Ukraine

[Bazile]

The Ukraine president wants the agreement of the British and US governments , to allow him to use western missiles against targets inside Russia .

Should he be given permission ? 

[youngmafbog]

I do find the financial argument rather amusing.  First most of the cost is from the R&D so its not really a true cost of each missile second when being usd in anger in a war the missile is being proven(or not if it fails) and therefore is part of the sales patter to other potential clients. A few sales will soon overcome those 'costs'.

[Sinead_O]

Yes, that's the only language Russia understands.  Time for a taste of their own medicine.

[barney4444]

Well 'young' I find nothing in all this in any way amusing, people being killed every single day, and to suggest that it would allow us to test drive the missiles and prove that they work and can actually kill people so we can sell more is frankly quite sick to suggest, you ought to be ashamed of your self.

[Auntypoll]

Putin has his back against the wall and needs standing up to. The countries that support putin will soon back down if they think the whole of the west is backing Ukraine. Note I say putin, and not Russia, as I don't think he has the full support of his nation, just as hitler didn't. The Ukrainians should be given permission to use the missiles in a defensive way, targeting bases on Russian soil that are firing missiles into the Ukraine. However, one consequence of this could be that Russian people may start to believe putins' propaganda machine and begin to support him.

[Khandro]

The mistake was firstly stipulating how the weapons could or could not be used.

You either give weapons or you don't. It would have been better had Putin known they had them without restrictions. That way they would have had value as a deterrent.

[Untitled]

this is the world that nukes created. There would be no issue with lifting restrictions if russia did not possess nuclear weapons but it does. nato weapons being fired onto russian soil is an escalation and it makes the risk of nuclear weapons higher. 

[ToraToraTora]

08:05 have day off there is no one starving that doesn't choose to be.

[barney4444]

Tora,  I didn't say anyone was starving, but queuing at food banks to get food. Wouldn't expect you to have any compassion or understanding, more fun to buy missiles and make stupid observations..  

[Khandro]

Untitled // nato weapons being fired onto russian soil is an escalation//

That is Putinspeak.   They are not 'NATO' weapons', they are American & British. It is not a NATO decision to give them to Ukraine.

Anyone in the World can give weapons to whomever they wish, whether they are NATO members or not. 

[Untitled]

 

"Through NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) and related funds, Allies have pledged around EUR 800 million (approximately USD 870 million) to meet Ukraine's critical needs for non-lethal aid, including cold-weather clothing, body armour, fuel, transport vehicles, secure communications, combat rations, demining equipment and medical supplies. In addition, under the CAP, Allies have committed to supporting Ukraine further with a multi-year assistance programme, which will help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era to NATO standards, training and doctrines; help rebuild Ukraine's security and defence sector; and continue to cover critical needs. NATO has also upgraded political ties by establishing the NATO-Ukraine Council, a forum for crisis consultation and decision-making where all NATO members and Ukraine sit as equals. 

NATO member countries are sending weapons, ammunition and many types of light and heavy military equipment to Ukraine, including anti-tank and air defence systems, howitzers, drones, tanks and fighter jets. NATO's Article 5 security guarantee and its iron-clad promise of collective defence provides Allies with the confidence that they can send weapons to Ukraine without diminishing their own security. Furthermore, Allied forces are training Ukrainian troops to use this equipment. All of this is making a difference on the battlefield every day, helping Ukraine to uphold its right of self-defence, which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. To coordinate all of these equipment donations and the training of Ukrainian forces, Allies have agreed to establish NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU), which will be based in Wiesbaden, Germany and have logistics hubs in the east of the Alliance, staffed by nearly 700 personnel from Allied and partner countries."

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_192648.htm
 

yes... they are NATO weapons

[Untitled]

also very rich to be accused of putinspeak by someone who has crawled up the bum of Viktor Orban and loved Putin until the ukraine invasion 🤣

[Khandro]

Untitled. The Storm Shadow  long range cruise missiles are being given by Britain not by NATO.

Why should I not like 'strong-man' Victor Orban ? Have you ever been to Hungary? - it's a great country. He's the only EU leader who has been able to stop his country being overrun with immigrants.

It's true that before the absurd criminal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, I tried to see the Russian viewpoint on Crimea;  I still do because I have studied its history, have you? 

 

 

[Untitled]

Britain is a NATO member state and does whatever the US tells it to. Its weapons are NATO's weapons.

[ToraToraTora]

barney4444:"Tora,  I didn't say anyone was starving, but queuing at food banks to get food." - yeah with 20fags in one hand and an Iphone in the other. As I said no one is starving unless they choose to be. The poorest person in UK is richer than 90% of the world. It's about choices, people choose other things they do not need over food.

[Khandro]

Untitled; //Britain is a NATO member state and does whatever the US tells it to. Its weapons are NATO's weapons.//

 

When Putin attacked, Boris Johnson (to his enormous credit) was the first world leader to go straight to Kyiv and pledge the full support of Britain to Ukraine.

Nothing at all to do with NATO.

 

[Mike25]

No, this will expand the war make UK a legitimate target.

[jourdain2]

Sadly, I think he should be given permission.

You only have to look at History.  Appeasement doesn't work and if Putin gathers Ukraine in he will be encouraged in his mad quest to reunite and occupy the old Russian boundaries.  That would ensure WW3.  

Pulling him up sharply may, just  may, stop him. It has to be done.

[Old_Geezer]

Does NATO build or order it's own weapons; or is that left to individual member countries ?

 

I don't see why anyone would appear to be an apologist for Putin, nor why they'd imply we should be swayed by his threats. History tells us what happens if you don't confront a tyrant on the rampage.

 

Aiding some nation who is being attacked by such, is the least any decent nation should do. Attaching strings to such aid is unwise at it allows the tyrant to continue their attrition against their neighbours. And possibly continue on from there.

[tomus42]

//BBC news tonight - Putin has a dire warning for nations that provide arms for Ukraine to attack Russian soil. Do we heed it - or dismiss it?//

He's made dire warnings many times before and not done anything. That should be taken into account.

[Untitled]

khandro the UK does nothing significant on the world stage without the nod from Washington. we're a satellite state and the people of this country really need to wake up to that reality. 

my point is still correct i think... if NATO-aligned weapons are fired on targets inside russia then the risk of nuclear escalation becomes higher. i really wish it was not so but this is among the horrible consequences of a world that has nuclear weapons in it... those "in the club" of nuclear powers can do what they like.