‘Be Ready’ campaign - just in case
Comments
-
Whether anyone agrees with anyone else is not relevant, we all have different opinions and there is nothing wrong with that.shine166 said:
What we should all agree on is that we are in a very real state of peril for the world, there are a few individuals ( Im sure we all know who they are ) that literally hold the world in their hands and are playing a high stakes game which effect every living thing. How we got to this point is beyond me and I doubt there is anything that anyone can do about it6 -
shine166 said:Considering every single major conflict we've ( the west) got involved with over the last decade or so, has turned into a massive shit show in one way or another, id be very wary about the facts being shared to suck us into another.
Funded Al quaeda and Bin laden against Russia and gave up
Killed suddham for WMDs and that whole area went to shit and spawned isis in the power vacuum.
Killed gaddafi and Libya is a failed state
Walked out of Afghanistan and left them god know how many weapons.
Then we (Boris) talked Ukraine out of Russia negotiations and here we are.
Thats without even looking at the Iran situation.
Are we really the good guys ?
7 -
I get that, by why would it be from the same source and what about the source's accuracy with other intel?shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMD0 -
LOL, beat me to it.king addick said:shine166 said:Considering every single major conflict we've ( the west) got involved with over the last decade or so, has turned into a massive shit show in one way or another, id be very wary about the facts being shared to suck us into another.
Funded Al quaeda and Bin laden against Russia and gave up
Killed suddham for WMDs and that whole area went to shit and spawned isis in the power vacuum.
Killed gaddafi and Libya is a failed state
Walked out of Afghanistan and left them god know how many weapons.
Then we (Boris) talked Ukraine out of Russia negotiations and here we are.
Thats without even looking at the Iran situation.
Are we really the good guys ?0 -
-
Bought a gross of condoms…..my plan is to fuck myself to death.2
-
Sometime near the end of 2019 my wife started stocking up on supplies after she'd been talking to her sister about some virus detected in China. We'd been here before with bird flu and a couple other things and I laughed at her filling the house up with tins and dried food.I won't deride it this time round 🫤1
-
You don't need those if you're doing it to yourself mate.SoundAsa£ said:Bought a gross of condoms…..my plan is to fuck myself to death.
2 -
.when it comes to water and energy, there must be a future in hydrogen.
you can generate it from sea water, yes at a cost
Use unwanted hydro (wind) night energy to generate the facility to do so
And get water as a by product and a fuel source that could run any daytime power source.
And be stored for as long as you want, unlike electrical/batteries0 -
Sponsored links:
-
shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.1 -
What agreements were made to Russia regards Natos expansion ?ME14addick said:shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.2 -
shine166 said:
What agreements were made to Russia regards Natos expansion ?ME14addick said:shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.- 9 February 1990 – US Secretary of State James Baker tells Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO's jurisdiction would not move "one inch eastward" in the context of negotiations over German reunification.
- 12 September 1990 – The Two Plus Four Treaty is signed. It permits German reunification within NATO but imposes specific military restrictions on the former East Germany. It does not prohibit wider NATO enlargement.
- 3 October 1990 – East and West Germany reunify. Germany remains a NATO member.
- 25 December 1991 – The Soviet Union dissolves. Russia becomes its principal successor state.
- 1994 – Russia joins NATO's Partnership for Peace programme, designed to encourage military cooperation between NATO and non-NATO countries.
- 27 May 1997 – NATO and Russia sign the NATO-Russia Founding Act in Paris. It establishes cooperation and consultation mechanisms and includes NATO's statement that it has no intention of permanently stationing substantial combat forces in new member states under the then-current security conditions.
- 12 March 1999 – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join NATO.
- 28 May 2002 – The NATO-Russia Council is established to improve cooperation and consultation.
- 29 March 2004 – Seven countries join NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The three Baltic states were formerly Soviet republics.
- 3 April 2008 – At the Bucharest NATO Summit, NATO declares that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO", although neither is given a membership date.
- February 2014 - Russia invades Crimea.
2 -
Chizz has answered your question, but it's important to remember that NATO is a defensive alliance.shine166 said:
What agreements were made to Russia regards Natos expansion ?ME14addick said:shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.1 -
Do or don't is your choice.
If you do, remember your pets.4 -
Just come through Croydon, I think it's started going by some of the mutants wandering around8
-
That must have made a messGribbo said:Just come through Croydon, I think it's started going by some of the mutants wandering around4 -
Need a lot more than my Harry all over the place, to make a mess in CroydonDaveMehmet said:
That must have made a messGribbo said:Just come through Croydon, I think it's started going by some of the mutants wandering around0 -
I'd recommend plenty of seasoning.RalphMilnesgut said:Do or don't is your choice.
If you do, remember your pets.
And there's probably not much meat on the kids gerbils.1 -
Defensive or not, breaking a agreement imo is provocation. Thats not me being a Russia bot, its just common sense with my blinkers removedME14addick said:
Chizz has answered your question, but it's important to remember that NATO is a defensive alliance.shine166 said:
What agreements were made to Russia regards Natos expansion ?ME14addick said:shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.3 -
Sponsored links:
-
If a sovereign country decides to join NATO, then shouldn't their decision be respected? Russia invaded Ukraine, a sovereign country. Russia poses a huge risk to Europe, hence the suggestion to be prepared for possible disruptions. An attack on our infrastructure could be extremely damaging.shine166 said:
Defensive or not, breaking a agreement imo is provocation. Thats not me being a Russia bot, its just common sense with my blinkers removedME14addick said:
Chizz has answered your question, but it's important to remember that NATO is a defensive alliance.shine166 said:
What agreements were made to Russia regards Natos expansion ?ME14addick said:shine166 said:
Wars on bs info is the relevance. Although if we are told Putin will attack Nato in 3 years we definitely shouldn't question that narrative and keep sending Ukraine billions which could be better spent at home.PrincessFiona said:
You made the initial comment, so it was a reasonable.shine166 said:
Is that a serious question ? Makes a big difference if its our own intelligence or say mossad.PrincessFiona said:
But why is the source of intelligence relevant?shine166 said:
Because its more bs to justify actions. Whats the point in pumping more billions into Ukraine unless there is a threat to us ?.PrincessFiona said:
I do like idea though, that Putin has a notebook laying around with dates of all his future war plans for the next decade.
There are multiple intel sources. I don't see the relevance of the source re WMDUkraine agreed to give up the nuclear weapons it inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear state. In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States gave Ukraine security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed on 5 December 1994.
The key assurances included commitments to respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and existing borders; refrain from threatening or using force against Ukraine; refrain from economic coercion against Ukraine and Seek UN Security Council action if Ukraine became the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons.
4 -
Putin cares as much for his own people as he does Ukranians. Remember Russia lost about 3 million souls in WW1 and north of 20 million in WW2. Russian lives do not figure highly in the minds of their own regime.cafcnick1992 said:Why would Putin attack anyone else beyond Ukraine? The fact he is struggling in Ukraine is already embarrassing for him, and the Russians are losing a lot of men to the extent that they're drafting in people from the DPRK.
I don't think that strategy would do him any favours.1 -
Do we know for sure Putin is aware how much Russia is struggling in Ukraine and therefore whether or not he's embarrassed ?cafcnick1992 said:Why would Putin attack anyone else beyond Ukraine? The fact he is struggling in Ukraine is already embarrassing for him, and the Russians are losing a lot of men to the extent that they're drafting in people from the DPRK.
I don't think that strategy would do him any favours.
Putin wants to reassemble the USSR and the less resistance he gets from other countries the easier it will be for him. He can reduce resistance by disrupting those countries offering most resistance to him - give them something else to think about, hence the grey war that's been going on for the last few years.
But, sooner or later, much like with Trump, Putin is going to taste reality and he's going to be very angry. When a dictator gets angry be prepared to duck !
Of couse, I could be wrong, very wrong !! Anyone (Russian bots excluded ;-) ) got a better prediction ?3 -
At least Putin ain't as crazy as Gorbachev, loved Russia so much he had a tattoo of it on his forehead2
-
Some of the comments on this thread are borderline insane4
-
Got a feeling whoever is invading are doing so disguised at temporary traffic lights.4
-
Or cones0
-
SoundAsa£ said:Bought a gross of condoms…..my plan is to fuck myself to death.
@SoundAsa£ Please remember that the advice from our learned friend @RalphMilnesgut does not apply to you.RalphMilnesgut said:Do or don't is your choice.
If you do, remember your pets.Please.3 -
Really interesting point this. I believe the head of the CIA (I think it was the CIA, no doubt the human AI machine will jump at the chance to correct me if I'm wrong) was in Moscow a couple of weeks ago. Apparently one of the main points of this meeting was to outline from the US perspective what the truth is on the frontline in Ukraine, just in case Putin wasn't aware/was being misled.Hex said:
Do we know for sure Putin is aware how much Russia is struggling in Ukraine and therefore whether or not he's embarrassed ?cafcnick1992 said:Why would Putin attack anyone else beyond Ukraine? The fact he is struggling in Ukraine is already embarrassing for him, and the Russians are losing a lot of men to the extent that they're drafting in people from the DPRK.
I don't think that strategy would do him any favours.
Putin wants to reassemble the USSR and the less resistance he gets from other countries the easier it will be for him. He can reduce resistance by disrupting those countries offering most resistance to him - give them something else to think about, hence the grey war that's been going on for the last few years.
But, sooner or later, much like with Trump, Putin is going to taste reality and he's going to be very angry. When a dictator gets angry be prepared to duck !
Of couse, I could be wrong, very wrong !! Anyone (Russian bots excluded ;-) ) got a better prediction ?0
