War in Ukraine

[Stirlingsays]

Utter garbage.

1) Russia doesn't get to decide what another country does. Just like Israel or Iran.

A totally unrealistic opinion.

When Russia wanted to put missiles in Cuba and Cuba wanted them.

Did they get to do that mate?

Israel? I'm not seeing who is stopping Israel from taking land in Lebanon
or Syria? Or turning Gaza into rubble for that matter.

Might makes right.....and the only thing that can stop that....is someone else's might.

2) Why does Russia have nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad? That's not 5 hours from Poland, it's right on Poland's border! Does that mean Poland are within their rights to invade Kaliningrad out of national security?

This was upgraded to dual nuclear use.....After.....After we did the same with facilities in Poland.

After.

And that's the same border mate.

 

[ASCPFC]

What does beating Russia look like?

What does it gain versus loss for any particular country?

Any Russian forces entering Poland would get cut off and destroyed. The Polish armed forces are superior - particularly in professionalism and motivation. Russian conventional forces: well you can see them yourself.

However, conversely Poland would not invade or beat Russia as such. They might take historical territory. A buffer zone, something to bargain with.

Missiles, drones, that will be different but you can't win a war with them just yet. You can carry on fighting but not really take any strategic objectives. That kind of thing can go on forever, like a scaled down continuous WW1 bombardment. A war of pointless attrition. Ukraine perhaps.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Sabre rattling.

They are already targeting by cyber, interference with elections etc. There were also the assassinations. However, inconvenient but not fatal for your average Brit; and no Tommies or Tars in the ground.

It's all posture.

Maybe.

However, I'm not an advocate of playing chicken with our people's lives.

What is the upside to taking the risk?

You going to come on here if we are attacked?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Any Russian forces entering Poland would get cut off and destroyed. The Polish armed forces are superior - particularly in professionalism and motivation. Russian conventional forces: well you can see them yourself.

However, conversely Poland would not invade or beat Russia as such. They might take historical territory. A buffer zone, something to bargain with.

Missiles, drones, that will be different but you can't win a war with them just yet. You can carry on fighting but not really take any strategic objectives. That kind of thing can go on forever, like a scaled down continuous WW1 bombardment. A war of pointless attrition. Ukraine perhaps.

Cool.

I don't know where this idea that Russia want to invade Poland comes from, what is the advantage?

They are literally taking around 10k in Ukraine a day at the moment....Their war aims amount to 25 percent of Ukraine and it would take them another year to achieve that.

Drones have made quick advancements on either side unrealistic.

 

[ASCPFC]

Cool.

I don't know where this idea that Russia want to invade Poland comes from, what is the advantage?

They are literally taking around 10k in Ukraine a day at the moment....Their war aims amount to 25 percent of Ukraine and it would take them another year to achieve that.

Drones have made quick advancements on either side unrealistic.

I was really just replying to Ouzo Dan's stuff. I don't think Russia would do it as I suspect they can quite easily see that they would lose.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I was really just replying to Ouzo Dan's stuff. I don't think Russia would do it as I suspect they can quite easily see that they would lose.

Talk softly, carry a big stick.

 

[silvertop]

Maybe.

However, I'm not an advocate of playing chicken with our people's lives.

What is the upside to taking the risk?

You going to come on here if we are attacked?

List any British overseas military assets that are not on NATO soil and where no other military is present. I can't think of any.

If you can they are at risk... At a stretch.

Other NATO countries may rush to condemn while maintaining the article has not been triggered as technically it was not an attack on NATO.

However I am reaching there. How would Russia achieve it and why would they take such a risk?

 

[Stirlingsays]

List any British overseas military assets that are not on NATO soil and where no other military is present. I can't think of any.

Read Russia's statement.

Obviously I think they are making it clear that being able to attack far into Russia's rear isn't going to happen without consequences.

We have come out as clearly supporting and enabling this.

Something we didn't need to do.

If you can they are at risk... At a stretch.

Other NATO countries may rush to condemn while maintaining the article has not been triggered as technically it was not an attack on NATO.

However I am reaching there. How would Russia achieve it and why would they take such a risk?

Again, I'm no pacifist, however as I've stated I'm not an advocate of playing chicken with our people's lives when we don't stand to gain significantly by being at war.

Why are we putting ourselves at risk again?

I don't see America going to war over Europe......that generation no longer exits......However, It really doesn't want article five tested and I believe that formed some of the recent CIA's visit to Moscow.......But if it was tested I believe , It will just insist on non nuclear actions and won't get involved.

 

[Eagle One]

I agree that Russia ultimately are responsible for this war.

However.....there are a lot of reasons why Russia did this.....they were known, and there was significant argumentation given back in the Bush and Obama eras against US state department policy towards Ukraine.....but they did it anyway.

It's not as though warnings weren't continually given that this was the likely response to turning the Ukrainian government into an anti Russian one.....which the US and to a lesser extent Europe pursued as policy.

There are direct security implications for Russia if Ukraine, with its existing borders at the time, became an opposing state. At the nearest point Ukraine was only five hours drive to Moscow......Essentially zero reaction time for missile launch.

I think we have to agree to disagree. Notes also the posts since.

Simply because you don't like what a country is doing and how they are evolving politically is not a reason to invade. The only exception in my head to that is if it's certain that an attack will happen. I've never seen any evidence that Ukraine were planning that.

I appreciate all the issues around Nato but for me it was and is Putin showing to Europe and the US that Russia is still a dominent superpower. Back to my original point, whatever the reasons for invading, Putin is not a moderate.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I think we have to agree to disagree. Notes also the posts since.

Simply because you don't like what a country is doing and how they are evolving politically is not a reason to invade. The only exception in my head to that is if it's certain that an attack will happen. I've never seen any evidence that Ukraine were planning that.

The idea that border countries to superpowers are just allowed to be turned by their competitors into enemies and nothing happens is.....Well, it's not how it works.

The road to this war was signposted as early as 2008. If you think it was valid just to steam ahead into it....ok, but I disagree.

And I think I have the current disaster in death and money to point at as proof.

Ukraine is now an economic chain around our necks and we have zero gain and expensive energy to boot.

I wish we had wiser heads charting our course but unfortunately we don't.

I appreciate all the issues around Nato but for me it was and is Putin showing to Europe and the US that Russia is still a dominent superpower. Back to my original point, whatever the reasons for invading, Putin is not a moderate.

It's a superpower militarily and in terms of energy resources.

You obviously don't particularly care about the history of how this war came to be. For you all that seems to matter is the invasion in 2022. Ok, your opinion is yours to have. But I actually did dig into both sides in this war, not just what one side say.

I recognise that Putin isn't as hardline as some in the Kremlin, however for me it's a moot point.

If we can close the war down the better for everybody......Well, not for Ukraine but whatever the outcome it's going to be a mess for them.

 

[Spindle]

It's being reported that the Russian foreign ministry have just announced that Russia may strike at any military targets in the UK, both in Ukraine and beyond, in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory using British weapons.

I hope people know what they are doing.

They say a lot.

My place hasn't even bothered to send out a vigilance type email about it and we're a target for sure

 

[Spindle]

Cool.

I don't know where this idea that Russia want to invade Poland comes from, what is the advantage?

They are literally taking around 10k in Ukraine a day at the moment....Their war aims amount to 25 percent of Ukraine and it would take them another year to achieve that.

Drones have made quick advancements on either side unrealistic.

No they aren't, it's about a 20th of that. And for 1400 killed per day to achieve it. In fact, the casualties have risen steeply and gains slower than in previous offensives. They have under 20% now and have managed less than 2% taken since 2024

 

[steeleye20]

Putin 'had no other option'.

Putin says Russia ‘had no other choice’ in Ukraine

Putin reaffirms that Russia's military aims to protect people in rebel-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine.

www.aljazeera.com

The Donbass, and Crimea in particular are Russian speaking and have both voted to belong to Russia.

😎

 

[Stirlingsays]

No they aren't, it's about a 20th of that. And for 1400 killed per day to achieve it. In fact, the casualties have risen steeply and gains slower than in previous offensives. They have under 20% now and have managed less than 2% taken since 2024

Wow, if that's true then Ukraine's winning then mate.

I wonder why Russia aren't interested in coming to terms then....beats me.

Well, that's all sorted then...

 

[Spindle]

Putin 'had no other option'.

Putin says Russia ‘had no other choice’ in Ukraine

Putin reaffirms that Russia's military aims to protect people in rebel-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine.

www.aljazeera.com

The Donbass, and Crimea in particular are Russian speaking and have both voted to belong to Russia.

😎

Traitor

 

[Spindle]

Wow, if that's true then Ukraine's winning then mate.

I wonder why Russia aren't interested in coming to terms then....beats me.

Well, that's all sorted then...

Proof will be in the pudding won't it? I don't recall saying they're winning, both sides have lost.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Proof will be in the pudding won't it? I don't recall saying they're winning, both sides have lost.

It's very likely they will achieve their stated war aims or close to them.

But at very heavy cost.

But Russia, like Ukraine view the war as existential and will go to the very end.....Indeed Ukraine won't stop until the money runs out.

I'm hacked off that the war ever happened.

Europe lost, because we are left with the fecking bill....Ukraine is going to be a basket case for a generation.....It's going to get third worlded and LGBT..ed to feckery.

Going with the Americans in 2014 ended Ukraine.....Everytime the population voted against a war.....but no one gave a feck.

 

[Mark B]

Personally I'm not seeing why tanks are being bothered with.

Without anti drone technology that works they are just sitting ducks.

These techs are obviously being worked on by all sides but at the moment drones make fast movement high cost and near suicidal for a vanguard.

Because drones cannot seize terrain while you can with a tank. Neither Russia or Ukraine can mass armor at this point because both are better at offensive drone operations and both are low on anti-drone capabilities

Now does the tank need to be protected from drones? Absolutely. But if you want to take over the enemy position, then tanks can help you do it.

This is the philosophy of combined arms. Combined arms is the military approach that coordinates different branches such as infantry, armor, artillery and aviation that so each units actions protect the others and make the enemy vulnerable to your actions. The way I explain drone operations is that is a return to the 1940s, cheap airplanes/drones ensure that air dominance doesn't exist and that you now need to look up and protect deep as you did during WWII.

 

[Mark B]

It's very likely they will achieve their stated war aims or close to them.

But at very heavy cost.

But Russia, like Ukraine view the war as existential and will go to the very end.....Indeed Ukraine won't stop until the money runs out.

I'm hacked off that the war ever happened.

Europe lost, because we are left with the fecking bill....Ukraine is going to be a basket case for a generation.....It's going to get third worlded and LGBT..ed to feckery.

Going with the Americans in 2014 ended Ukraine.....Everytime the population voted against a war.....but no one gave a feck.

Ukraine dumped Yanukovych in 2014 because he was pro-Russian corrupt moron. And they did it because they wanted to join the EU and Yanukovych said no because Russia told him not to.

The war was inevitable once Ukraine tried to get closer to Europe and away from being a Russian puppet state. The only way the war is prevented was if Ukraine was in NATO and there was no chance of that because of how corrupt Ukraine was (and still is).

Ukraine will continue even after the money, Ukraine isn't going to stop until its completely destroyed its adult male population to the point where there is no pronatalism that can bring it back from the abyss. As you say, they are already really close to it. The challenge for them will be is that migrants don't want anything to do with Ukraine because the local people openly hate them and the Ukrainians cannot afford the social welfare programs that the migrants can get from Germany or the UK.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ukraine dumped Yanukovych in 2014 because he was pro-Russian corrupt moron. And they did it because they wanted to join the EU and Yanukovych said no because Russia told him not to.

The war was inevitable once Ukraine tried to get closer to Europe and away from being a Russian puppet state. The only way the war is prevented was if Ukraine was in NATO and there was no chance of that because of how corrupt Ukraine was (and still is).

Ukraine will continue even after the money, Ukraine isn't going to stop until its completely destroyed its adult male population to the point where there is no pronatalism that can bring it back from the abyss. As you say, they are already really close to it. The challenge for them will be is that migrants don't want anything to do with Ukraine because the local people openly hate them and the Ukrainians cannot afford the social welfare programs that the migrants can get from Germany or the UK.

I think you hit upon the struggle that Ukraine have before them post war......which I think is far more existential than the actual war itself.

Their demographics are so fecked that I just don't see a Ukraine that recovers to anything like pre-war, and it wasn't a first world country even back then.....Like Russia isn't outside of its major cities.

I'd also agree that both Ukraine and Russia are full of corruption....basically they are the same people.