‘No turning back’: how the Ukraine war has profoundly changed the EU

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

Pot/ kettle. I am not the one deflecting. 

 

I couldn't have been clearer: Both the EU and the UK (more so the latter) are economically poorer because of Brexit, and I acknowledged the casual link between the drop in German exports to the UK and Brexit: Try reading and understanding what is actually written.

I'm trying to understand what you are writing. What is a casual link? Do you mean causal? It's tough to intrepret what you mean from what you write.

 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

The fact that you ignore the increasingly mounting evidence that Brexit was a disaster and that you cannot supply any evidence of its' benefits or construct even the flimsiest premise to support it says it all. 

 

Back to reality for a moment.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/29/uk-economy-makes-stronger-recovery-from-pandemic-than-first-thought-germany-france

 

 

We only left 3 years ago. We are going from strength to strength. Even the most optimistic Brexiteer was acknowledging it could take 5-10 years to see the benefits yet here we are 3 years later already out-performing Germany and France. 

 

It's gone better than we could have imagined. Vive La Brexit.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, fasteddie said:

How the West Brought War to Ukraine

A Facebook post?   Really?

 

Come back when you have a real source.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

The UAF shelling on civilians of Donbas region started before 2014 and didn't stop.

 

The Minsk accords were created to give time to UAF to build trenches, bunkers, logistic facilities and defensive lines for the coming war. This was admitted by Merkel and Hollande.

 

You stab a bear in the back is one thing.

You stay there with your knife alone is plain stupid...

Here's how you are supposed to do it:

 

"The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in April 2014 with low-level fighting between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatist rebels who seized some towns in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine. It has since escalated to outright-if-undeclared war between Russia and Ukraine.

Separatist rebels began popping up in eastern Ukraine shortly after Russia had invaded and annexed Crimea, where supposed Crimean separatists actually turned out to be unmarked Russian special forces."  https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know

 

Still looks like Russia is the aggressor.

[billd766]

13 hours ago, RayC said:

All well and good but apart from those 26 examples you cite (yes, sad I counted them), what conflicts has Russia/ the Soviet Union been involved in since WW2????

26 is not enough for you?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

26 is not enough for you?

I wonder how many conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2? I'm sure it's not much less, and possibly more than Russia.

[transam]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how many conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2? I'm sure it's not much less, and possibly more than Russia.

How about including WWII, where the USA probably saved your future buttocks...............????

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, transam said:

How about including WWII, where the USA probably saved your future buttocks...............????

In that case why not go back to the time when Russia was created?

 

BTW, despite American opinions, Russia probably won the war against Hitler at the cost of some 40 million citizens. Without Barbarossa  the war in Europe would have likely dragged on for many more years, and the entry of Russia into the Pacific war may have persuaded the Japanese to surrender.

Edited October 3, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[transam]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

In that case why not go back to the time when Russia was created?

 

BTW, despite American opinions, Russia probably won the war against Hitler at the cost of some 40 million citizens. Without Barbarossa  the war would have likely dragged on for many more years.

You are just an anti-USA bloke, looking to score an anti-USA point, but you have failed..........????

You use the word "probably", which is incredibly stupid. 

 

If it wasn't for the USA and Allie's full on attack on the German forces, Russia would have been overwhelmed, and beaten into the ground.

 

Do try using your loaf...........????

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

You are just an anti-USA bloke, looking to score an anti-USA point, but you have failed..........????

You use the word "probably", which is incredibly stupid. 

 

If it wasn't for the USA and Allie's full on attack on the German forces, Russia would have been overwhelmed, and beaten into the ground.

 

Do try using your loaf...........????

What full on attack? Barbarossa was from June 1941 to December 1941.

D Day was in June 1944

 

I'd love to discuss with you about Barbarossa, but not on this thread where it's off topic.

 

 

[Hanaguma]

11 minutes ago, transam said:

You are just an anti-USA bloke, looking to score an anti-USA point, but you have failed..........????

You use the word "probably", which is incredibly stupid. 

 

If it wasn't for the USA and Allie's full on attack on the German forces, Russia would have been overwhelmed, and beaten into the ground.

 

Do try using your loaf...........????

No fan of the Soviets here, but.... the reality in WW2 is that the Russian front occupied at least 70-80% of the German military. The scale of battle and losses are hard for us to comprehend. Just looking at the casualty lists is insane. The Soviets had 10 MILLION military deaths, the US not even 500,000, UK about the same.  

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

No fan of the Soviets here, but.... the reality in WW2 is that the Russian front occupied at least 70-80% of the German military. The scale of battle and losses are hard for us to comprehend. Just looking at the casualty lists is insane. The Soviets had 10 MILLION military deaths, the US not even 500,000, UK about the same.  

Thank you for pointing that out. Americans like to think they won WW2, but they had John Wayne on land sea and air to do the job, and I doubt schools taught them about the Russian part in it.

[transam]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What full on attack? Barbarossa was from June 1941 to December 1941.

D Day was in June 1944

 

I'd love to discuss with you about Barbarossa, but not on this thread where it's off topic.

 

 

Forget it, I am REALLY annoyed with you.................

Take your sh_t elsewhere.........????

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, transam said:

Forget it, I am REALLY annoyed with you.................

Take your sh_t elsewhere.........????

Tsk tsk.

[transam]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Thank you for pointing that out. Americans like to think they won WW2, but they had John Wayne on land sea and air to do the job, and I doubt schools taught them about the Russian part in it.

You live in a world of "thaibeachlovers", has no reality, no common sense, nothing........................

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, transam said:

You live in a world of "thaibeachlovers", has no reality, no common sense, nothing........................

Oh dear, I consider myself well and truly punished. I'll go to bed without supper then.

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thank you for pointing that out. Americans like to think they won WW2, but they had John Wayne on land sea and air to do the job, and I doubt schools taught them about the Russian part in it.

Yeah, it is a pity. Hell, even cheesy TV shows like Hogans Heroes had characters being told "you're going to be sent to the Russian front" as a threat.  So in that respect, I can understand to an extent the social paranoia in Russia about being surrounded and invaded again.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh dear, I consider myself well and truly punished. I'll go to bed without supper then.

Good, but pointless you reading up on stuff whilst there, it will not cure your anti-USA stigma..................

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah, it is a pity. Hell, even cheesy TV shows like Hogans Heroes had characters being told "you're going to be sent to the Russian front" as a threat.  So in that respect, I can understand to an extent the social paranoia in Russia about being surrounded and invaded again.

Hitler was probably the Allies biggest weapon. The debacle of Barbarossa was mostly caused by his interference in it when he didn't know what he was doing. Even when it was obvious they were losing he did not allow a retreat, which resulted in the loss of thousands of hardened German troops.

 

For anyone interested in it, Barbarossa by Stewart Binns is an excellent resource.

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In that case why not go back to the time when Russia was created?

 

BTW, despite American opinions, Russia probably won the war against Hitler at the cost of some 40 million citizens. Without Barbarossa  the war in Europe would have likely dragged on for many more years, and the entry of Russia into the Pacific war may have persuaded the Japanese to surrender.

Do you think Russia would have won without the significant aid the US sent it?

 

"In the final tally, America sent its Russian ally the following military equipment:

• • 400,000 jeeps and trucks
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks"
  • https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hitler was probably the Allies biggest weapon. The debacle of Barbarossa was mostly caused by his interference in it when he didn't know what he was doing. Even when it was obvious they were losing he did not allow a retreat, which resulted in the loss of thousands of hardened German troops.

 

For anyone interested in it, Barbarossa by Stewart Binns is an excellent resource.

You're right.  It was so close that the Soviet Union would probably have lost without the US aid.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how many conflicts the US has been involved in since WW2? I'm sure it's not much less, and possibly more than Russia.

If you really want to know, do what I did and research it yourself.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In that case why not go back to the time when Russia was created?

 

BTW, despite American opinions, Russia probably won the war against Hitler at the cost of some 40 million citizens. Without Barbarossa  the war in Europe would have likely dragged on for many more years, and the entry of Russia into the Pacific war may have persuaded the Japanese to surrender.

And without US lease lend the Russians would have been beaten

 

https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling %2411.3 billion%2C or %24180,common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

 

They supplies to Russia, shipped in British and US ships at least this amount of war material at a high cost in US and British ships and merchant plus military crews,

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ww2+lend+lease+to+russia&sca_esv=570269325&sxsrf=AM9HkKnhILn4PF83TIBo-7rfmTrG8Depaw%3A1696313901013&source=hp&ei=LLIbZfXNO9Xk-Qbqi7jgDQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZRvAPbMPa3vtDOjZgpcDAuBqrXcwqjEw&oq=WW2+lease+lend+to+Russia&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhXVzIgbGVhc2UgbGVuZCB0byBSdXNzaWEqAggAMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGIoFGIYDMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDSN_fAVAAWOG2AXAAeACQAQCYAZABoAHsE6oBBDYuMTi4AQHIAQD4AQHCAgQQIxgnwgIHECMYigUYJ8ICDhAAGIoFGLEDGIMBGJECwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGBYYHhjxBBgKwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz

 

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food

 

Or had you conveniently forgotten that?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

There is more information in the link.

 

The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law on March 11, 1941, and ended on September 20, 1945. A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $719 billion in 2021) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies. Roosevelt's top foreign policy advisor Harry Hopkins had effective control over Lend-Lease, making sure it was in alignment with Roosevelt's foreign policy goals.[3]

Materiel delivered under the act was supplied at no cost, to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, most equipment was destroyed, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006. Similarly, the Soviet Union repaid $722 million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off.

Reverse Lend-Lease to the United States totalled $7.8 billion. Of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Canada also aided the United Kingdom and other Allies with the Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid totalling $3.4 billion in supplies and services (equivalent to $61 billion in 2020) .[4][5]

[candide]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I'm trying to understand what you are writing. What is a casual link? Do you mean causal? It's tough to intrepret what you mean from what you write.

 

Back to reality for a moment.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/29/uk-economy-makes-stronger-recovery-from-pandemic-than-first-thought-germany-france

 

 

We only left 3 years ago. We are going from strength to strength. Even the most optimistic Brexiteer was acknowledging it could take 5-10 years to see the benefits yet here we are 3 years later already out-performing Germany and France. 

 

It's gone better than we could have imagined. Vive La Brexit.

 

 

As mentioned several times, they changed the calculation methods. On top of it, UK GDP growth was -0.5% in July. So + 0.3% in Q1, + 0.2% In Q2, - 0.5% In July=?.

Also from your source:

"Sandra Horsfield, of the investment bank Investec, said: “We see little in today’s numbers to derail our expectation of a more challenging growth picture ahead: we continue to forecast that the UK economy will enter a recession over the winter months.”

Ruth Gregory, the deputy chief UK economist at Capital Economics, said: “We still think that higher interest rates will trigger a mild recession involving a 0.5% fall in GDP in the coming quarters.”

[RanongCat]

27 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And without US lease lend the Russians would have been beaten

 

https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/#:~:text=Totaling %2411.3 billion%2C or %24180,common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

 

They supplies to Russia, shipped in British and US ships at least this amount of war material at a high cost in US and British ships and merchant plus military crews,

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ww2+lend+lease+to+russia&sca_esv=570269325&sxsrf=AM9HkKnhILn4PF83TIBo-7rfmTrG8Depaw%3A1696313901013&source=hp&ei=LLIbZfXNO9Xk-Qbqi7jgDQ&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZRvAPbMPa3vtDOjZgpcDAuBqrXcwqjEw&oq=WW2+lease+lend+to+Russia&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhhXVzIgbGVhc2UgbGVuZCB0byBSdXNzaWEqAggAMgYQABgWGB4yCBAAGIoFGIYDMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgMyCBAAGIoFGIYDSN_fAVAAWOG2AXAAeACQAQCYAZABoAHsE6oBBDYuMTi4AQHIAQD4AQHCAgQQIxgnwgIHECMYigUYJ8ICDhAAGIoFGLEDGIMBGJECwgIFEAAYgATCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBwgILEAAYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiABBixAxiDARjHARjRA8ICCxAAGBYYHhjxBBgKwgIHECEYoAEYCg&sclient=gws-wiz

 

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food

 

Or had you conveniently forgotten that?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

 

There is more information in the link.

 

The Lend-Lease Act was signed into law on March 11, 1941, and ended on September 20, 1945. A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $719 billion in 2021) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies. Roosevelt's top foreign policy advisor Harry Hopkins had effective control over Lend-Lease, making sure it was in alignment with Roosevelt's foreign policy goals.[3]

Materiel delivered under the act was supplied at no cost, to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice, most equipment was destroyed, although some hardware (such as ships) was returned after the war. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to the United Kingdom at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States, which were finally repaid in 2006. Similarly, the Soviet Union repaid $722 million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off.

Reverse Lend-Lease to the United States totalled $7.8 billion. Of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Canada also aided the United Kingdom and other Allies with the Billion Dollar Gift and Mutual Aid totalling $3.4 billion in supplies and services (equivalent to $61 billion in 2020) .[4][5]

Very true. But is it not equally true that without the provision of such assistance Russia would have most likely failed in the battle with Germany and to this day the overall outcome would painted  a very different picture ?

Rarely would "allied" assistance be given purely on benevolent grounds rather than well contemplated strategic foreign policy . In additional opportunism Ukraine is subject to the influx of foreign owner land and business purchasers in the absence of a large percentage of Ukrainian citizens .

Am I also wrong in noticing  by its' increasing absence a significant word or two in media reports such as  "We  will have your  backs, continue our  support  as long as it takes until this war is won  etc etc ."

It may be implied as a given but initially such rhetoric included "Ukraine" wins this war.

Now it increasingly seems bets are both ways but no matter to the financially interested parties.

 

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 hour ago, RanongCat said:

Very true. But is it not equally true that without the provision of such assistance Russia would have most likely failed in the battle with Germany and to this day the overall outcome would painted  a very different picture ?

Rarely would "allied" assistance be given purely on benevolent grounds rather than well contemplated strategic foreign policy . In additional opportunism Ukraine is subject to the influx of foreign owner land and business purchasers in the absence of a large percentage of Ukrainian citizens .

Am I also wrong in noticing  by its' increasing absence a significant word or two in media reports such as  "We  will have your  backs, continue our  support  as long as it takes until this war is won  etc etc ."

It may be implied as a given but initially such rhetoric included "Ukraine" wins this war.

Now it increasingly seems bets are both ways but no matter to the financially interested parties.

 

 

 

Perhaps the extreme Right have the news attention but the overwhelming politicians still will help Ukraine.

[Danderman123]

Regardless of what happened 70 years ago, Russia has invaded another European country, so the EU is preparing for further aggression by Putin.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, RanongCat said:

Very true. But is it not equally true that without the provision of such assistance Russia would have most likely failed in the battle with Germany and to this day the overall outcome would painted  a very different picture ?

Rarely would "allied" assistance be given purely on benevolent grounds rather than well contemplated strategic foreign policy . In additional opportunism Ukraine is subject to the influx of foreign owner land and business purchasers in the absence of a large percentage of Ukrainian citizens .

Am I also wrong in noticing  by its' increasing absence a significant word or two in media reports such as  "We  will have your  backs, continue our  support  as long as it takes until this war is won  etc etc ."

It may be implied as a given but initially such rhetoric included "Ukraine" wins this war.

Now it increasingly seems bets are both ways but no matter to the financially interested parties.

 

 

 

For those with an open mind on such issues, there is usually more to any situation than is generally understood.

Yes, without American war material Russia would have been defeated by the Germans, but without a great sacrifice of Russian lives the Germans would have succeeded in the Russian campaign.

Had the Germans not had to fight on two fronts, the allies would have faced a far greater task to succeed in the invasion some years later.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Regardless of what happened 70 years ago, Russia has invaded another European country, so the EU is preparing for further aggression by Putin.

 

Back to the topic. Good idea.

 

Perhaps you can elaborate on "the EU is preparing for further aggression by Putin"?

What more can they do without committing troops?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Perhaps the extreme Right have the news attention but the overwhelming politicians still will help Ukraine.

At this point in time yes, but how about this time next year if the next summer gives no advance against the Russian front? The Russians have all winter to prepare for any counteroffensive, just as they had this time.

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At this point in time yes, but how about this time next year if the next summer gives no advance against the Russian front? The Russians have all winter to prepare for any counteroffensive, just as they had this time.

I talked about that already.

 

My opinion is that some people in the US want Ukraine to win just before the 2024 election. So, that's when Ukraine will get the good stuff - F16s, ATACMS,  etc.