Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

Options
1154155157159160315

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,503 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    You asked a question then got an answer. You then shift the goal posts / ask a rhetorical question. This is derailing the thread.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    It's in western leaders interests to stay engaged. Takes the heat away from local issues. Look at the housing market, 15% increase in a year. Can't call out out the government for it now because it's all down to the Ukrainians they'll say.

    For the media, it's easy news. Same with covid. Just say whatevers happening today and make it a news item.

    For regular people it's falling away into the background. Even this thread isn't as active anymore.

    What's possible imo to happen is Russia will take over the south corridor and the east and potentially a northern section to Belarus and on May 9th declare victory.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,353 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    There an example of this? For sure the UK gutter press, the Daily Mail, has tried to trot out the excuse that "there's a war on" to distract from controversies - but I haven't got any sense the same is happening here. I see the same stuff reported here as usual; housing crisis, fuel and inflation crisis, the Sligo murders. If you see differently, please share. I certainly haven't heard or seen any TD trying to hand-wave away these issues by pointing at Ukraine.

    It isn't as active anymore because the Russians have retreated; Kyiv is no longer under active attack and the news that HAS popped up - such as the horrors at Bucha - has been the digestion of the aftermath once the Russians have left. It hasn't been as minute-to-minute because the worst of the existential risk to Ukraine has lessened - for now. What you're describing is a natural news cycle, not a lessening of interest.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,715 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    They would be in for an awful shock on May 10th when the Ukrainians keep shooting at them.

    Also, a "northern sectino to Belarus" would involve taking Chernihiv which they have already helpfully shown themselves completely incapable of doing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,118 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    Well confirmation that that British-Ukrainian really is in Russian hands (which also means that others are too).



    Frankly the fact that he's been beaten but is alive is about the best he could have hoped for. I'd fear for some of his less high profile colleagues.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭McGiver




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Post edited by amandstu on


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Once the largest shipin the fleet. Also usually armed with nuclear weapons. Were they taken off?



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭amandstu


    According to the opinion of a poster on another site

    "russian statement saying the weapons system are undamaged suggests it may have had nuclear weapons on board"



  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The politics threads tend to be quietier in relation to the same topic than in CA because it is for serious discussion, and people tend to be banned from threads on it quicker than they would be from the same topic in the CA forum.

    In relation to the media, they report the news, Ukraine and covid are still the repeat topics at the moment, as are housing, inflation and then the more day to day and short cycle stories.

    As to the Ukraine and your predictions, the fuel protestors had a better chance of getting their demands met on Monday.

    While putin might try to claim victory on the 9th, the only people who are going to be believing him are the ones who as an uncle used to say could be bought and sold by him.

    It isn't like his media didn't make the same mistake earlier in the conflict

    The Ukrainian forces aren't going to stop shooting at them on the 9th just because putin said he's won and him doing so without taking the whole of Ukraine, would be the equivalent of declaring major combat operations have ended under a banner saying mission accomplished.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 925 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    Somehow I don't think that Lukashenko would go for that. He's canny enough to have kept out of the war so far and accepting a chunk of Ukraine would nail him into Putin's project. He knows it would be a double-edged gift.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Clearly shows what money was supporting Trump. Russian of course, like literally any other disruptive, extremist or authoritarian party/movement/politician in the US and EU.

    Bill Browder's books are a must read - Freezing Order is a good start:

    Freezing Order - Bill Browder



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,118 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Russia are tying themselves up in knots over the sinking of the Moskva. They are simultaneously trying to say that it sank as a result of a serious of unfortunate accidents while at the same time are targeting the Ukrainian plant responsible for creating the missiles that most likely were the cause of the damage.


    Last night on Russian TV they seem to have completely lost their minds about this:


    My favourite part about that clip is the way that bad grandpa is so apoplectic with rage that he cannot remember what he's actually supposed to be calling the war.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,353 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    "Ukraine returned to Russia".

    And it's NATO's fault according to some. Yes I've banged that drum but I truly can't reach across the mindset that might read this continuous brazen admission towards imperialist, soviet restoration and decide yes, The West are the bad guys in this equation. That we should let alone and play possum.

    Sovereignty for me, but not for thee it might seem.

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Because conquest is not a population-friendly message. "We are going to invade their land and claim it for our own", is an outright declaration that you are the bad guys.

    Instead, you assert a claim over the land, no matter how flimsy, and then assert that you are merely reclaiming what has belonged to you all along. Any attempt to push back or stop you from doing it, is an attack and you play the victim.

    Israel has been doing it for decades, and now Russia is. Escalation is NATO's fault because if everyone had just stood back and let Russia reclaim its property, there would be no war. Therefore, Russia is the victim.

    When you have a victim complex, it's really easy to keep that going.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,916 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Shots fired; and not just literally:

    EDIT: Apologies; this was supposed to end up in the CA thread. Since I can't delete it myself I'll leave it here for now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Incredible that a poll today by the Irish times is fully against NATO membership and changing our neutrality status. Gotta love the stupidity of some.

    Post edited by bear1 on


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Not really. It suits our position but we need to increase our own defense capabilities.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Even if we wanted to join NATO, before they would accept us, we would need to increase our defence spending to 2% of GDP (or such), plus we need more security personnel - more sailors, soldiers, and more airmen (airpersons?) plus more hardware.

    We have no fighter aircraft, and inadequate navy ships if we were intent on defending the state from any meaningful attack from an enemy intent on taking us over. We have no primary radar to detect intruders, and so could not defend Shannon Airport, which would be a primary target for any invasion.

    I would favour an EU compact of mutual defence than NATO based.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,476 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Same tactics used by the Nazis in lead up to WW2



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,353 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Oh for sure, as the cliché goes we all like to think we're the hero of our own story. But what's galling is how the Russian authorities can't even keep the stories straight - it has literally changed across the recent months.

    First it's liberating the breakaway provinces yearning for sovereignty; then it was liberating Ukraine from Nazis; now it's (re)appropriating the country as some lost province of Russia. Now, I'd say to Putin he doesn't care the story changes so what does it matter when the public believe any old guff; but for those here yammering on about NATO as the true antagonists it's enraging to see them ignore such obvious, false bullshít. Especially when it openly admits "Ukraine is ours to take".



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    What would happen if the gas/oil pipelines were bombed? No Russian fuel to Europe no money to Russia.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,580 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    when I read the results of a poll like that I’m not sure I fully understand my country after 40 odd years of living here.

    Can anyone drill down and tease out the issues here?

    I can kind of get the whole British army thing and the fact that they were a NATO force who acted very aggressively against Irish people in recent memory. But then there have been some serious former enemy countries co-operating in NATO since it formed a few years after world war 2.

    Are we afraid of military conflict? Historically I don’t think we are and had no problem rebelling and taking up arms against impossible odds in the past. And had no shortage of recruits from this country in all major wars.

    Are we just too tight to spend money on defence?

    We are going to be in the same club of non aligned countries as the apparently selfish Swiss and Austrians. Not a great club to be in. It was easier to justify when Sweden and Finland were in the same boat.

    Could there be issues in the future with foreign direct investment in non aligned countries with poor defence capabilities? Especially after the theft and destruction of this current war.

    There is an opportunity to strike a blow on the Russian PR campaign by even starting a serious discussion on this issue but with polls like that it pours cold water over any such move.

    Post edited by 20silkcut on


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,678 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    NATO is not an option at present.

    We do not spend enough on defence now, and we have next to no capability for defence - even the most passive type. We need decent radar to detect unfriendly aircraft incursions - primary radar. All we have is ATC radar that requires a transponder in the aircraft so we can see it - unfriendly aircraft do not turn theirs on and so are invisible. We rely on the UK to protect us.

    So we start by increasing our defence spending, and at the same time increase our Garda numbers and their capability - particularly wrt digital security.

    We need to get there - if not NATO, then some mutual self defence arrangement through the EU. If Sweden and Finland join, and Austria perhaps, then we need to reconsider.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,715 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    We need to get there - if not NATO, then some mutual self defence arrangement through the EU. If Sweden and Finland join, and Austria perhaps, then we need to reconsider.

    Or we go down the Iceland route of deciding its not really worth it. We do seem to be somewhat half-assing it instead.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭McGiver


    On 14 April the official Russian news agency TASS reported the following in this order

    1. The cruiser was affected by a fire in the munition storage compartment and remains afloat
    2. The cruiser is being towed to the port and remains afloat
    3. The cruiser sank while being towed away

    While the Ukrainian Army reported straight away on that day that it was hit by their missile and had toppled over (and Sunk).

    Then the same day Rossija 1 TV broascasted the video posted above talking about the cruiser and the reason for WW3 and bombing Kyiv to the the ground etc while not admitting even once that it WAS sunk. Still maintaining it just sank ITSELF while AT THE SAME time saying it's a causus belli for

    Kremlin cowards and liars, can't even admit it was sunk by the Ukrainians.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭McGiver




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,580 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    Is it politically impossible to take money from social welfare and health budgets etc and divert it towards defence?

    The non financial ideological reasons for not joining are looking increasingly hollow and out of date with each passing day in my opinion.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,353 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I'm far from an expert in Irish political thinking, but during a time of deep inflation and crucifying costs of living, any politician trying to suggest public money be used to push us closer to the 2% defence spending would be (rightly) vilified. It'd be political suicide. The Finns and Swedes not only border Russia but have a deep, long history of war with them. We do not



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭scotchy


    💙 💛 💙 💛 💙 💛



Advertisement