Russia Invades Ukraine

[Cruyff]

Has Shoigu been liquidated? 

[John Gentleman]

13 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

It's all just the opinions of individuals. To be honest, I place virtually no stock in any of these, no matter how experienced or highly ranked the military expert. There are far too many factors at play. Personally, as an non-expert, I doubt Ukraine will retake Crimea by the end of the year. It's just too much of an ask.

I don't think they'll take it, period. Crimea is the jewel in Putin's (and Russia's) crown. It's fall would be unthinkable to them. They'll defend it to the last man, woman and dug.
That's why Ukraine will attack it, most likely with the longer range weaponry. Russia will be forced to defend it, sucking resources away from the Donbas. Tactically smart.

[JFK-1]

I think they may indeed take Crimea, it's the only way to permanently finish this. Plus I think the Ukrainians are smarter, better trained, better equipped, combat experienced and willing to fight. The Russians don't even want to be there far less fight there.

[JFK-1]

Being interpreted as pre offensive activities

 

Ukrainian attacks inside Russia • FRANCE 24 English

 

Ukraine struck oil pipeline installations deep inside Russia on Saturday with a series of drone attacks including on a station serving the Druzhba pipeline, while shelling from Ukraine killed at least two, Russian officials and media said. FRANCE 24's former Moscow correspondent Nick Holdsworth comments on the attacks.

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

Russian ambassador Andrei Kelin being interviewed on BBC1 just now.

Comical Ali doesn't have a look in.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Tommy Brown

[JFK-1]

24 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Russian ambassador Andrei Kelin being interviewed on BBC1 just now.

Comical Ali doesn't have a look in.

 

Let me guess, we're on a Nazi crusade, we are the victims, and throw in a little Putin like veiled nuke threats.

[Mikey1874]

 

[Tommy Brown]

20 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Let me guess, we're on a Nazi crusade, we are the victims, and throw in a little Putin like veiled nuke threats.

Will try and post a link later.

Laura Kuenesbutrg.

"We haven't even got serious, yet."

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Tommy Brown said:

Will try and post a link later.

Laura Kuenesbutrg.

"We haven't even got serious, yet."

 

The Russian embassy in London just posted this, wondering if it's edited in any way.

 

 

[milky_26]

23 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Let me guess, we're on a Nazi crusade, we are the victims, and throw in a little Putin like veiled nuke threats.

i saw what the bbc put out last night about it and he was blaming NATO and specifically the UK for escalating it

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65720980

[Cade]

So 95% of the entire Russian army is in Ukraine and being systematically dismantled and this is them not trying?

What are they going to do?

Formally declare war, perform a general draft and push totally untrained and unarmed civilians into the grinder?

 

Russia is losing this war, heavily.

The entire world knows it.

[Sawdust Caesar]

The internal rifts are increasing.

[il Duce McTarkin]

18 minutes ago, Sawdust Caesar said:

The internal rifts are increasing.

 

[jim747]

Ooft..

[Lovecraft]

4 hours ago, jim747 said:

Ooft..

Yeah, they ain't trying yet though.

 

 

[Dirty Deeds]

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-defeat-black-swan-dan-rice-interview/32430675.html

[JFK-1]

Biggest drone attack on Kiev since the war began, two people killed others wounded by falling debris as the vast majority of the drones were knocked down.

 

Is this them getting serious? I was thinking a couple of dead civilians in Kiev isn't going to change anything. They're still being slowly taken apart. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65740839

[Cade]

All the drone/missile attacks on Kyiv are just childish lashing out, it's all they have left.

Like yon wee madman with his "vengeance" weapons in the 1940s.

Wasting ammunition for no reason.

And that's why they'll lose.

Too busy trolling instead of actually fighting a strategic war.

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, Cade said:

All the drone/missile attacks on Kyiv are just childish lashing out, it's all they have left.

Like yon wee madman with his "vengeance" weapons in the 1940s.

Wasting ammunition for no reason.

And that's why they'll lose.

Too busy trolling instead of actually fighting a strategic war.

 

Never been clear after first early attacks what the point of the rocket attacks are. Trying to destroy the energy infrastucture over the winter aside.

 

They only kill a few people. It does keep the population under threat in the safer areas not near front so maybe that is the reason. But overall there's no difference to the war. Now Ukraine has good air defence its actually more giving Ukraine something to be proud of. The Ukrainian resolve and morale is unaffected. Just encouraged more.

 

Or Russia is still fighting another war. The one in its head that doesn't involve 100,000 dead Russians.

[Diadora Van Basten]

34 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Never been clear after first early attacks what the point of the rocket attacks are. Trying to destroy the energy infrastucture over the winter aside.

 

They only kill a few people. It does keep the population under threat in the safer areas not near front so maybe that is the reason. But overall there's no difference to the war. Now Ukraine has good air defence its actually more giving Ukraine something to be proud of. The Ukrainian resolve and morale is unaffected. Just encouraged more.

 

Or Russia is still fighting another war. The one in its head that doesn't involve 100,000 dead Russians.

I think they are trying to take out the Patriot missile defence system.

 

They fire a few rockets to identify where the defence system is then target the system itself.

[Unknown user]

On 26/05/2023 at 23:50, indianajones said:

I took it as what about Scotland meaning they should nuke Scotland given that's where England keep their nukes. 

 

England's nukes are on subs, and part of a much larger fleet of nuclear submarines. IIRC there are 2 of the 4 in the water at any time, with America providing the rest.

Faslane, as I understand it, is really just the North East Atlantic base for the fleet, repairs and maintenance are done in the US I think. But England has active nukes at unknown locations under the sea at all times.

[Mikey1874]

26 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

England's nukes are on subs, and part of a much larger fleet of nuclear submarines. IIRC there are 2 of the 4 in the water at any time, with America providing the rest.

Faslane, as I understand it, is really just the North East Atlantic base for the fleet, repairs and maintenance are done in the US I think. But England has active nukes at unknown locations under the sea at all times.

 

If Faslane closed they could move to Norway now its in NATO. Or US.

 

Just the jobs the advantage plus the myth of UK nuclear independence. It is the UK not England.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

If Faslane closed they could move to Norway now its in NATO. Or US.

 

Just the jobs the advantage plus the myth of UK nuclear independence. It is the UK not England.

 

Hey I'm just using the quoted poster's nomenclature 

[il Duce McTarkin]

43 minutes ago, Smithee said:

But England has active nukes at unknown locations under the sea at all times.

 

My mate's a former weapons tech' on one of those subs. **** that for a job, btw.

 

[jambomjm74]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

England's nukes are on subs, and part of a much larger fleet of nuclear submarines. IIRC there are 2 of the 4 in the water at any time, with America providing the rest.

Faslane, as I understand it, is really just the North East Atlantic base for the fleet, repairs and maintenance are done in the US I think. But England has active nukes at unknown locations under the sea at all times.

The topics about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not a Piece on Scotland good England bad. 

Do you write the Hibs statements for a living ?

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

The topics about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Not a Piece on Scotland good England bad. 

Do you write the Hibs statements for a living ?

 

We're discussing a show on Russian TV where the host reckoned they should nuke the UK as a strike against the West. Another guy says What about Scotland, and we're just talking about what was meant by that.

There was no Scotland good, England bad, the lad talked about England's nukes, and I matched his language, I wasn't interested in the semantics.

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

My mate's a former weapons tech' on one of those subs. **** that for a job, btw.

 

Aye I've watched a couple of things on life in a sub. Load of rubbish, I'd absolutely hate it.

[jambomjm74]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

We're discussing a show on Russian TV where the host reckoned they should nuke the UK as a strike against the West. Another guy says What about Scotland, and we're just talking about what was meant by that.

There was no Scotland good, England bad, the lad talked about England's nukes, and I matched his language, I wasn't interested in the semantics.

Scotland, assume the crazy Russians meant the U.K. naval base at Faslane.. maybe you could have corrected him and informed him it was U.K. or NATO arms. 
Anyways, I’m not looking for a lengthy chat as to what was meant or how it could be read.. main point is that this is one of the more informative threads. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Aye I've watched a couple of things on life in a sub. Load of rubbish, I'd absolutely hate it.

 

I'm bad enough on a surface vessel for a couple of months. Drives me batty.

 

But sort of back on topic, on the subject of nukes/Russia/etc and overlooking the glaring oxymoron(s), do you think the nuclear posturing by sociopathic crazies like Putin make it more or less rational that the UK and France maintain some form of independent nuclear deterrent?

 

[AlimOzturk]

11 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Scotland, assume the crazy Russians meant the U.K. naval base at Faslane.. maybe you could have corrected him and informed him it was U.K. or NATO arms. 
Anyways, I’m not looking for a lengthy chat as to what was meant or how it could be read.. main point is that this is one of the more informative threads. 

And he was being informative and completely on subject. . Only one dragging this out of context is you.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

I'm bad enough on a surface vessel for a couple of months. Drives me batty.

 

But sort of back on topic, on the subject of nukes/Russia/etc and overlooking the glaring oxymoron(s), do you think the nuclear posturing by sociopathic crazies like Putin make it more or less rational that the UK and France maintain some form of independent nuclear deterrent?

 

 

I'd question the independence first and foremost. The UK's (that one's for you mjm! 👈) 2 active subs are part of a larger coordinated fleet that patrols the world's waters. It's pretty unlikely that the UK are dictating what all of the US's subs are doing, so if they're coordinated it means that the US are dictating ours.

 

I think if Putin launches nuclear on anyone, the US will respond massively, I don't think our wee contribution would make much of a difference to the thoughts TBH.

 

 

[jambomjm74]

3 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

And he was being informative and completely on subject. . Only one dragging this out of context is you.

Thanks for your opinion, appreciated.

[Unknown user]

Just as a BTW, whenever the nuclear subs are brought up in the independence debate, unionists always seem to assume they're England's post independence 🤷‍♂️

[periodictabledancer]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Just as a BTW, whenever the nuclear subs are brought up in the independence debate, unionists always seem to assume they're England's post independence 🤷‍♂️

But there no such thing as "assets", so they keep saying anyway. 

[Mikey1874]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Just as a BTW, whenever the nuclear subs are brought up in the independence debate, unionists always seem to assume they're England's post independence 🤷‍♂️

 

Really depends whether Scotland joins NATO or not.

 

But that's looking like theoretical only. 

[henrysmithsgloves]

12 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Really depends whether Scotland joins NATO or not.

 

. 

Imagine the board meeting 

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, henrysmithsgloves said:

Imagine the board meeting 

 

Ffs  

[henrysmithsgloves]

4 minutes ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

Ffs  

Or hobbos new striker shortlist 😳

[Pap]

Over 100 Russian soldiers killed and around 400 injured at a base on Mauripol. 

[indianajones]

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Hey I'm just using the quoted poster's nomenclature 

 

4 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

We're discussing a show on Russian TV where the host reckoned they should nuke the UK as a strike against the West. Another guy says What about Scotland, and we're just talking about what was meant by that.

There was no Scotland good, England bad, the lad talked about England's nukes, and I matched his language, I wasn't interested in the semantics.

 

I was using the same language as the Russian nut btw as i am almost certain thats what they meant. 

 

Either way, **** nuclear weapons. 

[indianajones]

3 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

I'm bad enough on a surface vessel for a couple of months. Drives me batty.

 

But sort of back on topic, on the subject of nukes/Russia/etc and overlooking the glaring oxymoron(s), do you think the nuclear posturing by sociopathic crazies like Putin make it more or less rational that the UK and France maintain some form of independent nuclear deterrent?

 

 

Its a good question. I hope it all works out and there is some treaty that all nations remove their nuclear arms capabilities. I really cant see that happening though. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

10 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

Either way, **** nuclear weapons. 

 

This. Utterly abhorrent invention.

 

There's so much potential for the nuclear sphere to be an absolute force for good, but the big money gets spent on bombs.

It's a tragic component of the human condition that a compulsion for weaponisation is so often the default setting.

[JFK-1]

It would appear the air defences in Kiev are working, reportedly over 30 drones taken down above the city. But this is pointless isn't it. It's going to have zero effect on Ukrainian military capabilities.

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, Dirk McTarkin said:

 

I'm bad enough on a surface vessel for a couple of months. Drives me batty.

 

But sort of back on topic, on the subject of nukes/Russia/etc and overlooking the glaring oxymoron(s), do you think the nuclear posturing by sociopathic crazies like Putin make it more or less rational that the UK and France maintain some form of independent nuclear deterrent?

 

 

More rational.  I was never a fan of unilateral nuclear disarmament during the Cold War, and it would be madness for the UK or France to let go of their independent deterrent now.

[JFK-1]

Maybe we should hand him over as a conciliatory gesture.

 

Lindsey Graham: Russia issues arrest warrant for top Republican

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65749077

[Hansel]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

Maybe we should hand him over as a conciliatory gesture.

 

Lindsey Graham: Russia issues arrest warrant for top Republican

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65749077

Agreed. He's a complete tool of a man

[Doctor FinnBarr]

6 hours ago, indianajones said:

 

Its a good question. I hope it all works out and there is some treaty that all nations remove their nuclear arms capabilities. I really cant see that happening though. 

 

Just like the IRA concreted their arms into secret bunkers?

[Tommy Brown]

Reports of 2 explosions at 6.25 and 6.48 in Moscow this morning.

Drone attacks seemingly.

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

More rational.  I was never a fan of unilateral nuclear disarmament during the Cold War, and it would be madness for the UK or France to let go of their independent deterrent now.

Does Ireland have nukes? How many actually have nukes that work. American? possibly Israel? Russia ain't nuking anyone. Get them tae feck out of Scotland and use the Clyde for something else. I'm sure the many other ports in England and Wales or NI can house them. What about Ireland? 

 

 

Neutral Scotland will do me. No more Scots dying for shite like the Falklands, Iraq Afghanistan or The Ukraine. Dying for Feck all. 

WW2 is a different animal, everyone would need to fight another one of those, except Ireland, they'll just leave their lights on during a blackout, Hitler's little helpers 

[JFK-1]

Drones strike Moscow as fresh wave of Russian air attacks hit Ukraine

 

KYIV, May 30 (Reuters) - Drones hit several buildings in Moscow on Tuesday causing minor damage and forcing some people to evacuate their homes, Russian officials said, while Russia launched another wave of flying bombs on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv killing one person.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the apparent attack on Moscow, which one pro-Kremlin television commentator said, without citing sources, involved about 25 unmanned aircraft.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-air-defences-battle-fresh-wave-russian-attacks-2023-05-30/