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

[alchal]

On a more serious note I hope the recent talk about increasing our nuclear arsenal isn't in response to background information about stuff like this with the intention of keeping pending likely conflict remote and conventional.



Russia doesn't need to move S-400 forward their existing installations are within range for general purposes additionally can be complimented by more mobile assets for point defence, etc.

Russia has only moved around 1/10th of the assets up though compared to what they'd need for a larger scale incursion never mind full scale invasion but coming up to the time of year where conditions are more favourable for heavy armour movement and a longer campaign so always a bit concerning. If something bigger scale does happen probably more towards May with less risk of weather bogging things down.

I'll admit I've not looked into where their s400 units are placed in that region.
How much in the way of heavy armour arty do the ' separatists ' have in the region.

I've read that crimea is having a major drought due to a major canal from the Ukrainian mainland side being cut off, possibly could be planning an incursion to secure this?

 

[mmj_uk]

Western nations are being torn apart from within by divisive politics and infighting, in the coming weeks Russia could literally roll into Ukraine and we'd be too busy dousing the flames from George Floyd protests/riots. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on Taiwan as well.

 

[alchal]

Western nations are being torn apart from within by divisive politics and infighting, in the coming weeks Russia could literally roll into Ukraine and we'd be too busy dousing the flames from George Floyd protests/riots. I wouldn't be surprised if China made a move on Taiwan as well.

+1 Russian or belurisan forces have moved to the border with the Ukrainian now apparently for an exercise, be interesting to see if they go hand in hand with Russia in this.

 

[lemonkettaz]

This is just a standard world view of the west on decline and have been so for a while now.

Russia and also China will increase their footprint in the world in the coming years it's no surprise.

I just hope we start switching on soon, as in the west/UK.

Considering this is an age of information the UK/US general population have such a narrow view of the world bordering self importance, quite interesting really.

In for an interesting couple of decades I think.

 

[Rroff]

Most commentators seem to be of the opinion now this is geopolitical posturing.

Agree with the above though - the West is slowly disappearing up its own rear when it comes to this stuff, increasingly blind, complacent and resting on hubris while the rest of the world is starting to push the boundaries again and see what they can get away with - every time we let the little stuff slide the more likely we are going to have to confront stuff in a bigger, far more devastating/costly way down the line... reminds me of something else :s

And as the West fragments with internal disputes the less effective it will be at responding when it needs to - we are far from watchful enough when it comes to the forces sowing subversion within.

 

[clv101]

WRT Ukraine, the most interesting book I read last year was Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers by Andy Greenberg [link]. Russia has been trailing/developing information warfare techniques in Ukraine for years. I fear the UK might be a soft target.

 

[RoboCod]

Most commentators seem to be of the opinion now this is geopolitical posturing.

Agree with the above though - the West is slowly disappearing up its own rear when it comes to this stuff, increasingly blind, complacent and resting on hubris while the rest of the world is starting to push the boundaries again and see what they can get away with - every time we let the little stuff slide the more likely we are going to have to confront stuff in a bigger, far more devastating/costly way down the line... reminds me of something else :s

And as the West fragments with internal disputes the less effective it will be at responding when it needs to - we are far from watchful enough when it comes to the forces sowing subversion within.

The battle field has changed massively though, what with cyber and space. It would be folly to assume something like a WW2 scenario happening again. Just because the west appears impotent in terms of big pointy sticks doesn't mean it isn't fully capable of stopping an adversary. The question we ought to ask is, do they actually want to stop them doing these 'little' skirmishes and annexing whole countries? I think in the bigger picture, the west doesn't care too much or doesn't consider the risks worth it yet.

 

[Rroff]

It would be folly to assume something like a WW2 scenario happening again.

I think it equally folly to think it can't - even though the stakes, etc. are high these days. A good part of why WW2 happened was because so many thought another war like that just couldn't happen after the horrors of WW1, with the vast march of global trade, communications, etc. slowly things slid to a place they couldn't come back from.

 

[RoboCod]

I think it equally folly to think it can't - even though the stakes, etc. are high these days. A good part of why WW2 happened was because so many thought another war like that just couldn't happen after the horrors of WW1, with the vast march of global trade, communications, etc. slowly things slid to a place they couldn't come back from.

I meant if a WW began, it wouldn't be anything like 100 years ago. So just because the West doesn't look as "punchy" with rockets, tanks and planes now, it doesn't mean we are impotent to react. We could probably shut down anything before it escalated to that point.

 

[Rroff]

I meant if a WW began, it wouldn't be anything like 100 years ago. So just because the West doesn't look as "punchy" with rockets, tanks and planes now, it doesn't mean we are impotent to react. We could probably shut down anything before it escalated to that point.

That gets into very complex territory with many variables - none the less there are complications as to the development and supply of equipment and components which would seriously impact large scale conflict.

 

[clv101]

When it come to cyber, I think the west is less prepared and more vulnerable compared to traditional warfare.

 

[RoboCod]

When it come to cyber, I think the west is less prepared and more vulnerable compared to traditional warfare.

Sure, but you could say the same for any entity, region or state.

 

[Jono8]

I think it equally folly to think it can't - even though the stakes, etc. are high these days. A good part of why WW2 happened was because so many thought another war like that just couldn't happen after the horrors of WW1, with the vast march of global trade, communications, etc. slowly things slid to a place they couldn't come back from.

I think nuclear weapons make the situation vastly different to the outbreak of ww2.

All parties now know that a full scale war likely leads to the annihilation of the planet/the human race.

There is no conceivable way to "win" anymore.

 

[Hagar]

I think nuclear weapons make the situation vastly different to the outbreak of ww2.

All parties now know that a full scale war likely leads to the annihilation of the planet/the human race.

There is no conceivable way to "win" anymore.

Remember the neutron bomb, kills everyone in the locality but minimises structural damage.

Reagan era weapon.

 

[alchal]

I think nuclear weapons make the situation vastly different to the outbreak of ww2.

All parties now know that a full scale war likely leads to the annihilation of the planet/the human race.

There is no conceivable way to "win" anymore.

Modern warheads are smaller yield missiles and fewer, early ones ment the end due to that fact the missiles were inaccurate so for example a city would receive 3-4 warheads with the hope one would hit bullseye then you obviously multiply that up, so thinking nowadays is ,yes bad but not the end of civilization worldwide.

Still no one knows how many missiles would actually work,make it or indeed go off.
Russia has had a few ' not work ' especially the super duper unkillable elite of the elite amazeballs ones

 

[adam cool dude]

Modern warheads are smaller yield missiles and fewer, early ones ment the end due to that fact the missiles were inaccurate so for example a city would receive 3-4 warheads with the hope one would hit bullseye then you obviously multiply that up, so thinking nowadays is ,yes bad but not the end of civilization worldwide.

Still no one knows how many missiles would actually work,make it or indeed go off.
Russia has had a few ' not work ' especially the super duper unkillable elite of the elite amazeballs ones

Maybe but I bet the Russians have a Tsar Bomba on back order ready just in case.

 

[Jono8]

Modern warheads are smaller yield missiles and fewer, early ones ment the end due to that fact the missiles were inaccurate so for example a city would receive 3-4 warheads with the hope one would hit bullseye then you obviously multiply that up, so thinking nowadays is ,yes bad but not the end of civilization worldwide.

Still no one knows how many missiles would actually work,make it or indeed go off.
Russia has had a few ' not work ' especially the super duper unkillable elite of the elite amazeballs ones

The size of the warheads is irrelevant really. The superpowers have enough nuclear weapons to wipe everything out 100x over.

The concept of a large war is therefore drastically different to before WW2 started. ie What is the point in going to war, when you know that it is quite possible for your enemy to annihilate you and the ability for the world to support human life, the instant it looks like they will lose.

I am not suggesting world war 3 is not going to happen. I was just replying to the post about WW2, as the circumstances now are vastly different to any time in history, so it isn't really comparable. The consequences to another large scale war are now potentially world ending for either side.

 

[StriderX]

If Russia nuked Kyiv... would we retaliate?

No, I seriously doubt we would and that would be a fatal mistake.

That is ignoring the problem of North Korea as well which has a border with both of the West's principle rivals. As such they can act as a funnel for uranium/plutonium/bombs through which any evidence would be traced to deposits in North Korea, leaving both countries free to act behind the threat of MAD while they annex countries with minimal resistance.

I'm not sure if this is inevitable or not, but I think the threat is real.

 

[alchal]

With the asymmetric way of warfare Russia is now using then its a possibility.

 

[PlacidCasual]

If Russia nuked Kyiv... would we retaliate?

How would you threaten a country that has thousands of nukes and has just used them? I can only see economic sanctiosn personally, the risk of threatening a nuclear power just isn't worth it. Better to build a massive coalition to deny them every possible resource.