Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Yes. I understand the excuses often given. Which is why I pre-empted this point by saying it was legitimate to ask why the women and children are able to take a pit-stop on the way.

You should at least acknowledge that there would be people who claim to fleeing war who really just want to be given status to remain in Europe.

Lets be honest, we had a huge amount of people come into this country in the late 90's and early 00's who were all fleeing for their lives. Out of those there are examples who, once they got status here and eventually got their passports, now travel back and forth for family events, seemingly oblivious to the life-threatening dangers they must obviously remain in. Nobody is claiming that about Ukrainians or actual Syrians.

Looks like US is going to go ahead on the ban Russian oil imports (just for the US)

Putin is bluffing and is unlikely to use nukes - that comes from someone far more expert than anyone posting on Boards and most of the commentators online.

I therefore think getting some non-nato countries to put boots on the ground and provide air cover with a clear rule not to engage any targets within Russia, is what the west should do.

that agreement is null and void now, it was supposed to protect the "independence and sovereignty" of ukraine, i did neither

Considering what they are doing in the Ukraine they think a fella reversing a truck into a gate is ' barbaric ' !? NURSE !!!!!

State shouldn't pay a cent... the state didn't do it and they have insurance...

Enormous amounts were pumped into Afghanistan to train and equip the military. In the end they were not bothered fighting, so the end result is the Afghans get the government they wanted or at least couldn't be bothered fighting against. The situation in Ukraine is completely different.

I'm not going to tackle everything in that post because it's so long, but I don't think autocracies have 'almost nothing to worry about' besides the war. There are certain hard realities even an autocracy must face, no matter how much they try to control the flow of information, and one of them is that if they run out of money to finance their war, that war is f*cked. And so, there is an amount of calculus that must be performed in deciding to go to war and which target you pick. By going to war with Ukraine, Russia has alienated many economic partners. That, in turn, will create austerity for the Russian population, which will be oxygen for the anti-Putin sentiment that exists in the country.

Those who admire autocracy, either openly or in secret, would admire its apparent strength, but they forget it's also brittle. Enough pressure and it will crack. Putin's doing himself no favours, here. He can try to tell his people one thing, but he probably underestimates just how readily information travels these days.

A little simplistic to say just accept price hikes in petrol/gas. 40% of gas supplies for Europe come from Russia, there is no alternative sources to cover that. And will take decades to reverse this dependance.

But it's just paranoia; there's no rational basis to it. Ukraine as a standalone actor could never attempt to invade Russia, no matter how much western weaponry it possessed. And if the US/NATO/The West wanted to launch an unprovoked attack on Russia it wouldn't need any help from Ukraine. So if Russia genuinely has no aggressive intentions toward Ukraine, the Ukraine joining NATO or whatever military alliance doesn't change anything of substance.

Of course if Russia still harbours ambitions to annex more of Ukraine, install puppet governments etc. then obviously Ukraine joining NATO is a major hindrance to it. But that's where your analogy with Canada and Mexico falls down, those countries have no 'good' reason to join any anti-US military alliance because they can be certain America has no intention of invading them.

Nobody is mentioned "how inconvenient it is when they turn up near us". That is only you.

Again you are being obtuse and not acknowledging the original posters point. Such strawman deflection does not help your argument as it shows you don't must not have a strong one.

I don't know how anyone could refuse to help the Ukrainian people fleeing the war.

There are people, for example, in camps in the likes of Calais. They have possibly been there for years. They were never near a warzone. They will never be in a warzone. There is nobody in France trying to murder them. By concocting and implying a false equivalence between those "refugees" and the women and children literally fleeing Ukraine for their lives at the minute, you are seriously insulting those Ukrainian women and children.

Ahh would you give over with that shyte. Yeah they were paving the way for the women and children to follow.

Now how come that isn't happening in Ukraine at the moment?

It is a busted myth that all those young lads were fleeing Syria, Iraq or indeed Afghanistan.

Yes there were Syrians there, but there was every type of chancer from not just Middle East and Central Asia but also parts of Europe amongst them.

Just like it is a busted myth that they were all doctors, engineers and scientists.