Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,755
- Location
- Welling, London
Christ, I bet there’s a lot of countries whose entire arsenal doesn’t come close to that lot
Last edited:
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
You honestly think so? The US spent the best part of $2.5 Trillion and couldn't even beat Afghanistan in 20 years. Russia and China total 18% of the total landmass of the world with 4x the population. The UK can't even force project without the US to help anymore.
Some absolute nonsense is posted on these threads sometimes, so entertaining
You realise the difference between an insurgency that has the support of porous borders from neighbouring countries and a full on state v state action like Ukraine don't you?
I give you Iraq as an example of a state with russian weapons and doctrine v western nations.
Russia couldn't beat the Afghans either....well the insurgency anyway.
Last edited:
There is a massive difference, when you face a military it's a much easier prospect. Take for example Japan, the US beat them and then they surrendered without US soldiers having to step foot in Tokyo to fight an insurgency
To pacify an entire large population like Afghanistan requires massive amounts of soldiers. WW2 is the only recent example we have of successfully pacifying countries and it requires millions of soldiers, that's why both the US and Russia failed in Afghanistan, to be successful they had to have sent millions of soldiers, which they did not.
The US did know about this problem and tried to work around it by attempting to appeal to the local population and do nation building, because if you get the people on your side you don't need to deploy 5 million soldiers. However they failed at that too, there aren't many successful examples of nation building. Actually the most successful ones are it were the Romans
To pacify an entire large population like Afghanistan requires massive amounts of soldiers. WW2 is the only recent example we have of successfully pacifying countries and it requires millions of soldiers, that's why both the US and Russia failed in Afghanistan, to be successful they had to have sent millions of soldiers, which they did not.
The US did know about this problem and tried to work around it by attempting to appeal to the local population and do nation building, because if you get the people on your side you don't need to deploy 5 million soldiers. However they failed at that too, there aren't many successful examples of nation building. Actually the most successful ones are it were the Romans
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
Russia is defacto finished. I expect her to dissolve into pieces in our lifetime, effortless.
Those comments about nuclear weapons are the most worrying yet. Since almost everything Putin says is an absolute lie, his comments imply that he will be ordering the use of nuclear weapons soon.
Russia has "most advanced weapons" but is choosing to not use them and instead have huge numbers of Russians killed in Russia's failing attempt at the most brutal form of colonisation. How does that make any sense to anyone, even Russians without access to anything other than state propaganda.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/VHUWV7TWI5NQLMCMWPO4VM4QPA.jpg)
Scholz: Risk of Russia using nuclear weapons has diminished, for now
The risk of Russian President Vladimir President Putin using nuclear weapons as part of his war in Ukraine has decreased in response to international pressure, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in an interview published on Thursday.
www.reuters.com
Ukraine has requested access to the older HIMARS ammunition; which uses cluster bomblets. The US is considering the request but an insider says if approved the US would place conditions on its use, like not using them if civilians might be located in close proximity
Last edited:
What rubbish. Massive difference in objective.You honestly think so? The US spent the best part of $2.5 Trillion and couldn't even beat Afghanistan in 20 years. Russia and China total 18% of the total landmass of the world with 4x the population. The UK can't even force project without the US to help anymore.
Some absolute nonsense is posted on these threads sometimes, so entertaining
If US wanted to annihilate Afghanistan they could do with days or weeks.
That's awesome. I assume the real use case is not to have them that close to the enemy though.
Some were wondering why the Germans made such a big deal with the 25 arrested members of the Nazi right wing group whose plan was to get rid of democracy in Germany.
The reason German authorities were worried is because they weren't just 25 basement dwellers typing on keyboards; some members are ex government politicians, one member is a current serving judge, some members are previous soldiers and police and have weapons and the group was in contact with Russian politicians for the last 6 months seeking help to overthrow the government
The reason German authorities were worried is because they weren't just 25 basement dwellers typing on keyboards; some members are ex government politicians, one member is a current serving judge, some members are previous soldiers and police and have weapons and the group was in contact with Russian politicians for the last 6 months seeking help to overthrow the government
Last edited:
Another load of ex Nazis to South America. It won't be as easy to hide as in the mid last century.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,146
Yawn.
The objective of the Afganistan war is irrelevant, a war with Russia/China would turn into exactly the same type of conflict after initial bombardments, The rules of engagement still apply, right?
To think the US (let alone the insignificant UK forces) can force project accross 20% of the world's landmass on the opposite side of the globe without encounting insurgency and sabotage against a highly nationalistic population is idiotic at best. Even putting this aside, the task would be insurmountable given the resources and manpower they would encounter, how much of the UK/US population would even be capable of fighting in a draft, 50% of them are morbidity obese.
Just look how successful the other SE Asian conflicts have been for the US, then multiply it many times over, China could probably cripple the economy before they even fire a shot, just look at how the own goal sanctions on Russia have hurt Europe's population far more than they have Russias.
The way that Russia is dealt with is the same way as in the last cold war. A self imposed (through their own paranoia) exile with imposition of currency restrictions and business exports and links. Trying to win land would be futile as you say but restricting their access to civil society, sport etc. will raise questions within the country. Why?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,022
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Quite telling what the gunner says at the end. Russians are using men to storm Ukrainian positions without armour to spare vehicles.
- Status