World war 3....

It is a good article and explains the reasons behind the war, The lacklustre response by the USA and the UK to the annexation of Crimea bolstered Russia and its ambitions and should have been a warning to Zelenskyy that Putin was looking for an excuse to further its ambitions for the Ukraine, His election mandate to join NATO and other decisions in the Donbas further gave Putin the war he wanted, It could have and should have been avoided with a better leader

 

the people in the Ukraine voted for him because of his promise to join NATO etc as they saw that as the only way to stop Putin.

if they had joined sooner Putin wouldn’t now be invading

 

They never had intention to join earlier as the government was Russia friendly, It was only when a change of government in 2019 that NATO was proposed, The moment it was on the table Russia threatened the consequence, Make no bones as a country Ukraine was entitled to join whoever they wanted but in real life there are consequences for your actions and Zelenskyy played roulette with Putin and lost

 

and it was suggested because of what Russia had already done and supported in Crimea and the east

 

Yes and Russia is the main fault as the aggressor but still feel that Zelenskyy felt he was still in his role of president in his TV series where everything went his way, Am sure that there was room for negotiation with Russia even agreeing to the EU with reservations as long as NATO membership was abandoned, Of course to late now and the people of Ukraine are paying a huge price and Ukraine at Putins will as to when he will stop,

 

With Moldova next on his generals list. Wonder what the excuse will be there? They have asked to join EU?

 

Yes they have now put in an official application to join. Wether there will be a country left to join is another matter

 

if Russia push on in Moldova then I think it will force the West to get directly involved

 

It was more than 'Russia friendly'. It was basically a Russian puppet government. Putin couldn't stand the fact that the Ukraine population had kicked his toady out on his arse.

Zelensky's (perfectly understandable) attempts to join NATO may have hastened the Russian invasion but it would have happened anyway, sooner or later. Once his stooge was booted out Putin was never going to take that lying down.
Putin thought his forces could swiftly overrun Kiev and install a new puppet regime. His mistake was to let the Chinese talk him out of invading several weeks earlier, which would have distracted from the Olympics. That meant his forces were caught in the early Spring thaw and got bogged down in mud, just like Napoleon and Hitler's troops before him. For someone who is so fixated on Russia's history, he made a very stupid error there.

 

Read this and weep:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/23/back-in-the-ussr-lenin-statues-and-soviet-flags-reappear-in-russian-controlled-cities?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

Is the Guardian your only source for your view on the world? Do you not seek balance before believing all you read from a very skewed political paper,

 

Err, I posted this above:
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-why-has-russias-invasion-torn-it-up-178184

The Guardian is no more skewed than any of the British press. The big difference is that it's skewed to the centre left instead of centre right to full blown right like the majority of the papers - Mail, Express, Sun, Times, Telegraph. I used to read the Independent quite a lot but it's now behind a paywall.

If I'm going to read bias I'd rather it were liberal bias than right wing bias. There's no such thing as value-free news. But I'm interested to know where you think I should go for unbiased news. And also, what was so biased about the Guardian article I just posted.

 

The Mail is my choice of newspaper, but that's a very good article in the Guardian. Not sure where the bias is

 

If you look I did reply it was a good article but because they do one balanced article does not mean I believe everything they write as gospel and prefer to read the same events reported from several sources before coming to a view

 

I don't believe everything in the Guardian as gospel either. Not least because there is quite a wide range of views depending on which journalist is writing. For example, Jonathan Freedland, Polly Toynbee and Simon Jenkins think and write very differently from Owen Jones and George Monbiot. There are plenty of Guardian articles that I take issue with, but you wouldn't know that because they aren't the ones I choose to post on here.
I used to like to read some Daily Telegraph articles, to get a sense of what is thought and said by people who see the world very differently from me and whose views I usually dislike intently. But I'm not going to pay a subscription to the Telegraph or Times to read stuff I mostly disagree with. I guess I could read the Mail or Express, but I find their right wing, 'war on woke' rabble rousing - specifically designed to stir up the prejudices of intolerant people - so despicable that I don't have the stomach for it.

 

As someone who despises everything about main stream media, I don't actually mind reading some the Guardian articles linked to on social media. Usually thought provoking and with a shred of realism as opposed to the daily mail which seems more celebrity obsessed these days than Hello magazine. That said, i wouldn't waste my money on any of them, next step is convincing the wife to stop paying the licence fee for the BBC, arguably the most corrupt outlet of them all.

 

As per the thread title World War 3 has become closer,

 

Might be wise to hold off buying a season ticket then......just in case...!!

 

Unless I'm mistaken it sounds like the BBC language has changed. I'm sure they've referred to the War in Ukraine up until recently. Watching the 6 o'clock news now the words "action" and "conflict" were used in the report about Putins threats to the west.

 

Is that a good change or not ?