Ukraine

[marbles]

13 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can see the first two things here, but not the third. Surely he knows how that inevitably ends and there's no way it ends with him getting what he wants?

Depends upon what he wants. 
Maybe it’s death and destruction.

In which case one of the 14 US Ohio Class subs will do the trick - of course I’m not sure how much will be left of everything else

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, marbles said:

Depends upon what he wants. 
Maybe it’s death and destruction.

In which case one of the 14 US Ohio Class subs will do the trick - of course I’m not sure how much will be left of everything else

To be brutally honest, if that is really what he wants (as opposed to a resurgent Russia that consolidates his own power) then he can have it, at any time of his choosing, and there's not an awful lot than anyone can do about it other than respond in kind and join him in the terrible post-apocalyptic society that would result.

 

Here's really hoping that isn't the case, then.

Edited 1 January 2023 by leicsmac

[fox_favourite]

15 hours ago, Lionator said:

Rumours next week that Putin is going to declare martial law in Russia, general mobilisation and is planning to declare war against NATO in a few months. 

 

Out of interest, where have these come from? Would he declare the last part on the anniversary of the start of the war? 
 

If the third one is true, then that’s that then…and shows that he’s lost it. Doing that means we all lose, even Russia over a stupid pointless war in Ukraine. But doing all three, what would the Russian population think? 

Might explain the meeting he had with China recently?

 

Well, 2023 might just top 2022. Brilliant. 

[ian__marshall]

Anyone know where these supposed rumours have originated from? Can't seem to find anything credible suggesting a war with Nato. 

[fox_up_north]

War with a neighbouring state that isn't part of a particular military/ political bloc is one thing but essentially starting WW3 is another. 

 

Chinese won't have it, India won't have it. 

[Leeds Fox]

5 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

 

Out of interest, where have these come from? Would he declare the last part on the anniversary of the start of the war? 
 

If the third one is true, then that’s that then…and shows that he’s lost it. Doing that means we all lose, even Russia over a stupid pointless war in Ukraine. But doing all three, what would the Russian population think? 

Might explain the meeting he had with China recently?

 

Well, 2023 might just top 2022. Brilliant. 

Really can’t see it happening. I reckon it’s a bluff (not sure why he’d bluff but he is genuinely a bit mental). 

[Leeds Fox]

7 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

War with a neighbouring state that isn't part of a particular military/ political bloc is one thing but essentially starting WW3 is another. 

 

Chinese won't have it, India won't have it. 

Nobody will. I know he’s not on Putin level of daft but Biden I reckon would love to destroy Russia. It wouldn’t take very long either. Nukes are a no-go from all involved. That just won’t happen. Missile Early Warning systems are too advanced. The West have enough fire power close by to destroy anything remotely threatening before it becomes a threat. 

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

Nobody will. I know he’s not on Putin level of daft but Biden I reckon would love to destroy Russia. It wouldn’t take very long either. Nukes are a no-go from all involved. That just won’t happen. Missile Early Warning systems are too advanced. The West have enough fire power close by to destroy anything remotely threatening before it becomes a threat. 

I wouldn't be willing to bet the farm on this. I would think that Russia would be able to bring enough nuclear firepower through various means if it came to it to really ruin everyone's day. Of course, the US could respond in kind.

 

In fact, rather paradoxically I hope the US having nuclear primacy in this matter isn't the case because the paradoxical stability created be mutually assured destruction relies upon all players having the capability to devastate the other. A world where one nation can use nuclear weapons upon another state with them without fear of retribution is a more unstable world.

[Leeds Fox]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wouldn't be willing to bet the farm on this. I would think that Russia would be able to bring enough nuclear firepower through various means if it came to it to really ruin everyone's day. Of course, the US could respond in kind.

 

In fact, rather paradoxically I hope the US having nuclear primacy in this matter isn't the case because the paradoxical stability created be mutually assured destruction relies upon all players having the capability to devastate the other. A world where one nation can use nuclear weapons upon another state with them without fear of retribution is a more unstable world.

I can see where you’re coming from, but what you’ve bolded in my post is true. Although as you state (in less words), one sniff of a nuclear threat, things start to get messy, quickly.

 

It wouldn’t even take a successful strike for carnage to ensue. 

[fox_favourite]

3 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

I can see where you’re coming from, but what you’ve bolded in my post is true. Although as you state (in less words), one sniff of a nuclear threat, things start to get messy, quickly.

 

It wouldn’t even take a successful strike for carnage to ensue. 

As soon as the button is pressed and a single nuke is launched, whether it hits its target or not is an escalation and devastation on a scale that no one wants or seen before. The domino affect is unthinkable. 

[Leeds Fox]

Just now, fox_favourite said:

As soon as the button is pressed and a single nuke is launched, whether it hits its target or not is an escalation and devastation on a scale that no one wants or seen before. The domino affect is unthinkable. 

The consequences of a button being pushed are far too great to even bear thinking about. Putin IMO has avoided escalation with any NATO parties enough to show he doesn’t want to engage ‘us’ and won’t do so. Maybe wishful thinking. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

As soon as the button is pressed and a single nuke is launched, whether it hits its target or not is an escalation and devastation on a scale that no one wants or seen before. The domino affect is unthinkable. 

 

2 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

The consequences of a button being pushed are far too great to even bear thinking about. Putin IMO has avoided escalation with any NATO parties enough to show he doesn’t want to engage ‘us’ and won’t do so. Maybe wishful thinking. 

Would agree with these sentiments.

 

For what it's worth, Russia have made it pretty damn clear that the use of nuclear weapons will only be considered in response to a nuclear attack upon them or a conventional attack when the "existence of the state is threatened". Of course, what defines that term exactly may be open to interpretation.

 

I too believe that Putin doesn't want a piece of NATO and also doesn't want global destruction because he knows the former leads directly to the latter. Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but then as per above I'm also of the opinion that if he were truly insane and was looking for such global destruction, he could choose to do it any time he wished, and that he hasn't is indicative.

[David Hankey]

With all the disgruntlement we hear from inside Russia I'm just amazed he hasn't been assassinated yet.

 

Perhaps, 2023 will be a year to remember!!

[SpacedX]

22 hours ago, Lionator said:

Rumours next week that Putin is going to declare martial law in Russia, general mobilisation and is planning to declare war against NATO in a few months. 

Very odd post this. The entire future of the civilised world appears to have been reduced to the general level of hearsay and logic akin to the Transfers Thread. 

[Paninistickers]

Russia's panicked reaction to that rogue missile that landed in Poland said it all. And, similarly, NATO could not declare fast enough that the missile was Ukrainian. 

 

There is zero chance NATO and Russia face off. Proxy war between superpowers - Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine -  is as close as anything gets to WWIII

[Zear0]

Ukrainian government briefed that a further mobilisation and closed border was likely in Russia in the coming weeks. Classic case of someone taking a story and bolting some untruths (the NATO attack) to it to give it some credibility. 

[Ginger_Filbert]

Russia sent over a drone with ‘Happy new year, boom’ written on it. 
 

 

[MPH]

[fox_favourite]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

Says it all really. 

[Saxondale]

7 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

As soon as the button is pressed and a single nuke is launched, whether it hits its target or not is an escalation and devastation on a scale that no one wants or seen before. The domino affect is unthinkable. 

This. There is no such thing as nuclear war, only nuclear armageddon. 
 

The whole premise of mutual assured destruction as a doctrine is that you build up enough firepower do end the world, on the basis that it deters your enemy from escalating. Like holding a knife to each other’s throat.

[Parafox]

26 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

13 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

Says it all really. 

Who are they?

[Countryfox]

7 hours ago, Line-X said:

Very odd post this. The entire future of the civilised world appears to have been reduced to the general level of hearsay and logic akin to the Transfers Thread. 

It’s complete codswallop ..  

[fox_favourite]

44 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Who are they?

Staged actors. Faked. Propaganda 

Edited 1 January 2023 by fox_favourite

[MPH]

46 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Who are they?

 

they are the same people in every photo op he has is all I can tell you..

[Captain...]

10 hours ago, fox_favourite said:

Staged actors. Faked. Propaganda 

I would have assumed security personnel. I don't see the need to "fake" such pictures.