Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Hear hear! I've been saying that round here for years! If you can't make your point in less than 10 lines you'd be better off moving off from social media and writing to the Irish Times or maybe Joe Duffy. Most of them sound like they're retired muinteors or something.

**** you yappin about mate?

Your rants make so little sense there's really nothing to respond to.

Latest polls show 90 percent of Ukrainians also want to join the EU.

A statistic that will doubtless have you foaming at the mouth even more

How about Ukraine?

A better chance but still not going to happen.

It was always the Ukraine when I first learnt of geography. Zaire is not forgotten either.

You would think that the British could afford a full time commander? Experience of tractors would be a help I suppose

I think you meant to write "not be pragmatic" rather than "be pragmatic" ?

Sure, strategists would love to be dealing with certainties but peoples' lives count for something too

Some say he isn't crazy, I believe he is. One hopes that the Russian military consider him crazy too

This guy --

https://youtu.be/fypBI2ovxP8

Never understand why "the" is still added, it's a Soviet thing which has spilled over into post Soviet times, it's like saying The Ireland or The France, only two countries in the world have officially got "the" in their official titles- The Bahamas and The Gambia, yet we add the in all to often, The Netherlands, The Congo etc.

The added use of the stems from Soviet times where the practice was to refer Ukraine as "na Ukraine" - na meaning "in the" as in an unbounded territory.

I'd usually agree, and yes, the benefits do outweigh the negatives currently.... but this conflict has shown that it is not as fully united as it likes to make out... and even though Brexit I still feel was a bad decision, if the UK hadn't left it, there wouldn't have been as much of a steady stream of anti armour weapons entering the country initially, which was definitely a key dis-advantage to the Russian's (and probably a play they didn't envisage when they encouraged Brexit)..

Kellyanne Conway?

I heartily recommend this LAZERPIG satirical dismembering of the T34 - My knowledge of military technology is limited (guns shoot bullets right!?) - but i remember reading about many a flaw in the T34 - including a crazy situation whereby only 'command tanks' had radios? Germans took advantage of this in many battles, and would go for the command tank, which would leave the others uncoordinated and disfunctional

The T34 is a fav of many a military buff - the whole 'Tank that won the war' etc

As for this video - if anyone wants a breather from the news - Check this out - it will make you laugh, and give you some fascinating info too!

I meant that they would possibly be pragmatic, which would imply there is also a possibility that they would not be pragmatic and just follow the order. In short, it's a variable. One hell of a variable.

People's lives do count for something, but that also ties back to the argument of why NATO would be so cagey about directly engaging with Russia - that as bad as what's happening in Ukraine is, if the nukes started flying... yada, yada, yada. We've heard the argument from multiple directions at this point.

My personal belief is that if either a NATO force, or even a joint European one, moved into the west of Ukraine, it would not instantly intensify proceedings to a nuclear level, nor ever. Not by simple fact of such a force setting foot inside Ukraine, anyway. Now, if it were a case of the much talked about no-fly zone being set up and that necessitating hitting ground targets within Russia to make it feasible, i.e. SAM installations, that... would be a new situation. I have no idea how that would develop.

I also think the unavoidable fact of waging war is that the decision makers in it have to be cold, analytical and a fair bit detached from the immense human suffering on the ground. If said decision makers allowed the red mist to descend, there's a strong chance of making rash, uncalculated decisions that would, ironically, get even more people killed. It makes for awfully hard decisions, many of which would be contemporaneously unpopular, but might be viewed differently in the fullness of time... or not, as the case may be.

Fair point. But couldn't the individual EU countries send more weapons if they wanted? I mean, does France need EU approval if it wants to supply arms whereas the UK doesn't? I'm not sure how that works