Ukraine

[yorkie1999]

18 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Russia are a laughing stock, banging on about WW3 when they can't even get out of the Donbas. In a conventional war between Russia and NATO there would be Western tanks in the Kremlin within a week and Putin the dwarf knows it. 

Are you sure? what we're seeing from Russia is the tip of the iceburg. "If" they've lost 20000 troops and a 1000 tanks and used 1500 missiles, there's probably another 20 times that amount that haven't been deployed. I think Russia are engaging in the war with the smallest amount of equipment they can get away with so as not to leave themselves vulnerable.

Edited 26 April 2022 by yorkie1999

[Innovindil]

21 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Are you sure? what we're seeing from Russia is the tip of the iceburg. "If" they've lost 20000 troops and a 1000 tanks and used 1500 missiles, there's probably another 20 times that amount that haven't been deployed. I think Russia are engaging in the war with the smallest amount of equipment they can get away with so as not to leave themselves vulnerable.

USA alone spends 10 times more than Russia on its military. Russia might have lots of stuff on paper but like most of what they've sent into Ukraine it's old and shit. USA has more (and better) planes/boats/missiles. 

[weller54]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Also, on the above.. I'm looking for a *realistic example based scenario*, any at all, of how this whole situation could be resolved by further use of military force by NATO *without* it escalating to something terrible.

 

One that has a sufficiently small chance of doing so and doesn't rely on unknowable chance, anyway.

'something terrible' has already happened to the people of Ukraine!!!

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

NATO carrying out conventional war against Russia is not a guarantee of Nuclear war. Yes it’s a risk, and that’s the problem - but there’s also the possibility that giving Russia a conventional bloody nose stops the whole thing.
 

As per above, I'd be interested in reading about a particular scenario in a little detail that demonstrates this.

 

55 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

.

We just don’t know - the best result may have come from putting NATO forces on the Russian/Ukrainian border back in January. I guess you would have been against that as in your mind that would have guaranteed the end of civilisation. It wouldn’t - it may have given Putin pause for thought and it could be that he is currently seeing just how much destruction, death and rape he can get away with.

 

I actually think that a preemptive placing in the way suggested here may well have worked tbh. My point is that once the ball really starts rolling, as it has, then it can be difficult to stop.

 

57 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

 

As you’ve said - if Russia attacks a NATO country we’re in it anyway. Have you considered the possibility that this scenario could have been avoided if NATO had been more aggressive sooner?

 

 

As per above, perhaps if more aggressive diplomacy had been engaged in before, it might have worked. However, I'm still looking for a specific example that would demonstrate higher aggression would work now.

 

59 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

Have you ever had to face anyone down, and show you’re not scared of them, to avoid being punched?

Thankfully not - having been alert, OK with words and lucky (definitely the last one) enough through my life so far.

 

If that situation were to arise and there really was no other option available, then I certainly wouldn't rely on my physical appearance or the threat of violence to intimidate - anyone with half a brain would see I couldn't back it up. 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, weller54 said:

'something terrible' has already happened to the people of Ukraine!!!

It has.

 

And, emotionalism aside, I'm still seeing nothing specific on how that "something terrible" wouldn't spread to the rest of the world if the course of action discussed here was chosen.

[weller54]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It has.

 

And, emotionalism aside, I'm still seeing nothing specific on how that "something terrible" wouldn't spread to the rest of the world if the course of action discussed here was chosen.

Because NATO would obliterate the Russian Army!.. finish them as a force.

The nuclear threat I'm afraid has to be faced and responded to.

[HighPeakFox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

How, exactly, is this accomplished?

By sacking Brendan, obviously. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Because NATO would obliterate the Russian Army!.. finish them as a force.

The nuclear threat I'm afraid has to be faced and responded to.

How?

 

I agree totally with the first sentence, but I keep asking about the second because I'm genuinely curious as to how that is either eliminated or dismissed as a threat to the degree that makes it a reasonable option. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

The idea people think NATO could just take Russia just like that is quite amusing to me.

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The idea people think NATO could just take Russia just like that is quite amusing to me.

Have you compared Nato's total army numbers/weapons ability compared to Russias?

[Jattdogg]

Just popped in before my day begins here in Canada to say a giant GFY putin.  Hope you choke on a bowl of poutine you cvnt.

[Blarmy]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As per above, I'd be interested in reading about a particular scenario in a little detail that demonstrates this.

 

I actually think that a preemptive placing in the way suggested here may well have worked tbh. My point is that once the ball really starts rolling, as it has, then it can be difficult to stop.

 

As per above, perhaps if more aggressive diplomacy had been engaged in before, it might have worked. However, I'm still looking for a specific example that would demonstrate higher aggression would work now.

 

Thankfully not - having been alert, OK with words and lucky (definitely the last one) enough through my life so far.

 

If that situation were to arise and there really was no other option available, then I certainly wouldn't rely on my physical appearance or the threat of violence to intimidate - anyone with half a brain would see I couldn't back it up. 

My point is that there are no absolutes. You seem to want evidence that “doing more” now wouldn’t end in nuclear holocaust. I’m saying there is none, and on top of that not doing more now may also end in nuclear holocaust, or could even contribute to the chances of that happening.

By your own admission NATO may have already done “not enough” - see where I’m coming from?

 

I’m leaving it to the experts, who have all the intel, to figure it out. Having said that, I believe that no “more” will be done for the wrong reasons. I am confident that if NATO steps it up, it will be because that has been deemed the best course of action to minimise the overall levels of destruction, globally. Likewise if it doesn’t, or even reduces their involvement. 

[Countryfox]

3 hours ago, weller54 said:

Lavrov threatening World War 3 and nuclear weapons again I see!!

These cvnts need sorting out! 

NATO need to show some balls.

A step in the right direction ..  imo .. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The idea people think NATO could just take Russia just like that is quite amusing to me.

I'm reasonably sure that given the advantages in terms of tech that NATO would, at some point, prevail in the vast majority of situations.

 

Of course, when that day dawns and Putin realises he, his country or both are finished, he might just turn to his advisor nearby holding the briefcase with the antenna in and ask them to open it. (Which is something Russia have made clear of in policy statements in the past - "when under conventional attack and the survival of the state is threatened".)

 

Just now, Blarmy said:

My point is that there are no absolutes. You seem to want evidence that “doing more” now wouldn’t end in nuclear holocaust. I’m saying there is none, and on top of that not doing more now may also end in nuclear holocaust, or could even contribute to the chances of that happening.

By your own admission NATO may have already done “not enough” - see where I’m coming from?

 

I’m leaving it to the experts, who have all the intel, to figure it out. Having said that, I believe that no “more” will be done for the wrong reasons. I am confident that if NATO steps it up, it will be because that has been deemed the best course of action to minimise the overall levels of destruction, globally. Likewise if it doesn’t, or even reduces their involvement. 

Speaking personally I'm inclined to think that pushing Russia into a situation (or even such a situation arriving by "accident") where their survival as a state is threatened (as has been mooted on here) can be categorically proven to increase the risk of nuclear holocaust, given their statements on such things in the past. That goes beyond the theoretical and into empirical fact.

 

But yes, the point that this situation is one with few certainties is salient. I guess I get frustrated with opinions based along the lines of "let's get those bastard fvcking Russians" that show zero regard for the nuances of the situation or what might happen if what they wish comes true.

[Sir Shep]

23 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Have you compared Nato's total army numbers/weapons ability compared to Russias?

To be fair, the Russians would be a lot motivated if they fighting a westernised NATO soldier , especially if it was on their own turf so to speak. But you’re right we do have better trained soldiers, equipment and numbers but I don’t think it’d be easy. 

[Finnegan]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Russia are a laughing stock, banging on about WW3 when they can't even get out of the Donbas. In a conventional war between Russia and NATO there would be Western tanks in the Kremlin within a week and Putin the dwarf knows it. 

 

Mhmmm. Yes and no. 

 

For a start, let's be honest, not many countries on the planet are standing up to the Yanks in a ground war anyway so let's not get too smug with the pissing contest because that includes us. 

 

That said, military experts have been talking for years about the Russians being a paper tiger. Their technology is shit, their training and discipline is shit, their military leadership is shit and they're poor af with wildly unprofessional standards. 

 

All of that said, what the Ukraine war has shown more than anything is that invading a large, fairly modern, moderately developed country is hard af.

 

If this was the Americans invading Russia they wouldn't waltz up to the Kremlin unchecked, they'd get bogged down by the same gnarly urban scrap the Russians have in Ukraine, wading through densely populated pockets of messy resistance all over the place lurching from one war crime to the next even without meaning to (not that I'm implying the Russians haven't also deliberately committed war crimes.)

 

Yeah, Russia has lost a lot of their fear factor by bungling this shit but it would also be naive for other powers to under estimate just how difficult what they've attempted is. 

 

Ukraine was infinitely better prepared, infinitely better equipped and is just infinitely harder to do this to than, say, Iraq was. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

47 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

The idea people think NATO could just take Russia just like that is quite amusing to me.

Why? NATO would have total air dominance to start with, what redeeming factors specifically do you think Russia could rely on in a ground war against NATO? 

[The Horse's Mouth]

4 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Why? NATO would have total air dominance to start with, what redeeming factors specifically do you think Russia could rely on in a ground war against NATO? 

For it to actually work it would need to be a complete clean sweep and a swift end to the conflict which would never happen. Russian are well within their powers to retaliate and a stagnating war would only boost that. Plus I doubt China would sit by and watch Russia become a NATO puppet state either. I think Russia would do well in a ground war sense, as this conflict has proven conventional war tactics of this nature are largely unsuccessful with how easy it is to actually track the enemy. It couldn't be a better time to be a defending state. 

[Mike Oxlong]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, on the above.. I'm looking for a *realistic example based scenario*, any at all, of how this whole situation could be resolved by further use of military force by NATO *without* it escalating to something terrible.

 

One that has a sufficiently small chance of doing so and doesn't rely on unknowable chance, anyway.

What would you do Mac if Putin says stop sending weapons to Ukraine or we’ll nuke you ? For me the balance is not threatening Russia to the point where you jeopardise it’s own existence but not accepting or appeasing its threats and agression where it threatens the legitimate existence  of other states and with quite appalling human consequences 

Edited 26 April 2022 by Mike Oxlong

[MPH]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Also, on the above.. I'm looking for a *realistic example based scenario*, any at all, of how this whole situation could be resolved by further use of military force by NATO *without* it escalating to something terrible.

 

One that has a sufficiently small chance of doing so and doesn't rely on unknowable chance, anyway.

 

No one can really provide proof  that it won’t, but you can provide proof that it will either..

[weller54]

3 hours ago, Sir Shep said:

To be fair, the Russians would be a lot motivated if they fighting a westernised NATO soldier , especially if it was on their own turf so to speak. But you’re right we do have better trained soldiers, equipment and numbers but I don’t think it’d be easy. 

They might have a slender lead after the first leg but they'll get absolutely stuffed in the away fixture!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

3 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

For it to actually work it would need to be a complete clean sweep and a swift end to the conflict which would never happen. Russian are well within their powers to retaliate and a stagnating war would only boost that. Plus I doubt China would sit by and watch Russia become a NATO puppet state either. I think Russia would do well in a ground war sense, as this conflict has proven conventional war tactics of this nature are largely unsuccessful with how easy it is to actually track the enemy. It couldn't be a better time to be a defending state. 

Based on what? What facet of their military in particular do you feel would stand up to the combined arms of NATO including the USA?

[Countryfox]

8 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

At the very least by carrying on what we are doing and by not bending over every time Putin waggles his atomic weener

 

8 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I think it’s a given that any rational human being doesn’t want that destruction but how far do you go to avoid the threat of it ? 

 

If Putin says he is going to unleash his nuclear arsenal unless the Russian sphere of control returns to how it was in the Soviet era then what

 

I guess it’s not just how you die that is important but also how you live

 

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

What would you do Mac if Putin says stop sending weapons to Ukraine or we’ll nuke you ? For me the balance is not threatening Russia to the point where you jeioardise it’s own existence but not accepting or appeasing its threats and agression where it threatens the legitimate existence  of other states and with quite appalling human consequences 

Must admit Long-c0ck I’m not used to you not joking about things  ..   (which I enjoy btw) ..  but when you do put your serious head on, I’m quite impressed !!! ..   

[Mike Oxlong]

15 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

 

Must admit Long-c0ck I’m not used to you not joking about things  ..   (which I enjoy btw) ..  but when you do put your serious head on, I’m quite impressed !!! ..   

Thanks CF - but I’m a bit disappointed in myself that even in serious debate  I still have to get a term such as  “atomic weener” into the discussion 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Based on what? What facet of their military in particular do you feel would stand up to the combined arms of NATO including the USA?

If you are purely discussing conventional warfare - troops on the ground, air and naval power, training and tactics - Russia are no match for the west and may soon be relying upon conscripts (in addition to the recently deployed Southern District) to bolster their ranks. The concern however for NATO is that Russia's archaic R-36 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) fleet has been upgraded with super-heavy missiles that have the capability to loft hypersonic glide vehicles. It has been developing this technology for the last 20 years and now has a range of operational hypersonic weapons, including the Avangard, the Kinzhal and the Tsirkon. Russia claims that the former is capable of Mach 20 and can be armed with either nuclear or conventional payloads. The Sarmat’s huge range which is believed to be an unbelievable 22,000 miles allows it to skirt its intended target, avoiding radar and missile defense systems and strike it at great speed during reentry from an unexpected direction performing evasive manoeuvres if necessary. Last month, Russia became the first country in the history of warfare to use a hypersonic weapon in combat when it fired its Kinzhal hypersonic missile at a target inside Ukraine. Even the short range Iskanders can reach Mach 6–and as a nuclear capable stealth missile is controlled at all stages as opposed to simply being launched on a ballistic flight path. Russia could strike Berlin in under five minutes which is why Germany has been looking to invest in iron dome technology similar to Israel.

 

So it isn't simply the nuclear deterrent against NATO countries, it's the new generation of ICBMs that will deliver them which are superior to the West that is the concern. Add China into the equation, who could quite conceivably arm Russia with similar technology that is believed to be more advanced - or even intervene should NATO lock horns with Russia and the consequences would be devastating. Currently, there is little to no defense in the west against such weaponry although the US is spending big to develop it. A ground war waged by NATO against Russia would instantly escalate to exploit such supremacy.