Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
ubersonic said:
So, basically he was going around collecting information to support the stance of the pro-EU government in Kiev and was detained by the separatists for it (I'm not sure you can really call it abducted if you are acting on behalf of one side in an uprising and the other detains you for it).

The funny thing is that his evidence only proves that a few of the anti-EU fighters are from Russia and are adamant they were not sent by Russia but came of their own free will (to aid their fellow cossacks) which we already knew. In WW1 the were Americans coming to fight long before the US joined the war.
Click to expand...

So basically collecting information is OK as long as it supports the stance of pro-Russia protestors? Interesting that this is exactly the same position taken by the thugs who have taken control of a TV station in eastern Ukraine - we didn't like what they were saying so now we'll control what they say.

Does this mean that it's OK for Russia Today presenters to be abducted by pro-democracy protestors?
 
scorza said:
So basically collecting information is OK as long as it supports the stance of pro-Russia protestors?
Click to expand...

I never said it was ok/bad depending on the side doing it, just that both sides were doing it. If you go snooping around when a country is on the verge of civil war attempting to build a journalistic case in favour of one side then don't be surprised if the other side takes objection. The pro-EU lot have detained pro-Russias and bullied the media too. I'm not saying it's good in either case just that both sides are doing it and it is normal in these circumstances.


scorza said:
Interesting that this is exactly the same position taken by the thugs who have taken control of a TV station in eastern Ukraine - we didn't like what they were saying so now we'll control what they say.
Click to expand...

Actually the position they took was that the TV station in a pro-Russian city (that they lived in) was broadcasting anti-Russian propaganda, and they decided to put a stop to it.

It sounds heavy handed but the TV station was basically attempting to tell the whole of Ukraine the Kiev line that all the separatists are Russian soldiers in disguise, something that was obviously not going to sit well with the actual separatists.


scorza said:
Does this mean that it's OK for Russia Today presenters to be abducted by pro-democracy protestors?
Click to expand...

If they are going around Kiev attempting to build a case against the pro-EU government there, then I would fully expect them to be detained, whether it would be OK or not is a matter of personal preference, I think not but many would.


scorza said:
More bad news out of Ukraine with the former pro-Moscow mayor of Kharkiv shot by unidentified gunmen. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27185085
Click to expand...

That's bad :(

Here's hoping he pulls through, if not Russia may use that as grounds for invasion "pro-Russian politicians getting shot by the Kiev Nazi's, must protect our ppls, blah blah blah".
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Here's hoping he pulls through, if not Russia may use that as grounds for invasion "pro-Russian politicians getting shot by the Kiev Nazi's, must protect our ppls, blah blah blah".
Click to expand...

If the Russians wanted to intervene to protect an outspoken Kiev supporter, a better course of action would be to withdraw support for the separatist "militias". :rolleyes:
 
Zethor said:
If the Russians wanted to intervene to protect an outspoken Kiev supporter, a better course of action would be to withdraw support for the separatist "militias". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Got any links? Scorza's has him down as pro-Russia and most of the articles I have seen him mentioned in support that (anti-Yankovich but still pro-Russia, he's even been accused of spreading separatism).

Also it's been pointed out in the news that as the guy used to be a mob boss this could simply be part of his past catching up to him and unrelated to current events.
 
ubersonic said:
Got any links? Scorza's has him down as pro-Russia and most of the articles I have seen him mentioned in support that (anti-Yankovich but still pro-Russia, he's even been accused of spreading separatism).

Also it's been pointed out in the news that as the guy used to be a mob boss this could simply be part of his past catching up to him and unrelated to current events.
Click to expand...

Bbc says he was pro Russian but then changed to pro united Ukraine

Mr Kernes used to be a supporter of the former pro-Moscow President Viktor Yanukovych. He then dropped his support for the ousted president in favour of a united Ukraine.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27185085
 
Apparently he supported the ex-PM but switched sides to support a united ukraine. So it was the pro-russians who shot him, conspiracy theories excepted.
 
Not to split hairs but that says he backed a pro-Moscow president then turned on him and that he is in favour of a united Ukraine, that doesn't mean he isn't still pro-Russia himself and he has recently voice his opinion that Russia's government is better than the one in Kiev.

Also does anyone know what happened to him yet? so far the news agency's can't agree if he was jogging/cycling/swimming when he was shot lol.
 
arknor said:
and if those 2 planes had dropped any nuclear bombs they might as well ditch in the sea because there wouldn't be a Russia to return to
Click to expand...

Obviously you'd hit military and infrastructure hubs/cities for maximum impact and this doesn't really take into account the suitability of land to live on in the first place - but we have the nuclear capabilities to turn... 1.5% of the land mass of Russia into an unliveable wasteland whereas the Russians can turn the UK into an unliveable wasteland 1000% - or about 10x over just to be sure.

(I'm not banking on anyone else coming to our aid, for all our faults our country is one of the first to rush to the aid of another but the truth is very few would return the favor in a situation like that).
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Obviously you'd hit military and infrastructure hubs/cities for maximum impact and this doesn't really take into account the suitability of land to live on in the first place - but we have the nuclear capabilities to turn... 1.5% of the land mass of Russia into an unliveable wasteland whereas the Russians can turn the UK into an unliveable wasteland 1000% - or about 10x over just to be sure.

(I'm not banking on anyone else coming to our aid, for all our faults our country is one of the first to rush to the aid of another but the truth is very few would return the favor in a situation like that).
Click to expand...

Russia probably has 10-20 ICBMs ready for use with up to date technology, at any given time. The rest of the hundreds of warheads are a threat only if delivered by bombers (which are easily detectable nowadays) or submarines (which are becoming old and unreliable). The US/Uk have more advanced rocket technology, stealth bombers, cruisers and various secret projects we are not aware of, which means that, in the event of a conflict, Russia would probably see at least 10 bombs for each bomb they manage to set off themselves.

The US has more advanced military capabilities and more firepower than the rest of the world combined, let alone Russia with its minuscule economy.

That being said, if any country uses a nuclear bomb, the rest of them will gang up on it instantly, friend or foe - nobody wants to live in a wasteland.
 
Zethor said:
Russia probably has 10-20 ICBMs ready for use with up to date technology, at any given time. The rest of the hundreds of warheads are a threat only if delivered by bombers (which are easily detectable nowadays) or submarines (which are becoming old and unreliable).
Click to expand...

You do understand that those bombers, including the propeller driven "Bears" mentioned earlier, are all capable of launching nuclear cruise missiles from outside our airspace right? we can't just go off flying around international airspace shooting down bombers on routine patrol. Add to that that Tu-160's could get here undetected and Russias bomber wings are not as laughable any more, especially considering that just one of them could hit six of our cities with nukes 13x as powerful as the ones used in WW2.

And for reference Russia/America both have ~ the same amount of ICBM/MRBM/SRBM missiles as per a disarmament treaty.
 
Zethor said:
The US/Uk have more advanced rocket technology
Click to expand...

Explains why we both use Russian rockets to go to space...


Zethor said:
stealth bombers
Click to expand...

The F-117 can and has been shot down by Russia, as can the SR-71 (why it never flew over the USSR) and the F-22, and the B-2 Spirit.


Zethor said:
The US has more advanced military capabilities and more firepower than the rest of the world combined
Click to expand...

So far from being true it's genuinely funny :P
 
ubersonic said:
Explains why we both use Russian rockets to go to space...




The F-117 can and has been shot down by Russia, as can the SR-71 (why it never flew over the USSR) and the F-22, and the B-2 Spirit.




So far from being true it's genuinely funny :P
Click to expand...

1, cost
2, a bomber doesn't have to fly over russia to bomb russia.
3, maybe I missed a hidden funny?
 
Rroff said:
Obviously you'd hit military and infrastructure hubs/cities for maximum impact and this doesn't really take into account the suitability of land to live on in the first place - but we have the nuclear capabilities to turn... 1.5% of the land mass of Russia into an unliveable wasteland whereas the Russians can turn the UK into an unliveable wasteland 1000% - or about 10x over just to be sure.

(I'm not banking on anyone else coming to our aid, for all our faults our country is one of the first to rush to the aid of another but the truth is very few would return the favor in a situation like that).
Click to expand...

Why would we want to nuke more than 1.5% of Russias land mass? I would imagine 99% of it is unhabited/isolated/insignificant.
 
ubersonic said:
The F-117 can and has been shot down by Russia, as can the SR-71 (why it never flew over the USSR) and the F-22, and the B-2 Spirit.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, just when did the Russians manage to down a F-117? As far as I can remember, the only reported F-117 loss to enemy action was over Yugoslavia and was carried out by the by the 250th ADMB, a Yugoslavian army unit.
 
Zethor said:
Russia probably has 10-20 ICBMs ready for use with up to date technology
Click to expand...

Scorza, whatever keeps you sleeping at night :p

Russia is so weak and incapable of anything, why havent we just invaded them?? I mean whats the risk?? Their nuclear weapons are all rusted to the core and will just explode in silos right? At best they`ll launch 1 rocket with fingers crossed which will be immediately shot down by superior western technology.
 
Zethor said:
or submarines (which are becoming old and unreliable).
Click to expand...

Poor guy forgot that ALL UK Nuclear Arsenal is stationed on 4? Vanguard Submarines.... With only 1 being at sea :D:D:D

Oh I mean, since its UK submarine its like a spaceship compared to Russian submarines which are like a shoe floating in the water... Right?

Russian drunk captain will just end up nuking Moscow by mistake instead of London. Yep. That is of-course if they happen to find a crew to man the sub... Otherwise its gna have to be bears again....
 
Last edited:
Malevolence said:
I'm curious, just when did the Russians manage to down a F-117? As far as I can remember, the only reported F-117 loss to enemy action was over Yugoslavia and was carried out by the by the 250th ADMB, a Yugoslavian army unit.
Click to expand...

That was meant to say it can be shot down by Russia and has been shot down by Russian hardware, my bad for not being clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom