You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Comments

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,845
    There is a serious debate to be had here. I'm no fan of Corbyn. But even broken watches are right twice a day.

    It is 1 thing to help Ukraine defend its borders, and to seek to regain areas annexed by Russia.

    But invading Russia is a rather different thing. And not something the West should be seen to be bankrolling.
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 171,027
    edited August 13
    Essexphil said:

    There is a serious debate to be had here. I'm no fan of Corbyn. But even broken watches are right twice a day.

    It is 1 thing to help Ukraine defend its borders, and to seek to regain areas annexed by Russia.

    But invading Russia is a rather different thing. And not something the West should be seen to be bankrolling.



    @Essexphil


    100% that.

    Talking to a pal on WhatsApp this morning I wrote...



    "Terrible idea, no way he can win that one, & I'm pretty sure that all the Allies who sent him weaponry (mostly for free) won't approve either, we never sent him weapons for that purpose."
  • goldongoldon Member Posts: 9,149
    So who's to blame......
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,445
    Doesnt that make it very one sided?
  • goldongoldon Member Posts: 9,149
    When you give a gift the receiver can do what they like with it, trust is another thing.
  • Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 876
    What a load of Putin bootlicking that article is.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,445
    Essexphil said:

    There is a serious debate to be had here. I'm no fan of Corbyn. But even broken watches are right twice a day.

    It is 1 thing to help Ukraine defend its borders, and to seek to regain areas annexed by Russia.

    But invading Russia is a rather different thing. And not something the West should be seen to be bankrolling.

    I have no great knowledge of history, but wouldnt it be unusual for two countries that are at war, for one to attack, and the other only defends.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,845
    True.

    Equally unusual to ask for £Billions from the West to do 1 thing, and then use our money and weapons to do precisely the opposite.

    Particularly when it risks World War 3.

    Which is the reason the West only provided support for specific, limited purposes. Something that was unconditionally accepted by Ukraine.

    Ukraine are perfectly entitled to treat us as though we are the enemy, as opposed to Allies if they wish.

    But that involves consequences.

    Where exactly are they going to get weapons from?
  • tai-gartai-gar Member Posts: 2,695
    There is obviously a strategy here which has been agreed by all supporters of Ukraine.

    Lets hope so anyway.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 8,845
    edited August 13
    tai-gar said:

    There is obviously a strategy here which has been agreed by all supporters of Ukraine.

    Lets hope so anyway.

    Really?

    That would be a Declaration of War.

    And, just in case everyone forgets, Trump is threatening to pull out of NATO. Who do you propose bankrolls that War?
  • EnutEnut Member Posts: 3,564
    Maybe, just maybe, this is a way of ending the war. If Ukraine occupies part of Russia they have something to bargain with. Russia is never going to voluntarily give up the ground they have gained, but if it's a 'swap' for land that Ukraine have taken control of then maybe there's a chance. It is a bit of a gamble though and do you gamble with mad people?
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 171,027
    edited August 13
    Enut said:

    Maybe, just maybe, this is a way of ending the war. If Ukraine occupies part of Russia they have something to bargain with. Russia is never going to voluntarily give up the ground they have gained, but if it's a 'swap' for land that Ukraine have taken control of then maybe there's a chance. It is a bit of a gamble though and do you gamble with mad people?



    @Enut


    An interesting idea. Not sure I'd want to gamble with, or trust, Putin though.

    I genuinely think that all Ukraine's enlarged Military capacity should be used for defending it's territory. Every ounce of resource used in the futile gesture of encroaching into Russia could & should be used to defend their territory. IMO.
  • Allan23Allan23 Member Posts: 876
    "The West" has crossed every red line Putin has put down so far, including having British soldiers in Ukraine itself. His red lines are meaningless bluster.
  • GlenelgGlenelg Member Posts: 6,606
    Tikay10 said:

    Enut said:

    Maybe, just maybe, this is a way of ending the war. If Ukraine occupies part of Russia they have something to bargain with. Russia is never going to voluntarily give up the ground they have gained, but if it's a 'swap' for land that Ukraine have taken control of then maybe there's a chance. It is a bit of a gamble though and do you gamble with mad people?



    @Enut


    An interesting idea. Not sure I'd want to gamble with, or trust, Putin though.

    I genuinely think that all Ukraine's enlarged Military capacity should be used for defending it's territory. Every ounce of resource used in the futile gesture of encroaching into Russia could & should be used to defend their territory. IMO.
    The best defence is attack...
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,445
    Essexphil said:

    True.

    Equally unusual to ask for £Billions from the West to do 1 thing, and then use our money and weapons to do precisely the opposite.

    Particularly when it risks World War 3.

    Which is the reason the West only provided support for specific, limited purposes. Something that was unconditionally accepted by Ukraine.

    Ukraine are perfectly entitled to treat us as though we are the enemy, as opposed to Allies if they wish.

    But that involves consequences.

    Where exactly are they going to get weapons from?

    Essexphil said:

    True.

    Equally unusual to ask for £Billions from the West to do 1 thing, and then use our money and weapons to do precisely the opposite.

    Particularly when it risks World War 3.

    Which is the reason the West only provided support for specific, limited purposes. Something that was unconditionally accepted by Ukraine.

    Ukraine are perfectly entitled to treat us as though we are the enemy, as opposed to Allies if they wish.

    But that involves consequences.

    Where exactly are they going to get weapons from?

    So what do you think will happen?
    I dont think many were predicting that it would go on this long, at the outset.
    Will Ukraine supporters eventually give up, due to the cost?
    Will Russia make good on their threats, should Ukraine become NATO members?
    Is there any chance of a negotiated peace?
    Are Russia certain to win in the end?
    How long can Ukraine continue?
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 36,445
    edited August 14
    Essexphil said:

    There is a serious debate to be had here. I'm no fan of Corbyn. But even broken watches are right twice a day.

    It is 1 thing to help Ukraine defend its borders, and to seek to regain areas annexed by Russia.

    But invading Russia is a rather different thing. And not something the West should be seen to be bankrolling.




Sign In or Register to comment.