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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firestar_3x said:
So the first point to establish here is: Ukraine are fighting this war based on determination to survive, this is evident by how well the Ukraine army is operating vs a force who simply has no will to fight. NATO are not forcing Ukraine to fight.

Therefore we should continue to support Ukraine, both in terms of ability to defend existing land and reclaim lost territory, the solution and way out of this war is to form a uniform front, punish Russia and make it understand the cost of it's actions and give Russia an offramp.

1. Keep supporting Ukraine with training, gear and money.
2. Continue to spell out to Russia that it will be a pariah state unless it plays by international norms.
3. Continue to ramp up the political and financial costs to Russia.
4. Allow Ukraine to try and win this fight without getting NATO involved in the conflict.
5. Start to set a path forward for Russia, i.e. political change means a slow re-integration into the rest of the world.
6. If Russia crosses a red line, i.e. attacks or invades a NATO country then get involved in the conflict.

Russia entered this conflict based on the opinion Europe was politically divided, relations with the US was poor and due to this we would never come together to appose any Russia incursions.

The above has proven to be one of the largest military blunders of recent history, Putin needs to understand that NATO are willing to go the whole way with this, i.e. nuclear conflict if needed, anything else and Russia will just see weakness and continue to exploit its nuclear position.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time for a good reply.
This doesn't reak of gung-ho bs. Why don't others try to be rational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B&W
Efour said:
This doesn't reak of gung-ho bs. Why don't others try to be rational.
Click to expand...
A3zgwiw.png


?
 
Last edited:
Heard a Russian MP speaking on LBC earlier, he was saying the bridge was a clear attack by terrorists on infrastructure connecting two pieces of Russian land (obvs lol). The broadcaster mentioned that the fact Russia have been firing missiles into Ukraine civilian apartments kinda nullifies his arguments (who are the terrorists here?) and the annexation of Crimea in the first place doesn’t help either.
Funny how the MP also started to lose his cool when pushed with this information. Usually a sign of someone trying to sell a lie.
 
Anyone read/subscribe to a forum or whatever that has knowledgeable discussion on how this bridge attack was made.
Military engineers, demolition techs. Anyone with explosive experience.
Why couldn't he have been a suicide bomber? Isn't that a decent way to go in a war för survival? Giants balls.
Why has it taken so long to just drive a truck on it then blow it up?
Will there be a Netflix film made on this?
 
I think this was a boat and/or explosives under the bridge. The trucks a no go for me and Ukraine drones don't have a big enough payload for the explosion seen and also Russian air defense systems.
 
SPG said:
Because when does it stop... your failing to miss the argument never mind the point... So Ask that to the people who died in the past world wars, was it worth the sacrifice ? My gut feeling they will say yes but maybe not due to the generation of me me me me we have now.
Click to expand...

It stops in Ukraine - because anything else is unthinkable.

That is the argument and the point. Look - if we were having this conversation post 2014 and prior to the invasion in Feburary my take on the whole thing would be completely different. But we stood by and did nothing for years, just as we did nothing about Salisbury or the various other excesses of the Russia state. We could have acted but we (collectively) choose not to.

The time to defend the whole territorial integrity of Ukraine has past. My guess (and I have no particular expertise here) is that Crimea is the trigger point for a much wider conflict. I would have supported arming Ukraine to enable them to repel the recent invasion wholeheartedly has we decided to do so back then. And I suspect had we done so we wouldnt be in the situation we are now. But we did'nt, we in the west have been far too slow.

There is no point drawing a line in the sand if your opponent has already crossed that line. We have to manage the situation as it exists now. And that involves being realistic. And for the record, I believe that line should stop where it has always been - at the borders of NATO members.

As for people who've died in previous wars - I rather suspect they would rather not have died at all, but we'll never be able to ask them. We could ask their families though....
 
Mr Jack said:
The thing is that those who are disagreeing with you don't find your claim credible. There are massive gaps between each stage in the progression from the current situation to the use of tactical nukes in Ukraine, and from there to a nuclear exchange between nuclear capable nations. Securing Russia's defeat is not the same as triggering global nuclear war, responding militarily to the use of nukes by Russia in Ukraine is not the same as triggering a global nuclear war.

Meanwhile, the costs of not responding to Russia are also very high. The world cannot allow nuclear weapons to become anything other than a deterrent. We cannot move to a situation where aberrant nuclear powers use these weapons to secure strategic aims. That not only has huge direct humanitarian and geopolitical costs but also itself raises the risks of escalation elsewhere at another time. If Russia does use nuclear weapons - and I don't believe it will - then there must be a response on a scale and of a nature that makes this a glaring mistake by Russia with huge public and clear costs.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody really knows to any degree of certainy how close we are to all out war - even at the highest echelons of power. That's whats worrying and it would be foolish to dismiss the possibilty.

But consider this - Putins thugs used arguably the most lethal nerve agent on the planet to kill somebody he did'nt like in Saiisbury. Who then disposed of enough of that subtance to kill millions, in a waste bin on the street. It was only by a remarkable degree of luck that carelessly throwing that stuff in the bin did'nt result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of people and rendering Salisbury uninhabitable. All to kill one man.

That is who we're dealing with.
 
esmozz said:
It stops in Ukraine - because anything else is unthinkable.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

If Putin learns that threatening nukes makes us back down, nothing is "unthinkable".

It's silly to pretend that our fear of ending the world will dissapear when he invades a NATO country. If we are willing to let Putin do what he wants because we fear he will end the world with nukes, this NATO "red line" is just a bluff and Putin can see right through it.

The end of the world is the end of the world. If we don't call his bluff now, he will eventually call ours.
 
If it's a suicide bomb, and we can see that civilians were caught in it, is the glee at the 'win' of taking down a strategically important access point a little bad taste?

Like, fine, bad stuff has to happen in war, but the whooping and hollering rather forgets the humanity.
 
cheesyboy said:
If it's a suicide bomb, and we can see that civilians were caught in it, is the glee at the 'win' of taking down a strategically important access point a little bad taste?

Like, fine, bad stuff has to happen in war, but the whooping and hollering rather forgets the humanity.
Click to expand...
Well had Russia not started this conflict with it's typical genocidal aims I'm sure many would be less inclined to be 'happy' when they lose.
 
Efour said:
Anyone read/subscribe to a forum or whatever that has knowledgeable discussion on how this bridge attack was made.
Military engineers, demolition techs. Anyone with explosive experience.
Why couldn't he have been a suicide bomber? Isn't that a decent way to go in a war för survival? Giants balls.
Why has it taken so long to just drive a truck on it then blow it up?
Will there be a Netflix film made on this?
Click to expand...

I am no military engineer, and have some explosive experience so can only theorise but we can look at when tanks have exploded from when their ordinance explodes and it causes a small crater below but a huge proportion of the energy is directed upwards (turret tossing). The bridge may have been cratered from a truck bomb but would it have caused an entire 2 lane and wider support structure to collapse.

But that also depends on how the energy is dissipated. For example you take a pipe with both ends open, you set off the explosive inside and you get the energy coming out of both ends. Seal one end of the pipe and set off the explosive and you effectively have a rocket as the energy is fired out of one end. Close both ends of the pipe and set off the explosive and you have a pipe bomb and a concentrated explosion.

It does point to a explosion from underneath.
 
cheesyboy said:
If it's a suicide bomb, and we can see that civilians were caught in it, is the glee at the 'win' of taking down a strategically important access point a little bad taste?
Click to expand...

3 civilians caught in a strike on a legitimate military target against the deliberate targeting, rape, forced deportation, and torture of tens, probably hundreds, of thousands of Ukrainian citizens?

Yeah, get some perspective.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom