How's this for a conspiracy theory ?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

woodieallen

Established Member
UKW Supporter
Joined
29 Mar 2021
Messages
405
Reaction score
179
Location
UK
Elton Musk wants his millions of Twitter followers to lobby for Ukraine to cede the areas occupied by the Russians (not that it's any of his effing business..the bloody megalomaniac). Then just when the Ukrainians make rapid advances into those self-same areas, their front line troops who rely extensively on Starlink suddenly found it not working.

As I say...how's that for a conspiracy theory ? :unsure:
 
woodi
how do u find out about this stuff....?.....hahaha...
I'm in my own little world and hardly ever read or see the news......who can u trust anyway....?.
I guess if the above is true he prob wants more money for the service but the last I heard
Starlink was free for them.......
we'll never know what happened in the Ukraine I'm afraid but I support them in every way I can....
 
I remain neutral on the war and refuse to take sides, we shouldn't be involved in any way, I honestly wish somebody would hack twitter and take it down forever, same thing with facebook so we can go back to normal life again.
 
I remain neutral on the war and refuse to take sides, we shouldn't be involved in any way, I honestly wish somebody would hack twitter and take it down forever, same thing with facebook so we can go back to normal life again.
State aggression against another is according to the UN a legally codified crime against humanity and as such all member states are both morally and dutifully bound to counter it. and to bring the offenders to account. Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council and a founding nation state (as is Ukraine) have signed that charter and are bound by it. So we along with every other member are legally obliged to do all we can to bring it to an end.
 
The borders of Ukraine have not been properly agreed since 1918 after WW1 and the Russian revolution. Until the breakup of the Soviet Union it was relatively unimportant as the country was under the direct control of Moscow - bar some disruption during WW2.

Much of Crimea and eastern Ukraine was populated by people of Russian heritage - many would have looked east rather than west for leadership.

Despite all (USSR, US, UK, UN) being fully aware of the fragility of the drawn borders they were never resolved. I am not suggesting this is easy - the very existence of Israel is still challenged by some in the region 75 years after it was created.

The west failed to respond with any vigour to the annexation of Crimea in 2014, reinforcing a Russian perception that they could act without regard for western reaction.

None of this excuses the disgusting behaviour on the part of Russia and its military - it is the product of several decades in which resolving the border issue was a far lower priority than cheap energy and the oligarch dollar.

Tweets by Elon Musk may be misreported - I suspect there will come a point where some territorial sacrifices are made by Ukraine to allow Putin (or his successors) to save a little face and end a conflict which may otherwise escalate in intensity.
 
The fact that those areas were populated by Russians was only as a direct result of Stalin's policies of Russification of those countries under Russian control. And don't forget the mandatory famine instigated by Stalin in Ukraine. Millions died as a result.

I agree that the West abrogated any responsibility when Pukin' invaded Crimea.
 
The borders of Ukraine have not been properly agreed since 1918 after WW1 and the Russian revolution.

Despite all (USSR, US, UK, UN) being fully aware of the fragility of the drawn borders they were never resolved.
I was under the impression that Ukraine's territorial integrity & sovereignty were agreed upon (at least by Russia) and guaranteed by a few others when it gave up it's nuclear weapons arsenal?
 
I was under the impression that Ukraine's territorial integrity & sovereignty were agreed upon (at least by Russia) and guaranteed by a few others when it gave up it's nuclear weapons arsenal?
This is of course true, and a number of agreements (including a friendship agreement) were signed in the 1990s.

On annexation of Crimea in 2014 neither Russia nor the West were apparently intent, or even inclined, to have any regard for that which was signed. To judge from events, no effective agreement ever existed.
 
This will only end when they sit round a table and talk, the west should be pushing for lensky to broker a peace deal and compromise because at the end of the day Russia will take everyone down with them if it comes to it and they have more than adequate firepower to accomplish this.
 
This is of course true, and a number of agreements (including a friendship agreement) were signed in the 1990s.

On annexation of Crimea in 2014 neither Russia nor the West were apparently intent, or even inclined, to have any regard for that which was signed. To judge from events, no effective agreement ever existed.
I think there's a difference between there actually being agreements (legal) - which there are - and the guarantor countries either disregarding them or not enforcing them (discharging their obligations). Or both
 
the west should be pushing for lensky to broker a peace deal and compromise because at the end of the day Russia will take everyone down with them if it comes to it and they have more than adequate firepower to accomplish this.
That has the "sound" of a group of kids (who are picked on) throwing the weakest\youngest\etc under the bus, i.e. leaving him for the bully to beat up. So they don't get beaten up.
 
Last edited:
This will only end when they sit round a table and talk, the west should be pushing for lensky to broker a peace deal and compromise because at the end of the day Russia will take everyone down with them if it comes to it and they have more than adequate firepower to accomplish this.
That worked out well for Neville Chamberlain.
 
No it is a very basic instinct of nature, survival of the fittest and knowing when you cannot win and need to throw in the towel. Lensky does not have the intelligence to see this and is on a power trip thinking he can win, and is more than happy to drag nato into the conflict but at what cost to the country and potentially to us all. There is nothing wrong with talking to resolve issues no mater how big they are and if talking fails then we are all looking at a potential extinction event that the west seems more than happy to pursue. Facts are facts, even if Russia does not win they will certainly not lose because they will take everyone down with them and have that capability in abundance. This is from an interview with a retired American colonel who can clearly see what is at stake with the current American policy regarding Ukraine and clearly does not see the point in sacrificing his country for Ukraine.

quote

And if you think about just Virginia, where I happen to live, if there were a nuclear war—and keep in mind, they also have a very large and effective fleet of nuclear submarines that lie off the coast of the United States. They have a great number of nuclear-tipped missiles, and they can evade any defenses we have. So just in Virginia, if you look at it, all of Northern Virginia would be essentially annihilated. There would hardly be any human life remaining in Loudoun County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington, Alexandria. The Pentagon lies in in Arlington County: The Pentagon would simply be a glowing mass of molten sand. There would be no human life there. And there would be no human life for many miles around it. Just across the Potomac, the nation’s capital, there would be no life remaining in the nation’s capital. The Capitol building would disappear forever. All of the monuments, all of these glorious things—nothing would remain.


If you go to the coast of Virginia, you have the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, you have the Port of Norfolk. you have the greatest accumulation of naval power on the face of the Earth. This is where we park all of our aircraft carriers, our nuclear submarines, all of those things. There would be nothing remaining. There would be nothing remaining of any of those shipping industries there.


And you can carry this on. You talk about New York City, probably New York City itself, not only would everybody be killed, but it would probably be impossible for people to inhabit New York City for hundreds of years afterwards. But not only would it cease to be a place of vibrant human life, but probably going out for maybe half a millennium, it would not recover any sort of civilization.


We need to understand the gravity of what we’re doing. Perhaps if it were a matter of life and death for the United States, what happens in Ukraine, that would be one thing. Certainly when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba, that targeted the United States, that was worth taking the risk, because it was right on our border and it threatened us. And it was it was a battle worth fighting for and a risk worth taking. The Russians are in this in exactly the mirror image of that situation, because for them, the life of Russia depends on stopping NATO from advancing further right into Ukraine, right to their borders. They cannot afford not to fight this war. They cannot afford not to win this war.

end quote

Before we go gung ho trying to help Ukraine fight off the bullies perhaps we need to see the enormity of the gun barrel we are looking down, this unfortunately is not anything like a few bulies in a school playground and don't think of the little bombs the americans used in Japan because the new multiwarhead ones are destroyers countries.

Look at the potential yields of who has what and then think about why talking is so extremely important to bring this conflict to an end by applying the brakes and notthe throttle.

1665438318386.png
 
Before we go gung ho trying to help Ukraine fight off the bullies perhaps we need to see the enormity of the gun barrel we are looking down, this unfortunately is not anything like a few bulies in a school playground and don't think of the little bombs the americans used in Japan because the new multiwarhead ones are destroyers countries.

2 quotes sum it up for me:

FMXIFSEVcAQcMpF.jpg


Inspirational-Tipu-Sultan-Quotes.jpg
 
oh yes the war that my grandad almost died in fighting for england...
And which, until June 1941, was literally fuelled by the Soviet Union. The tanks that rolled across France, the planes that were bombing is in the Battle of Britain and the blitz, all fuelled by Soviet oil, provided to the Nazi regime under the terms of their non aggression pact. Later of course their eventual victory in the East would have been unlikely but for the tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, machine tools and raw materials supplied to them under lend lease. Thousands of tanks and aircraft, over 400,000 other vehicles etc etc. And not to mention the many ships and sailors lived that were lost on the arctic convoys delivering the stuff. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 20 million in the war, an horrific figure, but undoubtedly due in no small part to their leaders incompetence, and willingness to sacrifice men in huge numbers to make up for it, both of which now appear to be being repeated in Ukraine. No problem with the Russian people, but they have been blighted with some truly awful leaders over the years.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own view (as we don’t live in Russia) but I struggle to see any rationale to follow a path that involves appeasing Putin.

Not standing firm on Crimea was a mistake. If we don’t support Ukraine to secure their position and boundaries now we just kick the can down the road as Putin will create a pretence to cross the next border until the USSR is recreated. Add to that the inhumanity shown by the many atrocities committed by those firing missiles at hospitals and playgrounds plus those committed by the invading forces on the ground and the case to do all we can to help Ukraine is to my mind compelling.

Equally I think we should be taking a much firmer line with China and not funding their regime through trade (probably the only thing I think Trump was right on). By all accounts the Head of GCHQ will have some points to make on this in a speech today.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top