Zelensky Pushes Europe to Cross Another Red Line

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: alldaylong

Making things up again i see.

Ever heard of the Khazars? and their rule of crimean peninsula until the Rus people tribes came little Western?

What has that got to do with Austria, who you claimed had German roots.

Keep on making us laugh please.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: ScepticScot

He isn't Ukrainian Orthodox.

And still born in Ukraine. What has religion got to do with it?

Don't be shy.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Bet you miss the days when Stalin starved millions in what is now Ukraine.

I am sure you wouldn't mind it with the Ottoman empire ruling Eastern Europe for another 500 years if the Russians had lost the war with the battle of the Ottoman empire during the battle in Crimea.

a reply to: ScepticScot

With your clown and favorite hero of the great World order
With his attacks on anyone none Eastern/Russian Orthodox religion i am sure it has nothing with religion.

Does it now?

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Nirishman
a reply to: marg6043

Because you are watching a show, there are double triple even quadruple agents. All this is planned to a tee.

can you deduce an ending time frame

If it's planned down to a "T" then when is the planned ending?

What constitutes a "planned ending" to you?

1) Ukraine surrenders?
2) Russia totally withdraws?
3) Russia partially withdraws?
4) Russia surrenders?
5) Nuclear war?

I'm framing the question as it's planned because the poster says it all is planned and has been planned from the beginning. Thus with all this planning shouldn't we expect a planned ending as well?

I do not know if it's planned or not, just trying to pull useful answers to a potential timeline for the easement of hostilities

Too many of the players involved, have too many completely different plans for what an ending should look like.
Some players would prefer no ending, whatsoever.

Whomever is financing the game gets to decide how long it goes on.

The House always wins.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: ScepticScot

With your clown and favorite hero of the great World order
With his attacks on anyone none Eastern/Russian Orthodox religion i am sure it has nothing with religion.

Does it now?

You seem to be trying to evade how he isn't Ukranian.

Have the courage of your convictions and tell the class.

originally posted by: vNex92
There was an empire in Eastern Europe and near the areas that are known now as Ukraine that were in the control of Crimea until the Rus tribes came along.

There is much of history of Eastern Europe that many Western Europe haven't being taught off.

Also imagine to be fighting for a person like zelensky whose not Ukrainian.

He's not Ukrainian?

www.britannica.com...

He was born there.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Nirishman
a reply to: marg6043

Because you are watching a show, there are double triple even quadruple agents. All this is planned to a tee.

can you deduce an ending time frame

If it's planned down to a "T" then when is the planned ending?

What constitutes a "planned ending" to you?

1) Ukraine surrenders?
2) Russia totally withdraws?
3) Russia partially withdraws?
4) Russia surrenders?
5) Nuclear war?

I'm framing the question as it's planned because the poster says it all is planned and has been planned from the beginning. Thus with all this planning shouldn't we expect a planned ending as well?

I do not know if it's planned or not, just trying to pull useful answers to a potential timeline for the easement of hostilities

Too many of the players involved, have too many completely different plans for what an ending should look like.
Some players would prefer no ending, whatsoever.

Whomever is financing the game gets to decide how long it goes on.

The House always wins.

Well this would certainly support the

Who's the leader of the war thats made for you and me?

M-I-C KEY MOUSE M-I-C KEY MOUSE

forever hold your banners high high high

hey there hi there ho there we are as happy as can be

M-I-C KEY MOUSE theory

Possibly, I hate to honestly believe they have that much clout, but I always believed Eisenhower's concerns had real merit even then.

Still, there has to be a Pentagon aspect and an Intelligence aspect that knows we can dance around and keep this going for a long time.

I can easily see where the Pentagon brass the MIC, the CIA, and a handful of powerful and influential politicians RINOS included could steer us anywhere they wanted the US to be involved

Below is an excellent article about all the pitfalls, and problems with giving Ukraine fighters, so many that the offering is being seen as much as a political stunt as anything else.


www.newsweek.com...

The pledge was "made to set an example," according to former British military intelligence officer Frank Ledwidge. Speaking to military experts, Newsweek has broken down what hurdles are in Kyiv's path to NATO-supplied jets taking to Ukraine's skies.

Which Jets Would Be Sent?
Experts believe one of the very first issues could be deciding precisely which aircraft to send. The U.K.'s announcement on Wednesday was not an offer of specific fighter jets—or any jets at all—but a promise of some form of training on NATO-standard aircraft.

"What I think the U.K. is probably offering is ground-based training and structured education, to effectively make the Ukrainian pilots better fighter pilots, without actually putting them in a cockpit and getting them in the air," Curtis said. But the training, as yet, is not specific to any particular NATO-standard fast jet.

"At the end of the day, you would only want to train a pilot on an aircraft type that they are then going to be given to operate," Curtis added."It makes no sense for the U.K. to put a Ukrainian pilot in a Typhoon, if then, in a few months' time, the Ukrainian pilot is going to get an F-16. That is just a complete waste of time."

Each jet—whether it be an F-16, F-35, Typhoon, Gripen or the French Rafale—requires some aircraft-specific training.

"You need to be trained and cleared for each aircraft," Ledwidge told Newsweek. But this is not insurmountable."If you can fly an F-16, you can certainly fly a Typhoon," he said.

Likely to be off-limits are the U.K.'s stocks of F-35 stealth aircraft, experts argue. They're "off the table," Ledwidge said, adding the U.K. doesn't "have enough" and certainly "can't afford to lose any."

"That's a definite non-starter," Curtis added. The multi-role aircraft, made by U.S. defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin, are the British Air Force's most advanced fighter jets. The F-35Bs are "out of the question," wrote Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute think tank based in London.

The only realistic choice for the U.K. would be to offer Kyiv its Tranche 1 Typhoon jets, experts say. Phased out in favor of newer Typhoons kitted out with more advanced avionics, the older Typhoons, set to be retired in two years' time, are the more obvious choice, according to Bronk.

But, he argued, they are mismatched to Ukraine's needs. Complicated to maintain and not suited for low-level flight, the Typhoons would need U.K. contractors to set up shop in Ukraine to assist with maintenance

But training is not just putting a pilot in a fighter aircraft and getting them airborne. Curtis stressed that Ukrainian pilots could learn NATO strategies and tactics without getting anywhere near a fast jet, and Ledwidge added simulator training is likely to make up much of the training regime.

"What I think the U.K. is probably offering is ground-based training, and structured education, to effectively make the Ukrainian pilots better fighter pilots without actually putting them in a cockpit and getting them in the air," said Curtis.

"There's a lot that could be taught to pilots in a classroom, rather than in a cockpit," Curtis said.

A Logistical Nightmare
The Typhoon has a "very large logistical footprint," in Ledwidge's words. The aircraft need a high level of support, which likely amounts to more logistical arrangements than an F-16.

Ukraine needs fast jets to avoid being destroyed by long-range missiles heading towards them, Bronk said. Both Typhoons and F-16s would struggle to meet this need; their maintenance operations are often run from fixed, centralized bases with smooth runways that will be few and far between in war-torn areas of Ukraine.

The Typhoon is "designed for operations from relatively smooth runways and is not optimized for short-field landings on rough surfaces," Bronk said.

On top of this, the British pilot training program could struggle to cope with an influx of Ukrainian pilots on top of the already long training times, experts warn.

"We can't produce enough pilots ourselves," Ledwidge said.

The U.K.'s pledge is "not a practical proposition, it's a political one," Ledwidge said. "The purpose of this is to provide a lead—same as for the tanks—for other nations to start thinking about Gripens, or even F-16s."

The Typhoon is a joint project by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain, and each country would need to confirm its consent to sending the fast jets to Ukraine.

But with the likes of F-16s, the same argument applies as with the longer-range missile systems: previously, Western allies have hesitated to give Ukraine weapons that could strike into Russian territory.

"That, I think, is still probably a red line for most Western countries," Curtis said. "For it to be seen that they have provided the way for the Ukrainians to take the fight deep into the heart of Russia; I think that's something that will make most, if not all, Western leaders extremely uncomfortable."

a reply to: putnam6

Ukranistan.

This is a legitimate query on my part... but is Nex's english falling apart for anyone else? he's normally alot more easier to read than the last number of posts.

Not framing that as a personal attack or anything against him, simply wondering if anyone else has noticed it.

a reply to: BigfootNZ

I couldn't comment. Get told off.

a reply to: putnam6


London Bridge is falling down! The UK is playing with fire.

a reply to: marg6043

Well supposedly they already have tried to kill Zelensky. And judging by Russia's start to the war, I have a feeling it is due to incompetence on the Russian part. Also, Zelensky has a lot of foreign help who could be helping him to avoid assasination attempts.

I think we may be underestimating how incompetent the Russian military forces are.

I am wondering what Putin's end game is here, and what his thinking is. Is he just a dying leader looking to sement his legacy or does he actually have a long-term plan. Or is it a complicated affair with a lot more players at hand?

a reply to: KTemplar

No. It isn't. I have a bridge here to sell you in London, if you mugs...I mean, buyers, are interested?

originally posted by: KTemplar
a reply to: putnam6


London Bridge is falling down! The UK is playing with fire.

I'm not suggesting it's even close to that serious, though the true answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

The article about limitations makes some valid points, makes sense that Russia will do nothing but bluster till the western fighters are actually used against his troops, then we will know

Russia are being bled on the battlefield. They’re losing significant equipment. The West can keep pumping equipment in. Russia will lose, but what then.

a reply to: putnam6


This would be imo a very stupid move on UKs part!

We should start sending money and help to Turkey, not F16s cause Zboy is asking for more. This is getting beyond disgusting.

What do people really think the end game will be? It’s not going to be good.