What 17th & 18th century wars do you refer to? Cromwell and his force came here in the 17th century and there followed various plantations in Leinster etc.
Maybe you mean WW1 of the 20th century? I have ancestors who signed up and went off in WW1, but I think their motives were many & varied. 1) to do their bit with pals of their age 2) to earn a few bob 3) to support Home Rule for Ireland and 4) a bit of adventure. I don't any of them were told by ruling aristocratic landlords to go off and fight, though one might have followed by example as the young men of the local landlord also signed up. The latter mostly were made low level officers and since they had to lead from the trenches, tended not to come back.
A US-sanctioned ship owned by the Pro-Assad forces has docked in Lebanon's Tripoli carrying flour and barley that the Ukrainian embassy told @Reuters was stolen from Ukrainian stores
I thought this quote summed up the article.
On the one hand, that’s a great advantage for the regime, but it’s also its biggest problem. Nobody moves against the government, but nobody moves in favour of it, either. That’s why the COVID vaccination campaign failed, and why Putin can’t announce a general mobilization. Volodymyr Zelensky announced the other day that he wants to mobilize a million people. Russia can’t mobilize two hundred thousand because everybody runs away.
No there was Irish regiments in the French army and others enlisted with other European armies, prussian, Swedish, etc. Any army in Europe I think there were some Irish in the number.
The pros at the time for the ruling class were they were out of the way.
The cons at the time was the possibility of some returning home with military experience and contacts.
Going off thread. Apologies.
The closer to defeat Russia becomes the more aggressive their rhetoric will become.
Russia won’t nuke anyone while NATO directly stays on the sidelines and as long as Russia proper is not invaded.
There’s no way back from nuking Kyiv. Russia won’t be able to sell even Vodka outside Its own borders for decades. Even Iran would see turmoil if they defended Russia in such circumstances.
Russia needs to slink back to its borders and never again think of invading anyone ever again.
What if Ukraine starts to retake Crimea though?
I've a feeling that if Ukraine was starting to encroach on Crimea, the whole war could be overtaken by political events. It would be obvious to everyone that Putin was losing. Nuclear weapons would be a sign of total desperation, not a position of strength or a country in control. How could he ever sell that as a "win" when it would be obvious his army was taking a hammering and retreating.
Putin loses more face. The world sheds no tears or gives 2 fks
Nuking anywhere would probably lead to Russia being left in total isolation. Not even the Chinese would interact with them. It would be back to borst and wheat for the entire population plus the possibility of being attacked themselves.
Russia are now like a boxer on the ropes flailing widely but landing little. Ultimately they're just expending their energy and I'd expect a sudden collapse. Some day soon the trucks with ammo won't arrive at the front any more. Those soldiers won't be told why and they'll be left to fend for themselves. They'll then have to decide whether to surrender, run or die.
I just hope Ukraine are putting aside 10% of their rocket deliveries to continue the push after the point the Western support starts to drop off. But I don't think that will happen til the January borders have been restored. Putin cannot be seen to have achieved a thing.
The really huge question is; what does the US want after this? Russia has been building an alternative coalition to the traditional US are the big beast version.
Aligning with the right wing countries and with Arab backing and Israeli support, what does the US want now to bring lots of these countries to heel; Putin will always be a thorn in their side, always stirring s**t up. He's been the master troll for years.
Will Biden want a humiliating end to the war, or some appeasement to prevent a regime change and power struggle?
A morally repugnant, self indulgent, coldy naïve narcissistic bullshi7 packed in to an over written letter.
What in heaven's name are you getting at?
Business article suggesting the sanctions are having a much more severe effect than the Russkis are admitting.
'Ultimately, the warring nation has little hope for an economic recovery, the researchers said.
In their words: "Looking ahead, there is no path out of economic oblivion for Russia as long as the allied countries remain unified in maintaining and increasing sanctions pressure."'
That's it in a nutshell. Despite all being well on the outside ( official version) all is far from being well realistically. Very good article / interview.
There will be a solution, presumably a negotiated one. The US might step in and push Ukraine toward a negotiated solution that leaves Putin still in power, or they may keep supplying weapons until Ukraine completely obliterates the Russian army.
If the second choice then they could be facilitating regime change in Russia. I am certain that this is well thought out and discussed long before now.
I'm not sure there has ever been a Western lead leadership change. Russian internal security is crazy. Will the next guy have Hair or bald.
Russia will threaten to nuke Kyiv, the US will inform Moscow that if they do every military base to the west of Moscow will be wiped out, doesn't really matter it by conventional or nuclear weapons but can threaten nukes if they want, then offer to destroy a few major bits of infrastructure to the west of Moscow as well, but avoiding civilian population centres. Mosow says hold on a minute we have another idea, they instead shoot Putin in the head and hand over Crimea and Kaliningrad and says awfully sorry about the little ruckus we just had in Ukraine, could we possibly sell you some oil again please?
So now our First Lady has the support of the Russian Ambassador (I should perhaps have said the representative of Russian Gangsterism). To quote a remark made by a former minister for Justice about a former President: "a thundering disgrace"
Yuriy Filatov said he agreed with the points made by Mrs Higgins in a letter she wrote to The Irish Times earlier this week.
“Under the circumstances [the letter] suggests that everything should be done to end the hostilities as quickly as possible,” he told the Irish Times. “I wouldn’t want to intrude in internal affairs but the point of view, it makes sense. She’s against war. We’re all against war.”
I wonder how these mouthpieces actually look themselves in the mirror every day knowing they have to go out and publicly peddle complete fabrications to the point everyone knows they are full of BS.
Unless its a case of cognitive dissonance whereby you start to beleive your own nonsense.
The post war strategy should be - Give us your nukes and we'll buy your gas.
Another SMART attack (SMArt 155 - Wikipedia) You can even see the shell coming in.
The Higgins in the Park should be absolutely ashamed of themselves - allowing the office to be used by that bare faced liar in his propaganda. A case for resignation to be answered there imho.
I entirely disagree with Higgin's leter. Yes there must be peace and it will come at the end of talks, but invasions of sovereign nations should never be supported never mind rewarded, no matter who is doing the invading.
However what we also should be defending just as strongly is her right to say these things in public. Things that go against our common narrative. That's how all the things we hold dear as free nations came about. She could not say anything like that in Russia. They have to follow the common narrative under threat of legal punishment or worse.
Attack on Russia?
It's really wishful thinking and wondering aloud at present but it is stuff that Russia will readily seize on for propaganda purposes. Not sure why people are getting so annoyed about this TBH.
I was thinking that Filatov's carry-on might be just to stir up trouble. If Michael D were forced to resign, then we would have a presidential election at a very sensitive time. Maybe Vlad might welcome a President from a certain party which recently deleted it Vlad-loving history from its website. Careful what you wish for.
Typical behaviour from the KGB/FSB playbook.
Why would Putin want Higgins out. Especially,why would he want Sabina out?
It's low on his concerns but he will remain happy with the current incumbent.
No one has denied her right to say what she said.
We have the same right to condemn her for it.
Putin likes to stir the sh*t in whatever way he can. It's not so much that he would want to get rid of MD, but to just to cause trouble.
Occupation authorities in parts of Donetsk region say 40 Ukrainian POWs killed, 130 wounded as result of shelling of camp for POWs near Olenivka
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/eedacf599b4135dfd56d6fdbddcbd867.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/99cb88aba86d6cd761548c5d5bb50f6a.svg)