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

Status
Not open for further replies.
HungryHippos said:
And yet they still send a bunch of stuff, I think they're just ramping up by degrees here.

Take it seriously yes, but at the same time, we can't afford to show that we'll collectively just fold to demands.

I doubt Russia is firing nukes over some tanks.
Click to expand...
They've even said as much when they said sending tanks will not fundamentally change anything. We are obviously in their black books no matter what we do and will reap the consequences. We need to be bold and decisive, any increase in arms has not actually 'provoked' Putin despite his ludicrous rhetoric.

Also, Putin is the one doing all the escalating and provoking. He is acting like a butcher and a barbarian by massacring civilians and committing war crimes while we sit idly by thinking we can reason with this monster.

Our current strategy is too timid and will not work. We must end this now in my opinion by giving the Ukrainians everything they need to do so.
 
Rroff said:
I kind of see Scholz like I do Corbyn, well meaning ideology but it falls flat on its face when it meets the real world for real but they can't admit that.
Click to expand...
Domestically I think he is good, but obviously on these foreign policy issues he falls down and unfortunately for him his tenure is being defined by it. He seems to think he can have a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia and China (no matter what they do).
 
Last edited:
Only when Putin says we are definitely not going to nuke you should we ***** our ears up. That’s when we take it seriously. A boxer doesn’t announce his punches.

For the moment at least I think it’s all bluff as he can’t be confident they will work given nothing else has been maintained properly in his armoury. One failed nuclear missile would just highlight to the rest of the world how vulnerable he is.

Lol the ‘sweary ’ was what one might do with their ears or even a stab from a needle!!
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Only when Putin says we are definitely not going to nuke you should we ***** our ears up. That’s when we take it seriously. A boxer doesn’t announce his punches.

For the moment at least I think it’s all bluff as he can’t be confident they will work given nothing else has been maintained properly in his armoury. One failed nuclear missile would just highlight to the rest of the world how vulnerable he is.

Lol the ‘sweary ’ was what one might do with their ears or even a stab from a needle!!
Click to expand...
I think the genuine worry for non-nuclear powers is what happens after Ukraine. NATO has gone so far into this that I doubt it’s going to be forgotten which ever way this goes for Russia. I could see Russia wanting to extend a conventional war beyond Ukraine into Poland and even Germany eventually which is probably what is on Germany’s mind. Those countries sit in a different position from UK, France, USA etc., those nuclear powers are in theory untouchable in a conventional war.

It’s critical Russia loses in Ukraine or at least does not win. They won’t drop a nuke because they are embarrassed or lost in Ukraine. It’s not a very believable position to announce that if you lose a war in another country then you will drop nukes. They just undermine themselves for when they are going to seriously consider it and so some negotiations need to happen.
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
The US take Russia's threat of all out nuclear war seriously enough to restrict their aid to Ukraine to an extent that it is damaging ukraine's ability to defend itself.

I have to read the room on this one, as I quite like my kids being alive.
Click to expand...

Or, you could see it from the angle most grounded in reality: The US would prefer a longer, drawn out war that bleeds Russia as much as possible. A very quick war that bruises Russia badly would still leave their army with majority operating capacity.

A few years of long-drawn-out bloody war would cripple them for decades, if not forever.
 
ltron said:
Domestically I think he is good, but obviously on these foreign policy issues he falls down and unfortunately for him his tenure is being defined by it. He seems to think he can have a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia and China (no matter what they do).
Click to expand...
How does a Russian win help relations between Germany and Russia? One could argue the opposite that a Ukrainian win would be far better for it.
If Russia wins does the west lift sanctions? Why would we? Without them being lifted there will be no friendly relationship.

If Ukraine forces Russia to the negotiating table then oddly enough I think Russia has more leverage. Example - Russia agrees to withdraw all troops and claims on Ukrainian territory, accepts that Ukraine is part of NATO while the west lift sanctions and agrees to buy X(far less than before) amount of oil/gas from Russia. Note I cannot see something like this happening with Putin in power.

Of course a Ukrainian victory could lead to a complete collapse within Russian, with warlords fighting over the corpse which is pretty terrifying.
 
Last edited:
Owenb said:
How does a Russian win help relations between Germany and Russia? One could argue the opposite that a Ukrainian win would be far better for it.
If Russia wins does the west lift sanctions? Why would we? Without them being lifted there will be no friendly relationship.
Click to expand...
I don't know what goes on in Scholz's mind. After all, Germany were the ones who became so dependent on Russian gas thinking it would civilise Putin. Macron said Putin must not be humiliated (although maybe he has changed his mind now) and I suspect Scholz shares this view. Why are Germany reluctant all the time to give Ukraine what they need? They keep putting up barriers for no good reason.
 
Tephnos said:
Or, you could see it from the angle most grounded in reality: The US would prefer a longer, drawn out war that bleeds Russia as much as possible. A very quick war that bruises Russia badly would still leave their army with majority operating capacity.

A few years of long-drawn-out bloody war would cripple them for decades, if not forever.
Click to expand...
This.
The defence industry will make mega bank whilst the war is going on
Then the rebuilding after the war will let the corporations make bank after
And the politician's pockets will be lined either way
 
delta0 said:
I think the genuine worry for non-nuclear powers is what happens after Ukraine. NATO has gone so far into this that I doubt it’s going to be forgotten which ever way this goes for Russia. I could see Russia wanting to extend a conventional war beyond Ukraine into Poland and even Germany eventually which is probably what is on Germany’s mind. Those countries sit in a different position from UK, France, USA etc., those nuclear powers are in theory untouchable in a conventional war.

It’s critical Russia loses in Ukraine or at least does not win. They won’t drop a nuke because they are embarrassed or lost in Ukraine. It’s not a very believable position to announce that if you lose a war in another country then you will drop nukes. They just undermine themselves for when they are going to seriously consider it and so some negotiations need to happen.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand how NATO work.

if Russia step one foot inside Poland or Germany the whole of NATO will destroy Russian in 3 days, not a Putin 3 days that's taken a year now but 3 days for real.

Russia can't even take Ukraine so what chance would it have over all of NATO.

The Nuke threat is all they have but that wouldn't work if they attack a NATO country.
 
ltron said:
I don't know what goes on in Scholz's mind. After all, Germany were the ones who became so dependent on Russian gas thinking it would civilise Putin. Macron said Putin must not be humiliated (although maybe he has changed his mind now) and I suspect Scholz shares this view. Why are Germany reluctant all the time to give Ukraine what they need? They keep putting up barriers for no good reason.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that Scholz believes he is looking to the long term, where he thinks that post-war Russia over say the next 100 years or more (rather than the next 10 years) with it's wealth of natural resources etc will be far more important to Germany than Ukraine will be over that same time, and as such doesn't want to rock the boat too much right this minute with Russia potentially hurting his country in the distant future.

Only time will tell if he is correct or not, as I've mentioned numerous times, at some point Russia will eventually be a worldwide trading partner again (maybe inside 10 years) that everyone in the current "supplying Ukraine with arms" faction will all have to deal with, specifically for cheap resources such as Natural Gas, Petroleum (mineral fuels), Wheat, Iron, Nickel, Coal etc. It's not a good situation but the real world, with all its various shades of moral grey areas, rarely is.
 
bris said:
I don't think you understand how NATO work.

if Russia step one foot inside Poland or Germany the whole of NATO will destroy Russian in 3 days, not a Putin 3 days that's taken a year now but 3 days for real.

Russia can't even take Ukraine so what chance would it have over all of NATO.

The Nuke threat is all they have but that wouldn't work if they attack a NATO country.
Click to expand...
That’s why they have to be stopped at Ukraine. If Russia decided to prepare militarily and also go full mobilisation. They could start to threaten neighbouring countries. 10s of millions of troops turning up like WW2 all over again would be tough enough for NATO to fight in a conventional war. There is also the China question. Would China start a war with Taiwan or worse join an effort with Russia (they did before in Korea). There are variables that can make this very complicated for NATO to be over confident. I fully expect it to be a failure for Russia if they go about it in the way they are with Ukraine but I’m sure they know this.
 
Russia can't even muster 500,000 troops and equip them. where are you getting 10s of millions from?

Pretty much all the war gaming I saw suggests that the EU+UK alone would easily stop Russia from entering the EU/kick them out. And all that was before we realised how inept its tactics were, and how badly trained its larger forces were.
 
Last edited:
delta0 said:
That’s why they have to be stopped at Ukraine. If Russia decided to prepare militarily and also go full mobilisation. They could start to threaten neighbouring countries. 10s of millions of troops turning up like WW2 all over again would be tough enough for NATO to fight in a conventional war. There is also the China question. Would China start a war with Taiwan or worse join an effort with Russia (they did before in Korea). There are variables that can make this very complicated for NATO to be over confident. I fully expect it to be a failure for Russia if they go about it in the way they are with Ukraine but I’m sure they know this.
Click to expand...
yes maybe but that's why NATO is asking the non NATO countries to join.

Sweden and Finland have now both been asked, I believe Turkeys objection has now been Lifted.

Russia will have very few non NATO countries on it's borders now, which is the what they are trying to stop, so invading Ukraine has had the opposite effect, Putin only has himself to blame
 
englishpremier said:
Russia can't even muster 500,000 troops and equip them. where are you getting 10s of millions from?

Pretty much all the war gaming I saw suggests that the EU+UK alone would easily stop Russia from entering the EU/kick them out. And all that was before we realised how inept its tactics were, and how badly trained its larger forces were.
Click to expand...
Russia has a full mobilisation potential of 25 million.
 
bris said:
yes maybe but that's why NATO is asking the non NATO countries to join.

Sweden and Finland have now both been asked, I believe Turkeys objection has now been Lifted.

Russia will have very few non NATO countries on it's borders now, which is the what they are trying to stop, so invading Ukraine has had the opposite effect, Putin only has himself to blame
Click to expand...
Correct. It will make Russia think twice as they know they will then be dealing with more than one army if they attack NATO which complicates things for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom