O/T It didn’t take long

Another brexit myth basher, drama queen, plenty on here.

 

“In November 2017, The Times reported that researchers from Swansea University and UC Berkeley had identified around 150,000 accounts with links to Russia that tweeted about Brexit in the run-up to the referendum.[49][50] ”
I guess just a bunch of ordinary Russian citizens took a keen interest independently of the Russian government then.

 

**** me this thread is absolutely hilarious.

 

You’re very naïve if you think the Russians weren’t delighted about Brexit. Anything that causes fractions the west is a positive for them.

Having said that, this situation is nothing to do with Brexit

 

Those that voted for Brexit based on their racism won't bat an eyelid. Those that were were fooled by the lies of Mogg, Farrage and Johnson about the "benefits" are probably already regretting it.

 

Perfect argument for renewable energy if I ever heard one - with a side benefit of reducing Russian aggression. You should join the Green Party.....

 

I’ve just had a quick look, and it appears that there’s been more than 18 wars since WW2. Korea, Vietnam, Balkans, Arab/Israeli to name a few. So my question is,,,, how come NATO has been so successful in Europe when it has failed abysmally in the rest of the world? What’s Europe got the rest of the world hasn’t?

 

Never doubted they would be up to mischief, like the Chinese , but do you honestly think Brexit had anything to do with Putins current activities?

 

Let’s turn that round.
Do you honestly think that Putin had nothing to do with Brexit?

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the sentiment, but the Balkans conflict was in Europe.

 

Hmm, fair comment

 

[QUOTE="Tonjytyke, post: 2907900, member: 122285".....how come NATO has been so successful in Europe when it has failed abysmally in the rest of the world? What’s Europe got the rest of the world hasn’t?[/QUOTE]

How about ....Memories of the horrendous period between 1939 and 1945,
Relatively stable Govts, with less 'volatile' leaders.
Relatively stable democracies
None European unstable countries some with fledgling democracies some not (notable examples are those that tend to have civil wars, coups, unstable governments, diverse religious groups -many extremist.... e.g. Middle East(Afghanistan historically controlled by Warlords) , Africa with many states corrupt dictatorships, military Juntas. Uprisings caused by poverty and intervention from Foreign policies introduced by affluent countries like U.S. exploiting mineral wealth and resources. Newly formed states breaking free from British, French, Portugese colonialism.
Post 1950s- relative affluent populations compared to many regions in the World making people less likely to support military action in their own backyard.

IMHO Unfortunately we are vulnerable to the odd nutcase who believe wars are winnable and have ambition. Some wars may be justified but starting one is not.
Sometimes wars are used as a distraction to get a dissatisfied population back on board and stoke up nationalistic fervour. (Falklands anyone?) Thatcher had really started to get a God complex by then, albeit she did not fire the first shot.
Putin is, a different animal altogether. His ambition is what drives him and the whole Russian state structure is not a democracy but a dictatorship where opposition is crushed. He is not far removed from the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Saddam Hussein, with little or no regard to the suffering and deaths he will cause to hundreds of thousands of people.
The perceived threat to Russia of aggression and invasion from NATO is just an excuse to mask his expansionist dreams of a new USSR a mirror of AH with his lebensraum. Unfortunately the control of Russian media and general poverty and lack of education for much of the population gives the propaganda machine free rein to run unchecked with opposition eliminated and silenced. A big step but why doesn't he negotiate andjoin NATO if he is that worried. It is no more ridiculous an idea than starting a war!

You wonder why people give these people credence, or at least I did, until I watched a fascinating series on Netflix recently ' How to be a dictator' which showed the methods by which various leaders over time have gained complete dominance over the population .

 

But not involving any EU countries, so the EU v NATO argument is still valid.

 

How about ....Memories of the horrendous period between 1939 and 1945,
Relatively stable Govts, with less 'volatile' leaders.
Relatively stable democracies
None European unstable countries some with fledgling democracies some not (notable examples are those that tend to have civil wars, coups, unstable governments, diverse religious groups -many extremist.... e.g. Middle East(Afghanistan historically controlled by Warlords) , Africa with many states corrupt dictatorships, military Juntas. Uprisings caused by poverty and intervention from Foreign policies introduced by affluent countries like U.S. exploiting mineral wealth and resources. Newly formed states breaking free from British, French, Portugese colonialism.
Post 1950s- relative affluent populations compared to many regions in the World making people less likely to support military action in their own backyard.

IMHO Unfortunately we are vulnerable to the odd nutcase who believe wars are winnable and have ambition. Some wars may be justified but starting one is not.
Sometimes wars are used as a distraction to get a dissatisfied population back on board and stoke up nationalistic fervour. (Falklands anyone?) Thatcher had really started to get a God complex by then, albeit she did not fire the first shot.
Putin is, a different animal altogether. His ambition is what drives him and the whole Russian state structure is not a democracy but a dictatorship where opposition is crushed. He is not far removed from the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Saddam Hussein, with little or no regard to the suffering and deaths he will cause to hundreds of thousands of people.
The perceived threat to Russia of aggression and invasion from NATO is just an excuse to mask his expansionist dreams of a new USSR a mirror of AH with his lebensraum. Unfortunately the control of Russian media and general poverty and lack of education for much of the population gives the propaganda machine free rein to run unchecked with opposition eliminated and silenced. A big step but why doesn't he negotiate andjoin NATO if he is that worried. It is no more ridiculous an idea than starting a war!

You wonder why people give these people credence, or at least I did, until I watched a fascinating series on Netflix recently ' How to be a dictator' which showed the methods by which various leaders over time have gained complete dominance over the population .[/QUOTE]


I wouldn't worry too much about it because as soon as one side gets the upper hand the other will press the button. The bit I don't get is why waste the troops and ammunition in the first place. The Ukraine conflict will be over in no time. Russia will sweep through. When it does I hope I'm underneath the first nuke when it lands because it will be the end of the world. Russia won't stop at the Ukraine.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it because as soon as one side gets the upper hand the other will press the button. The bit I don't get is why waste the troops and ammunition in the first place. The Ukraine conflict will be over in no time. Russia will sweep through. When it does I hope I'm underneath the first nuke when it lands because it will be the end of the world. Russia won't stop at the Ukraine.[/QUOTE]
I doubt "Russia" or at least the Russian people have any real say in the matter. 'Adolf' Putin on the other hand.........,.

 

I doubt "Russia" or at least the Russian people have any real say in the matter. 'Adolf' Putin on the other hand.........,.[/QUOTE]

He'll go as far as Berlin.

 

And Ukraine isn't even in

I wouldn't worry too much about it because as soon as one side gets the upper hand the other will press the button. The bit I don't get is why waste the troops and ammunition in the first place. The Ukraine conflict will be over in no time. Russia will sweep through. When it does I hope I'm underneath the first nuke when it lands because it will be the end of the world. Russia won't stop at the Ukraine.[/QUOTE]
Russia has dabbled in the Ukraine since 2014 with the annexation of the Crimea. If it wanted to wage all-out war it would have done by now; I don't think it would 'sweep through' because it would be up against the US forces and allies. I don't underestimate the power of the Russian army, but you can't underestimate that of the US army plus allies either.

Already Russian troops are withdrawing to their bases this morning, and rags like the Guardian that got caught up in the frenzied propaganda machine have been embarrassed. It's amazing how western media piles on with anti-Russian sentiment every time, almost goading them to act. This of course follows Biden stoking the fire at every turn, which I'm sure Ukraine doesn't appreciate. Putin has always flexed his muscles in a show of power to his people, taking a little bit of land here and there, and so has Kim Jong-Un. Trump even called him little rocket man and he still didn't act. It's all rhetoric designed to keep their people in happy subservience. Putin is just a muscly topless man on a horse laughing at the rest of the western world for taking him seriously. And our mainstream media complies by giving him the attention he craves. All publicity is good publicity for the likes of Russia. They will always have troops on borders because it promotes a show of strength to their people, just like US troops around the world.

What I worry about is that we stoke the Russian fire to such a degree that one day they align themselves with China. Then the world would really be in trouble and I fear we'd only have ourselves to blame. Look at how many wars the US has been involved in in the last 25 years and compare it with Russia - it tells you everything you need to know.

 

China have already given their stance and side with Russia on this haven't they?

Basically it's communism v freedom by democracy. East v west.

Never change

 

We will have to wait and see.

 

Russia has dabbled in the Ukraine since 2014 with the annexation of the Crimea. If it wanted to wage all-out war it would have done by now; I don't think it would 'sweep through' because it would be up against the US forces and allies. I don't underestimate the power of the Russian army, but you can't underestimate that of the US army plus allies either.

Already Russian troops are withdrawing to their bases this morning, and rags like the Guardian that got caught up in the frenzied propaganda machine have been embarrassed. It's amazing how western media piles on with anti-Russian sentiment every time, almost goading them to act. This of course follows Biden stoking the fire at every turn, which I'm sure Ukraine doesn't appreciate. Putin has always flexed his muscles in a show of power to his people, taking a little bit of land here and there, and so has Kim Jong-Un. Trump even called him little rocket man and he still didn't act. It's all rhetoric designed to keep their people in happy subservience. Putin is just a muscly topless man on a horse laughing at the rest of the western world for taking him seriously. And our mainstream media complies by giving him the attention he craves. All publicity is good publicity for the likes of Russia. They will always have troops on borders because it promotes a show of strength to their people, just like US troops around the world.

What I worry about is that we stoke the Russian fire to such a degree that one day they align themselves with China. Then the world would really be in trouble and I fear we'd only have ourselves to blame. Look at how many wars the US has been involved in in the last 25 years and compare it with Russia - it tells you everything you need to know.[/QUOTE]

I agree. This thing with wanting the Ukraine in Nato. That's just to wind the Russians up. It isn't because we want alliance with Ukraine.