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

[Minusorange]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59712020

Britain and its allies are "highly unlikely" to send troops to defend Ukraine if Russia invades the country, the UK's defence secretary has said.

"We shouldn't kid people we would," Ben Wallace told the Spectator magazine. "The Ukrainians are aware of that."

It seems that if Russia invades, despite nobody wanting Russia to invade, nobody is going to come & help Ukraine leaving them on their own to defend, perfect time really for Vladimir

 

[Firestar_3x]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59712020
It seems that if Russia invades, despite nobody wanting Russia to invade, nobody is going to come & help Ukraine leaving them on their own to defend, perfect time really for Vladimir

He should crack on then, hardly a shocker that the UK is not will to risk a war with Russia over a non NATO country, they will just go try and sink the Russian economy instead.

 

[Jean-F]

Exactly this. I would die defending this country against invasion to protect my family. But no way would I go and fight in another country to make a politician look good.

In a strange way, (not funny, as this stuff isn’t funny), I was reminded of a photo of my younger son when he was stationed in Lippstadt, Germany, sitting in a light dusting of snow in a forest in Germany, rifle across his lap and a bottle of beer in his hand.
He’d written on the photo, “Watching out for Ivan.”
Next time I saw him I said, “What would you have done if a Russki had come out of the woods?”
He said, “If he looked friendly I’d have taken him to a bierstube and bought him a drink, if he started shooting I’d have gone for a drink on my own!”

 

[Deleted member 236143]

My only vested interest is in the tourism to Chernobyl and when that will be fine again.

 

[ianh]

A lot of people aren't looking at this objectively and are just taking a "We wouldn't invade Russia, they shouldn't care if Ukraine joined NATO or had loads of NATO troops there, they're just being silly" stance. But there's a very simple way to analogise the issue from our point of view and how we would react:

100% agree with you, yet for some of the posters in here it's just incomprehensible "pro-Russian" rubbish.

I mean even if you disagree with one side it's still better to have an understanding of WHY the other side are doing something, as them blindly sticking to "We wouldn't invade it's stupid" and ignoring how the Russians may feel/react is a sure way to get yourself into a conflict with them.

 

[StriderX]

Action is provocation and inaction is weakness, it doesn't matter what we do because the Kremlin will exploit it anyway.

If we let Ukraine be taken easily then the Balkans will be next.

I'll also add that if Ukraine is taken by Russia then it presents a rather imminent problem for Taiwan who would almost certainly start using their reactors to create a nuclear deterrent. Then there's the question of Turkey's loyalties, will they push on Armenia/Georgia, go after Kurdish Iraq/Syria or even just outright take Syria under their rule? Regarding the Middle East, goodness knows what such an event would do to the barely calm situation with Iran as well, I would think that Israel might feel they have no choice but to act unilaterally.

 

[mburn_83]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59712020



It seems that if Russia invades, despite nobody wanting Russia to invade, nobody is going to come & help Ukraine leaving them on their own to defend, perfect time really for Vladimir

Would our troops be needed?

Surely all the UK/NATO would have to do is provide AA and live satellite counter artillery intel - to make an invasion a nightmare for Russia?

 

[ubersonic]

I'll also add that if Ukraine is taken by Russia then it presents a rather imminent problem for Taiwan who would almost certainly start using their reactors to create a nuclear deterrent.

Ukraine has already become a shining example to every country on the planet of the importance of nuclear weapons, and why you should never give up your nuclear weapons.

Would our troops be needed?

Surely all the UK/NATO would have to do is provide AA and live satellite counter artillery intel - to make an invasion a nightmare for Russia?

Well, if we don't send troops to Ukraine it's unlikely (imo) they will as this whole thing seems to just be both sides shouting louder and louder at the other not to go to Ukraine.

When you say AA do you mean ground based SAM units? In which case Ukraine already has over 20x the amount the UK does so sending ours would be a drop in the ocean (also if Russia invaded they would most likely take the capital before ours even arrived). Or do you mean sending our air force to attack Russian planes? Which would slow the Russians down a lot more, but economically we're not really in a position to be throwing away good aircraft (and pilots) to defend Ukraine.

 

[englishpremier]

... but economically we're not really in a position to be throwing away good aircraft (and pilots) to defend Ukraine.

Yeah UK/NATO craft would likely have to be limited to Western Ukraine to avoid Russia's own air defences. But I imagine the poster was talking more surveillance support. Other than that Russian aircraft are something of a joke so there is little threat from them, more the air defences.

Speaking of economic positions Russia be under a lot of strain with covid, and the price of oil being less than $100 a barrel, plus all the money it has needed to pump into Crimea.

Should anything kick off Ukraine ought to destroy the bridge between Crimea and the mainland. That alone cost Russia $4bn.

 

[Rroff]

When you say AA do you mean ground based SAM units? In which case Ukraine already has over 20x the amount the UK does so sending ours would be a drop in the ocean (also if Russia invaded they would most likely take the capital before ours even arrived). Or do you mean sending our air force to attack Russian planes? Which would slow the Russians down a lot more, but economically we're not really in a position to be throwing away good aircraft (and pilots) to defend Ukraine.

Unfortunately outside of the Type 45s we are somewhat limited and outdated when it comes to area air defence and is a bit of a gap in our capabilities as well as limited in number. Though our point defence systems are apparently pretty good at what they do they are somewhat outdated against the latest generations of fighter aircraft and not a huge deterrence to a broader invasion.

I'm not overly familiar with what capabilities the rest of NATO have in that respect (ignoring the US).

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Putin upping the ante as well as the rhetoric, looks like he's going to get his retaliation in first very soon.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-21...s-as-fears-grow-over-troops-at-ukraine-border

 

[Rroff]

Putin upping the ante as well as the rhetoric, looks like he's going to get his retaliation in first very soon.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-12-21...s-as-fears-grow-over-troops-at-ukraine-border

Not a good sign that he is making a case for the security challenges:

"Mr Putin claimed on Tuesday that if US and NATO missile systems appear in Ukraine, it will take those missiles only minutes to reach Moscow."

Although a legitimate complaint, there is worrying elements of pretext there and that once he ups that ante it is a difficult one to row back without seeming weak.

 

[Malevolence]

Mr Putin claimed on Tuesday that if US and NATO missile systems appear in Ukraine, it will take those missiles only minutes to reach Moscow.

He wasn't too fussed about Russian missile systems appearing in Ukraine and shooting down civilian airliners though, was he? What a ******* hypocrite.

 

[alchal]

He's a loony tune, he's going to lead Russia and Europe to disaster.

Talking about how NATO will deploy nukes in Ukraine now and that he will have to do the same, love to know where this fruitcake gets this crap from, but I guess it's all for russian public consumption so that he can tell them he had a legitimate claim to potentially starting the biggest military /humanitarian crisis in Europe Ince that other crackpot invaded Poland.



He does realise that if he then controls Ukraine then he is then back on the NATO doorstep again, does that mean he has to keep invading westwards to stop NATO being on his border?


Question is, outside of more land, what does he hope to achieve?

 

[arknor]

He's a loony tune, he's going to lead Russia and Europe to disaster.

Blame the west for making out Russia is a real threat and letting putin do all this crap to make it seem like he is one..

Russia military budget is a whole 2bn more than the UK spends.

you really think they are such a threat? he will never use nukes and would get wrecked if he tried to invade a NATO country.

NATO countries should all start organising troops and shipping them towards Germany, then let it drop that Ukraine is suddenly a member.

put a massive military exercise on the Polish border and The Ukraine one, ask putin if he still wants those forces on the Ukraine border.....

just do whatever he does on a 10x larger scale

 

[ubersonic]

He wasn't too fussed about Russian missile systems appearing in Ukraine and shooting down civilian airliners though, was he?

Hate to be that guy, but no proof has ever been presented that the rebels used a Russian supplied Buk and not one of their own. Obviously we know it was statistically likely to have been a Russian one as the rebels only had half a dozen or so and the Russians are rumoured to have sent dozens more into the area but we don't actually know for sure and probably never will. Not that it's that important as what happened wouldn't have without Russia's decision to back the eastern rebels, Putin and Russia are definitely culpable.

He does realise that if he then controls Ukraine then he is then back on the NATO doorstep again, does that mean he has to keep invading westwards to stop NATO being on his border?

Pretty sure his plan if a compromise cannot be agreed is to take over Ukraine and make it a puppet state that sits between Russia and the west (so basically back to what it was prior to the 1990s).

NATO countries should all start organising troops and shipping them towards Germany, then let it drop that Ukraine is suddenly a member.

Which would immediately force Russia to invade Ukraine and potentially start a full on European war, not a good idea.

 

[arknor]

Which would immediately force Russia to invade Ukraine and potentially start a full on European war, not a good idea.

right ofcourse he's going to start a conventional war with NATO he could never have a chance of winning.

NATO just look weak and useless he will invade Ukraine at this rate

 

[alchal]

Pretty sure his plan if a compromise cannot be agreed is to take over Ukraine and make it a puppet state that sits between Russia and the west (so basically back to what it was prior to the 1990s).



Which would immediately force Russia to invade Ukraine and potentially start a full on European war, not a good idea.

He's already claiming we have mass troops formations and even moving nukes , so if we have already done it...

 

[RoboCod]

Hate to be that guy, but no proof has ever been presented that the rebels used a Russian supplied Buk and not one of their own. Obviously we know it was statistically likely to have been a Russian one as the rebels only had half a dozen or so and the Russians are rumoured to have sent dozens more into the area but we don't actually know for sure and probably never will. Not that it's that important as what happened wouldn't have without Russia's decision to back the eastern rebels, Putin and Russia are definitely culpable.

It was Russian.

 

[ubersonic]

right ofcourse he's going to start a conventional war with NATO he could never have a chance of winning.

If NATO committed a defacto act of war against Russia then he would have no option but to respond, it would be the same as the USSR suddenly announcing in the 60's that Cuba was now a member state of the USSR, the USA would have invaded as soon as they could get the the ships/planes/troops there.

You're also assuming that most NATO countries would actually choose to defend Ukraine if Britain/USA/etc randomly declared it was now a member with zero consultation/approval process. I would wager most would simply argue it doesn't constitute a valid article 5 claim.

There is also the fact that article 5 does not guarantee military assistance anyway, merely "assistance" (it was specifically worded this way so that the USA was not lawbound to help militarily if a war in Europe broke out.

Hate to be that guy, but no proof has ever been presented that the rebels used a Russian supplied Buk and not one of their own. Obviously we know it was statistically likely to have been a Russian one as the rebels only had half a dozen or so and the Russians are rumoured to have sent dozens more into the area but we don't actually know for sure and probably never will. Not that it's that important as what happened wouldn't have without Russia's decision to back the eastern rebels, Putin and Russia are definitely culpable.

It was Russian.

Yeah I know, try reading the post you quoted, I highlighted the important bit.