Who needs RT or Al-Jazeera when we have the BBC?
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,005
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
People have got what they wanted with the BBC now (and many other news sources)
They spent ages criticising the likes of the BBC, they are too slow to react, other sources have had xyz news item up for two hours.
Because the BBC unlike these other sources (liek twitx etc) would validate, at least reasonably
So the BBC etc have adapted and now use less reliable news sources and have less validation to break their news at similar pace.
Maybe we need 2x BBC news sites, the rapid reaction unproven could be lies site and the one that takes a little longer to try to validate before updating.
They spent ages criticising the likes of the BBC, they are too slow to react, other sources have had xyz news item up for two hours.
Because the BBC unlike these other sources (liek twitx etc) would validate, at least reasonably
So the BBC etc have adapted and now use less reliable news sources and have less validation to break their news at similar pace.
Maybe we need 2x BBC news sites, the rapid reaction unproven could be lies site and the one that takes a little longer to try to validate before updating.
Nah its all the uber patriotic offended woke right in wave 1I hope if we end up enlisting we get those uber warriors in the population signed up first, so gym going singletons in wave one
I think some people don't consider the consequences of Russia really winning. One of the big differences between the USSR and Russia is in regards resources.
I mean manufacturing resources and people resources.
IF Russia somehow takes most of / more of Ukraine they are suddenly going to bolster their number of cannon fodder to throw into the war machine should they need it. A lot of the soviet forces were not Russian nationals.
Plus of course they gain the Ukrainian manufacturing base.
We know that post soviet collapse many chunks of ex soviet manufacturing and stockpiles were left behind. Whilst I would be certain Russia would be a bit smarter about that now, I am certain they would expand some of the manufacturing back to the places that Ukraine are currently using.
So the drone manufacturing, the ammo etc. They would just IMO take a lot of the output back to mother Russia now as opposed to have it distributed all over Ukraine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,005
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
All those purple haired, skinny armed types aren't going to last long on the front!
Actually has any country that has both sex armed forces actually done a forced conscription recently?
I mean our forces are mixed sex, if you were to need to do a force call up, would we actually differentiate between sexes now.
I mean the traditional send the men off to war is kind of outdated. Sure the frontline combat the average male will be more suitable than the average female. But thats a hell of a generalisation.
But all the logistics, and some of the fighting could certainly be done by women.
Things like flying drones, pressing buttons on self propelled guns, driving trucks, many facets of modern warfare hold little to no benefit from being a male performing that activity.
From what I can see a lot of the Ukrainian women serving are in front line as well, but tend to be the combat medics and similar as opposed to infantry specifically.
I guess again its seen as mainly a mans job, but as it becomes ever more tech and ever less physical it raises an interesting question for the future
It's kicking off!
Why is it kicking off? Putin has no issue with Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
He basically just says that any threats from Sweden and Finland as a result of them joining NATO would be mirrored by Russia, otherwise they don't really care.
Putin explains how Finland, Sweden membership in NATO different from Ukraine's
Russian president says Moscow views Scandinavian nations' accession to NATO differently, unlike Ukraine, since it has no territorial disputes - Anadolu Ajansı
www.aa.com.tr
I think people just invent Russia's position on things without actually researching them.
Last edited:
The fighting in Ukraine is brutal, it is mostly fighting in trenches in the cold, it's not pressing buttons on drones - that's a small part of the overall combat. Women on the front line are a liability and that's just a fact. There are some women who can do it but the percentage is very small, where as for men it's much higher, though obviously some men cannot handle it either. The reasons are far more mental than physical, think freezing up and becoming so terrified in combat that you cannot move through anxiety and terror even if you wanted to. Then there's spending weeks and months in a demanding physical environment which is just incredibly taxing on the human body, moving ammo and equipment and digging, most women just don't have the same strength and durability that men do. There's a reason that men have done the fighting for the majority of human history, we are actually built and evolved for it to a certain extent, most women aren't.
Last edited:
NOELREPORTS (@[email protected])
Russian media published a list of alleged prisoners of war that were onboard the Il-76. I will not publish the list due to privacy reasons but in the list, Russia included a name of a prisoner of war that was already exchanged on 03-01-2024.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,005
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
He has somewhat rowed back over time on that one.
But its Putin what he says, what he means and how they change is hardly a secret.
I think he is backtracking recently as basically NATO called his bluff.
"you can join NATO but not do anything that NATO wuold normally do like base weapons there"
Also now its some massive threat from Ukraine. Exactly what threat was he seeing that no one else seemed to be able to identify
Well apart from the risk that his population would see Ukraine join THE EU, not NATO, and ask why the hell they were stil lliving in the middle ages as aledgedly a top Gx nation.
Ukraine confirmed to the BBC that there was a prisoner exchange planned for today which has now been cancelled, which is probably what the BBC used to weight the validity/plausibility of the story.
This whole conscription thing is honestly hilarious, Reddit alone is living up to every stereotype of a Reddit user.
“I’m not going anywhere they can send me to prison” etc not realising we would be in a state of war and you would be under military law. So either you get corporal punishment and a very small prison cell or at the very worst case shot..
But then again the likelihood that we would even get to a draft is ludicrous.the Ukrainians are keeping the Russians at a standstill with 6 himars and no air superiority, what do they think the entirity of nato would do?
F22 and f35s would clear the skies above Russia and cruise missiles with the help of satellite tracking would decimate air defence.
The Russian fleet would become a reef faster than it could say the titanic theme song.
Russians threaten with nuclear weapons produced in the 70 and 80s, if they even managed to get off the launch pad it’ll be a miracle then they have to work through the multiple layers of air defence the west has in place.
A 80s air defence system has been successfully shooting down the Russian top of the range hypersonic missiles…
To call Russian a paper tiger is a insult to paper tigers
“I’m not going anywhere they can send me to prison” etc not realising we would be in a state of war and you would be under military law. So either you get corporal punishment and a very small prison cell or at the very worst case shot..
But then again the likelihood that we would even get to a draft is ludicrous.the Ukrainians are keeping the Russians at a standstill with 6 himars and no air superiority, what do they think the entirity of nato would do?
F22 and f35s would clear the skies above Russia and cruise missiles with the help of satellite tracking would decimate air defence.
The Russian fleet would become a reef faster than it could say the titanic theme song.
Russians threaten with nuclear weapons produced in the 70 and 80s, if they even managed to get off the launch pad it’ll be a miracle then they have to work through the multiple layers of air defence the west has in place.
A 80s air defence system has been successfully shooting down the Russian top of the range hypersonic missiles…
To call Russian a paper tiger is a insult to paper tigers
You're right about most things but there aren't multiple layers of defence against ICBMs, we would take a massive amount of damage and Russia has thousands of warheads. We are extremely vulnerable in a strategic nuclear exchange, but so is Russia.
This.
Russia are clearly in no state to start a conflict with NATO anytime soon, unless they have a massive amount of modern unknown hardware hidden away somewhere.
Their economy is in the ****** and they've lost a colossal amount of military equipment in Ukraine. They are struggling to make in roads against just Ukraine.
If they start a nuclear war then everyone loses and everyones dead, so that seems a rather pointless thing for them to start.
I totally agree that NATO should be prepared long term, but I just can't see how Russia could take on NATO within the next decade or two.
Last edited:
I have to agree with Roar - ICBMs are a very different kettle - the US has some defence against them, we have very little aside from some prototype systems on IIRC HMS Dragon and HMS Lancaster.
EDIT: By all accounts most of the Russian silo based nuclear weapons are "rusting away" and the mobile ones don't seem in hugely better shape - but they'll likely have as many which work, or work well enough as they will failures if Ukraine is anything to go by.
Contrary to the impression some get, Russia does have some regular forces left not committed to Ukraine - Putin is far too paranoid to leave the country as undefended as some seem to think, but they'd be stretched defending Russia let alone going up against NATO and have little in the way of reserves behind them as that has all been chucked at Ukraine or at least anything which is easily serviceable. I don't think we should bank on it always being that way and/or they can't fix that situation though.
Last edited:
Wrong….
As usual even the patriot has been able to shoot down ICBM’s. That’s even if they launch, we haven’t seen anything more modern than the t-80 used in combat (t90 doesn’t count as it’s a t-72 hull with a t80 turret)
Latest intelligence reports state that the majority of Russian ICBM’s are beyond economical repair and the rest haven’t had the correct funding for years due to rampant corruption.its why the us sees china as their main threat and even then a leaked report last year said due to poor construction the majority of the missile silos in china can’t even open their doors…
Russia is a couple of steps from being neutralised and seperated up
Looks at US, IDF, UK.. I think you’ll find they cope as well as the man next to them. Where there is an issue is the standard bio - muscle and periods. However they are able to overcome both.
Show me a man team loading or arming.. I guarantee the army don’t rely on one person’s ability simply be cause it doesn’t work.
If you statistically measure 1 woman can’t it plays a larger statistical point in a smaller set of results.
Or are you pointing at abuse of prisoners? Sorry but you seem to think the same abuse is not levied at men as torture or abuse? There are sadisitic sickos where rape is the least they will do. Think mutilation, experimentation and use as boobytraps whilst still partially alive.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,005
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I think with ICBMs the issue is they can be shot down, but if a full blown nuclear exchange there likely wouldn't be enough capacity to intercept whatever % of the russian ones made it out of Russian airspace and didn't simply fail completely, or in fact headed off completely to the wrong place (due to failure of varying degrees)
You would also need to hit them in the ICBM stage and not the final stage (the nuclear warhead stage) which would be incredibly difficult.
You would also need to hit them in the ICBM stage and not the final stage (the nuclear warhead stage) which would be incredibly difficult.
I don't think the US, IDF or UK have been involved in the type of fighting going on in Ukraine since World War 2, this is the combat I'm speaking about specifically. I know there are plenty of women serving in the forces currently, I know one personally she's fitter than most men, it's not that there aren't exceptions - I'm talking about in general.
This isn't the issue; the issue is the BBC not properly qualifying the news they provide. For instance, not telling viewers that the person being interviewed is a Labour (or whoever) campaigner or that the information is unverified and comes from Hamas or Putin or Israel or whoever.
Again the last Russian icbm was built before the Soviet Union collapsed…
The amount of money the USA spends on maintaining their smaller fleet of nuclear weapons is larger than the entire Russian military budget, then when you take into account the rampant corruption. Those ibcms are more likely to be duds if not more harmful to Russia.
The USA has spent billions developing stealth bombers, you think the Russians would even get the chance to launch them?
- Status