So you want to be the country that's at the forefront of proving military ordinance and also throw open the borders.
What could go wrong.
In my eyes it can only ever be one or the other. The supply of weapons is a massive security risk.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
So you want to be the country that's at the forefront of proving military ordinance and also throw open the borders.
What could go wrong.
In my eyes it can only ever be one or the other. The supply of weapons is a massive security risk.
The supply of weapons is limited because without NATO engagement, I suspect NATO security analysts on the ground would suggest they have won the battle but not the war - meaning that there is a chance of weapons systems falling into Putin's or China's hands. Russia & China's weapons development actually depends on stealing the weapon or the design. However reverse engineering takes time and that's why they are 1-2 generations behind. That was the statement from a public US military report.
Given that the bungled Ukraine invasion is stage 1 of a game play plan involving Russia and China. I suspect China was interested in how a military intervention would go in preparation for Taiwan, but given China has decided to increase it's stock piles of nuclear weapons, it seems that China sees the Nuclear button as the way to safeguard it's desire for Taiwan and/or other countries from allies but also protect against Putin's border-conflict. China sees the conflict evolving so influence through "silk road" has switched to target cheaper options for resources, it can sell it's older generation military equipment to them for their own local conflicts and underpin its currently fragile economy. China and the world (including russia) would have a problem if China was sanctioned now - thus the US and western countries are looking reducing dependencies. China is concerned with Russia - after all it's been demonstrated with Belarus that China's border with Russia is not the only border that could be used during conflicts with Russia's allies acting as conduits.
In the last week the US gave Taiwan a Patriot system too, giving ample time for training.
My concern is, given Australia's production of Uranium, if China has eyes all the way down the islands such as Singapore etc to Australia. However with a Woke Australia, I think it will not be too long for Australia to take Nuclear weapons as a deterrent for China, going against their core stance on Nuclear Weapons. It seems nuclear subs are the first step, a nuclear sub that is capable of nuclear launches would be the best option where ballistic missiles or sub launched hypersonic could be carried later.
China needs resources to fuel it's manufacturing economy.. that's a big motivator for expanding militarily if political corruption and commercials don't work out.. having a look at the latest weapons in the arsenals of the defending countries would be very beneficial to China.
Ukraine, politically, has been subservient to Russia in that it's been willing to not be a NATO/EU country as part of negotiations. That would have reinforced parts of the NATO/EU analysis risk assessment that highlight the possibility of loosing arms to Russia/China during peace time.
Ukrainians are dying. Countries are providing arms as they can/willing to allow Ukrainians to defend their country.
Ukraine will need economic aid given 50% of their economy is gone, they have lost skillsets through conscripting into the military. So the military help is the tip of the iceberg.
Given that the bungled Ukraine invasion is stage 1 of a game play plan involving Russia and China. I suspect China was interested in how a military intervention would go in preparation for Taiwan, but given China has decided to increase it's stock piles of nuclear weapons, it seems that China sees the Nuclear button as the way to safeguard it's desire for Taiwan and/or other countries from allies but also protect against Putin's border-conflict. China sees the conflict evolving so influence through "silk road" has switched to target cheaper options for resources, it can sell it's older generation military equipment to them for their own local conflicts and underpin its currently fragile economy. China and the world (including russia) would have a problem if China was sanctioned now - thus the US and western countries are looking reducing dependencies. China is concerned with Russia - after all it's been demonstrated with Belarus that China's border with Russia is not the only border that could be used during conflicts with Russia's allies acting as conduits.
In the last week the US gave Taiwan a Patriot system too, giving ample time for training.
My concern is, given Australia's production of Uranium, if China has eyes all the way down the islands such as Singapore etc to Australia. However with a Woke Australia, I think it will not be too long for Australia to take Nuclear weapons as a deterrent for China, going against their core stance on Nuclear Weapons. It seems nuclear subs are the first step, a nuclear sub that is capable of nuclear launches would be the best option where ballistic missiles or sub launched hypersonic could be carried later.
China needs resources to fuel it's manufacturing economy.. that's a big motivator for expanding militarily if political corruption and commercials don't work out.. having a look at the latest weapons in the arsenals of the defending countries would be very beneficial to China.
Ukraine, politically, has been subservient to Russia in that it's been willing to not be a NATO/EU country as part of negotiations. That would have reinforced parts of the NATO/EU analysis risk assessment that highlight the possibility of loosing arms to Russia/China during peace time.
Ukrainians are dying. Countries are providing arms as they can/willing to allow Ukrainians to defend their country.
Ukraine will need economic aid given 50% of their economy is gone, they have lost skillsets through conscripting into the military. So the military help is the tip of the iceberg.
Last edited:
I find it a bit odd that Russia seemingly had the luxury of the time and place of their choosing within reason and it would suit China best if they were more closely coordinated. All the information at the moment seems to suggest China is still some way from a realistic invasion of Taiwan short of maybe all out war - trying to do it now would be several orders of magnitude more costly (not that always puts off leaders like Russia and China have) compared to a few years when they have the airbases and amphibious assault capabilities in place and scaled up.
Probably one of the reasons the US is sitting back somewhat is it would play into China's hands if the US got too tangled up in it and maybe something China hoped/hopes for.
A lot of the Russian soldiers who've been taken prisoner from the northern campaign apparently had orders to capture and hold strategic objects (i.e. river crossings, railways, etc.) on the road to and up to the approaches to Kyiv in 3-5 days after which they were told a bigger force would be moving in behind them. Some serious screw ups somewhere there given they had plenty of time to organise and take stock of the situation. Unless the intention was to try and draw in NATO, etc.
What a ridiculously stupid argument
Longer term he is right. Military platforms stay in service for 20-60 years with slow evolution. Technology is driving a faster smaller more capable anti-platform capability (all missiles are anti-something). Loosing systems for teardown and analysis can at worst reduce the lifetime advantage, possibly with a zero-day threat, and at best be used against you in the current battle.
When mixed with intel it gives a good timeline planning for any military action you want to perform - allowing you to plan the best point when forces are weakest.
The US, like China, are a influence and let the locals battle it out. If they can extend negotiations/influence through a fast pinpoint battle then they will. Kuwait was an example. However they don't like Vietnam long drawn out wars that have no commercial viability for them. Strategically the pinpoint battles also provide a training opportunity and weapons demonstration for military sales. Just not too often and if commercial/political gain is high enough.
The US doesn't want China to turn Taiwan into a big military base with the world manufacture of semiconductors being held as a shield. It also doesn't want the island and the seas around being peppered with sensor technology or long range missiles enforcing the control over the South China seas. What would be international waters would then become non-international waters pretty quick as China seeks to control resources.
What a ridiculously stupid argument
You can't do both. It's as simple as that. We're being singled out by both Ukraine and Russia as the main military ally. Whether or not you agree with it we need to be as careful as we can be, particularly as Russia is already accused of discharging chemical weapons on our soil.
I'm happy either way to help militarily or help refugees, I don't see how we can safely do both, particularly when you have the likes of the Germans unable to do anything due to gas dependance.
That is a good point, Russia certainly held out that Britain would be the cause of a Nuclear escalation earlier on. Britain has been blamed for not allowing a UN discussion on alleged atrocities for them to defend. Britain is a major target for Russian terrorism. The UK has been the most hostile to Putin since the Salisbury attack and before to the polonium poisoning on our soil. We need to control our borders better.
We definitely need to be careful we aren't dismissive that there will be cause and effect - Russia pretty much always tries to answer tit for tat. That said the way things have gone so far they might want to exercise some caution.
Yea most likely.
But Israel is 9th biggest arms dealer in the world, that's why its really good news they sided with Ukraine.
Of course you can
What's your thought, that Russian infiltrators will disguise themselves as Ukrainian refugees to get into the country? Lol I think any Russian operatives will have far easier ways of getting into the country if they wish.So Russia would only want to infiltrate the main ally, not all the other EU countries who have supplied aid and thrown open the doors to Visa free access for war refugees. Got it
What refugees were they disguised as to be able to get into the country?
I dont believe you, it'd just be another excuse as to why you wouldn't want them here.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
If they want tit for tat wouldn't we have to kill thousands of their civilians?
And then use Chemical weapon attacks on their soil?
Or do you mean we should continue to pucker up and let them do what they want to us and other countries- which isn't tit for tat.
Think you are reading my post wrong.
Hmm, historically the "special relationship" with Regan and Thatcher provided the basis of Cold War hostilities. Prior to that pretty much Russia has had a beef with Sweden, Finland, Germany, France.. and that's just this side of of Russia's borders. The UK also has, still, quite a formidable intelligence capability - especially when combined with the five eyes and sharing with the EU members.
All politicians want to be seen to be committing military action as a self defence or in a humanitarian assistance to allies or innocents. It wins respect, favour and votes. Putin has been careful not to appear like Hitler in saying in promoting that the Russian people are above everyone else, then using that to promote conquest. I suspect the Russians understand the Soviet era and modern Putin-republic-of-russia with a healthy slap of teaching about Nazi and Hitler.
As Putin only understands force - given that they have separated the UK from the EU, it stands to reason that the UK is the easy target to point fingers at without pointing a finger at the far larger EU set of countries on their doorstep. Putin knows that there is an easy divide to exploit between the UK and the EU.
Putin has not stayed on top for 20 years without, not just simply knowing the game, but writing the rules for it. That intelligence game is one that the UK and others play heavily in.
I'm not sure you could suggest Brexit would be a good security deterrent. It's not. Those security protocols and intelligence would be there with or without Brexit borders.
Better don the lead lined asbestos unicorn onesie then.
The danger is this is Putin's day of microscope attention, privately by individuals, so he needs to show power and achievement.
Putin will probably pull out the big weapons to make a point, claim victory over the Nazis in the Ukraine (being Nazi-oreintated victory day) whilst looking remarkably like the Nuremberg rally. However at the back of the FSB's mind is that the same event would be a perfect time for any military revolution..
The war will continue, Putin will continue to attempt to angle the war to claim repeated victories and resources.
Austria also has a vested interest in maintaining relations due to sourcing 80% of its gas from Russia. Less likely for events to run away from you if you are in the diplomatic driving seat.
“We are very much dependent on the Russian gas, and I think all sanctions that hit us more than the Russians wouldn’t be good for us,” Magnus Brunner [Austria’s finance minister] told reporters ahead of a Eurogroup gathering of eurozone peers in the Grand Duchy. “That’s why we’re against the sanctions in the oil and gas.”
world-europe-61051307
An interesting point if Boris is extinguishing or simply piddling on the fire.
Ellwood simply states the blindingly obvious. However with a nuclear option there is no "escalatory control" other than push the button. Which is why the focus on economics as a weapon.
I don't see Austria doing anything to undermine unity here. I'm sure they will talk with other partners before and after.
I know some people will be upset with the optics of this, just like they were upset with Macron talking to Putin, but it's important to keep lines of communication open and - whilst remote - there is some prospect of making useful progress in bringing about peace.
You always want sanctions to hurt your target more than yourself; it doesn't make sense to choose sanctions that have the opposite effect.
It's not actually approved yet, it needs to go through the House of Reps and they are on a 2-week break.
Ah, okay, I missed that. Still huge though, I don't see the Reps declining it, do you? The Ukraine support bills so far have had massive cross-party support in both houses.
- Status