Russia Invades Ukraine

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Re Nukes. If we, the West, don’t stop Putin now where do we stop him and how? Sanctions are something I think he is prepared to live with especially as China and India are dealing with him so to a greater extent sanctions useless.

From watching the media I wonder where the Ukraine military are especially there airforce. So many sitting duck targets of Russian military on the move. Seemingly Unguarded airports being taken over by Russian paratroopers. 
My armchair answers are that NATO need to go Russian on the Russians. Unmarked aircraft and other attack ordinance to take out forward Russian columns which the media take photos of and publish with ease. The Russian population won’t take kindly to large losses of men being sent home in body bags or urns. 
Russia have a huge military capability but to deploy them en mass leaves them easy targets as you can’t hide big numbers of troop movements. 
If Putin uses Nukes then there was no point in his aggression as the devastation would most likely leave large swathes of his country uninhabitable for decades due to the retaliatory strikes. 
Ultimately it’s up to the West to do something to stop him. 
 

 

I think it's more about stability in the world. 

 

US or Russia can invade Afghanistan and they only hurt themselves and the neighbours. 

 

US / NATO would face some resistance with conventional forces. But could defeat Russia fairly quickly. They have massive superiority. Assuming no one actually uses the Nukes.

 

But the knock on effect would be too dangerous. 

[AlphonseCapone]

Get this thread linked over to NATO. It's all solved here. Piece of piss. 

[Ulysses]

30 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

He then launches nukes to all and sundry. Much as I share your anger, this ain’t a good idea.

 

Indeed, it isn't.  What's the measured response that really puts pressure on Russia but doesn't escalate the nuclear option?  Is there such a thing?

 

(I'm not directing that at you, by the way.  It's a general question for the discussion.)

[Gizmo]

6 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Re Nukes. If we, the West, don’t stop Putin now where do we stop him and how? Sanctions are something I think he is prepared to live with especially as China and India are dealing with him so to a greater extent sanctions useless.

From watching the media I wonder where the Ukraine military are especially there airforce. So many sitting duck targets of Russian military on the move. Seemingly Unguarded airports being taken over by Russian paratroopers. 
My armchair answers are that NATO need to go Russian on the Russians. Unmarked aircraft and other attack ordinance to take out forward Russian columns which the media take photos of and publish with ease. The Russian population won’t take kindly to large losses of men being sent home in body bags or urns. 
Russia have a huge military capability but to deploy them en mass leaves them easy targets as you can’t hide big numbers of troop movements. 
If Putin uses Nukes then there was no point in his aggression as the devastation would most likely leave large swathes of his country uninhabitable for decades due to the retaliatory strikes. 
Ultimately it’s up to the West to do something to stop him. 
 

You are really not considering the consequences - if we could do something other than arm Ukraine and provide aid, whilst freezing Russian assets and money, applying sanctions and utilising cyber warfare against them, we would have.

Unmarked aircraft, is that really the most sophisticated method you can think of and who do you think it would fool? This would lead to WWIII in the blink of an eye.  

[FWJ]

21 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

The worst invention in human history. 

 

 

Maybe, and at the risk of sounding crass, tobacco kills 8 million annually.

[Jeffros Furios]

I'd rather they postponed the nukes until after the Scottish Cup final .

Would hate to see our glorious day ruined by radioactive fallout .

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Indeed, it isn't.  What's the measured response that really puts pressure on Russia but doesn't escalate the nuclear option?  Is there such a thing?

 

(I'm not directing that at you, by the way.  It's a general question for the discussion.)

 

The strategy seems to be regime change. 

 

US fixated on that as a way of getting its way. 

 

But stability could trump that. After the Arab Spring lost momentum the West accepted and supported an appalling and repressive Government in Egypt. And of course it tolerates and supports Saudi Arabia despite the biggest atrocities maybe alongside Syria. 

 

I think there is enough strength to stop Putin going beyond Ukraine. Everything will be done to limit him now. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Mikey1874

[Jeffros Furios]

27 minutes ago, indianajones said:

 

The worst invention in human history. 

 

 

After Hibs 

[Norm]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Dear sweet baby Jesus was there ever a medium and a man more unsuited to each other? 

 

If you gave that guy 23 books he'd fill them all and still never get to the ****ing point. 

 

Truly a man who - on his day, I stress - wastes words with a passion, dynamism, technique and pointlessness which no other message board poster in Europe can match.  Pity he doesn't post in Welsh. 

Had a cracking DVD collection though.... 

[Mister T]

And let's not forget russia tested a missile to take down satellites a month or so ago. Could be how they get revenge for getting booted out of the eurovision song contest but I doubt it. 

[FWJ]

18 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I think it's more about stability in the world. 

 

US or Russia can invade Afghanistan and they only hurt themselves and the neighbours. 

 

US / NATO would face some resistance with conventional forces. But could defeat Russia fairly quickly. They have massive superiority. Assuming no one actually uses the Nukes.

 

But the knock on effect would be too dangerous. 

Which is kinda the opposite of how things were in the 80s.  Back then it was thought the only way NATO could stop a Soviet advance through the North European Plain was with the use of ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons.

 

I thought we’d left those days behind.

[Francis Albert]

51 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Nuclear weaponry is truly terrifying. Why the **** do they exist? 

Because they can be. And they ended WW2 and have prevented anything on the scale of WW1 or WW2 since then. And will avoid the current crisis escalating into anything of that scale. 

[Tennant's 6's]

1 hour ago, Vlad Magic said:

Still can’t work out why NATO don’t just go in and fight them off?

 

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector,  gave an interview where he explained that, in his opinion, that NATO has been allowed to rot whilst the US has been kicking down doors in Iraq etc. 

 

Not sure how true that is but might explain the lack of response up until now

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, FWJ said:

Which is kinda the opposite of how things were in the 80s.  Back then it was thought the only way NATO could stop a Soviet advance through the North European Plain was with the use of ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons.

 

I thought we’d left those days behind.

We haven't. European land forces are no match for the Russians. The US may come to our rescue but then ... 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Francis Albert

[Tennant's 6's]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Because they can be. And they ended WW2 and have prevented anything on the scale of WW1 or WW2 since then. And will avoid the current crisis escalating into anything of that scale. 

Did they?

I thought that the japanese had pretty much surrendered to the US but Truman etc wanted to test them out, as each bomb was slightly different,  and wanted to see the effects and to send a message to the Soviets, even though they were supposedly still their allies at that time..

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

We haven't. European land forces are no match for the Russians. 

 

Russian land forces are no match for the Yanks. 

[Tazio]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

We haven't. European land forces are no match for the Russians. 

Nobody really knows that. The last proper war the Russians got involved in was their invasion of Afghanistan. And that didn’t go too well. They may have vast numbers but conscripts make up a lot of that. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Tennant's 6's said:

Did they?

I thought that the japanese had pretty much surrendered to the US but Truman etc wanted to test them out, as each bomb was slightly different,  and wanted to see the effects and to send a message to the Soviets, even though they were supposedly still their allies at that time..

That’s nearer the truth.

[Francis Albert]

4 minutes ago, Tennant's 6's said:

Did they?

I thought that the japanese had pretty much surrendered to the US but Truman etc wanted to test them out, as each bomb was slightly different,  and wanted to see the effects and to send a message to the Soviets, even though they were supposedly still their allies at that time..

Not sure that is how it was seen at the time. Certainly not by allied forces in the far East who had fought and were still fighting there.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Russian land forces are no match for the Yanks. 

The North Vietnamese were a match for US land forces. Despite overwhelming US air superiority.

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, Tennant's 6's said:

Did they?

I thought that the japanese had pretty much surrendered to the US but Truman etc wanted to test them out, as each bomb was slightly different,  and wanted to see the effects and to send a message to the Soviets, even though they were supposedly still their allies at that time..

What does "pretty much surrendered" mean?

Edited February 25, 2022 by Francis Albert

[Mikey1874]

Meanwhile lots of talk today. Not sure if any of it is honest brokering or just the PR war. 

 

 

[Tazio]

7 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

That’s nearer the truth.

I just discovered recently Nagasaki wasn’t even supposed to be a target. The city they were to drop the 2nd bomb on was under cloud cover so they just dropped it on the nearest one with good visibility. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just now, Tazio said:

I just discovered recently Nagasaki wasn’t even supposed to be a target. The city they were to drop the 2nd bomb on was under cloud cover so they just dropped it on the nearest one with good visibility. 

Didn’t know that.

[Lone Striker]

1 hour ago, Vlad Magic said:

Still can’t work out why NATO don’t just go in and fight them off?

 

Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

 

Nato forces made up of 30 countries right?

 

Putin cant retaliate against 30 countries. Where does he start? Who does he retaliate against first?

 

Its like getting into a bar room brawl after getting a whack on the jaw. You want to hit someone but you haven’t a clue who it was that hit you first!!

 

Just send the troops in. **** the Russians right up the arse and send a message to putin that your a ***** and deserve to be royally ****ed from behind. 
 

Then send NATO into Russia and take his nukes off him.

NATO is a defensive alliance - the exact opposite of Putin.    If NATO were to become the aggressor  in your scenario, it would almost certainly provoke all-out war (WW3) and attract other nutcase presidents to pick a side.  Would China just sit idly by ?         He's the ultimate bully though - even threatening any country who stands in his way, and  is now effectively blaming Ukrainians for the bloodshed his military will inflict.

 

Despite that,  I can't see Biden authorising a US black ops mission to try to kill him.

Mossad on the other hand .....

[jamb0_1874]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

So are Russia after total Ukranian control then as opposed to the 2 regions they bagsy'd?

I think they'll look to take control of everything to the east of the river that splits the country in two. Giving them a land bridge to Crimea.

[Don Dan]

29 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

You are really not considering the consequences - if we could do something other than arm Ukraine and provide aid, whilst freezing Russian assets and money, applying sanctions and utilising cyber warfare against them, we would have.

Unmarked aircraft, is that really the most sophisticated method you can think of and who do you think it would fool? This would lead to WWIII in the blink of an eye.  

Im well aware of the potential consequences, all out nuclear warfare which no one will win, however Putin does not appear to care about the consequences because he knows the consequences we will use are water of a ducks back to him. 
He has sat down over the past few years and worked out what or how the he thinks the West would retaliate. Because ultimately only the West has the power to repel him and he believes they won’t step in as his targets are not members of NATO. 
 

Unmarked Russian aircraft or soldiers are a regular player in Putin’s Handbook of incursions. We all know who they are but does anything ever get done about it, no. 
 

What’s the answer? We all have ideas and our own answers but are they correct? Who knows and ultimately you won’t know unless you try them out. 
 

 

[Victorian]

Putin knows the Russia vs NATO / NATO member or non-NATO ally / nuclear escalation calculus.  He knows very well the calculus involved in attacking a non-NATO ally,  as well as the different calculus of attacking a NATO member.  He knows that he can push NATO to the max by invading Ukraine with no risk of nuclear escalation.  NATO have the get-out of not being required to act through NATO articles.  It sets a new benchmark of lunacy.  He knows that invading a NATO member involves the possibility of nuclear escalation,  but the new benchmark of lunacy set in Ukraine will enable him to destabilise and interfere to a greater degree than before.  NATO and allies will have heightened concerns about what he'll do in the event of a hot war.

 

It's all part of the chess game he's been engaged in for years.  NATO could call his bluff when he's not expecting it but there doesn't tend to be a rewind button you can use once the ICBMs are in flight.  Putin knows it and is exploiting his advantage.  

[Greedy Jambo]

What is that all about? Just shooting folk for fun, it seems.

 

 

[Tennant's 6's]

15 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

NATO is a defensive alliance - the exact opposite of Putin.    If NATO were to become the aggressor  in your scenario, it would almost certainly provoke all-out war (WW3) and attract other nutcase presidents to pick a side.  Would China just sit idly by ?         He's the ultimate bully though - even threatening any country who stands in his way, and  is now effectively blaming Ukrainians for the bloodshed his military will inflict.

 

Despite that,  I can't see Biden authorising a US black ops mission to try to kill him.

Mossad on the other hand .....

Not what the people if Iraq or Lybia would say, helped destroy both those countries based on lies.

Joined an alliance with the UAE as well, which is just plain weird. 

 

And does israel not have close ties to Russia,  as well as having a stranglehold over Washington?

Somebody or some state needs to de escalate the shit outta this situation though,  that's for sure, before it gets even worse and they get more emboldened. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Tennant's 6's

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Didn’t know that.

Neither did I. But if a second bomb was considered justified it seems a rational decision. Stressing the word if.

[Lone Striker]

18 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Russian land forces are no match for the Yanks. 

Since they've never actually fought each other on the ground,  is there evidence for that ?       Anyway, weather and terrain can play a big part in  deciding which side wins a mega-battle.    The "home team" can use it to their advantage - plenty examples, like Vietnam and Afghanistan.  WW2 also,  when Hitler sent a huge army to try to take Stalingrad, but forgot how bad a Russian winter can be.

 

[redjambo]

13 minutes ago, Tazio said:

I just discovered recently Nagasaki wasn’t even supposed to be a target. The city they were to drop the 2nd bomb on was under cloud cover so they just dropped it on the nearest one with good visibility. 

 

As far as I am aware, Nagasaki was the third choice anyway after Hiroshima and Kokura. It *was* chosen on the day because Kokura had low visibility due to cloud cover, but it wasn't a case of "let's just bomb the nearest place we can find". They just switched to the third target.

[Greedy Jambo]

It's the fear of Putin doing something even more stupid (nukes) that is stopping anyone from intervening. 

Nato would crush them. 

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

It's the fear of Putin doing something even more stupid (nukes) that is stopping anyone from intervening. 

Nato would crush them. 

 

Spot on. But that's the reality we have to live with.

[Victorian]

11 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

It's the fear of Putin doing something even more stupid (nukes) that is stopping anyone from intervening. 

Nato would crush them. 

 

Of course.  NATO forces would batter the living **** out of Russia in a pound for pound conventional war.  Land,  sea and air.  A complete mis-match.

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Of course.  NATO forces would batter the living **** out of Russia in a pound for pound conventional war.  Land,  sea and air.  A complete mis-match.

Think the same would have been said of North Vietnam vs USA. In fact even more so. I wouldn't bet on it if our lives were at stake. 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Think the same would have been said of North Vietnam vs USA. In fact even more so. I wouldn't bet on it if our lives were at stake. 

 

It's hardly comparable.  Just like the Russians getting bogged down in Afghanistan.  

 

I'm talking about a straight up conventional war between two sides of modern,  mechanised,  regular forces.  

[Cade]

UAE, India and China abstain on vote in the UN Security Council to formally condemn Russia.

Russia votes against.

All other 11 members vote for.

Russia vetoes.

 

 

*btw Russia is currently the head of the UN Security Council as part of the rotating chair.

[Footballfirst]

China has unexpectedly abstained in a UN motion condemning Russia.  It leaves the Russians a bit more isolated than they may have expected.

[Cruyff]

The Ukrainians should seriously think about surrendering if Putin is going to start dropping bigger bombs on highly populated metropolitan areas in Kyiv etc... 

 

It seems the Ukrainians have put up a brave fight but is the carnage and destruction of their Cities worth it? 

 

Of course, it all depends on how the Ukrainians are doing. If they think they can force a Russian retreat or bog them down for years then maybe it's worth it but it looks a beyond grim for the Ukranians.

[Cruyff]

8 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Think the same would have been said of North Vietnam vs USA. In fact even more so. I wouldn't bet on it if our lives were at stake. 

Vietnam wasn't a Conventional war. 

[Tazio]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

The Ukrainians should seriously think about surrendering if Putin is going to start dropping bigger bombs on highly populated metropolitan areas in Kyiv etc... 

 

It seems the Ukrainians have put up a brave fight but is the carnage and destruction of their Cities worth it? 

 

Of course, it all depends on how the Ukrainians are doing. If they think they can force a Russian retreat or bog them down for years then maybe it's worth it but it looks a beyond grim for the Ukranians.

The Ukrainians don’t have the advantage of a specialist terrain to help them. There’s a reason it’s a major producer of grain crops. Massive wide open areas of flat ground. 

[Lone Striker]

14 minutes ago, Greedy Jambo said:

It's the fear of Putin doing something even more stupid (nukes) that is stopping anyone from intervening. 

Nato would crush them. 

Yes, but NATO need to have a legitimate reason to mobilise. Either a UN instruction or a process instigated by one of its member countries.  Ukraine isn't a member.   As  of now, no member state has been attacked, so they are not mobilised at the moment.   That would change if Putin's troops move into Poland or Lithuania etc

[Dagger Is Back]

54 minutes ago, jamb0_1874 said:

I think they'll look to take control of everything to the east of the river that splits the country in two. Giving them a land bridge to Crimea.

Exactly the scenario mentioned in BBC News

[1971fozzy]

Good message by BJ just released

[Cruyff]

Just now, Tazio said:

The Ukrainians don’t have the advantage of a specialist terrain to help them. There’s a reason it’s a major producer of grain crops. Massive wide open areas of flat ground. 

They don't have enough modern equipment or firepower. We've given them a few anti tank missiles and ground to air defence systems but they needed better tanks and planes to push them them back. I think Nato has maybe done them a disservice by not allowing them to defend themselves appropriately with newer equipment. It's clear no one was fully prepared for this happening. 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Jeffros Furios said:

I'd rather they postponed the nukes until after the Scottish Cup final .

Would hate to see our glorious day ruined by radioactive fallout .

 

Feck me, it'd be our luck to be 1-0 up in injury time, when suddenly:

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Vietnam wasn't a Conventional war. 

Nuclear weapons were involved? The definition of a conventional war is surely one not involving nuclear weapons?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Norm said:

Had a cracking DVD collection though....