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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Annnnnnnnnnnd there goes all the good will Erdogan has garnered these past few months.

"We are following the developments regarding Sweden and Finland, but we don't hold positive views.
As Turkey, we don't want to repeat similar mistakes. Furthermore, Scandinavian countries are guesthouses for terrorist organisations.
They are even members of the parliament in some countries. It is not possible for us to be in favour."

Rodent. Lavrov must have been in touch. Having said that I imagine he'll back off further down the line. Can't be seen to be to enamored with the prospect when he's trying to balance his position between both East and West
 
Last edited:
DrToffnar said:
I think so. The threat of a joint NATO response would be absolutely crushing, that's sort of the point. It can't really be matched as a deterrent.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be a bigger deal, however something like the Nordic Defence Cooperation could be amended for mutual defense then the UK and USA should join, what are Russia going to do against the top two spenders in NATO.
 
Mahonyy said:
Can we kick Turkey out and get Finland and Sweden in? Win-win
Click to expand...
As much as I'd like to see that considering what an asshat Erdogan is and all the stupid things Turkey does, unfortunately they do sit in a rather strategically important location. If they decided to formally realign with Russia, or some other middle Eastern power they're in a really good location to cause problems.

A lot of the rhetoric about stopping Russia from occupying another country probably has them feeling a bit self conscious considering the situation in Cyprus :p
 
BowdonUK said:
I see Turkey have said its against Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Click to expand...

"Would not welcome" is an interesting choice of words. I don't think they're going to veto it, but I wouldn't be surprised for there to be some behind the scenes deal on something Turkey cares about as the price.

If they do veto, I expect the rest of NATO to just go right ahead and sign a mutual defence pact with Finland and Sweden without Turkey.
 
Was reading yesterday the US think Russia are planning / digging in for the long run.

We’ve been told Russia are running low on pretty much everything, and the amount of reported losses like the bridge crossing above are staggering.

The two don’t seem compatible, what is a likely outcome here?
 
Craterloads said:
Was reading yesterday the US think Russia are planning / digging in for the long run.

We’ve been told Russia are running low on pretty much everything, and the amount of reported losses like the bridge crossing above are staggering.

The two don’t seem compatible, what is a likely outcome here?
Click to expand...

Holding what territory they've taken/will take in the coming weeks takes considerably less equipment and manpower then opening new fronts or advancing to any significant extent. The reports are being deliberately vague I imagine but it's hard to see them making further steps towards Kyiv, even in ideal circumstances just yet. They're likely waiting on Western resolve to soften before they mount any new ambitions. It's why they refuses to state any specific aims for the 'operation', it's design to be open ended.
Or they just want enough public support at home so they can push for a general mobilization, but that appears the less likely option at the moment.
At the very least they'll want to hold the Donbas and open up this land corridor to Crimea. I can't see Putin walking away with any less.
 
Craterloads said:
Was reading yesterday the US think Russia are planning / digging in for the long run.

We’ve been told Russia are running low on pretty much everything, and the amount of reported losses like the bridge crossing above are staggering.

The two don’t seem compatible, what is a likely outcome here?
Click to expand...

My radon filled crystal ball says nukes of the tactical type. Low radiation and fallout to minimise desolation of the land.

Once they've run out of current options and equipment they'll use what they have left. Desperate measures.
 
DrToffnar said:
but it's hard to see them making further steps towards Kyiv, even in ideal circumstances just yet.
Click to expand...

Defended by an effective force who've had time to prepare on paper attacking Kyiv would need 100s of thousands of Russian troops. When Russian forces were advancing from the north they had just over 30K soldiers + some support while Ukraine had over 40K regular forces they could bring to that fight and more irregular/volunteer forces in the area...

Some say it was a diversionary effort but with that convoy I'm not convinced - I think it was kicked off under the notion that once Ukraine faced a military force the majority of their forces would be intimidated into putting down their weapons and there was too much inertia to change course once that didn't happen (they were still shipping in riot/public disobedience control gear, etc. when their soldiers were begging for fuel and ammo).

DrToffnar said:
Holding what territory they've taken/will take in the coming weeks takes considerably less equipment and manpower then opening new fronts or advancing to any significant extent.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is going to be enough of a reduction - within 6 months Russia is still going to have to make some serious decisions on how to proceed. If they can't control the skies over those areas they are going to come under serious pressure in the longer run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom