Ukraine

[Sol thewall Bamba]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

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. 

I wasn't talking about nuclear arsenal, hence why I said "conventional warfare". Thanks for the essay though, it's like the Coronavirus thread all over again! 

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I wasn't talking about nuclear arsenal, hence why I said "conventional warfare". Thanks for the essay though, it's like the Coronavirus thread all over again! 

Can't tell whether this is sarcastic or not . It's a forum, I'm simply replying to your post. Not sure why some resent the length of a response. I'm mostly always grateful to those that invest the time to do so. In future I'll ensure I don't reply to you directly and comment independently of your post so as not to cause offence. 

 

Read my post again, I was agreeing with you about 'conventional warfare'. No idea, why some get so prickly and sensitive on this forum. The point being though, as I mentioned, the concern for NATO is that such 'conventional warfare' would swiftly escalate into the deployment of this technology and whether armed with nuclear warheads or not, that capability is always there. If NATO were to engage Russia on the ground, the risk of intervention from China either indirectly or directly is very real too. So you always have to be considering the repercussions or ramifications of any military action. Simply saying that NATO would annihilate Russia in 'conventional warfare' is too simplistic and negates a much bigger and complex picture to render such a suggestion or observation moot. 

[Sly]

18 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Can't tell whether this is sarcastic or not . It's a forum, I'm simply replying to your post. Not sure why some resent the length of a response. I'm mostly always grateful to those that invest the time to do so. In future I'll ensure I don't reply to you directly and comment independently of your post so as not to cause offence. 

 

Read my post again, I was agreeing with you about 'conventional warfare'. No idea, why some get so prickly and sensitive on this forum. The point being though, as I mentioned, the concern for NATO is that such 'conventional warfare' would swiftly escalate into the deployment of this technology and whether armed with nuclear warheads or not, that capability is always there. If NATO were to engage Russia on the ground, the risk of intervention from China either indirectly or directly is very real too. So you always have to be considering the repercussions or ramifications of any military action. Simply saying that NATO would annihilate Russia in 'conventional warfare' is too simplistic and negates a much bigger and complex picture to render such a suggestion or observation moot. 

If it’s any consolation, I’m far from a war expert. I started the original “earl thread to ask questions pre the Ukraine invasion! 
 

Anyway, I find your input enlightening. 

[blabyboy]

Be interesting to know what Russia has in terms of satellite defence. I can't believe that the US TR3-B was simply on space reconnaissance all these years.

 

No targeting systems, no worries.

[leicsmac]

8 hours 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 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 

...isn't that exactly what is happening now - supplying arms, not accepting the threats and helping defend Ukraine through the use of supplies? My responses, as they always have here, are directed at those here who do appear to want action that would jeopardise Russia's existence as a state. And you know something, I actually wouldn't have that much of an issue with that, they certainly deserve to be knocked down a peg or two - but I don't think it's worth the destruction of human civilisation to achieve, that seems rather counter-productive.

 

I think the first question here is irrelevant or could be ignored due to Russia's no first use policy unless the survival of the state is threatened, but if they did say that then my answer would be to ignore it as a bluff for that reason.

 

7 hours ago, MPH said:

 

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

I highlighted a reasonable scenario a while back that I will repeat here: International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Russia stands to lose territory/sovereignty ------> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

If there is an issue with that logical progression or the inevitability of it, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

Now all I'm looking for is an equally realistic scenario whereby NATO forces wade in and it doesn't go that way.

[Mike Oxlong]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...isn't that exactly what is happening now - supplying arms, not accepting the threats and helping defend Ukraine through the use of supplies? My responses, as they always have here, are directed at those here who do appear to want action that would jeopardise Russia's existence as a state. And you know something, I actually wouldn't have that much of an issue with that, they certainly deserve to be knocked down a peg or two - but I don't think it's worth the destruction of human civilisation to achieve, that seems rather counter-productive.

 

I think the first question here is irrelevant or could be ignored due to Russia's no first use policy unless the survival of the state is threatened, but if they did say that then my answer would be to ignore it as a bluff for that reason.

 

I highlighted a reasonable scenario a while back that I will repeat here: International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Russia stands to lose territory/sovereignty ------> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

If there is an issue with that logical progression or the inevitability of it, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

Now all I'm looking for is an equally realistic scenario whereby NATO forces wade in and it doesn't go that way.

But in relying on the veracity of a previously stated policy to ignore a newly issued threat wouldn’t you be gambling the risk of nuclear conflict on the word of a leader who is inherently untrustworthy and unreliable, as shown by the denial of hostile intent in the period preceding the “special military operation” ? 

[MPH]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...isn't that exactly what is happening now - supplying arms, not accepting the threats and helping defend Ukraine through the use of supplies? My responses, as they always have here, are directed at those here who do appear to want action that would jeopardise Russia's existence as a state. And you know something, I actually wouldn't have that much of an issue with that, they certainly deserve to be knocked down a peg or two - but I don't think it's worth the destruction of human civilisation to achieve, that seems rather counter-productive.

 

I think the first question here is irrelevant or could be ignored due to Russia's no first use policy unless the survival of the state is threatened, but if they did say that then my answer would be to ignore it as a bluff for that reason.

 

I highlighted a reasonable scenario a while back that I will repeat here: International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Russia stands to lose territory/sovereignty ------> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

If there is an issue with that logical progression or the inevitability of it, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

Now all I'm looking for is an equally realistic scenario whereby NATO forces wade in and it doesn't go that way.

 

highlighting a reasonable scenerio  is still not providing proof…

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

But in relying on the veracity of a previously stated policy to ignore a newly issued threat wouldn’t you be gambling the risk of nuclear conflict on the word of a leader who is inherently untrustworthy and unreliable, as shown by the denial of hostile intent in the period preceding the “special military operation” ? 

Personally I would think that the words of a policy that has been in place since before Putin took power supercedes what he would talk about in terms of what is "true" or not, but fair point, it's difficult to know.

 

I'm still looking for people to provide examples to illustrate their position in the same way I have mine. As well as perhaps addressing all parts of my post rather than just one.

 

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

highlighting a reasonable scenerio  is still not providing proof…

It's still more than what the other "side" of this debate have provided, so the burden is on them, thank you very much.

 

If there is a way to ramp this thing up and help Ukraine out more expeditiously while keeping the lid on nuclear escalation, I'd be happy to entertain it - but I've asked multiple times and no one seems to give a legit answer.

[MPH]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I would think that the words of a policy that has been in place since before Putin took power supercedes what he would talk about in terms of what is "true" or not, but fair point, it's difficult to know.

 

I'm still looking for people to provide examples to illustrate their position in the same way I have mine. As well as perhaps addressing all parts of my post rather than just one.

 

It's still more than what the other "side" of this debate have provided, so the burden is on them, thank you very much.

 

If there is a way to ramp this thing up and help Ukraine out more expeditiously while keeping the lid on nuclear escalation, I'd be happy to entertain it - but I've asked multiple times and no one seems to give a legit answer.

 

but it’s still not proof. It’s very unreasonable of you to ask someone to provide proof to support their opinion when it’s not even something you can do yourself to support your opinion.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

but it’s still not proof. It’s very unreasonable of you to ask someone to provide proof to support their opinion when it’s not even something you can do yourself to support your opinion.

I'm asking people to match what I have provided, not surpass it with something that would be, as you say, difficult to know.

 

Apologies if that wasn't clear, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

[Mike Oxlong]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I would think that the words of a policy that has been in place since before Putin took power supercedes what he would talk about in terms of what is "true" or not, but fair point, it's difficult to know.

 

I'm still looking for people to provide examples to illustrate their position in the same way I have mine. As well as perhaps addressing all parts of my post rather than just one.

 

It's still more than what the other "side" of this debate have provided, so the burden is on them, thank you very much.

 

If there is a way to ramp this thing up and help Ukraine out more expeditiously while keeping the lid on nuclear escalation, I'd be happy to entertain it - but I've asked multiple times and no one seems to give a legit answer.

 

19 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.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to respond to all aspects of your posts Mac. I think I understand your position and I believe that you understand mine. You’ve repeatedly set out your views in detail and not everyone has the desire or need to play ping pong when opinions are not aligned. 

 

As to a response to the scenario that you have requested, Nato have already engaged in further military force by increasing the amount and calibre of weaponry being sent to Ukraine to kill Russian military personnel and to defeat Putin. Lavrov is now talking of arms supply lines being legitimate targets and an increasing risk of WW III. Should we back down because of the threat and/or increased risk. Absolutely not. Surely that would be a bit like giving in to terrorists. If Putin knows that we will roll over to threatened nuclear force then what is to stop his wider ambition ? 

 

In asking for a scenario that does not contain an “unknowable chance” you must know that in the absence of total capitulation you are asking for the impossible when dealing with someone such as Putin. Take your response in bold in the top quote to my question - what would you do if Russia threatened to nuke those sending weapons to Ukraine ?

 

You replied that you would call Putin’s bluff based on your personal assessment of whether that threat was genuine but acknowledged that it would be difficult to know (his intent). On the one hand you appear to be saying that Nato must act to avoid any risk of nuclear escalation given the dire consequences but in your response to my scenario you would be willing to risk nuclear escalation based on your personal reading of a man who really cannot be trusted or relied on. In your own willingness to call Putin’s bluff in response to an explicit threat of nuclear force you are yourself rolling the dice based on your trust in your personal assessment. This increases the risk of nuclear use as the only way to eradicate it would be to give in to Putin’s demand. To my mind this shows that regarding the risk of nuclear weapons being used the bar has to be set somewhere. As I said earlier, the rational response at present is in line with what is being done but that may change as the situation evolves. Part of our defence is the perceived willingness to respond to nuclear threats and I wouldn’t want anything less in the present circumstances. 

[marbles]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...isn't that exactly what is happening now - supplying arms, not accepting the threats and helping defend Ukraine through the use of supplies? My responses, as they always have here, are directed at those here who do appear to want action that would jeopardise Russia's existence as a state. And you know something, I actually wouldn't have that much of an issue with that, they certainly deserve to be knocked down a peg or two - but I don't think it's worth the destruction of human civilisation to achieve, that seems rather counter-productive.

 

I think the first question here is irrelevant or could be ignored due to Russia's no first use policy unless the survival of the state is threatened, but if they did say that then my answer would be to ignore it as a bluff for that reason.

 

I highlighted a reasonable scenario a while back that I will repeat here: International community decides they must step in to prevent total humanitarian crisis/stopping Putin ---> NATO forces engage Russian ones in the field ---> Russian forces are beaten ----> Russia stands to lose territory/sovereignty ------> Putin refuses to accept loss ----> ???? ------> Nuclear Profit!

 

If there is an issue with that logical progression or the inevitability of it, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

Now all I'm looking for is an equally realistic scenario whereby NATO forces wade in and it doesn't go that way.

Well, going off how things have gone so far…

Putin refuses to accept loss——>pushes button to launch nukes——>button smokes and briefcase catches fire

 

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 

Not everyone has the time or inclination to respond to all aspects of your posts Mac. I think I understand your position and I believe that you understand mine. You’ve repeatedly set out your views in detail and not everyone has the desire or need to play ping pong when opinions are not aligned. 

 

Fair enough, though as that is true I reserve the right to comment on such lack of detail. I understand if that might appear a little harsh with respect to those who have less time and inclination, though.

 

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 

 

As to a response to the scenario that you have requested, Nato have already engaged in further military force by increasing the amount and calibre of weaponry being sent to Ukraine to kill Russian military personnel and to defeat Putin. Lavrov is now talking of arms supply lines being legitimate targets and an increasing risk of WW III. Should we back down because of the threat and/or increased risk. Absolutely not. Surely that would be a bit like giving in to terrorists. If Putin knows that we will roll over to threatened nuclear force then what is to stop his wider ambition ? 

 

I agree that "we" absolutely shouldn't back down as such threats are, at the present time, a bluff IMO. More on why and an exact clarification of my position below.

 

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 

 

You replied that you would call Putin’s bluff based on your personal assessment of whether that threat was genuine but acknowledged that it would be difficult to know (his intent). On the one hand you appear to be saying that Nato must act to avoid any risk of nuclear escalation given the dire consequences but in your response to my scenario you would be willing to risk nuclear escalation based on your personal reading of a man who really cannot be trusted or relied on. In your own willingness to call Putin’s bluff in response to an explicit threat of nuclear force you are yourself rolling the dice based on your trust in your personal assessment.

Yes - and in my mind the two situations are different.

 

Russia's stated policy on the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack is "when the survival of the state is threatened". I think that, while this isn't an absolute, it is the closest thing we have to certainty in terms of Russian nuclear policy, and if we cannot take that as read then we cannot take anything else as so either and so the whole discussion in here is redundant and the situation out there becomes an order of magnitude more risky for all parties.

 

So I am basing my own viewpoint on that particular piece of policy holding for the sake of discussion here, and therefore:

 

- continuing to supply arms is not threatening the survival of the Russian state at this time

- what some contributors to this thread are advocating for would threaten the survival of the Russian state.

 

Let me be clear: I advocate for a Nato response that helps end this conflict in as fast and painless way as possible but does not threaten the survival of the Russian state. I'm not choosy about the form it takes - the sooner it can be done the better - but the last part of that bolded sentence is a red line for the reasons above and I will continue to ask questions of those who advocate for it. It might be noticed that most of my recent contributions to this thread have been focused on that. I have no time for that kind of jingoistic advocacy given what it might lead to.

 

That has been my consistent position all along; if that wasn't clear, I apologise and I hope it is abundantly clear now.

 

6 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

As I said earlier, the rational response at present is in line with what is being done but that may change as the situation evolves. Part of our defence is the perceived willingness to respond to nuclear threats and I wouldn’t want anything less in the present circumstances. 

On that we agree.

 

(Though I would submit that if the UK ever has to fire its missiles in the name of "defence" then it and everyone else has already lost, anyhow.)

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, marbles said:

Well, going off how things have gone so far…

Putin refuses to accept loss——>pushes button to launch nukes——>button smokes and briefcase catches fire

 

*Freeze frame*

 

*Curb Your Enthusiasm theme plays*

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, though as that is true I reserve the right to comment on such lack of detail. I understand if that might appear a little harsh with respect to those who have less time and inclination, though.

 

I agree that "we" absolutely shouldn't back down as such threats are, at the present time, a bluff IMO. More on why and an exact clarification of my position below.

 

Yes - and in my mind the two situations are different.

 

Russia's stated policy on the use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack is "when the survival of the state is threatened". I think that, while this isn't an absolute, it is the closest thing we have to certainty in terms of Russian nuclear policy, and if we cannot take that as read then we cannot take anything else as so either and so the whole discussion in here is redundant and the situation out there becomes an order of magnitude more risky for all parties.

 

So I am basing my own viewpoint on that particular piece of policy holding for the sake of discussion here, and therefore:

 

- continuing to supply arms is not threatening the survival of the Russian state at this time

- what some contributors to this thread are advocating for would threaten the survival of the Russian state.

 

Let me be clear: I advocate for a Nato response that helps end this conflict in as fast and painless way as possible but does not threaten the survival of the Russian state. I'm not choosy about the form it takes - the sooner it can be done the better - but the last part of that bolded sentence is a red line for the reasons above and I will continue to ask questions of those who advocate for it. It might be noticed that most of my recent contributions to this thread have been focused on that. I have no time for that kind of jingoistic advocacy given what it might lead to.

 

That has been my consistent position all along; if that wasn't clear, I apologise and I hope it is abundantly clear now.

 

On that we agree.

 

(Though I would submit that if the UK ever has to fire its missiles in the name of "defence" then it and everyone else has already lost, anyhow.)

 

 

 

Thanks for your detailed response Mac

 

I don’t intend to go back and forth on this any further at the moment but will perhaps return to the table as matters progress 

 

[Lionator]

I just hope this conflict is over by 2024. Biden seems to be taking fairly rational de-escalatory ‘my d*ck isn’t bigger than yours’ steps whereas whatever hell scape awaits us after that is terrifying. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I just hope this conflict is over by 2024. Biden seems to be taking fairly rational de-escalatory ‘my d*ck isn’t bigger than yours’ steps whereas whatever hell scape awaits us after that is terrifying. 

... another facet to that potential hellscape being that an incoming Repub administration might be one that simply doesn't care if Putin engages in this particular kind of brutality.

[fox_favourite]

From the BBC page - 

 

“Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned that any countries meddling in Ukraine would be met with a swift response.

"If someone from the outside tries to intervene in Ukraine" he said speaking just now to Russian lawmakers, "our response will be lightning fast."

"We have all the tools [to respond] that no one can boast of. And we will not be bragging about them, we will use them if necessary," he said.

The Russian leader added all decisions on what that response would include have already been made, but didn't give any further detail.

 

 

[Blarmy]

29 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

From the BBC page - 

 

“Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned that any countries meddling in Ukraine would be met with a swift response.

"If someone from the outside tries to intervene in Ukraine" he said speaking just now to Russian lawmakers, "our response will be lightning fast."

"We have all the tools [to respond] that no one can boast of. And we will not be bragging about them, we will use them if necessary," he said.

The Russian leader added all decisions on what that response would include have already been made, but didn't give any further detail.

 

 

I fvcking hate the cvnt. 

[Countryfox]

58 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

From the BBC page - 

 

“Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned that any countries meddling in Ukraine would be met with a swift response.

"If someone from the outside tries to intervene in Ukraine" he said speaking just now to Russian lawmakers, "our response will be lightning fast."

"We have all the tools [to respond] that no one can boast of. And we will not be bragging about them, we will use them if necessary," he said.

The Russian leader added all decisions on what that response would include have already been made, but didn't give any further detail.

 

 

Vague bolox …. Really scraping the threats barrel now.

 

So basically, we will just invade who we like, commit war crimes and kill as many civilians as we like,  and if you try and help them we’ll nuke you ….  Fook off you coont!!!

[MPH]

On 26/04/2022 at 08:32, 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. 

 

we have the sense to go for air superiority before we put any feet on the ground.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, fox_favourite said:

From the BBC page - 

 

“Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned that any countries meddling in Ukraine would be met with a swift response.

"If someone from the outside tries to intervene in Ukraine" he said speaking just now to Russian lawmakers, "our response will be lightning fast."

"We have all the tools [to respond] that no one can boast of. And we will not be bragging about them, we will use them if necessary," he said.

The Russian leader added all decisions on what that response would include have already been made, but didn't give any further detail.

 

 

 

 

so only he can meddle in Ukraine? Haha right o chap!

[Countryfox]

New footage showing how bad Putins Parkinson’s disease is getting ..  now that is scary ..  

 

Parkinson's symptoms usually begin gradually and get worse over time. As the disease progresses, people may have difficulty walking and talking. They may also have mental and behavioral changes, sleep problems, depression, memory difficulties, and fatigue.

[MPH]

6 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

New footage showing how bad Putins Parkinson’s disease is getting ..  now that is scary ..  

 

Parkinson's symptoms usually begin gradually and get worse over time. As the disease progresses, people may have difficulty walking and talking. They may also have mental and behavioral changes, sleep problems, depression, memory difficulties, and fatigue.

 Do you have a link to the footage?

[String fellow]

49 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

New footage showing how bad Putins Parkinson’s disease is getting ..  now that is scary ..  

 

Parkinson's symptoms usually begin gradually and get worse over time. As the disease progresses, people may have difficulty walking and talking. They may also have mental and behavioral changes, sleep problems, depression, memory difficulties, and fatigue.

Great - the guy with his finger on the red button has a shaky hand. Whoops, apocalypse!

Edited 27 April 2022 by String fellow