It’s kicking off

Russian police arrest over 1000 protesters

Alexei Navalny, has been poisoned and arrested and still had this documentary released 

His wife has been arrested as well. 

Some serious minerals on this chap 

Edited February 27, 20224 yr by Rudy

3 hours ago, Bertie said:

Hmm.  Not sure on that claim.  Belatedly in Israel/Gaza yes, but in Ukraine?

No/little economic pressure put on Russia whatsoever, plus you have the shameful bullying and embarrassment of Zelenskyy in the oval office by Trumpy and his cronies, the red carpet for Putin in Alaska and no military aid for Ukraine (only that paid for now by NATO/Eu countries).

So no, he hadn’t fixed anything…..yet. Too scared of the hold Putin has on him.

As above, there is more going on behind the scenes than we are regularly told.

He may not have got Putin to tow the line- I doubt he ever would play to the US' tune- but Trump had to try first.

I'm surprised if anyone actually thought Trump would succeed in his efforts in the timeframe he set- it was typical of his bluster.

Of course the dressing down of VZ was shocking and a stain on his record, but thankfully, things have changed in that regard now.

The support for Ukraine is still there, even if, it is more under the radar.

Looking at some of the latest investigations/reports/comments, it seems that the Russian economy and the people may end the war, rather than any victory in conflict.

If this peace deal in the middle east holds, then we may see the focus of the media return to this conflict over time, though at the moment, I think it is suiting the western support to go under the radar somewhat. 

 

48 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

As above, there is more going on behind the scenes than we are regularly told.

He may not have got Putin to tow the line- I doubt he ever would play to the US' tune- but Trump had to try first.

I'm surprised if anyone actually thought Trump would succeed in his efforts in the timeframe he set- it was typical of his bluster.

Of course the dressing down of VZ was shocking and a stain on his record, but thankfully, things have changed in that regard now.

The support for Ukraine is still there, even if, it is more under the radar.

Looking at some of the latest investigations/reports/comments, it seems that the Russian economy and the people may end the war, rather than any victory in conflict.

If this peace deal in the middle east holds, then we may see the focus of the media return to this conflict over time, though at the moment, I think it is suiting the western support to go under the radar somewhat. 

 

All fair points. Let’s hope so. Would be brilliant for global stability to get resolution here as well…..with the outcome Ukraine desires.

7 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Missiles have been able to reach Moscow for many decades.

If that was ever claimed, then it was just another smokescreen, that no one believes.

 

It's been festering for over 20 years, Russia have accepted (under protest) US interceptor missles based in Poland and Romania and have consistently objected to them being placed in Ukraine.

Positioning full-on cruise missiles in Ukraine and then firing them would be a tragic mistake in my opinion.

2 hours ago, Bertie said:

All fair points. Let’s hope so. Would be brilliant for global stability to get resolution here as well…..with the outcome Ukraine desires.

It's a true war of attrition... who runs out of money and manpower first... Regan brought Russia down with the costs of competing with his Star Wars programmes, I can't see massive investment going to Ukraine at the moment.

PS... don't count any chickens yet regarding Gaza

12 minutes ago, Dimron said:

It's a true war of attrition... who runs out of money and manpower first... Regan brought Russia down with the costs of competing with his Star Wars programmes, I can't see massive investment going to Ukraine at the moment.

PS... don't count any chickens yet regarding Gaza

Sanction the cunt (Putin) into submission.

They have hit Russia hard but frankly they haven't been strictly adhered to at all.

7 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

Sanction the cunt (Putin) into submission.

They have hit Russia hard but frankly they haven't been strictly adhered to at all.

Tell that to India... wasn't one of our senior people over there recently?

Then of course the EU... Hungary & Slovakia plus Turkey

1 hour ago, Dimron said:

It's been festering for over 20 years, Russia have accepted (under protest) US interceptor missles based in Poland and Romania and have consistently objected to them being placed in Ukraine.

Positioning full-on cruise missiles in Ukraine and then firing them would be a tragic mistake in my opinion.

Would stuff in Alaska not be enough of a threat or is that too far to blow up anything serious?

10 hours ago, frank_spencer said:

Would stuff in Alaska not be enough of a threat or is that too far to blow up anything serious?

Russians are paranoid about being attacked from the west. The US are paranoid about the threat from Iran.

The US missiles are placed in Poland and Romania to counter the Iranian threat but are too close for comfort for the Russians, they have offered to jointly share a missile base in the past but the US refused.

Putin made it very plain pre invasion that Ukraine must not join NATO as that opened the door for missile bases even closer, he suggested a demilitarised Ukraine a few years ago.

Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched from Ukraine into Russia would most probably open a pandoras box... let's not forget, they have some pretty good medium range missiles themselves

Doesn’t sound as though the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting last Friday was particularly positive, if emerging media reports on both sides of the Atlantic are to be believed. Sounds like Trump was true to form again, echoing Putin’s position again, and suggesting Ukraine surrender the entire Donbas. Whaddaguy. Anything to claim this is the 371st war he’s stopped, or something like that.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93dl93v581o

He's definitely got Bi polar hasn't he 🤦‍♂️

11 minutes ago, gonzo said:

He's definitely got Bi polar hasn't he 🤦‍♂️

He just repeats whatever he was told by the last person he spoke to, as long as they kissed his arse enough.

Edited October 20, 2025Oct 20 by Cheese

1 hour ago, Bertie said:

Doesn’t sound as though the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting last Friday was particularly positive, if emerging media reports on both sides of the Atlantic are to be believed. Sounds like Trump was true to form again, echoing Putin’s position again, and suggesting Ukraine surrender the entire Donbas. Whaddaguy. Anything to claim this is the 371st war he’s stopped, or something like that.&

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93dl93v581o

I think the moment in the first meeting "you're gambling with world war 3" is relevant... Trump publicly considers supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles, gets a phone call from Putin and then backs off.

Putin probably pointed out this would be an escalation by the US and will warrant a big response. Trump has realised he has met a match with possible global consequences. 

Russia does not have as many rockets as the US but they have enough, also the fastest and longest ranges.

Hopefully they can sort it out, how is Putin going to travel without overflying States that recognise the ICJ and will he be arrested in Hungary in accordance with EU sanctions and ICJ support?

Edited October 20, 2025Oct 20 by Dimron

There are more technical issues around these tomahawk missiles, apart from the concerns over escalation (or not).

They can't simply be launched from anywhere, and need to have a lot of equipment with them. The Typohoon launcher is a relatively recent system that allows them to be launched from land, and America doesn't have many of them.

Indeed it wasn't until Russia broke a treaty that America introduced a mechanism for it.

Ukraine doesn't have the naval capacity for them, so their use isn't easy to set up anyway.

I think the principle makes sense, and I don't buy the concerns over escalation: Germany overcame their concners, and Britain/France gave their cruise missiles soke time ago. Russia hasn't attacked NATO since.

Nevertheless, there are a number of agreements between the US/UK and Ukraine with arms manufacturers setting up plant in the country, allowing the Ukrainians to make their own.

Additionally, such is the advancement in drone technology in the war that Ukraine is superior to the states, and has data/experience to send the other way.

There is far more going on than simply the donation of some cruise missiles that Ukraine would be restricted in use.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

There are more technical issues around these tomahawk missiles, apart from the concerns over escalation (or not).

They can't simply be launched from anywhere, and need to have a lot of equipment with them. The Typohoon launcher is a relatively recent system that allows them to be launched from land, and America doesn't have many of them.

Indeed it wasn't until Russia broke a treaty that America introduced a mechanism for it.

Ukraine doesn't have the naval capacity for them, so their use isn't easy to set up anyway.

I think the principle makes sense, and I don't buy the concerns over escalation: Germany overcame their concners, and Britain/France gave their cruise missiles soke time ago. Russia hasn't attacked NATO since.

Nevertheless, there are a number of agreements between the US/UK and Ukraine with arms manufacturers setting up plant in the country, allowing the Ukrainians to make their own.

Additionally, such is the advancement in drone technology in the war that Ukraine is superior to the states, and has data/experience to send the other way.

There is far more going on than simply the donation of some cruise missiles that Ukraine would be restricted in use.

Agreed about the support required for Tomahawks, especially land launching.

Are you referring to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces INF Treaty? Trump pulled out of that one in his first term with Russia withdrawing only this August. 

Both sides have accused the other of violating this landmark Treaty from the Reagan Gorbachev era... Trump initially accusing Russia of lying about the range of a new missile without going down the verification road within the Treaty. Russia on their part accusing the US of violating by positioning shorter range missles close by in eastern Europe.

The British Sorm Shadow is an air launched stand-off weapon, not an intermediate range cruise missile.

 

Yes the treaty has been the subject of disagreements for some time.

A he said-she said job. 

I'm aware of the difference between the types of missiles; nevertheless, they're the longest range ones we can give, and have air launch capabilities. 

A different system entirely.

Most importantly though, they gave Ukraine the opportunity to strike further, and into Russia directly, which was a concern initially for everyone. 

Proved to be a good decision. 

There is some difference of opinion over the use of Tomahawks over the Ukrainians own Flamingo cruise missile.

The former is more accurate, whereas the latter has a greater range, and warhead size. There is also concern over the radar signature of the flamingo that may make is easier to shoot down.

Flamingo missiles, and others they're developing, can be made relatively quickly, using things they already have.

With other nations investing in Ukraine's defence industry, it is almost certainly better for them to go down this route.

21 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Yes the treaty has been the subject of disagreements for some time.

A he said-she said job. 

I'm aware of the difference between the types of missiles; nevertheless, they're the longest range ones we can give, and have air launch capabilities. 

A different system entirely.

Most importantly though, they gave Ukraine the opportunity to strike further, and into Russia directly, which was a concern initially for everyone. 

Proved to be a good decision. 

There is some difference of opinion over the use of Tomahawks over the Ukrainians own Flamingo cruise missile.

The former is more accurate, whereas the latter has a greater range, and warhead size. There is also concern over the radar signature of the flamingo that may make is easier to shoot down.

Flamingo missiles, and others they're developing, can be made relatively quickly, using things they already have.

With other nations investing in Ukraine's defence industry, it is almost certainly better for them to go down this route.

Let's hope the nonsense can stop somehow.

Every Ukrainian soldier who dies in the fields believes he is doing it for his country, what the politicians don't tell him is that he's doing for the balance sheets of the arms suppliers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

So back to my original question... should Ukraine now have US Tomahawk Cruise missiles?

It appears Russia are not ready for a ceasefire, even if the current lines are frozen...  they want the entire Donbas which at the current rate of attrition will take them 2 years to conquer.

Ukraine has quite correctly stated this will gift the Russians the high ground which enables armoured divisions to "swan" towards Kyev

 

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by Dimron

I think Ukraine are perfectly entitled to tell Putin to get to fuck frankly.

Also though, their armoured divisions are depleated and susceptible to drones.

14 hours ago, Dimron said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

So back to my original question... should Ukraine now have US Tomahawk Cruise missiles?

It appears Russia are not ready for a ceasefire, even if the current lines are frozen...  they want the entire Donbas which at the current rate of attrition will take them 2 years to conquer.

Ukraine has quite correctly stated this will gift the Russians the high ground which enables armoured divisions to "swan" towards Kyev

 

A game changer if they do, although given the way Trump is, I'd give it a few days, and he'll be back to siding with Putin and blaming Zelenskyy for starting the war again, once he realises the "threat" of arming Ukraine with Tomahawks isn't actually going to stop Russia doing what they're doing 

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

A game changer if they do, although given the way Trump is, I'd give it a few days, and he'll be back to siding with Putin and blaming Zelenskyy for starting the war again, once he realises the "threat" of arming Ukraine with Tomahawks isn't actually going to stop Russia doing what they're doing 

Russians are carrying out old fashioned warfare committing lives as cannon fodder, I'll never forget my old Dad telling me about when they linked up with Soviets outside Berlin (before they took the city), he was a tankie... he told me he had never seen such savagery and drunkenness, and that was within their own ranks. No respect of life, little if any training, officers ruling by gunfire... they used to sit around out of their heads on lethal vodka and play Russian Roulette blowing their brains out! The Russian psyche is very brutal.

Class act is the Don

Gets stuff done

 

I still remain fairly sure they won't get Tomahawks, if only because of the logistics.

Given their attack this morning with British missiles though, they can still do lots of damage.

US has just announced increased sanctions on Russian Oil.

Not sure of details, but hopefully it is aimed at reducing the use of the shadow fleet.

Speed up the collapse of the Russian economy. 

Hopefully it will be effective, and the US government is flipp-flopping around in a shit-show.

It has been suggested that that is why Ukraine used storm shadow missiles in their latest attack- to show the US that we are very supportive, and not playing one off against the other.

 

Excellent news that. 

Was watching a report about this, and there were comments about Russians legging it away from their positions with essentially no where to go.