TAT offers free boat rides as part of campaign to bring tourists back to Damnoen Saduak
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
5
Report Man Arrested for Transporting Half-Tonne of Meth in Loei
Loei is a criminal breeding centre, a witch from Loei stole 20000 baht out of my bag after having sex. -
1,519
Updates and events in the War in Ukraine 2025
I want to make something clear from the start: I don’t support Putin, I don’t support Russia’s invasion, and I wouldn’t want to live in Russia. I live in the UK, and my position is based on pragmatic realism — not virtue-signalling, wishful thinking, or the comforting idea that the world works the way we would like it to. Ukraine has been led down the garden path by the West. NATO membership is not coming nor is EU membership because Ukraine’s geography, economic fragility, and endemic corruption make it an unviable long-term member. More importantly, admitting it would cut directly across the self-interest of several existing members. That’s not moral approval of Russia it’s recognition of the political and strategic reality. Many here seem to have selectively supped on the propagandist framing of the war in the Western media coverage that, until very recently, required a deep dig to find any article that wasn’t about Putin dying, being toppled in a coup, Russia running out of soldiers, tanks, ammunition, missiles, or the economy collapsing. None of those takes have turned out to be true. Ukraine is now on life support the US has pulled that plug and I will state again, forcefully, that the populations of Europe are tapped out. Welfare states are collapsing, people feel besieged by migration and taxation, and there is no open tab to keep paying for this war indefinitely. In 2015, John Mearsheimer made a widely cited prediction about the consequences of Western policy toward Ukraine. He stated: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” That wasn’t an endorsement of Russia it was a blunt warning about cause and effect, and events since have proven him 100% correct. And to those who say they want this war to end in a Ukrainian victory, I ask: where are your troops, where is your money, and where are the weapons? The surplus stock from NATO stores has long since gone. In fact, this menagerie of clapped-out, different-gauged kit brought its own logistical headaches, while Russia maintained one supply chain which it has since reinvigorated and when that fell short, it turned to Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian weapons built on familiar Soviet patterns to fill the gaps. History should give us pause. From Napoleon’s invasion to Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa, taking on Russia directly has proved a ruinous undertaking for those who try. The sheer size of its territory, the depth of its resources, and its capacity to absorb enormous losses make outright military defeat of Russia an exceptionally remote prospect. If two of history’s most formidable military powers could not achieve it, what makes anyone think Ukraine even with Western help can do so now? It’s also not gone without notice that those who want to take reality, not propaganda, as their starting point are smeared with labels like “Putin shill,” “vatnik,” or “gopnik” to shut down debate rather than confront the facts. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s endemic corruption which has persisted throughout this war has seen vast amounts of Western aid and assistance siphoned off at the very top. All the while, ordinary soldiers, many forcibly conscripted by TC goon squads , poorly trained, and poorly armed, have been sent to the frontlines without effective air cover, where thousands of glide bombs have rained down on their positions. Where was the moral outrage about that? And frankly, old men living comfortably in Thailand tapping out their support for a war that doesn’t lap at their shores, doesn’t touch their families, and doesn’t cost them a penny is not the moral high ground they seem to think it is. The United States has a long history of high-minded interventions that fail to deliver on their stated goals: stopping communism in Southeast Asia, toppling Saddam, removing the Taliban. Each ended with enormous loss of life, trillions in wasted expenditure, and ultimately the same entrenched problems. Ukraine is the latest iteration of this pattern a proxy war where the likely end state will look nothing like the lofty aims being declared now. You accuse me of wanting “Russia to profit” or “Ukraine to surrender.” That is wrong. What I am saying is that wars end through negotiation, and negotiations require compromise often painful, imperfect, and unfair. That’s not a moral endorsement of an aggressor; it’s a recognition that the alternative grinding warfare with no achievable path to total victory produces even more destruction for the weaker side. Comparisons to Cyprus, the Falklands, or post-WW2 Germany are historically interesting but strategically misleading. Those situations all ended in political settlements that froze the status quo for decades, whether anyone “recognised” it or not. I am arguing for a ceasefire and political process that stops the killing now, preserves Ukraine’s ability to survive as a state, and leaves the question of sovereignty open not one that “cedes” territory in a way that makes it impossible to revisit later. Both sides are stretched thin Russia included but that doesn’t alter the central point: Russia has greater strategic depth, population, and industrial mobilisation capacity than Ukraine. A war of attrition favours them in the long run, and no amount of optimistic production projections from Europe changes the fact that Ukraine cannot match Russian manpower indefinitely. I do not “champion the strong” or “denigrate the weak.” I champion survival over martyrdom, and a realistic path to preserving Ukraine as a functioning state over an endless war fought for objectives that cannot be delivered in practice. The West’s responsibility is not to lead Ukraine into another unwinnable crusade, but to help it secure the best possible deal in the worst possible circumstances. That’s not defeatism. It’s refusing to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan mistakes made when people ignored reality in favour of inspiring speeches about ideals. But thankyou for making a lengthy and impassioned post - this place used to have a lot more of that and was the place to be way back when . The sad truth is those days have long gone and menbers have fallen away , died or left for one reson or another and frankly these days there is very little debate to be had. -
30
Putin Has Blackmail Material on Trump, claims Mussayev
Oh tovarich Putin, other than your mother, who loves you, baby? No one I guess.. -
4
The Meghan-Related Ultimatum Charles Gave Harry Before Agreeing
The Monarchy is an anachronism. It's time it was abolished. The King is cow tow-ing to the Saudis and he speaks more about Islam, than the Anglican church that he's sworn to protect. He, like the prime minister, is not concerned about the fact that the UK has an ever worsening problem of illegal immigration. -
30
Putin Has Blackmail Material on Trump, claims Mussayev
And just like that, the peepee dossier is back!😅 Bless the modern left, always good for giving us a laugh. -
30
Putin Has Blackmail Material on Trump, claims Mussayev
The poster child for why we have the ignore feature.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
.thumb.jpg.3ee24d9400fb02605ea21bc13b1bf901.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now