Ukraine

[ARTY_FOX]

9 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

ultimately, as a leader, yes, but it’s the intel that decides the outcome.

You think Putin is the victim of his own propaganda???

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

I'm just hoping there is method in the madness of all this dialogue about the planes. As another poster mentioned, possibly to throw Putin off the scent like a distraction. Otherwise, surely you just send them without all the media coverage 

Yeah, you'd hope that someone at a high level actually knows what they're doing here.

[st albans fox]

The USA have rejected the mig deal from Poland 

 

strange because it was my impression that this was their idea over the weekend ??.

[Innovindil]

26 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The USA have rejected the mig deal from Poland 

 

strange because it was my impression that this was their idea over the weekend ??.

No one wants to be the one taking responsibility for getting them to the Ukrainians incase mad vlad kicks off. Understandable, but not sure how they didn't have a plan in place for getting them to Ukraine before agreeing to give them. Seems silly. 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

No one wants to be the one taking responsibility for getting them to the Ukrainians incase mad vlad kicks off. Understandable, but not sure how they didn't have a plan in place for getting them to Ukraine before agreeing to give them. Seems silly. 

Leave them lying around near the border with a sign saying free scrap.

[SMX11]

37 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The USA have rejected the mig deal from Poland 

 

strange because it was my impression that this was their idea over the weekend ??.

Hopefully calmer heads in the military have overruled it knowing the ultimate implications. 

[Lionator]

43 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The USA have rejected the mig deal from Poland 

 

strange because it was my impression that this was their idea over the weekend ??.

This issue is, they’d have to go back through Poland to get to Ukraine. You cannot fly them into Ukraine as that would be an act of war and they could be shot down. It’s just logistically a massive gamble for something that probably won’t make that much difference. 

[foxes1988]

44 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The USA have rejected the mig deal from Poland 

 

strange because it was my impression that this was their idea over the weekend ??.

US offered newer jets to Poland if Poland gives their current ones to Ukraine directly themselves.  Poland agreed to give the planes and deliver them to a US base in Germany and so the US has said no they cannot deliver them to Ukraine themselves.

[Stivo]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Surely Russia can import stuff via ‘friendly’  countries such as China or Pakistan ? 

 

there will be a shortage but stuff like coke and Pepsi will become available at a higher price …..

 

I guess the low rouble will make any attempts to import rather than locally produced as is currently the case a lot more expensive. 

They can certainly manufacture soft drinks.  For other goods they can import via China but they don’t have sufficient transport infrastructure in the east   - there is now only one (Chinese) container company that will deal with them.

[ClaphamFox]

The American author Michael Weiss claims to have a had a conversation with an officer from Ukraine’s military intelligence service about how the war is going from their perspective. It seems they’re in good spirits and feeling very confident…

 

 

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

US offered newer jets to Poland if Poland gives their current ones to Ukraine directly themselves.  Poland agreed to give the planes and deliver them to a US base in Germany and so the US has said no they cannot deliver them to Ukraine themselves.

So basically neither the poles or the Americans want to be the ones to give the planes to the Ukrainians …… 

this will simply stengthen putin’s resolve - he can see that NATO are crapping themselves at the thought there could be any type of combat with the Russians 

 

we have to show that we aren’t scared or he will just keep pushing the envelope further.

 

Does anyone have the bottle to stand up to mad vlad ???

Edited 9 March 2022 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

So basically neither the poles or the Americans want to be the ones to give the planes to the Ukrainians …… 

this will simply stengthen putin’s resolve - he can see that NATO are crapping themselves at the thought there could be any type of combat with the Russians 

 

we have to show that we aren’t scared or he will just keep pushing the envelope further.

 

Does anyone have the bottle to stand up to mad vlad ???

I'd have thought anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would shit themselves at the thought of gambling with nuclear holocaust, tbh.

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have thought anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would shit themselves at the thought of gambling with nuclear holocaust, tbh.

Supplying aircraft is no difference to supplying NLAMs.

 

NATO has refused to be drawn into the conflict and individual countries are supplying arms only.

 

In my mind, the jets should be delivered in the same way that any other arms are delivered, I can't see that it makes any difference. How did Turkey deliver the drones?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, kenny said:

Supplying aircraft is no difference to supplying NLAMs.

 

NATO has refused to be drawn into the conflict and individual countries are supplying arms only.

 

In my mind, the jets should be delivered in the same way that any other arms are delivered, I can't see that it makes any difference. How did Turkey deliver the drones?

DPD I think.

[LiberalFox]

I'm not sure if giving a handful of old Mig 29s is worth it. It doesn't strike me as something that would shift the balance of power very much while handing Putin something to call escalation. 

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm not sure if giving a handful of old Mig 29s is worth it. It doesn't strike me as something that would shift the balance of power very much while handing Putin something to call escalation. 

Putin called a single line in an interview by Truss an act of NATO aggression.

 

If Putin wants to escalate then he will and there is nothing the west can do about it. If a few 30 year old jets are it, then in my mind its nothing to do with a few jets.

 

He is almost certainly creating 'evidence' of biological or nuclear weapons being built in Ukraine and that will be the escalation instead.

[Trumpet]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have thought anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would shit themselves at the thought of gambling with nuclear holocaust, tbh.

I can’t understand how this is still not sinking in 2 weeks into this conflict.

 

NATO will stand up to Putin and Russia as it is designed to do so should a NATO state be attacked. 
 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the situation we are in, being unable to directly help the Ukrainians is awful. But it’s where we are at the moment. 

[Blarmy]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have thought anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would shit themselves at the thought of gambling with nuclear holocaust, tbh.

And some people realise that the best way to stop a bully is to smack them in the nose. Obviously everything is a risk with this nutter but not doing something is sometimes worse than doing something.

 

I’m not saying this is the case with this particular issue by the way. We won’t know the impact of any action or inaction until this horrible mess has played out.

[nnfox]

5 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm not sure if giving a handful of old Mig 29s is worth it. It doesn't strike me as something that would shift the balance of power very much while handing Putin something to call escalation. 

So that means we either do nothing and just watch Putin carry on, or we respond ourselves and go toe to toe?  There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

[Trumpet]

Just now, kenny said:

Putin called a single line in an interview by Truss an act of NATO aggression.

 

If Putin wants to escalate then he will and there is nothing the west can do about it. If a few 30 year old jets are it, then in my mind its nothing to do with a few jets.

 

He is almost certainly creating 'evidence' of biological or nuclear weapons being built in Ukraine and that will be the escalation instead.

If he wanted to escalate this then he would’ve done so already, given his forces have taking quite the hiding from all of our kit. I see a lot of suggestions that Putin will continue to push into Europe or a NATO state. I don’t think he will. I was completely wrong about the invasion, I didn’t think he’d do it. So I may be wrong here, but if his intention was to push further into Europe and NATO I don’t think he’d have kicked things off with decimation of his economy and throwing as much of his force into Ukraine as he has.

[ClaphamFox]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd have thought anyone possessed of a modicum of sanity would shit themselves at the thought of gambling with nuclear holocaust, tbh.

Absolutely. But Putin's willingness to play the nuclear card (whether he means it or not) gives him an advantage. I play a bit of poker. You often come across players who, in a heads up situation, will always go all-in in an attempt to scare their opponent into folding. Very often they won't have the cards - their tactic is to just to bully their way to winning the hand. It can be very effective until somebody calls them and they lose their whole stack. Putin's nuclear threat is the equivalent of him going all in - he might not actually do it (he may well even be prevented from doing so by others around him), but the threat is enough to make NATO back down - for now. If he carries on, however, at some point NATO will have to call him. Then we'll see how real his threats are.

Edited 9 March 2022 by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, kenny said:

Supplying aircraft is no difference to supplying NLAMs.

 

NATO has refused to be drawn into the conflict and individual countries are supplying arms only.

 

In my mind, the jets should be delivered in the same way that any other arms are delivered, I can't see that it makes any difference. How did Turkey deliver the drones?

I was referring more to the general attitude of NATO than this specific thing. On the face of it just supplying the jets doesn't seem too different from any other arms deal, as you say.

 

1 minute ago, Blarmy said:

And some people realise that the best way to stop a bully is to smack them in the nose. Obviously everything is a risk with this nutter but not doing something is sometimes worse than doing something.

 

I’m not saying this is the case with this particular issue by the way. We won’t know the impact of any action or inaction until this horrible mess has played out.

I'm thinking that when a possible consequence of "stopping a bully" by giving them a bloody nose is the loss of human civilisation itself, it might not be a bad idea to be a little risk averse.

 

It would be nice for the legacy of humanity to not be a hundred years of irradiated wasteland and "This is for my country..."

[blabyboy]

1 minute ago, Trumpet said:

If he wanted to escalate this then he would’ve done so already, given his forces have taking quite the hiding from all of our kit. I see a lot of suggestions that Putin will continue to push into Europe or a NATO state. I don’t think he will. I was completely wrong about the invasion, I didn’t think he’d do it. So I may be wrong here, but if his intention was to push further into Europe and NATO I don’t think he’d have kicked things off with decimation of his economy and throwing as much of his force into Ukraine as he has.

We won't know until after a conclusion is reached if ever, but if he was being given wrong or positively enhanced information then it's quite possible that was his intention.

 

As the old saying goes, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy"

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

Absolutely. But Putin's willingness to play the nuclear card (whether he means it or not) gives him an advantage. I play a bit of poker. You often come across players who, in a heads up situation, will always go all-in in an attempt to scare their opponent into folding. Very often they won't have the cards - their tactic is to just to bully their way to winning the hand. It can be very effective until somebody calls them and they lose their whole stack. Putin's nuclear threat is the equivalent of him going all in - he might not actually do it (he may well even be prevented from doing so by others around him), but the threat is enough to make us back down - for now. If he carries on, however, at some point NATO will have to call him. Then we'll see how real his threats are.

I play too, and playing aggressively in that fashion is a key part of heads-up strategy. Playing the same way as a full table won't get the job done.

 

However, the difference is that in that game, outside of a good movie, the party that is losing doesn't have the option of declaring the game null and void, and killing everyone at the table including themselves. If that was the case, it might be a bit more interesting!

[ClaphamFox]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I play too, and playing aggressively in that fashion is a key part of heads-up strategy. Playing the same way as a full table won't get the job done.

 

However, the difference is that in that game, outside of a good movie, the party that is losing doesn't have the option of declaring the game null and void, and killing everyone at the table including themselves. If that was the case, it might be a bit more interesting!

I've come away from a few heads-up losses feeling so angry with myself that a nuclear strike on the table would have been preferable. 

Edited 9 March 2022 by ClaphamFox