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

Status
Not open for further replies.
supafly said:
War with Russia in a few months?
Click to expand...

I don't really see it like he is saying in the video - Europe/NATO will just leave Ukraine to collapse if Russia prevails, what we then will have is an expensive and nightmare security situation on the border created by the situation where we just can't take chances with Russia, which will dwarf the efforts it could have taken to keep Ukraine pushing Russia back in expense and logistics. Russia is learning more and more they don't have to play by our rules, I don't see that going back in the box, we'll increasingly see a return to the worst of the Cold War and Russia engaging in hybrid warfare with the potential for more direct action, likely in the Baltics, in the longer future depending on how things go.

I can see the military industry rubbing their hands in glee at the prospects of European nations having to significantly re-arm to ensure their security, maybe something Germany has cottoned onto somewhat with the prospective increase in support recently.

EDIT: Personally I don't think Russia will stop at Ukraine, but I don't think, at least for a good few years yet, it will be via a continued military campaign into Europe. But no country can take chances now when inevitably Russia is building up 100s of tanks and 1000s of men on the border for "defence or training" :s which will be far more costly for Europe to be prepared against than it will be for Russia to conduct with or without intent.
 
Last edited:
alchal said:
Russia goes out of its way to secure ballistic missiles.

We dither.

Sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...


Sad state of affairs indeed, especially from U.S. Russia is using long range missiles obtained from foreign countries to attack another country (Ukraine) yet the U.S says Ukraine cannot use its missiles to attack Russia
 
Grim5 said:
Sad state of affairs indeed, especially from U.S. Russia is using long range missiles obtained from foreign countries to attack another country (Ukraine) yet the U.S says Ukraine cannot use its missiles to attack Russia
Click to expand...

If the US allowed that, then what would stop Russia from providing Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons, or ICBMs? You do realise there are strategic consequences to escalating things, Russia does have hands they haven't yet played. Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
 
Roar87 said:
If the US allowed that, then what would stop Russia from providing Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons, or ICBMs? You do realise there are strategic consequences to escalating things, Russia does have hands they haven't yet played. Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
Click to expand...

Not aure (given the reputation of tussia arms) they want any russia arma, more likely they will look to develop the tech themselves based on shared knowledge.

Strategic consequence - you mean russia threatening outsde of fhe Ukrainian war? Possibly UK?

All countries have hands they’ve not played yet. Sorry but the agressive rhetoric seems to be a scare tactic.
The engagement of other countries directly undoes the political war and also opens up a second front which has a completely different landscpe - russia would loose its small remaining navy, needing to build more and find yet more resources lost thay require funding..
If you’re meaning using Chinese naval hardware using African ports as bases? I think that boat has sailed - china will not want the politixal fallout nor expose the literal cracks in their hardware (a number if built carriers have cracks in their decks due to bad manufacturing that made the unusable).
Russia’s targets are the easy soft undersea or offshore assests - attacks would end up the loss of those vessels so instead a land based war of attrition enables BRICS support without bringing into war. If china get too involved it’s likely to see trade reduction resulting in china going deeper into the economic red. Internal political impact on Xi will limit.

10-30 years and Putin will have died. The legacy will be a new generation of beainwashed russians ans politics. The duma cartel leadership will also have changed, and I suspect at that point they will have the financial fallout of Putin’s actions.
War is expensive and the spoils in ROI take years if jot lifetimes to recoup.

So in short I see russia only wanting to engage small conflicts and switching to economic and political war to separate nations, isolate in a form of silk road initiative.

In your post you simply remain vague and ambiguous - hinting threats. It is more likely that putin relies on sympathy to enable coercion of the political landscape and in the UK Brexit to divide a response.
 
Last edited:
Aggression outside the Ukraine will likely go towards a neighbouring country such as Poland, Lithuania, Finland etc. They want the old Soviet empire back and targeting countries beyond this isn’t remotely viable.
 
Roar87 said:
Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't, or won't, think of any strategic targets in Russia it doesn't mean there aren't any.
 
Roar87 said:
Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
Click to expand...
Ukraine gains very little from deep attacks into Russia???

Do you get all your opinions out of your arse or are they handed to you from a higher ranked arse?

Deep strikes into Russian territory has three advantages to Ukraine:
* it prevents clear easy mobilisation/ logistics, if Ukraine can strike hubs inside Russia then the hubs have to be moved further in country causing lag and strain on any logistics. Also allows concentration on said logistical lines allowing for Ukraine to more efficiently target those lines
* it ties up anti air defence units and equipment, meaning instead of covering the front lines creating a relatively safe area of operation. Hence why we are seeing drone dropped and fpv drones being so effective as short range anti air is tied up elsewhere
* negative moral to Russians, any impact on the Russian homeland causes Russian social media to become inundated with negativity to the point Russia has to commit to more poorly designed actions to get positive results to post for their media which in turn makes the west support Ukraine more (see the latest attacks after the ship sinking)


As I’ve stated many times Ukraine would be better to mass produce shadid drones, and create swarms that would:
1) soak up a lot of Russian anti aircraft munitions, creating shortages at the front
2) drag valuable anti air defence systems from the front to a rear guard action (see how many anti air assets are currently sitting in crimea)
3) some drones or cruise missiles will get through and hit targets causing Russia to move assets like jets and helicopters further from the front reducing their time on target and therefore reducing their overall effectiveness
 
delta0 said:
Aggression outside the Ukraine will likely go towards a neighbouring country such as Poland, Lithuania, Finland etc. They want the old Soviet empire back and targeting countries beyond this isn’t remotely viable.
Click to expand...

I see turkey being a prime target for expansion. Sure, finland offers oil and reduces sea access observations for the north pole however the black sea is needed for naval access to the EU countries in addition to romania etc.
Not sure the same response would be for romania - being in the EU.. it’s likely to get response from all the EU countries in terms of troops etc.
 
Roar87 said:
If the US allowed that, then what would stop Russia from providing Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons, or ICBMs? You do realise there are strategic consequences to escalating things, Russia does have hands they haven't yet played. Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
Click to expand...

Valdolf did make the choice to invade the west, maybe this should concern Russians… I would be very concerne right now if I was Russian.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I just don't see why Putin would do it. In a conventional war he loses massively, in a nuclear exchange everyone loses.
Click to expand...
A lot of people didn't think he would be silly enough to invade Ukraine yet here we are. At this point I wouldn't put anything past him.

I swear if Putin never went into politics he could had a good career are poker player.
 
Roar87 said:
If the US allowed that, then what would stop Russia from providing Iran or North Korea with nuclear weapons, or ICBMs? You do realise there are strategic consequences to escalating things, Russia does have hands they haven't yet played. Ukraine gain very little from attacking anything actually inside Russia apart from some social media post saying they blew up something that wasn't even really involved in the war with Ukraine. Their main concern should be the 500,000 Russians sat behind defensive lines in what used to be Eastern Ukraine, that's what their weapons should be used for.
Click to expand...

Where do you think these 500,000 people get their supplies from?

Ammunition, food, fuel?

Why is it good for Russia to bomb behind the lines but not Ukraine?

Why should the Urkrainian people experience the horror of war first hand everyday but the people of Russia shouldn’t?

Why is it that everything Ukraine/west does is an “escalation” but everything Putin does isn’t?

Why are you such a Russian stooge but can’t admit it?
 
Last edited:
Bug One said:
What's to stop NATO providing ICBMs and nuclear weapons to Ukraine.

Face it, if Russia doesn't win, Ukraine will restore it's nuclear weapons again. They don't even need NATO for that.
Click to expand...

Well a few things, but that’s not a bad idea TBH. A nuclear capable Ukraine within the EU and NATO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom