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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good job we were so measured with military aid to Ukraine to avoid escalation with Russia. Sure the war may have rumbled on indecisively and Putin's regime may have developed in the direction of a more extreme end point, but at least Russia isn't putting nukes in space or anything.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
China hasn't been involved in a conflict for something like 40 years. People seem worried about them but they're a very inward looking nation, more interested in growing their economy and increasing their quality of life than fighting any distant wars. They basically don't even have a blue water Navy.
Click to expand...

Start a thread about that.
 
Last edited:
So it seems Russia has been preparing for escalation and is expected to start large scale operations in about 4 months.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
but even if they could have pulled off Operation Sealion it would have cost them dearly and spread their forces even thinner. Successfully invading across the channel would be quite some feat with the Royal Navy there to stop you and Hitler's main strategic goals were to his east.
Click to expand...
Added to that, when it was looking it's worst the MoD stationed chemical weapons trucks/troops near the most likely invasion beaches to liquidate (literally) any invading Germans (It's very easy to say you're a champion of the Geneva convention when your backs not against the wall). They were never going to be able to invade the UK, at no point in the entire war did they have D-Day level resources available to draw upon.


rypt said:
I believe the UK and US are signatories to the above, and could have used it as pretext for sending troops into Ukraine to directly assist
Click to expand...
Nope, section four only kicks in if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine so the BM doesn't sadly require support. It's worth noting that while the UK/US maintain that this was the correct wording originally agreed, Ukraine believe the BM was also supposed to give them protection against a conventional attack and would not have surrendered their nuclear arsenal without that assurance (which they believe the UK/US gave). Sadly only Russia knows for sure either way what was agreed prior to the English drafting as their representative in the negotiations Sergey Lavrov is still Russia's foerign minister.

Comically section five actually gives Russia the right to nuke Ukraine in response to an attack on Russia using weapons supplied by a nuclear power (which is why the west have been very insistent on Ukraine not flinging HIMARS/Storm Shadow/etc into Russia. Which is extra comical as they have already violated section one, two and three.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
"5 days ago Russia launched a Soyuz-2-1v rocket into space, carrying a classified payload for the Ministry of Defense. Satellite Kosmos-2575 is now in orbit and under the control of the Russian Air and Space Forces"

Maybe this "satellite" is already carrying a nuke?
Click to expand...
It's worth remembering that the USSR/Russia launched over 40 nuclear powered satellites/payloads between 1965-1996.

It is possible that this is nothing out of the ordinary just politicians trying to create a storm over something people don't understand.

Then again it's possible they've launched the equivalent of a tactical nuclear air defence missile and are planning to down Starlink or GPS over Ukraine, it's hard to tell with the Orks.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
With what equipment and with what personnel?

That doesn't give any time for rebuilding/replenishment of what they've already lost.
Click to expand...

Russia has some deep reserves of equipment. I’d think after the realisation Ukraine is prepared to fight set in, Russia might have started husbanding some kit and probably holding back a portion of newly manufactured. This is likely why the NATO tanks have been used sparingly.
 
Starlink is relatively robust against that and Russia would likely go bankrupt first (not necessarily financially but in terms of priority for the resources required) in a war of attrition - even if they went to length to engineer a large debris field over Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
China hasn't been involved in a conflict for something like 40 years. People seem worried about them but they're a very inward looking nation, more interested in growing their economy and increasing their quality of life than fighting any distant wars. They basically don't even have a blue water Navy.
Click to expand...
Lmfaooooooo??

Did you get this straight from your local Chinese community centre. Wtf is this nonsense.

They are inward looking? Belt and road? Investment and ownership(via debt) of sea ports in other countries. China is playing a long game spreading its tentacles everywhere it can, encroaching on other nations territory in the South China Sea.

You can’t be this deluded, you have to be doing this on purpose.

You are always here on defence for China or Russia it’s actually bizarre, especially because a lot of the time you are just objectively wrong.
 
Rroff said:
Starlink is relatively robust against that and Russia would likely go bankrupt first (not necessarily financially but in terms of priority for the resources required) in a war of attrition - even if they went to length to engineer a large debris field over Ukraine.
Click to expand...
GPS is the juicier target that they may conclude the US is not willing to nuke over.
 
StriderX said:
GPS is the juicier target that they may conclude the US is not willing to nuke over.
Click to expand...

Could be interesting if they think knocking out GPS, and the justification for it, would disrupt the ability to use missiles like Storm Shadow (not that these missiles are generally reliant on GPS) to hit their ships and the ability for drones to do intelligence gathering, etc.
 
Last edited:
Allnamestaken said:
Lmfaooooooo??

Did you get this straight from your local Chinese community centre. Wtf is this nonsense.

They are inward looking? Belt and road? Investment and ownership(via debt) of sea ports in other countries. China is playing a long game spreading its tentacles everywhere it can, encroaching on other nations territory in the South China Sea.

You can’t be this deluded, you have to be doing this on purpose.

You are always here on defence for China or Russia it’s actually bizarre, especially because a lot of the time you are just objectively wrong.
Click to expand...

List of countries with overseas military bases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

In what world does China investing in other countries have anything to do with their military ambitions? China doesn't have expansionist views, they don't have a network of military bases around the world or even (arguably close) a blue water Navy. They're very much focused on their economic growth and their military posture is pretty much exclusively focused on defence. Their only real contentious issue is Taiwan and some minor local territorial disputes.
 
Last edited:
Johnson says he won't pass the Ukraine bill because it doesn't have border spending, like the bill he killed 7 days ago.


Roar87 said:
In what world does China investing in other countries have anything to do with their military ambitions? China doesn't have expansionist views, they don't have a network of military bases around the world or even (arguably close) a blue water Navy. They're very much focused on their economic growth and their military posture is pretty much exclusively focused on defence. Their only real contentious issue is Taiwan and some minor local territorial disputes.
Click to expand...

I'm going to print this out, frame it, and hang it in the loo to keep my visitors entertained.
 
republicans: won't pass Ukraine bill because there is no money on it for the border

Democrats: ok now it has border spending

Republicans: won't pass the border bill because it's an election year

Democrats: you're ******* morons
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom