Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4
Discussion
I see the same claims made in the US - oh we're giving Billions to Ukraine that could be spent on... insert something random.
It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
Byker28i said:
I see the same claims made in the US - oh we're giving Billions to Ukraine that could be spent on... insert something random.
It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
And thats precisely my point, it isn't on our doorstep; it's 3.5 countries away, two of those are France and Germany.It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
Russia is zero threat to the UK.
youngsyr said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
youngsyr said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
youngsyr said:
It's a viewpoint we've taken and are taking in plenty of other places in the world, why is Ukraine so special?
Because it's in Europe, our back garden and helping them out is cheap and in our own advantage.And what advantages are we going to receive?
Advantages are that Putin things twice next time. He got Crimea without a fight and thought, "Great same again". If he gets Ukriane or even the coast of Ukraine it will be Moldova next immediately amd he'll be thinking "Great, this works." or maybe the next guy will.
So, what is the all in cost so far?
There is your answer, its the right thing to do with some side benefits that we may avoid the horrors the Ukrainians are going through for the sake of money and some kit that, if push came to shove it would be British troops using, or maybe it just gets decommissioned unused ?
Or, would you quite like to see your sons go of to war, your home get bombed, missus and daughters at the mercy of Russian troops, maybe one of them shooting your dog ? You quite happy in a trench ?
Byker28i said:
If anyone learnt anything from Iraq - there's huge contracts and money to be made after the war rebuilding the infrastructure. I'm surprised there isn't more lobbying going on to kick russia out so it can start sooner.
The Iraq war cost America $757.8 billion in defence budget alone I'd be amazed if it made a net profit and the cost of the rise of ISIS isn't factored into that.I really can't see how any country can make money out of an attritional war. This current war has shrunk the world economy.
youngsyr said:
Byker28i said:
I see the same claims made in the US - oh we're giving Billions to Ukraine that could be spent on... insert something random.
It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
And thats precisely my point, it isn't on our doorstep; it's 3.5 countries away, two of those are France and Germany.It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
Russia is zero threat to the UK.
What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
J4CKO said:
Imagine for one minute that the army boot is on the other foot and its us that have been invaded, would you like some external support ?
There is your answer, its the right thing to do with some side benefits that we may avoid the horrors the Ukrainians are going through for the sake of money and some kit that, if push came to shove it would be British troops using, or maybe it just gets decommissioned unused ?
Or, would you quite like to see your sons go of to war, your home get bombed, missus and daughters at the mercy of Russian troops, maybe one of them shooting your dog ? You quite happy in a trench ?
It's not us that are being invaded though is it, nor is it ever likely to be.There is your answer, its the right thing to do with some side benefits that we may avoid the horrors the Ukrainians are going through for the sake of money and some kit that, if push came to shove it would be British troops using, or maybe it just gets decommissioned unused ?
Or, would you quite like to see your sons go of to war, your home get bombed, missus and daughters at the mercy of Russian troops, maybe one of them shooting your dog ? You quite happy in a trench ?
And I can recall a recent conflict where not only did we have to defend against an invasion on our own, without even logistical support by our so called allies, but French weapons were used against us killing our military!
Regardless, less We've done plenty of meddling in other countries' problems for centuries, with very mixed results to say the least.
I say its time for us to pull back and let others take the cost.
As for end of life kit, sure send it to Ukraine, as long as the cost to us is negligible. I've never argued against that.
youngsyr said:
borcy said:
youngsyr said:
ben5575 said:
youngsyr said:
So assumptions upon assumptions, hardly a strong position.
Unlike trying to argue that we shouldn't be trying to end the war in Ukraine sooner because we've spent a lot of money subsidising the costs of energy caused by the war in Ukraine.That's an unsupported assumption.
What should we be doing?
I suspect its much more likely that out government are kicking the can down the road and expecting it to be someone else's problem within a year.
What should we be doing? I suggest making all the right noises and loudly proclaiming our support for Ukraine, whilst cutting the actual cost to as close to zero as possible.
You think there's no upside to supporting Ukraine?
Prolex-UK said:
You are deluded
What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
+1What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
I can't think of a single greater threat to us than Russia on our own continent.
We assumed they'd stop at Crimea, with a bit of trouble making in the Dombas and we were wrong, they certainly aren't going to stop at Ukraine and their politicians amd stste controled media are openly saying they're going further. ...and that's without the constant nuclear threats.
If Poland and Finland think Russia isn't coming west why are they investing in massive militaries. Why did Sweden and Finland join NATO if they don't feel threatened.
The idea that a country that is currently invading Europe doesn't want to invade Europe is a bit eccentric to say the least!
Prolex-UK said:
You are deluded
What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
The cyber crime/warfare russia has aimed at NATO partners has a large economic cost and is ongoing. The treaty has not yet been amended to account for this new battlefield.What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
Prolex-UK said:
youngsyr said:
Byker28i said:
I see the same claims made in the US - oh we're giving Billions to Ukraine that could be spent on... insert something random.
It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
And thats precisely my point, it isn't on our doorstep; it's 3.5 countries away, two of those are France and Germany.It's not like were chucking cash at them, we're mostly giving them arms, equipment, ammo to defend themselves, which then has to be replaced - money spent here on our UK arms supplier.
Realistically, it's the simple question, do you want the fighting on your front garden, or on someone elses a few miles away.
Russia is zero threat to the UK.
What about ms burgess poisoned by the russians in Salisbury
Litvenchenko died after being poisoned by russians
youngsyr said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
youngsyr said:
Erm, they were both attacks on Russians.
So what?
t with chemical warfare agents in the UK is totes on fleek, fam. You really will continue to argue black is white regardless of evidence.BikeBikeBIke said:
Chemical weapon attacks that kill British people in Britain are no threat to the UK?
A targeted assassination of a Russian spy that accidentally killed a British person because someone went fishing in a bin is no real threat to the UK, no.In the UK in the past 30 years (1987-2016), 58 people were known to have been killed by lightning, that is, on average, two people per year.
So lightning strikes are a much bigger threat to Brits than the Russians. Should we spend £70bn combating lightning strikes?
If not, why not?
hidetheelephants said:
youngsyr said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
youngsyr said:
Erm, they were both attacks on Russians.
So what?t with chemical warfare agents in the UK is totes on fleek, fam. You really will continue to argue black is white regardless of evidence.youngsyr said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
Chemical weapon attacks that kill British people in Britain are no threat to the UK?
A targeted assassination of a Russian spy that accidentally killed a British person because someone went fishing in a bin is no real threat to the UK, no.In the UK in the past 30 years (1987-2016), 58 people were known to have been killed by lightning, that is, on average, two people per year.
So lightning strikes are a much bigger threat to Brits than the Russians. Should we spend £70bn combating lightning strikes?
If not, why not?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff