Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MonoGreenFanBoy t1_j9sfd0l wrote

Hes a pompous prat but he's steadfast defence of Ukraine when everyone else was still reluctant is respectable. You can both dislike a man on his bad decisions and respect the good ones he makes

597

Troubleshooter11 t1_j9smnwg wrote

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And his stance on the Ukrainian war was right in my eyes.

205

criminal_cabbage t1_j9svwj2 wrote

Despite the fact he decimated the UKs armed forces, cut tank order and jet orders meaning we don't have any equipment to send to Ukraine.

The guy is a self serving charlatan that has tied himself to this conflict only for the betterment of himself.

He blamed the initial invasion of Crimea in 2014 on the European Union, not Russia. It suited him to blame the EU then so he did

He is also circling the leadership in his party in case he fancies another go. If he pressures the PM to do something stupid and it blows up in his face, that is his ideal situation

167

FragrantKnobCheese t1_j9t84it wrote

> Despite the fact he decimated the UKs armed forces, cut tank order and jet orders meaning we don't have any equipment to send to Ukraine.

Most of that happened before he was PM. Still his party though.

40

PanzerKomadant t1_j9u2l1a wrote

And he also wants to be NATO chief now apparently.

5

FarawayFairways t1_j9vz6zn wrote

> And he also wants to be NATO chief now apparently.

Because of his organisational skills, studious attention to detail, subtle diplomatic nuances, commitment to multi-national alliances, deep military background and experience, uncorruptible track record of refusing Russian finance, and his discipline in handling sensitive documentation that he doesn't leave lying around on the sofa of the Downing Street flat

9

PanzerKomadant t1_j9w1kxu wrote

At first I was like “your not serious are you?” And as I kept on reading asking your comment I started to chuckle.

5

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9t1ef0 wrote

He decimated the UK armed forces? Boy is it obvious how young some of these commenters are.

Iraq war?

All the equipment that has already been sent? Doesn't count?

Can you honestly not separate your hatred for someone, even when what they are doing is right? You don't have to like him but you have to recognise correct decisions when they are made.

4

nonrandomusername17 t1_j9t4e4j wrote

> He decimated the UK armed forces?

Decimate comes from latin, to kill every tenth man.

> Britain’s army, navy and air force will all be cut back over this parliament despite promises made by Boris Johnson during the election campaign “not to be cutting the armed services in any form”. ... A five-year defence review, published on Monday, confirms the army target size will be cut by 9,500 to 72,500 by 2025, its lowest level since 1714

9500/82000 = 11.6%

So yes, Boris did decimate the military.

61

mayasky76 t1_j9u8vna wrote

I..... I think I love you.

Nothing gets my goat more than stupid people implying decimation means complete destruction of something.

You still have 90% of your army after it's been decimated FFS

19

M17CH t1_j9uqva1 wrote

In modern usage it has a different meaning. I wonder if you subscribe to this same thought for the phrase "well-regulated."

Also let's not act like you aren't saying this because you saw the TIL from a couple days ago.

1

Intruder313 t1_j9wbvpp wrote

When people use 'decimate' incorrectly I educate them.

0

M17CH t1_j9wfn5c wrote

They aren't using it incorrectly. It has taken on a new meaning in the modern world. The historical definition is not the "correct" way to use it.

2

mayasky76 t1_j9urjj4 wrote

Wtf are you talking about....

You think I.... a 47yr old British person with a BBC accent you wouldn't belive, someone who actually had Latin lessons in school..... need a reddit TIL to learn the meaning of the word decimate.

Sigh.... dei gratia sum quod sum eh!

We also know what well regulated means. We have a dictionary over here.

−2

Millenniauld t1_j9waf3f wrote

Id est quod est, people like him will always think that education means "saw a meme on reddit" because it's the only way they know anything.

0

M17CH t1_j9uxuqr wrote

>need a reddit TIL to learn the meaning of the word decimate.

Yes. Historical meaning btw, not current.

>Sigh.... dei gratia sum quod sum eh!

Posting a phrase in Latin anonymously behind a screen is proof of absolutely nothing.

>We also know what well regulated means. We have a dictionary over here.

So then you would acknowledge that "well-regulated" in the historical sense is not prescribing heavy restrictions.

Either way, you're purposely using a long out of favour definition for a "gotcha" moment.

−5

mayasky76 t1_j9v3zq1 wrote

Lol. Well u/M17CH I'm sure you have me there.... posting anonymously on reddit . What sort of cunt does that eh!

−4

M17CH t1_j9v8oog wrote

It's not about being anonymous, that's the standard.

It's about thinking that posting a single phrase that you could have simply googled is proof at all of your ability to read, write, or speak Latin.

But you already know that. You're just trying to avoid it.

1

[deleted] t1_j9vcv3a wrote

[removed]

2

M17CH t1_j9wysa4 wrote

>I see you have been googling English then you clever clever bastard... no let me guess you've been writing in esperanto and using Google translate for English.... naughty naughty

Correct.

>Some. People. Still .know Latin you muppet

Yes of course. Also please be nice.

>I did my amo, amas, amat at school and you probably know some like E plurubus unum. Or deus ex machina. There are commonly known Latin phrases and I can almost be certain that everyone i went to school with know dei gratia sum quod sum as it was said every frigging day in assembly.

I don't know any Latin.

>I even know a bit of Welsh too and some mandarin... how is that even possible

Good question.

>Jesus, you do know that people out there in the world know different stuff from you?

Yes.

I just find it a funny coincidence that there are so many experts on the origins and historical definition of the word "decimate" mere days after a popular post about just that word. If you had that in your data banks before then, then I am happy for you. It is still weirdly elitist and not even really all that accurate to consider that historical definition of "decimate" as the correct usage in the modern day. It isn't used that way anymore. It has taken on a new meaning. To say someone is incorrect for using it another way is not really true.

>stupid people implying decimation means complete destruction of something

People are not stupid for using the more recent and culturally accurate definition of the word. Please be nicer.

1

FatherSlippyfist t1_j9uplfs wrote

The meaning of words is given by usage. Lots of us know the origin of decimate, but it doesn't matter because that's not what it means anymore. If you look in Oxford, it says "kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of".

It list the one in ten definition as "historical".

−1

mayasky76 t1_j9uqwfk wrote

When you go to the doctor for an appendectomy you'd better hope some cunt hasn't been using it as a slang term for castration...

Also.. literally cannot mean exactly the opposite of figuratively which is how it gets commonly used.... thats not changing the meaning, its getting it fucking wrong

2+2 = Geoff hurst in the 1966 world cup kinda wrong.

Words HAVE to have a defined meaning or you just end up at green wallaby .

Get just the first thing that will still!

0

M17CH t1_j9ur0ug wrote

That's not really how decimate is used in modern language, but go off though.

4

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9t5smf wrote

Conviently ignoring the more up-to-date and modern equipment that has been received and changes post Ukraine? Interesting view you have there.

And I didn't realise we were going to go back to the original Latin meaning of the word when the english version is far more common.

How to twist an argument 101.

−3

Groxy_ t1_j9tgb8g wrote

That's an English definition of decimate too... They literally just used the word correctly and you're spouting shit about them twisting the argument, while twisting the argument.

How to twist an argument 101, for real.

19

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9trknv wrote

Are you honestly being for real? If someone says they are decimated or something is decimated, do they mean "I've lost 1/10?" In the traditional Latin meaning of the word?

Most people dont even know it is Latin let alone that it means 1/10!

This is twisting the argument. And it's only a reflection of absolute numbers! Not if they are using better equipment etc, like is mentioned in the goddam article alot of the money is going to Trident renewal which perhaps even more important than having a couple thousand rifles!

Want to twist and move the goalposts again?

−8

Card_Zero t1_j9tt5l8 wrote

This argument about words is distracting from the interesting point about whether or not Boris decreed military cutbacks (and if so, why). However, Wiktionary has both uses:

> (loosely) To devastate

> (proscribed) To reduce to one-tenth

and all the quotations in the latter case include some extra words like "to one-tenth" to make sure it's understood literally. In summary: whatever.

3

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9tv0jo wrote

I can quite literally google the word and find this:

>decimate
>
>/ˈdɛsɪmeɪt/
>
>Learn to pronounce
>
>verb
>
>past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated

​

  1. ​

>kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
>
>"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"
>
>2.
>
>HISTORICAL
>
>kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
>
>"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decimate

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimated

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/decimate

Im interested why you put the one source, Wikitionary, the tried and tested! as the only example above all others.

But as you so eloquently put it, because it doesn't validate your point, "Whatever" you will twist it any which way to make you right.

6

Card_Zero t1_j9u0jyb wrote

I'm not the same person you were talking to previously, I don't have to be right to prove any point, and in fact I acknowledge I'm wrong about everything most of the time. I just happen to like Wiktionary, it's my go-to.

I don't know about Cambridge Dictionary, but Merriam-Webster have a page of notes about this particular "problem word". Dictionary.com acknowledge that the "devastate" usage has been criticized. My feeling is that the one-in-ten usage (probably popular in Victorian times when every user of long words knew Latin) has had an upsurge in popularity over the last decade or so due to people on the internet being anal about it.

2

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9u1u1n wrote

Fair enough, I'll dial down the criticism a little, but it really did feel like you were looking for a reason that it mean 1/10th rather than using the material immediately confronted with if you googled said word. Respected dictionaries all specific state that the "1/10" meaning is historic.

I know my friends wouldn't know decimate is 1/10 and would roll my eyes if I explained its historic useage vs what everyone uses it for, but you are probably right with your last point.

3

Mandurang76 t1_j9tesau wrote

In Iraq the Americans had a nickname for the British Army: "The borrowers".

0

AMeasuredBerserker t1_j9ts4xo wrote

Iraq was 20 years ago! And its the whole point I'm making! UK armed forces have only gotten incrementally better since then, anyone who works in defence knows this.

Numbers aren't everything, something Ukraine is arguably prooving?

−2

custard_doughnuts t1_j9sqyl8 wrote

Agreed.

He's still a lying, corrupt scumbag who only looks out for himself (see Brexit)

24

phigo50 t1_j9stw3l wrote

One of the bad ones presumably being to blame the EU for Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. Yes, he's right but Ukraine is "the thing that gives him opportunities to run his mouth" at the moment, it's all too easy to stand on the sidelines and shout about what the UK needs to do when he has no responsibility or capability to actually deliver it.

33

[deleted] t1_j9sv8ju wrote

[removed]

14

lollypatrolly t1_j9tbh7l wrote

> There is an actual reason why nations have been hesitant to give Ukraine fighter jets.

The actual reason is lack of political will. His suggestion is directly designed to deal with this, by taking initiative and paving the way for timid nations (the US, Germany) to follow.

>and even then it's not necessarily clear they would be the determining factor in making gains

There is no single weapon or system that will win a war by itself, that's not how war works. Modern fighter jets will give Ukraine capabilities that they didn't have before though, providing a sizeable advantage in both air defense and giving them the option of using western stand-off munitions.

>rather than a provocation that takes the war to the next level.

This is pure Russian propaganda. There is no possible "next level", Russia is already trying as hard as it can to win the war.

6

[deleted] t1_j9tc1ls wrote

[removed]

−1

lollypatrolly t1_j9td5qm wrote

>while you say that Russia isn't capable of causing even more destruction in the region.

Their military is fully committed, there's nothing else they can do.

Notice that Ukraine is asking for all these things and are not worrying about "escalation". Strange, huh?

These delusional Putin propagandists whinging about "escalation" are on the other hand completely safe.

5

rm-rd t1_j9syg5y wrote

IMO the most escalatory thing that can happen is the war drags on, without giving Putin an excuse to back out.

The evil NATO jets (as Russia will probably call them) could both shorten the war (thus fewer lives lost on both sides) and give Putin a scapegoat for his loss.

5

[deleted] t1_j9syw9k wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j9taq6h wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j9tb9of wrote

[removed]

1

lollypatrolly t1_j9tcobz wrote

> They end up being used to push the war into Russia forcing a much more desperate defensive Russian escalation.

Pushing the war into Russia is a purely good thing, Ukraine needs to strike military assets on the Russian side in order to win the war. It's unambiguously good and there are no downsides.

>The ability to project into Russia increases Russia's willingness to retaliate openly or covertly against the nation giving the jet-- potentially forcing the escalation to full world war.

Russia lacks the capability to "retaliate", and they lack the casus belli as well. There is zero chance they do anything to the west no matter what type of weapon Ukraine is given. And they're already doing everything they possibly can to Ukraine, there's no further step in the escalation ladder.

>and I'm sure the world's top diplomats can't compare to your genius

The world's top diplomats and military leaders all agree with me on this.

>but there's some pretty obvious ways that this could create blowback

No, there's no possibility of weapon deliveries to Ukraine creating "blowback" from Russia. The only type of blowback you might see is in domestic politics, where you might lose the votes of fearful idiot voters. And even then that might only happen in a select few countries, considering citizens of most western nations overwhelmingly support the cause.

2

NotAPreppie t1_j9t8zcy wrote

I doubt he'd advocate for sending fighter jets if he were still PM.

Being a spectator gives you much greater freedom to advocate for various things.

Also, he's bucking for NATO leadership role.

0

swissthrow1 t1_j9tqkxw wrote

What about his dodgy dealings with russians without any officials present?

0

TaigTyke t1_j9t05w6 wrote

He is like Churchill, TBF. A corrupt warhawk.

Unfortunately, sometimes that is exactly who you need.

−1

Glivcth t1_j9vy5a0 wrote

Are u serious do you want a world war lmao

−2

Full_Echo_3123 t1_j9s7er3 wrote

Speaking of historic mistakes, it's Boris Johnson!!

133

pickled_ricks t1_j9tpwmx wrote

And two hours later, China announced its hardest stance against the war since the beginning.

Boris did it! He ended the war!

8

maldobar4711 t1_j9sc2n0 wrote

Mr. Brexit knows what historical mistakes are...indeed indeed

57

SmileHappyFriend t1_j9t3pr4 wrote

Reddit mission to not shoehorn Brexit into any story involving the UK - Failed

19

Remarkable_Soil_6727 t1_j9tnl44 wrote

Seriously, every thread about the UK has at least 1 person bringing it up regardless of topic.

14

ASD_Detector_Array t1_j9soqyc wrote

Brexit was put to a referendum by David Cameron, and voted for by the British public. David Cameron then stepped down. While the referendum did not represent a binding mandate, subsequent leaders faced a choice between fulfilling the will of the public, and fulfilling the will of suspiciously one-sided social media platforms.

−1

synthdrunk t1_j9sv6ya wrote

Non-binding footgun and instead of engaging the safety and dropped the mag they switched to full auto. No good actors anywhere in that process.

11

PuterstheBallgagTsar t1_j9tq3rn wrote

> subsequent leaders faced a choice between fulfilling the will of the public, and fulfilling the will of suspiciously one-sided social media platforms

actually the will of the public was a reflection of the Russian trolls who dominated the social media platforms

0

knobber_jobbler t1_j9t18b7 wrote

He knows full well the UK can't send any. He's an idiot try to play to the crowd. It doesn't have any it can send and if it did, it would need permission from several other countries to do so. It's not going to give is tranche 1 Eurofighters away which are the next up to be retired. All the Tornados are scrapped. Harriers are now owned by the USMC. Jaguars are scrapped. Hawk t1s would be useless.

48

Doobie-D2000 t1_j9tie9s wrote

He's very interesting. I honestly believe he is a pompous fool, but I think his public show of intense support for Ukraine now and when he was PM is very telling. He seems like the type of guy that's chasing getting his name in the history books but in a good light. He has realized being the champion of defense for Ukraine and for the UK to lead support in arms for Europe is a sure fire way to get Churchill vibes in the long term view.

It doesn't matter if the jets they send are useless. It will start a Domino effect and everyone will then send jets.

Look at America. Nobody would send leopard tanks until America sent Abrahams. Ukraine doesn't need Abraham tanks. They are logistically a nightmare when combined with all their other tanks. They are essentially "useless".

15

knobber_jobbler t1_j9tk6d6 wrote

Absolutely. Right now the history books will show him as philandering idiot who presided over the greatest foreign policy blunder - only comparable with Chamberlain, the tens of thousands of COVID dead and the repeated corruption surrounding him and the Tories. He's desperate to rectify his image. Unfortunately for him, the internet exists.

8

Card_Zero t1_j9txy5o wrote

I don't think Brexit was awful, and I'm not certain history books will paint it as a disaster. Currently it's seen as awful because of economic impact and because of the desire to have a strong Europe to oppose Russia, along with the insinuation that Russia was trying to engineer the breakup of Europe. However, a United States of Europe would also have been a bad thing. Unions, federations, and so on are tricky because minimal collaboration between equals is ideal and maximal central government is what tends to emerge. I know it seems irrelevant in the current climate, post-covid and with Russia rampaging around, but Brexit had an overlooked role as a backlash against that.

(It's a valid role if you're troubled by giant octopus-like central governments, I mean. Not everybody is, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, as will now be redundantly demonstrated by downvotes. It is however an aspect of the picture.)

0

knobber_jobbler t1_j9tzhq1 wrote

Every economist and diplomat disagrees with you. Brexit is a financial and diplomatic disaster for the UK. There is no United States of Europe and the UK would have no say in stopping it now anyway. In fact the UK leaving will likely increase ties between EU countries going forwards. We've shot ourselves in both feet.

8

daniel_22sss t1_j9vvhaq wrote

Honestly, if I would take all of these claims on face value, it would sound like NATO and USA don't have anything working that could be sent, and god knows how these militaries even exist. UK "doesn't have anything", France "doesn't have anything", Germany "doesn't have anything", USA for some reason can only give 20 HIMARS and 31 Abrams... Nobody has enough artillery and ammo for it... Its like, geez guys. What even is NATO military? In the first Gulf War all of you had so much stuff, and now it feels like nobody has anything and Ukraine is getting last scraps.

2

knobber_jobbler t1_j9vztwi wrote

In 1991 the cold war had just ended. The UK was still fielding jets built in the 50s. It has Buccaneers, Phantoms, Jaguars, Tornados etc. Today the RAF is quite literally bare bones. If you've read various defence journals over the last decade you'll have seen the Harrier force cut to free up cash for Tornado. Tornado scrapped for a Eurofighter upgrade. F35 numbers slashed etc. Typhoons were being stripped for parts to keep others flying etc. Tranche 1 is to be scrapped after only 20 years of service and not upgraded. 20 years is nothing for a jet that has a considerable service life. The UK quite literally has no jets to give away. It's not like you can just give away modern, complicated hardware anyway as it needs a complete support and logistics service. It's not as simple as sending over some tanks made in the 60s where all you need is some ammunition and an instruction manual that hasn't changed in principle since the 30s.

2

lurq_king t1_j9rudyi wrote

Why is anyone still listening to this dirty dishrag?

43

Snake_Island_13 t1_j9s6mmk wrote

Because every once in a while, something is so obviously right, that even bozos like Boris and McConnell agree on it. And that gets clicks.

73

Orphasmia t1_j9sdzsm wrote

It’s shameful the media hunts for ways to pump worth into worthless people.

9

UncleGrga t1_j9u3t6c wrote

The fact they’ve convinced you he’s worthless is also them doing their job.

(Not defending him, but clearly from this thread his very existence keeps some redditors up at night)

1

huhwhuh t1_j9sfbvh wrote

A broken clock is right twice in a day aye?

−1

MyRolexSubmariner t1_j9snz4d wrote

Historically, China had been on the receiving end of western/japan invasions. Not quite sure he is sending the appropriate message

13

KiwiPsy t1_j9t0r9n wrote

Tbf. Probably wise not to keep fucking with the West if they wanna avoid further conflicts

4

PornHippo t1_j9szwaw wrote

Send jets and then what? Logistics is a thing. They will need maintenance, ammo, pilots. You can't just give them away without the recipient having a way to deal with everything that comes with it.

Johnson is such slimy bastard who will say anything to appeal to the masses.

12

369_Clive t1_j9udemw wrote

I think it's more that he simply doesn't / cannot handle details: BJ is headlines kind of guy.

Details like pilots, ammo, maintenance are boring "details for the backroom boffins". One reason Brexit remains a mess: he couldn't get his head round all the complexities. Not a trait you want in a PM 🤦‍♂️

2

Remarkable_Soil_6727 t1_j9tnswl wrote

Arent they training pilots already? I remember reading something about that.

1

Remarkable_Soil_6727 t1_j9tp824 wrote

Britain to train Ukraine combat fighter pilots

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has committed to training Ukrainian combat jet pilots, according to a statement made ahead of a Feb. 8 visit to London by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2023/02/08/britain-to-train-ukraine-combat-fighter-pilots/

2

Remarkable_Soil_6727 t1_j9tqbkq wrote

I believe they also have 100 Typhoon jets, even if a handful of them are in working order is still directs the heat at the UK breaking the taboo so others can send theirs.

1

autotldr t1_j9rtfxn wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)

> Boris Johnson has said China will be making an "Historic mistake" if it supplies Russia with weapons - as he urged the UK to "Break the ice" by becoming the first country to supply Ukraine with fighter jets.

> Mr Johnson appeared confident that Ukrainians would only use them to defend their country and encouraged the government to supply some of the UK military's Typhoon jets.

> Mr Johnson added he has "No doubt" Ukraine can recapture territory from Russia if it has fighter jets to take out their artillery positions and command and control centres.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Johnson^#1 Ukraine^#2 Putin^#3 Russia^#4 think^#5

10

FancyMan_ t1_j9t99q9 wrote

The turd that won't flush. Wish this cunt would just fuck off

10

JediTigger t1_j9rz2d1 wrote

Anything BoJo recommends causes me to question it. If he recommended breathing air I’d contemplate how to grow gills.

6

369_Clive t1_j9t7eet wrote

Poland was originally going to send Russian jets in exchange for new US-made ones. That is the best plan if jets are going to be sent.

Sending Typhoons is a ridiculous idea: we don't have spare jets, Ukrainian pilots don't know how to fly them, there are no trained maintenance crews etc. Apart from these issues it's a great idea.

6

ReformedWiggles t1_j9tgvq5 wrote

The only historic mistake to be made here is showing weakness.

Putin needs to be kicked back to the slums he came from so any illusion he had about being able to expand Russia is dispelled.

6

custard_doughnuts t1_j9sqqp1 wrote

What jets can we send Boris? We don't have jets idle to send.

He just fucking says whatever is in his head.

5

thesweeterpeter t1_j9ryztx wrote

He resigned in disgrace. Take his shit and walk off

3

nznordi t1_j9smsrn wrote

I mean you have to hand it to him, that’s his topic, afterall, he is the personification of a historic mistake.

2

thaiatom t1_j9vb7cn wrote

Someone needs to make the call and tell Putin “You have until 4pm, eastern standard time, to get yo shit the fuck out of Ukraine. At 4:01 Anything Russian inside of Ukraine will cease to be!”

2

NotaRussianbott89 t1_j9t4ebn wrote

I think we have to look at the fact that if we send a load of jets over are Ukrainian pilots going to be able to fly them . Our jets are very different to there’s . So does that mean we have to send instructors. Having people on the ground ? Then do they have parts and personal to maintain these jets ? It’s not like we sent some jets and the next day they are shooting down Russian.

1

Kat-Shaw t1_j9te25g wrote

Historic mistakes and China go hand-in-hand though.

Give is 5 years and Xi will have everyone running pig-iron furnaces and killing half the birds.

1

TMBonine t1_j9tivcw wrote

Boris is a cunt. Comparisons to Churchill are laughable. But you folks curtsey to Chuck the Imbecilic, so there ya go....

1

Remarkable_Soil_6727 t1_j9toqy1 wrote

I hope most of these comments hating on Boris are bots, he's keeping Ukraine in the media and putting pressure on governments to act. He's doing exactly what Zelenskyy wants and for some reason everyones shitting on him.

1

rendrr t1_j9trpu9 wrote

Boris talks a lot lately.

1

notapolita t1_j9tt3lb wrote

The historic mistake warns China against historic mistake.

1

Horror_Ad_1587 t1_j9u17js wrote

The time for the great reset has begun. The West has to win.

1

Arpikarhu t1_j9uox9k wrote

Just like that, with no other info, im gonna assume sending jets is a bad idea

1

looogs t1_j9utg3l wrote

Boris is giving a broken clock a run for it's money!

1

TheNBGco t1_j9v4dro wrote

Whats the warning for China? What mistake ?

1

ledow t1_j9v4ywc wrote

Sssshh, muppet-hair, let the adults decide.

There'll be one along any minute.

1

daltonicrainbow t1_j9vfuvd wrote

Says the guy who can produce lineal art with a polygraph. He will sell his soul(if any) to have attention...

1

AniTaneen t1_j9w25x5 wrote

I swear, he has done more work in one week out of office than he did in two months at number 10.

There was a time when Boris showing up at a meeting made headlines.

1

mistertickertape t1_j9wlvzj wrote

Boris Johnson is a donkey that needs to stfu.

1

humpherman t1_j9xn8u8 wrote

Why is anyone even paying attention to him about anything.

1

Pegelius t1_j9svoxt wrote

Boris sure knows a thing or two about 'historic mistake's..

0

Dragonbuttboi69 t1_j9szs1b wrote

Well what do you know, Alexander is right for once.

0

mrtn17 t1_j9t7khw wrote

Boris Johnson talking about a 'historic mistake' reminds me of another historic mistake

0

routledgewm t1_j9tan2u wrote

He just needs to stop now. He left his position in disgrace. He didn't leave because he wanted to. He is a shambles of a man. Fucking his side piece whilst his wife was having cancer treatment sums him up. Ukraine don't need people like him trying to help.

0

Deathdar1577 t1_j9tangh wrote

Someone get that guy a haircut and teach him how to do his tie.

0

Greyhaven7 t1_j9tnc5b wrote

Why is this chode still speaking? And why is anyone listening?

Shut up and go away, Brexit boy.

0

Dr-Didalot t1_j9trbtk wrote

What happened to not sending offensive weapons? Are we willing to pump gas on this global game of chicken .

0

buttwh0l t1_j9skvcd wrote

Chinas economy is hanging in the balance. They know the strings are very short. If they cant play with other civilized countries, theyre screwed.

−1

bunico t1_j9sq1ol wrote

“Historic mistake” is something he really knows about.

−1

[deleted] t1_j9tq0de wrote

Why is this drunko mumbling fatso still talking? I call in Boris to lose 40-50 pounds before talking

−1

SAGreer t1_j9ucwh1 wrote

Who is this loser and he needs a haircut. Looks like the dude who flushed England out of Europe and screwed everyone in the process.

−1

blablabla456454 t1_j9se2q0 wrote

"As things stand, the British army would run out of ammunition within a few days if called upon to fight and would take up to 10 years to field a modern warfighting division of some 25,000 to 30,000 troops."

Is this true? What am I missing here. The Brits have no standing Army?

−2

Ivanow t1_j9sj627 wrote

UK’s army is an afterthought. Being island nation, they focus on naval power instead. Such approach worked for them for centuries.

16

jeremy9931 t1_j9sjqvj wrote

The UK is incredibly unlikely to ever get into another major land war so they’ve been hyper focused on naval power.

14

macross1984 t1_j9rw9dl wrote

Boris is no longer in charge as far as China is concerned.

−3

freemason85 t1_j9s6top wrote

And who's going to fly the jets? Doesn't training to become a fighter pilot take years? In all honesty the west should've started arming and training Ukrainians when Putin invaded Crimea. Now the west is playing catch up and it could be to late for Ukraine. Russia has a population of 140 million while Ukraine has a population of 40 million. The west is dragging it's feet with supplying Ukraine with all the weapons and training it needs to win. If the west acted swiftly in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea then things might have been different. I hope Ukraine wins but we all know Russia will just keep throwing their citizens into the meat grinder that is Ukraine and Ukraine is running low on ammo.

−3

3_50 t1_j9siqk5 wrote

> the west should've started arming and training Ukrainians when Putin invaded Crimea.

Uh, we did

>The previous Operation Orbital saw the UK train more than 22,000 Ukrainian personnel from 2015 until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The new programme would train forces outside of the country.

21

BecomePnueman t1_j9sg2yo wrote

If you thought world war III wasn't going to happen you are really late. The thing is we are going to fucking win. America has so much hidden tech it's fucking crazy. I've seen the shit with my own eyes that people think are UFO's. Why else would we be so fucking confident?

−10

slingbladde t1_j9s0ebc wrote

Well, isn't he still a pompous ass..who tf would listen to him

−10

Venerable_Rival t1_j9s4qwg wrote

Boris did a lot of things (very very very) wrong, but his support for Ukraine was one of his best features. I'm not about to shit on a politician when they're advocating more arms for Ukraine.

I can shelf my personal opinion of that clown and respect what he's doing here.

25

-_-deanIsee t1_j9s13fb wrote

I really don't agree with tanks and worst fighter jets they are not a good idea what the ukrainians gonna do take crimea and bomb moscow. This is escalating a regional war to something. Why not force the ukrianians to come down and give up crimea and guarantee water with a price and sort the situation with the donbass

−43