FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The phony war is at an end!
The phony war is at an end!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ubal1 OP Man
over a year ago
Newry Down |
The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
"
I don't think that Russia has any gas in the tank for any wider conventional conflict.
I assume their intention was to give Ukraine a punishment beating and then intimidate everyone else. However, they have ended up looking weak whatever the final outcome.
It may also have given China pause in believing that taking Taiwan militarily is a slam-dunk to distract from internal problems. China also has a completely untested military except against Tibetans and fighting with sticks against India in their border disputes.
However, both china and Russia have demographic and economic time bombs that are long term problems. Tensions are certainly high and any event can set of an unexpected chain.
It's not inevitable though and it is the UNSG's role to point out the severity of the potential outcome and encourage countries to resolve their issues.
In UK political speak he would probably be branded a "gloomster" and a "doomster" but actually you have to acknowledge the problem and level of risk to solve it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
"
This conflict bears no resemblance whatsoever to the phony war of 1939.
Suggest you read a bit of history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
I don't think that Russia has any gas in the tank for any wider conventional conflict.
I assume their intention was to give Ukraine a punishment beating and then intimidate everyone else. However, they have ended up looking weak whatever the final outcome.
It may also have given China pause in believing that taking Taiwan militarily is a slam-dunk to distract from internal problems. China also has a completely untested military except against Tibetans and fighting with sticks against India in their border disputes.
However, both china and Russia have demographic and economic time bombs that are long term problems. Tensions are certainly high and any event can set of an unexpected chain.
It's not inevitable though and it is the UNSG's role to point out the severity of the potential outcome and encourage countries to resolve their issues.
In UK political speak he would probably be branded a "gloomster" and a "doomster" but actually you have to acknowledge the problem and level of risk to solve it."
Like the guy on Russian state TV said last week - what's the point on developing, designing and manufacturing Nukes of various flavours if you never use them?
Didn't Trump sat similar in regards to the "Little Rocket Man".
There is plenty of gas in the tank with 1m conscripts and Nukes available. Does Putin look like a man who cares about collateral losses on either side?
If Putin is replaced by Wagner then it is certain it would sure get a whole lot worse.
Personally and from history, I think we're rolling more towards a wider conflict every day. If Putin declares war on the West for supplying Ukraine, where does it go from there?
Many still believe preemptive strikes are a winning solution- maybe we should send Putin a copy of War Games "would you like to play a game?". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
I don't think that Russia has any gas in the tank for any wider conventional conflict.
I assume their intention was to give Ukraine a punishment beating and then intimidate everyone else. However, they have ended up looking weak whatever the final outcome.
It may also have given China pause in believing that taking Taiwan militarily is a slam-dunk to distract from internal problems. China also has a completely untested military except against Tibetans and fighting with sticks against India in their border disputes.
However, both china and Russia have demographic and economic time bombs that are long term problems. Tensions are certainly high and any event can set of an unexpected chain.
It's not inevitable though and it is the UNSG's role to point out the severity of the potential outcome and encourage countries to resolve their issues.
In UK political speak he would probably be branded a "gloomster" and a "doomster" but actually you have to acknowledge the problem and level of risk to solve it.
Like the guy on Russian state TV said last week - what's the point on developing, designing and manufacturing Nukes of various flavours if you never use them?
Didn't Trump sat similar in regards to the "Little Rocket Man".
There is plenty of gas in the tank with 1m conscripts and Nukes available. Does Putin look like a man who cares about collateral losses on either side?
If Putin is replaced by Wagner then it is certain it would sure get a whole lot worse.
Personally and from history, I think we're rolling more towards a wider conflict every day. If Putin declares war on the West for supplying Ukraine, where does it go from there?
Many still believe preemptive strikes are a winning solution- maybe we should send Putin a copy of War Games "would you like to play a game?"."
Guess we wait and see Kaydrov said Poland is next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The United Nations Gen Sec has indicated that the current proxy war on Ukrainian territory will be expanded to become a more pervasive conflict.
I think his analysis of the conflict is accurate.
This initial period of conflict resembles the so-called phony war that was in existence in September 1939, that eventually became World War two, as more protagonists became involved in regional conflicts, such as in the Pacific area.
I don't think that Russia has any gas in the tank for any wider conventional conflict.
I assume their intention was to give Ukraine a punishment beating and then intimidate everyone else. However, they have ended up looking weak whatever the final outcome.
It may also have given China pause in believing that taking Taiwan militarily is a slam-dunk to distract from internal problems. China also has a completely untested military except against Tibetans and fighting with sticks against India in their border disputes.
However, both china and Russia have demographic and economic time bombs that are long term problems. Tensions are certainly high and any event can set of an unexpected chain.
It's not inevitable though and it is the UNSG's role to point out the severity of the potential outcome and encourage countries to resolve their issues.
In UK political speak he would probably be branded a "gloomster" and a "doomster" but actually you have to acknowledge the problem and level of risk to solve it.
Like the guy on Russian state TV said last week - what's the point on developing, designing and manufacturing Nukes of various flavours if you never use them?
Didn't Trump sat similar in regards to the "Little Rocket Man".
There is plenty of gas in the tank with 1m conscripts and Nukes available. Does Putin look like a man who cares about collateral losses on either side?
If Putin is replaced by Wagner then it is certain it would sure get a whole lot worse.
Personally and from history, I think we're rolling more towards a wider conflict every day. If Putin declares war on the West for supplying Ukraine, where does it go from there?
Many still believe preemptive strikes are a winning solution- maybe we should send Putin a copy of War Games "would you like to play a game?"."
They are conscripts though. That is the point.
Poorly trained, poorly equipped and unmotivated.
There was a purpose, in Putin's mind to a swift invasion of Ukraine. Now there is only saving face.
If he keeps Donetsk and Lugansk and can "win" one battle he will probably declare victory and Ukraine will actually be better off without them.
You are correct that the step beyond that is a nuclear escalation, but to what end? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
To what end? I think we know the answer to that one.
Yes, untrained, unwilling conscripts with a shelf life of 4 hours on average which is where the alternative becomes more attractive.
Accurate, quick and effective delivery at the cost of no conscripted lives.
The theory of 'Chaos' - "if it can happen, it probably will happen."
Tactical or Strategic, its a Nuke and use of either moves the doomsday clock a few more seconds to midnight.
Only 12 months ago, people were adamant that Russia would not enter Ukraine, including Zelenski who refuted CIA intelligence as it was too big to believe it could happen.
It was obvious from last September which is why I fixed Energy tariffs for 3 years knowing the effects on prices and supply they've been scared of for years and the reasons we never stood up to Putin. It was gas and oil more than Nukes the West has done their best not to 'Poke the Bear'. I told others last year who refused to believe and now on EPG tariffs. How many times have you heard in the media over the years that 'Russia will turn off the taps"?
12 months later, 100's of 1,000' Russians dead, untold suffering and pain and death in Ukraine- it happened.
Not expecting the outcome with the West, Putin needs an endgame, drag it out, finish it or walk away.
Either way, he's probably a dead man walking with little to lose.
Problem is, at my age and those generations that have gone before us also lost in Wars and genocides - never dismiss or deny anything that humanity is capable of inflicting on itself.
At the end of the day - we're clever monkeys with intelligence, but the monkey still lives within. You'll see it around you everyday on the roads, in supermarkets - just selfish monkeys with a few exceptions.
Live for today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"To what end? I think we know the answer to that one.
Yes, untrained, unwilling conscripts with a shelf life of 4 hours on average which is where the alternative becomes more attractive.
Accurate, quick and effective delivery at the cost of no conscripted lives.
The theory of 'Chaos' - "if it can happen, it probably will happen."
Tactical or Strategic, its a Nuke and use of either moves the doomsday clock a few more seconds to midnight.
Only 12 months ago, people were adamant that Russia would not enter Ukraine, including Zelenski who refuted CIA intelligence as it was too big to believe it could happen.
It was obvious from last September which is why I fixed Energy tariffs for 3 years knowing the effects on prices and supply they've been scared of for years and the reasons we never stood up to Putin. It was gas and oil more than Nukes the West has done their best not to 'Poke the Bear'. I told others last year who refused to believe and now on EPG tariffs. How many times have you heard in the media over the years that 'Russia will turn off the taps"?
12 months later, 100's of 1,000' Russians dead, untold suffering and pain and death in Ukraine- it happened.
Not expecting the outcome with the West, Putin needs an endgame, drag it out, finish it or walk away.
Either way, he's probably a dead man walking with little to lose.
Problem is, at my age and those generations that have gone before us also lost in Wars and genocides - never dismiss or deny anything that humanity is capable of inflicting on itself.
At the end of the day - we're clever monkeys with intelligence, but the monkey still lives within. You'll see it around you everyday on the roads, in supermarkets - just selfish monkeys with a few exceptions.
Live for today."
You've contradicted yourself a little with "live for today" but fixing your tariffs for three years 
I did too but my supplier went bankrupt 
Nuclear threats have always been posturing. However paranoid Putin is, the only use of nuclear weapons is if Russia is directly threatened militarily. The entire point of pushing out to create buffer states is to prevent this.
No state will attack Russia directly.
Putin will find an arbitrary victory criteria to extract himself. Nothing else will work. There is no personal advantage to Putin or Russia of a preemptive nuclear strike.
There will then be purges within Russia which he may himself fall victim to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To what end? I think we know the answer to that one.
Yes, untrained, unwilling conscripts with a shelf life of 4 hours on average which is where the alternative becomes more attractive.
Accurate, quick and effective delivery at the cost of no conscripted lives.
The theory of 'Chaos' - "if it can happen, it probably will happen."
Tactical or Strategic, its a Nuke and use of either moves the doomsday clock a few more seconds to midnight.
Only 12 months ago, people were adamant that Russia would not enter Ukraine, including Zelenski who refuted CIA intelligence as it was too big to believe it could happen.
It was obvious from last September which is why I fixed Energy tariffs for 3 years knowing the effects on prices and supply they've been scared of for years and the reasons we never stood up to Putin. It was gas and oil more than Nukes the West has done their best not to 'Poke the Bear'. I told others last year who refused to believe and now on EPG tariffs. How many times have you heard in the media over the years that 'Russia will turn off the taps"?
12 months later, 100's of 1,000' Russians dead, untold suffering and pain and death in Ukraine- it happened.
Not expecting the outcome with the West, Putin needs an endgame, drag it out, finish it or walk away.
Either way, he's probably a dead man walking with little to lose.
Problem is, at my age and those generations that have gone before us also lost in Wars and genocides - never dismiss or deny anything that humanity is capable of inflicting on itself.
At the end of the day - we're clever monkeys with intelligence, but the monkey still lives within. You'll see it around you everyday on the roads, in supermarkets - just selfish monkeys with a few exceptions.
Live for today.
You've contradicted yourself a little with "live for today" but fixing your tariffs for three years
I did too but my supplier went bankrupt
Nuclear threats have always been posturing. However paranoid Putin is, the only use of nuclear weapons is if Russia is directly threatened militarily. The entire point of pushing out to create buffer states is to prevent this.
No state will attack Russia directly.
Putin will find an arbitrary victory criteria to extract himself. Nothing else will work. There is no personal advantage to Putin or Russia of a preemptive nuclear strike.
There will then be purges within Russia which he may himself fall victim to."
So says Mystic Meg. If only your self appointed powers of prediction could work on the lottery  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"To what end? I think we know the answer to that one.
Yes, untrained, unwilling conscripts with a shelf life of 4 hours on average which is where the alternative becomes more attractive.
Accurate, quick and effective delivery at the cost of no conscripted lives.
The theory of 'Chaos' - "if it can happen, it probably will happen."
Tactical or Strategic, its a Nuke and use of either moves the doomsday clock a few more seconds to midnight.
Only 12 months ago, people were adamant that Russia would not enter Ukraine, including Zelenski who refuted CIA intelligence as it was too big to believe it could happen.
It was obvious from last September which is why I fixed Energy tariffs for 3 years knowing the effects on prices and supply they've been scared of for years and the reasons we never stood up to Putin. It was gas and oil more than Nukes the West has done their best not to 'Poke the Bear'. I told others last year who refused to believe and now on EPG tariffs. How many times have you heard in the media over the years that 'Russia will turn off the taps"?
12 months later, 100's of 1,000' Russians dead, untold suffering and pain and death in Ukraine- it happened.
Not expecting the outcome with the West, Putin needs an endgame, drag it out, finish it or walk away.
Either way, he's probably a dead man walking with little to lose.
Problem is, at my age and those generations that have gone before us also lost in Wars and genocides - never dismiss or deny anything that humanity is capable of inflicting on itself.
At the end of the day - we're clever monkeys with intelligence, but the monkey still lives within. You'll see it around you everyday on the roads, in supermarkets - just selfish monkeys with a few exceptions.
Live for today.
You've contradicted yourself a little with "live for today" but fixing your tariffs for three years
I did too but my supplier went bankrupt
Nuclear threats have always been posturing. However paranoid Putin is, the only use of nuclear weapons is if Russia is directly threatened militarily. The entire point of pushing out to create buffer states is to prevent this.
No state will attack Russia directly.
Putin will find an arbitrary victory criteria to extract himself. Nothing else will work. There is no personal advantage to Putin or Russia of a preemptive nuclear strike.
There will then be purges within Russia which he may himself fall victim to.
So says Mystic Meg. If only your self appointed powers of prediction could work on the lottery "
Constructive. Thanks for your input  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To what end? I think we know the answer to that one.
Yes, untrained, unwilling conscripts with a shelf life of 4 hours on average which is where the alternative becomes more attractive.
Accurate, quick and effective delivery at the cost of no conscripted lives.
The theory of 'Chaos' - "if it can happen, it probably will happen."
Tactical or Strategic, its a Nuke and use of either moves the doomsday clock a few more seconds to midnight.
Only 12 months ago, people were adamant that Russia would not enter Ukraine, including Zelenski who refuted CIA intelligence as it was too big to believe it could happen.
It was obvious from last September which is why I fixed Energy tariffs for 3 years knowing the effects on prices and supply they've been scared of for years and the reasons we never stood up to Putin. It was gas and oil more than Nukes the West has done their best not to 'Poke the Bear'. I told others last year who refused to believe and now on EPG tariffs. How many times have you heard in the media over the years that 'Russia will turn off the taps"?
12 months later, 100's of 1,000' Russians dead, untold suffering and pain and death in Ukraine- it happened.
Not expecting the outcome with the West, Putin needs an endgame, drag it out, finish it or walk away.
Either way, he's probably a dead man walking with little to lose.
Problem is, at my age and those generations that have gone before us also lost in Wars and genocides - never dismiss or deny anything that humanity is capable of inflicting on itself.
At the end of the day - we're clever monkeys with intelligence, but the monkey still lives within. You'll see it around you everyday on the roads, in supermarkets - just selfish monkeys with a few exceptions.
Live for today.
You've contradicted yourself a little with "live for today" but fixing your tariffs for three years
I did too but my supplier went bankrupt
Nuclear threats have always been posturing. However paranoid Putin is, the only use of nuclear weapons is if Russia is directly threatened militarily. The entire point of pushing out to create buffer states is to prevent this.
No state will attack Russia directly.
Putin will find an arbitrary victory criteria to extract himself. Nothing else will work. There is no personal advantage to Putin or Russia of a preemptive nuclear strike.
There will then be purges within Russia which he may himself fall victim to.
So says Mystic Meg. If only your self appointed powers of prediction could work on the lottery
Constructive. Thanks for your input "
You're very welcome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Don't believe the scaremongering in the media. Most of it is propagamda and subterfuge nyway. Loose lips sink ships and all thag.
Conventional Russian forces are nowhere near as powerful as the media make them out to be. Ukraine can't take them on its own mainly due to not being prepared. It started with Soviet era kit and had way way less signed up people in it's armed forces. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
