2,859 Likes
on
1,226 Posts
I wonder if they were brought to the table because of the shelling and it was one reason they were pushing for the artillery to be pulled back.
I wonder what they hit at Donetsk, ignore the silly title
https://youtube.com/watch?v=khiEWTs7nwM
I wonder what they hit at Donetsk, ignore the silly title
https://youtube.com/watch?v=khiEWTs7nwM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slide to a real war involving UK now more possible than ever .
Ken Clarke: Sending troops to Ukraine will not 'solve anything' - Telegraph
PPrune amazes me with its apathy at times.... its as though everybody has gone to sleep... or are simply too world-weary to care. I can understand that but please somebody speak up.
Ok. I'll drag it up again.
The above link is a story about the UK now sending military advisors and trainers to help one side of the Ukrainian...you know what its about.
Ex minister called K Clarke thinks this will not really solve anything.
Our ministers are out of their depths.
We have not the military capability to front up to Russia, right on their own border. We will never have that capability.
This will make us take a side. We could now be seen to be directly supporting the fighting against the Western Ukraine separatists/the Russians (by proxy).
This is not our war to fight.
The PM is beyond his mandate to take these risks. The democratic process must take place in such a serious situation. Have I missed the debate in Parliament? Was there a vote?
This can quickly and readily escalate very badly for everybody.
We are sleepwalking into a conflict of which we should avoid.
Dialogue has to be maintained by and with all sides.
What am I missing? Are they mad, or am I mad?
PPrune amazes me with its apathy at times.... its as though everybody has gone to sleep... or are simply too world-weary to care. I can understand that but please somebody speak up.
Ok. I'll drag it up again.
The above link is a story about the UK now sending military advisors and trainers to help one side of the Ukrainian...you know what its about.
Ex minister called K Clarke thinks this will not really solve anything.
Our ministers are out of their depths.
We have not the military capability to front up to Russia, right on their own border. We will never have that capability.
This will make us take a side. We could now be seen to be directly supporting the fighting against the Western Ukraine separatists/the Russians (by proxy).
This is not our war to fight.
The PM is beyond his mandate to take these risks. The democratic process must take place in such a serious situation. Have I missed the debate in Parliament? Was there a vote?
This can quickly and readily escalate very badly for everybody.
We are sleepwalking into a conflict of which we should avoid.
Dialogue has to be maintained by and with all sides.
What am I missing? Are they mad, or am I mad?
Hangar, one can argue that the UK already took a side (as did the US) a couple of decades ago by underwriting the deal wherein Ukraine gave up the nukes as part of the split from Russia/CIS/USSR.
Hangar - a small history exam..
Who said:
.
What was the result?
Who said:
However much we may sympathise with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbour, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account. If we have to fight, it must be on larger issues than that. I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul; armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me... War is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear before we embark on it, that it is really the great issues that are at stake
What was the result?
Hangar, one can argue that the UK already took a side (as did the US) a couple of decades ago by underwriting the deal wherein Ukraine gave up the nukes as part of the split from Russia/CIS/USSR.
As for the agreement, US Govt has said previously it didn't apply when they disliked parts of it.................... funny that been saying that since 1860's in the US.
racedo:
Your "who has been targeting civilians" questions seems a non sequitur regarding who did or didn't sign up to guarantee a deal.
Likewise, just what are you referring to from the 1860's? Was the US involved with the Ukraine in the 1860's? I don't recall that, to be honest. I am not sure what the point of the allusion is.
Your "who has been targeting civilians" questions seems a non sequitur regarding who did or didn't sign up to guarantee a deal.
Likewise, just what are you referring to from the 1860's? Was the US involved with the Ukraine in the 1860's? I don't recall that, to be honest. I am not sure what the point of the allusion is.
racedo:
Your "who has been targeting civilians" questions seems a non sequitur regarding who did or didn't sign up to guarantee a deal.
Likewise, just what are you referring to from the 1860's? Was the US involved with the Ukraine in the 1860's? I don't recall that, to be honest. I am not sure what the point of the allusion is.
Your "who has been targeting civilians" questions seems a non sequitur regarding who did or didn't sign up to guarantee a deal.
Likewise, just what are you referring to from the 1860's? Was the US involved with the Ukraine in the 1860's? I don't recall that, to be honest. I am not sure what the point of the allusion is.
Explainer: The Budapest Memorandum And Its Relevance To Crimea
As for Budapest Treaty......... its not, its a political document and that view is from the US.
Victoria Nuland spending $5 Billion on Ukraine...................... what was that about again ?
Boris Nemtsov, Russian opposition leader, shot dead in Moscow: reports - World - CBC News
Sure to be nothing to do with that nice Mr Putin, of course. Remarkable how many of his opponents end up accidentally dead.
Sure to be nothing to do with that nice Mr Putin, of course. Remarkable how many of his opponents end up accidentally dead.